A Few Questions Regarding the OT

Fanny Cradock

Hell all,

I'm predominately looking for Christian viewpoints here, but at the same time I don't want to make this into a 'Christian only thread' as I think that all educated, non-hostile opinions are welcomed. I would ask though that people try and avoid turning this into another tiresomely regular 'Christians V's Atheist' thread that are abounds of late.

To fill you all in... I was brought up in a Christian family (or more correctly, part of it was Christian). I don’t believe I’ve ever doubted the existence of God, but for many a year – late teens until my mid 20's – I paid no attention to him, which probably amounts to the same. I got on with my life as I saw fit, and had a good time to boot. However, of recent times, I've heard an almost persistent voice niggling somewhere in recesses of my mind. Others would disagree or find it laughable, but I am convinced that this is God trying to engage with me in an attempt to encourage me to return to the fold, so to speak.

Anyway, I’ve recently taken to reading the Bible. I’ve started at 1 Kings (for no particular reason), and I am struck by the violence perpetrated by God’s servants, e.g. Solomon, and God himself. To me this seems to be at odds with the NT, of which I’d be much more familiar with. An example would be the punishment of the 'man of God' sent by God to to Jeraboam (I think). The man of God is instructed not to stop or eat with anyone after he delivered the message. However, after doing his duty deceived by someone who claims an angel appeared to him and said it was OK to enjoy his hospitality. God, angry at his servants disobedience, punishes the man of God, but apparently not the guy who deceived him. To me this seems like a reasonable mistake for the prophet to make. Why was God so harsh on the man?

Again, In 2 Kings, Elijha is being sought by King Ahaziah. The king sends 50 soldiers to accost Elijha – presumably not to have a friendly chat. Elijha calls on God to strike the men down with fire. God does so, killing them all. This happens a second time – 50 are again killed in the same manner - and is about to happen a third time when the captain pleads clemency. Why 100 men? Surely a non-violent action would have sufficed?

Finally, why, in the face of such undeniable power, would these Kings and plebs continue to defy God? I understand that it’s a near impossibility to answer for the actions of persons long since gone, but any light shed on the matter would be appreciated.

As I read through the OT It seems to bring up more questions - some very challenging - than answers. If I am to grow in my faith, I need to understand these answers.


Thanks

robindch

Fanny Craddock wrote:

Surely a non-violent action would have sufficed?

Yes, it would have, but the bible authors seem to have been more interested in projecting the image of a god of power, rather than one of peace. It's the 2,000-BC equivalent of the US miltary's "shock and awe".

From the point of view of the non-bible believer, the reason for this is quite straight-forward. When the OT's authors were describing the attributes of their deity* the authors resorted to the kind of supreme authorities that they would have been familiar with from the time. And these were generally as unpleasant, despotic, self-aggrandizing and violent as the laws that they propagated. If you're interested in following the topic further, then take a look, for example, at the legalistic Leviticus and see what claims is decent behavior. Some of it is really quite unpleasant.

I believe that the more moderate rulers, laws and literature of ancient Greece and later, Rome, probably contributed to the much calmer (but still retributive) picture of the single deity portrayed in the NT.

In short, the authors simply reflected the nature of the supreme authority they were familiar with in the gods they believed existed.

* Remember that these scribes were writing about just one of many named deities (Baal, Astaroth, Yaweh etc see Judges 10:6), at least until the time of the NT, when a monotheism began to be more common.

philologos

You are having difficulties with the differences in the systems of judgement from the Old Testament to the New. Trust me I did as well.

As for the 50 men. I would say it was because they had rejected the Lord and trusted in another god namely Baalzebub the god of Ekron, and that they were really out to kill Elijah, and He didn't have any defence apart from God Himself. If God didn't intervene Elijah would have most likely been killed. (I just reread it again, to get a grasp of it.) Are you sure it was twice, because the event only occured once in my Bible. (Good News Sunrise translation).

As for violence, are you sure you are talking about Solomon, from what I have read of 1st Kings (I read it quite recently, but I am now on Nehemiah after reading it from Genesis) that there was peace throughout the land of Israel until he died. Perhaps you are talking about King David? I'd be interested in any references if I am wrong. I've been digesting it all quite quickly though.

Fanny Cradock, just so you know, since I have read this recently. After you read the Kings books, read Chronicles as well. It offers a totally different viewpoint to the lives of the Kings of Israel although 2 Chronicles focuses on Judah. It shows what the lives of the faithful were like as opposed to the punishment brought down on the kings that worshipped in false idols.

Glad to help, and best of luck in discovering your faith.

Scofflaw

I think this is a very hard question for atheists to offer any advice on, since as Robin says, the explanation for a non-believer is very obvious. Were I to try and come up with an explanation that resolved the question without violating the basic tenet that the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT, what I proposed would be either nonsense or a heresy.

As I understand it, the explanation is to be found in the different Covenants between God and His people. The initial covenant was that with Adam, which Adam broke. The last covenant is that offered by Christ in the NT. The other obvious one is the Mosaic Covenant (the 10 Commandments).

The behaviour of God in each period reflects the covenant "in force" at the time. The Adamic Covenant involved close contact with God in the Garden of Eden. The Mosaic covenant is much more obviously legalistic, the Christian covenant more clearly spiritual. However, in each period, God did what He said He would do - in the case of the Mosaic covenant, God tended towards a rather peremptory and violent justice.

I assume that these different covenants reflect the spiritual progress of humanity. We progressed from a simple innocence through governance by laws, and finally achieved the maturity to accept what Christ had to offer.

As I said, though, there's a decent chance this is heresy - I suspect PDN can put me straight.

apostatically,
Scofflaw

philologos

There was a period after the flood where Noah was given new commandments as well. However most of those were kept during the time when God gave the Law to Moses.

BrianCalgary

Some background. Ahab the king of Israel had married Jezebel, a philistine women. Ahab had adopted the practice of Baal worship. Baal was the god of the rains. He brought the rain every year so that the crops would be good. Ball's wife Ashterah was the fertility goddess. Every year the Baal worshippers would sacrifice their children into the fire. The priest would then have sex with a female on the altar in full view of the gathering of the community. The community would then engage in sexual relations with whomever. This was done to please Ashterah and bring rain and fertility to the community.

God brought a drought on the land. The annual prayers of the people to Baal, god of the rain failed to produce. Baal couldn't help. Ahab, a jew, was warned of what would happen when forsaking God. He did so anyway.

After the three years Elijah returned to Ahab and Jezebel and told them that the drought would now end. The famine was so severe that Jezebel was killing off the Lords prophets (ch 18). Obadiah was able to hide about 100 of God's people during this period of persecution of God's people.

So we have a king that thumbs his nose at God, given the chance to repent, doesn't. God shows His mastery over Baal by stopping therain. The king responds by killing God's people.

Reda ch 18 16 to the end to see how God showed Himself to the people of Samaria.

Their response, reject God. Now the war was on. Between Ahab, the reaming believers and the King who had been shown God and refused to accept Him, and Jezebel who continually killed God's people.

Samaria had oodles of opportunity torepent and refused. God was protecting His people from persecution.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

...the reaming believers...

...remaining...

suppressing mental images,
Scofflaw

Spyral

God works by blalnce. You p*ss him off there's payback.

In the NT ALL of that payback goes to his son/himself creating a legal loophole in the system enabling us to be saved.

But a lot of the OT was my God is bigger than yours ZAP as that's how God worked then.

philologos

well judgement is now left until you die, as opposed to being punished on Earth. Jews don't believe in an afterlife.

Asiaprod

Jakkass wrote:

Jews don't believe in an afterlife.

Where did you get that idea from?
I will let Rabbi Samuel M. Stah explained
Jews do believe in an afterlife. However, the Hebrew Bible, which many mistakenly think describes the beliefs of Judaism today, hardly refers to any life after death. To the Biblical writer, the dead are gathered to a place called Sheol, the netherworld. This is merely a repository of corpses. Once the person dies, his or her life is permanently over. That is the end.

However, after the Bible was completed and canonized, Jews began to develop three different ideas of what happens to us after we die. First, to this day, Orthodox Jews believe in the actual resurrection of the dead. At the end of time, when the Messiah comes, the dead will be assembled from the entire world and they will be raised from the dead near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Because Orthodoxy clings to a belief in resurrection, cremation is prohibited. To cremate is to deny the resurrection, according to Orthodox Jews.

Those of us in the non-Orthodox community generally hold two other views of life after death. Few of us believe in resurrection. Rather we maintain that, after we die, the soul, the imperishable God-like part of us, will return to God. The body, on the other hand, will go back to the dust from which it originally came into life.

In addition, we maintain that our beloved dead live on in the hearts and minds of their survivors. Our Gates of Prayer expresses this belief in these felicitous words: “By love are they remembered and in memory do they live.”

Thus, contrary to popular misconceptions, we Jews do cling to a notion that life does not end at the grave. Some Jews embrace a belief in the resurrection at the end of time. Others, especially in the Reform community, maintain that we live on perpetually through the immortality of our souls. We also remain alive as long as our influence will continue to be felt after our demise.

philologos

Well you learn something new every day. I gathered from much of the OT and the way they were discussing about their decendants that their descendants would indeed be their form of afterlife. But apparently I am wrong.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

I think this is a very hard question for atheists to offer any advice on, since as Robin says, the explanation for a non-believer is very obvious. Were I to try and come up with an explanation that resolved the question without violating the basic tenet that the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT, what I proposed would be either nonsense or a heresy.

As I understand it, the explanation is to be found in the different Covenants between God and His people. The initial covenant was that with Adam, which Adam broke. The last covenant is that offered by Christ in the NT. The other obvious one is the Mosaic Covenant (the 10 Commandments).

The behaviour of God in each period reflects the covenant "in force" at the time. The Adamic Covenant involved close contact with God in the Garden of Eden. The Mosaic covenant is much more obviously legalistic, the Christian covenant more clearly spiritual. However, in each period, God did what He said He would do - in the case of the Mosaic covenant, God tended towards a rather peremptory and violent justice.

I assume that these different covenants reflect the spiritual progress of humanity. We progressed from a simple innocence through governance by laws, and finally achieved the maturity to accept what Christ had to offer.

As I said, though, there's a decent chance this is heresy - I suspect PDN can put me straight.

apostatically,
Scofflaw

What am I? The board's resident heresy hunter? :eek:

Fanny has touched on one of the parts of our faith that Christians struggle the most with. Why did God deal so harshly with people in the Old Testament?

Scofflaw is correct, for once , when he points out that Christians believe that the old Mosaic covenant is fulfilled in Christ and a New Covenant is now in force. But that does not fully resolve the difficulty for any serious thinking Christian, for the issue is not how humanity has changed, but rather our belief that God does not change. How do we deal with the fact that God commands for people to be stoned or for entire populations to be killed - acts that would have you up in front of the Hague tribunal today? So simply to explain this away because the covenants have switched is, for me, an unsatisfactory deus ex machina.

On a couple of threads I've thought that this was where TimRobbins was going, but he made it too easy for me by relying on cutting and pasting from the Skeptic's Annotated Bible webpage. The guys that run that site are so rabidly anti-Christian that they hopelessly over-egg their case and list every act of violence they can find in the Bible, accompanied by a running commentary of quite hilarious misquotes, ignoring of contexts, and rather silly lies. So, as a result, most of the examples anyone lifts off that site are quite easily swatted away by anyone who is halfways familiar with the Bible. So, Tim, if you read this post, then all you have to do is ask me why my loving God commanded the Israelites to kill everyone in Jericho, including the children. I'll have to admit I don't know and you may tell me how illogical I am.

I don't think that Christians should be ashamed to admit that there's things we don't understand. I believe that the Christian faith is reasonable and rational (although founded on a basis of faith) but that doesn't mean we have the answer to every question. I have heard and read many explanations as to why God commanded such acts of violence in the OT, but, to be honest none that would have any validity if I was standing in front of one of the mothers of Jericho whose child had just been killed.

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the fact that we, as human beings who are drawn to sin and enjoy committing sin, are incapable of grasping just how bad sin really is. But that's just a hunch, and I wouldn't try to defend it in a debate. Sometimes we have to say, "I don't know".

I know some may have a field day with me for being so honest about this, but that goes with the territory, I guess.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

What am I? The board's resident heresy hunter? :eek:

Hah! No - I just vehemently suspect you of orthodoxy...probably unfairly.

PDN wrote:

I know some may have a field day with me for being so honest about this, but that goes with the territory, I guess.

Faith is a mystery.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Did you just give an inch there, Scofflaw? Or do my eyes deceive me?

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Did you just give an inch there, Scofflaw? Or do my eyes deceive me?

Ah, well, I'm not the maths-physics type of atheist, you see...

cordially,
Scofflaw