Agnosticism, Atheism, Bible Study, Christianity, Faith, God, Religion, Truth

Does God Change from the Old Testament to the New?

Nate

I started to leave this post as a comment on ratamacue0‘s recent post, What Started My Questioning? but decided to post it instead. Fellow blogger (and friend) unkleE left this comment as part of a conversation that he and ratamacue0 were having:

…most non-believers seem not to recognise that there isn’t one consistent portrait of God in the Bible – it changes through both Testaments – and then to choose the worst picture (which is often the earliest one) to critique. But if the claimed revelation of God is progressive, it would surely be fairer to choose a later picture.

I think most non-believers do recognize the difference; it’s just hard to forget that first impression given in the OT.

And really, how progressive is the picture the Bible paints? The NT points out that God doesn’t change, so those harsh characteristics he possessed in the OT are still being claimed by NT writers. The NT also repeats some things like “vengenance is mine, I will repay.” And it tells us not to fear those who can destroy the body, but he who can destroy both body and soul. The NT also gives us the doctrine of Hell, regardless of what that might mean.

I think some of the NT writers, like Paul and the author of Hebrews, are arguing that the method of salvation and the specific requirements God has for people are changing, and in that way the message becomes more progressive. More emphasis is placed on the mind and not just physical acts, for instance. But as to who God is, I don’t think that image really progresses from OT to NT. The same God that killed Uzzah for trying to steady the ark, condemns anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, even though it’s hard to blame many of the Jews for saying Jesus was a blasphemer, considering the teachings in the Old Law.

Such a God is irrational. Many Christians seem to agree, which is why they don’t believe in parts of the OT. But since the NT still claims the same irrational God, I see no reason to believe in him at all. And to me, that seems much more consistent than trying to hold onto parts of the mythology, while rejecting the unsavory parts. If that god were real, and he wanted people to know about him, I think he’d keep the one source of information about him pure. Since that obviously didn’t happen with the Bible, why continue to hold to it at all? Why not put faith in a god who isn’t concerned with petty dogmas, one who simply set things in motion for us? One that may inspire people from time to time, but is largely content to let us live our lives without interference? To me, that seems to fit the evidence far better… and while I don’t have any actual belief in such a deity, I can see why some would. Why mesh it with Christianity, when it seems so superfluous?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

324 thoughts on “Does God Change from the Old Testament to the New?”

  1. yeah, i feel sorry for her. all the other girls would laugh at her and mock her in the PE locker room because she had such a small penis.

    i’m sure it was funny, but i would have felt bad laughing. girls can be so mean, especially when it comes to another girl’s small penis.

    perhaps in heaven, her spiritual body will be better equipped. And then she could use two hands with pride, instead of having to use two hands with one parting the hair and the other holding the tweezers.

    Oh Laura, I’m sure your penis is a good size.

    Like

  3. Actually William, you brought up an interesting point and didn’t realize it. Your reference to Ezekiel 23 prompted me to read the entire chapter to get the full reference.

    The author has created an allegory – Samaria and Jerusalem (and by that, I assume he means the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judea) are represented as sisters (which I found interesting, as Yeshua referred to Samarians, in the “woman by the well” story, as “dogs“), who went “whoring,” defiling themselves. In essence, he was saying that these two kingdoms sought to worship the gods of other countries (and are ultimately punished by having those countries take them over and destroy them), but the thing I find true about straying wives, is that wives typically don’t stray as long as things are good on the home front. In order to make a case, Zeke would need to explain why the god of these nations – Yahweh – was found to be less than satisfying, prompting them to seek other gods elsewhere.

    Like

  4. ah, good point. I mean, I did realize it was an allegory, but I had not considered why the “wives” would go a whoring if all was well at home, at least in this context.

    I have thought that israel’s perpetual falling away to other gods made of stone and wood illustrated how much the israeli god must have been like them. I mean, if one god rained fire down from heaven and slayed nations and parted seas, I dont think i’d find a statue to be that compelling of a god to worship instead.

    but I have thought that this passage was written with men in mind. to make the man think about a wife leaving him for a guy with a bigger dick, then he’d be pretty hurt, and so on, which makes me think it was written by man, for man. “leaving righteousness for sin is like your wife animalistically craving the carnal satisfactions of a bigger tool. dont be like a whore, do what’s right.”

    Like

  7. As the old commercial for Tarryton cigarettes once said, “It’s not how long you make it, it’s how you make it long —“

    Like

  8. @Arch

    … the thing I find true about straying wives, is that wives typically don’t stray as long as things are good on the home front.

    Speaking from the woman’s POV, this is not necessarily true. Most women are more interested in how they are treated by their man than how things are in the bedroom. Even though the antics may be awesome, if he treats her like sh__ the rest of the time, then yes, she may stray. Especially if she meets someone who makes me feel pretty and sexy and desirable.

    Methinks your point is much more true of men.

    Sorry, Nate, for straying (no pun intended) off the subject, but I couldn’t let it pass.

    Like

  10. No apologies necessary, Nan. I’m glad you made the point. I actually thought that’s what Arch meant, but I may not have read it right. Either way, this should add some clarification, and I’m glad you chimed in about it.

    Like

  11. “wives typically don’t stray as long as things are good on the home front.” – What part of that, Nan, restricted “good on the home front” to the bedroom?

    Like

  12. Arch, sorry if I assumed incorrectly, but I felt the conversation prior to had been leaning heavily towards s.e.x. … which generally occurs in the bedroom. (e.g. sizes of anatomical parts)

    Like

  13. I knew better than to use an analogy like that to the Friday Peanut Gallery ! LOL I was trying to point out that “superiority” seems to have been a central theme in some of the world’s religions (past & present) . (My God is better than yours) (I have more revealed knowledge than you) etc, etc, etc. And yes the penis as an example has been used to demonstrate this superiority. I again refer to the obelisk, steeple, minaret, which also tends to reinforce the argument that religion is man made.

    I also believe religions have to be divisive in order to survive. You’re not going to hear a Cleric, Priest and a Rabbi over coffee admit that their religion’s are just different roads leading to the same destination.

    I think I’ll leave analogies alone for awhile ! 🙂

    Like

  19. The wife presented me with this thought today and I thought it fit in well with this post on god changing.

    We are told that god is love in 1 John 4:8, in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 we get a great couple of verses that lay out some qualities of love:

    Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[a] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

    In the Old Testament god is not patient at all, and very directly states that he IS a jealous god. He tells the Israelites many times that it is his way or the highway. In the name of god the Hebrew people do all kinds of cruel and unloving things to the people they encounter.

    I see only a few possibilities:

    1. God and his nature changes (even thought in Malachi 3:6 we are told he does not change)
    2. We don’t fully understand God, the OT people only saw a certain bit of His nature and now we have a fuller picture with Him being love but also a lot of very un love like things.
    3.The judeo-christian’s people’s perception of God grew/changed as they met other cultures and their society changed/evolved.

    I believe number 3 to be the closest to the truth and more evidence that the god the bible speaks of doesn’t exist.

    Like

  20. yes, i agree. the bible seems to give god certain definable attributes, and then claims that god partakes in actions that are contrary to those attributes.

    We can either act as if things like “love,” “mercy,” and “justice” are vague and hard to understand terms, or we can assume one of several other scenarios, like the ones that you’ve pointed out.

    I dint understand the positions that say that we can accept the god versions as true and discard the unpleasant versions as untrue or embellished. It seems a completely arbitrary way of selecting or nurturing your faith.

    I agree, this appears to be just one more hole in the bible basket, and mine no longer holds water.

    Like

  21. Hi Matt, I think that both #2 and #3 are correct in part, but I don’t draw the conclusion that therefore the God of the Bible doesn’t exist. For a start, if we accept that the Bible’s picture of God changes, which picture of God are you rejecting? All of them?

    But that doesn’t seem logical. The fact that you (and I) think that some of those pictures are not correct or complete, how does that mean that they all are? If we applied the same argument to scientific understandings of light, then we would regard the latest theories as just as wrong as the earliest ones, so that can’t be a correct principle.

    So we may agree that the portrayal of God in the OT, but what of the portrayal of God in the life of Jesus? That is surely the question we need to answer.

    I have been reading and discussing a little lately about how we arrive at our beliefs, and whether we can choose them (not just religious beliefs, but everything we think). One conclusion I feel is reinforced is that what we focus on is a major determinant of what we finally believe. Focus on the problems with theism and you’ll likely give up belief in theism. Focus on the problems with atheism and you’ll likely give up atheism.

    I think many christians and atheists know this instinctively, and choose to focus in a way that reinforces their current belief system, whereas I believe we should try to focus equally both ways. Thus I think a focus on the problems of the Bible, especially the OT, is a fairly sure way to disbelieve, but a focus on the historical, ethical and spiritual positives of the NT leads in a different way.

    Thanks for the opportunity to interact with your ideas.

    Like

  22. Perhaps it’s because I’m not a “true” atheist, but so far I haven’t discovered those problems with atheism” that you mention …

    Like

  23. Matt, it won’t surprise you to hear that I think that’s an excellent observation.

    I think unkleE’s point is worthy of consideration, but one of the reasons I disagree with him is that the claims of Christianity have one source. While the various books of the Bible were written by different individuals, Christianity’s god has allowed them all to be packaged together, and most people throughout the centuries have taken them as a whole. So to borrow his example, this would be like one science book making a whole bunch of claims, some if which end up being true, some which end up being false, and all the major ones are completely unverifiable. Is it really irresponsible to decide that such a book is untrustworthy?

    Personally, I agree with unkleE that one should examine both the pros and cons of one’s position, which is why I don’t rule out things like deism, pantheism, and panentheism. But Christianity is much further down on that list for me.

    Like

  24. I think many christians and atheists know this instinctively, and choose to focus in a way that reinforces their current belief system, whereas I believe we should try to focus equally both ways.

    There are way more than just 2 worldviews (interestingly there are about 7 billion currently although there’s a lot of overlaps). Perhaps we should focus equally all 7 billion different ways (as well as the ones which aren’t even thought of yet). I personally like to consider all worldviews myself but some will end up looking worse than others, and for me none of them seem to have all the answers.

    Like

  25. For me, if the Old Testament is sketchy at best, that only undermines Jesus. The whole idea of a need for a savior is rooted in our sin and inability to atone for it. Where do we get that thought system from? The Old Testament.

    For me if the OT cannot be trusted, my faith in the NT is destroyed. Its foundation isn’t there anymore, does that make sense?

    Like

Leave a comment