The Good Thief’s God (or: OT vs. NT)
I’ve seen, as have I’m sure many other Christians, a dissatisfaction with the vast difference many people perceive between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. And, since it’s extremely early and I can’t sleep and Lent has just begun, what better time to take a look at it, yes?
Glad you agree. 
Here’s the basic problem: God in the OT seems mean– we’ve got plagues, floods wiping out earth, destruction, wandering in deserts, wars, etc., and of course, the biggie, the expulsion from Eden. And then in the NT, in walks Jesus, who’s all about love and kindness and challenging other people’s lifestyles, and who, in many an idyllic view, never seemed to raise his voice or what have you. The people who see these as highly incompatible have a good point– these don’t really fit. But they then face the logical problem of this: if God is truly God as we describe him, his nature ought to be constant. That is, we say God is Love, God is Truth, etc., and these things don’t change. Why, then, does God?
And if he does change, why is he worth our worship? Can’t we pick the one we like better?
I think at the heart of this, though, is a misunderstanding of our predicament as sinners. I’m like most people, I think, in that I think of most people as basically good people. I like to think of myself as basically a good person. And I think (and hope!) there are merits in these opinions. But we have to understand divine-human relations as, well, a relationship– with the same principle behind it as any relationship: namely, that it can be broken.
At my university, as at several, and particularly at military colleges, there is an honor code or honor system as you prefer. Some schools with an honor system have varying punishments, but the strongest honor system schools only have one: you’re out. Why? Because they understand that at the heart of every relationship is trust, and to break trust is to break the relationship. All that remains is to sever formal ties; it’s merely a formality.
This is where we stand as human beings. We’ve broken the relationship between us and God– thousands of times, each of us. And God is Love, Truth, and Life– so when we leave him, we get Death, Lies, and Destruction. That’s not a vengeful God of the OT; that’s justice, as painful as it is to admit it. Those punishments are what we all deserve.
So why the “difference” between OT and NT? Well, Jesus. Because throughout human history, the one God of testaments Old and New had a plan to restore us to him, to bridge the chasm our sin creates between us, with a bloodied cross as our passage. It’s not that God’s supposed vengence goes away; it’s that Christ takes upon himself a punishment that is, justly, ours. As Paul says, the “wages of sin is death.” That means that the eternal separation and death we deserve gets redirected at Christ, the innocent but willing victim.
The “problem” between OT and NT exists only as a problem of perspective. Mostly, we like to think of ourselves as the good guys– I know I’d like to idealise myself as right there with John and Mary at the foot of the cross. But the problem is, we’re really like the thieves hanging right beside Christ. For those of us who know it, we know we are there justly, not at the whim of a cruel god, but nailed there by our own sins. The only “difference” between the New Testament and the Old Testament God is that from the Crucifixion onward, there is the opportunity to be like the Good Thief. That is, to know that our punishment is just, and yet claim Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf:
Remember me, when you come into your kingdom.
–Rosy
02/18/2010 at 8:58 pm
The best explanation I’ve heard for the OT/NT difference in approach is a comparison to child rearing. Salvation history began with the dawn of creation, and the creation of man. Man was young, first and infant, then a toddler, then a child, then and adolescent, etc. When we are children, we can’t understand the logic of love, the need for discipline and self restraint, and the connection between the two. In order to save a child from destruction by fire or semi, we may have to resort to paddling, physical restraint, or other heavy-handed methods. As children get older, the communication turns increasingly away from infliction of dire consequences toward communication of what love means. So too was the Father’s approach with mankind.
For me, this analogy is both logical and beautiful.
Peace,
Eva
02/20/2010 at 9:53 am
I’ve heard that one, too, but I can’t fully buy into it because we’re not the same people- generations upon generations have passed, and yet we are still sinning the same sins. It’s too reliant on the idea that we progress as a species, which is a misguided enlightenment ideal in my opinion.
I don’t think I’ve expressed myself as well as I’d hoped in the post- perhaps a more clear comparison would be a presidential pardon or a moratorium on the death penalty– the penalty’s the same, but we, who are still as guilty as ever, are spared from it because of the execution of an innocent.
05/08/2010 at 8:38 am
Wow. I was about to say the same thing. But you beat me to it!
However, I also have some disagreements concerning your post. I think the dichotomy in which many perceive the Old and New Testaments is merely a construct of habit. In truth, there are just as many portions in the Hebrew Scriptures where God is merciful (clothing Adam and Eve, bargaining with Abraham and Moses, healing Naaman’s leprosy, restoring King Jeroboam’s arm, etc…) as there are in the Christian Scriptures; and there are just as many portions in the Christian Scriptures where God is wrathful (Jesus’ declaration of bringing a sword of division, his uncompromising condemnation of divorce as adultery and mere lust as fornication, his laying an unforgivable sin at the feet of the Pharisees, his many discussions of hell, indeed, more than any other prophet before him, and the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira at the words of Peter) as there are in the Hebrew Scriptures.
God is unchanging. You can think of our spiritual state as a spatial dimension, if it helps, and God as an object anchored in one place which we move relative to. Depending on where we’re at, he’ll look different to us, giving us the illusion that he is in fact moving and we are the ones who are stationary. This relative movement is the cause of many of the person-like attributes we ascribe to God. For that reason, I have always been hesitant to describe God as personal in his being, which is surely beyond any labeling we can manufacture. True, God consists of three Divine Persons (or Hypostases), but these are highly technical theological terms and…anyway…
The Lord has sides to him we don’t care to see. They’ve always been there, and always will be. Of course, it only makes sense that the objective Good should challenge our subjective notions of what is good, Good taken here as synonymous with being. Our only duty is to make sure we remain, well, on the good side of the Good.