by Hydro033

From the Old Testament to the New Testament, one character is always present in the Christian Bible – God. He created the world in Genesis, freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, and brought the Good News through his only son, Jesus Christ . Although God is a constant omnipresent deity, his image is not. God was treated very differently through the course of the Bible. “[T]here are discontinuities in the rendering of God” (Patrick, 1981, p. 51). God punished sinners and reached out to them. He rewarded the faithful and tested them. “[I]t is impossible to say that it is out of character or in the opposition to the norm” (Patrick, 1981, p. 51). His complex identity is hard to decipher due to his mysterious ways. A common quote says it best: “God works in mysterious ways.” Indeed, he does. God constantly appears with three different roles: creator, judge and redeemer (Mills, 1998, p. 11). Each of these three roles play are important in identifying God. He uses all three roles in stories of the Old and New Testaments, but these roles span the entirety of the Biblical History as well. He created the covenant with Moses, he judged Israel during the Diaspora, and redeemed his followers through Christ. This created an image of God that changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God uses fear of punishment as the driving force to keep the Israelites faithful, but in the New Testament, God uses love and forgiveness to convert new followers.

In the Old Testament, God seemed exceptionally punishing towards Moses. I feel as though Moses was unfairly treated by the Lord in the Old Testament. He did a lot for Israelites by challenging the Pharaoh and freeing them from slavery. He was an upstanding man in the presence of the Lord, but the Israelites were not. Numerous times, the Israelites complained and worshipped pagan Gods (Ex. 3, Nm. 21: 4-9, 25: 1-5). Moses always reprimanded them for this, but it was Moses who was not allowed into the Promised Land because he struck the rock twice rather than once as commanded by God. The second strike was considered a lack of faith and God punished Moses by not allowing him to enter the Promised Land (Nm. 20: 11-12). If this took place in the New Testament, I believe God would have forgiven Moses and allowed him to enter the Promised Land.

The Old Testament also has many accounts of God endorsing violence.  As the Israelites entered the Promised Land under Joshua and later Samuel, they fought many battles with other nations. God chose the Israelites rather than other nations and they fought in the name of God to reclaim what has been promised to them (Jos, Jgs, 1 & 2 Sm, 1 & 2 Kgs). Even in Psalms, referring to the Babylonian Captivity, violence is portrayed, “Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock” (Ps. 137: 9). This a stark contrast to Jesus’ teaching: “[L]ove your enemies” (Lk 6: 27). It may not have been that easy. “The world that witnessed the production of the Bible was a world of violence” (Hoppe, 2006, p. 30).  Although conflict seemed unavoidable, anything is possible with God. During this period, love and forgiveness seemed absent from the Old Testament. The image of God became that of Israel’s army. Victory or defeat were thought of as direct results of either God’s salvation or judgment (Hoppe, 2006, p. 31). According to Hobbes, the famous philosopher, people without society live poor, nasty, solitary, brutish and short lives (Hobbes, 1651, p. 86). The people and culture of the Old Testament seem very Hobbesian to me as compared to the modern world. “The Bible’s attitude toward war and violence undercuts the whole of its moral vision that appears to be too closely tied to the experience of another age” (Hoppe, 2006, pp. 32-33). Even while using proper Biblical exegesis, the Bible still seems hypocritical at times.

The Book of Job is a prime example of a different image of God in the Old Testament. God boasted about the faithfulness of Job, which Satan questioned since Job was so well off. To prove to Satan that Job was faithful, “[T]he Lord said to Satan, ‘He is in your power’ ” (Jb. 2: 6). Satan then afflicted Job, but he remained faithful to God. This does not correspond with God in the New Testament. Job did not sin and was a good man; he did not deserve this suffering yet he still received it. God allowed this only to prove to Satan that Job is faithful. Why should God ever have to prove anything to Satan? I cannot see the Lord of the New Testament ever doing such a thing. It seems out of character for God. In the end, Job is redeemed by God and returns him to his prior state. One must remember that Job is a dramatic poem and it has a certain teaching:

The lesson is that even the just may suffer here, and their sufferings are a test of their fidelity. They shall be rewarded in the end. Man’s finite mind cannot probe the depths of the divine omniscience that governs the world. The problems we encounter can be solved by a broader and deeper understanding of God’s power, presence and wisdom (The New American Bible, 2006, Introduction p. 646).

It seems as if God is doing a terrible thing, but the images of God differ from book to book in the Bible and must be treated differently because each book has a particular purpose (Mills, 1998, p. 14).

In the Old Testament, God’s judgment loomed over anyone who threatened to break the strict laws of Moses. God was very punishing in the Old Testament; his judgment was swift and severe. This is showcased in Exodus when the Lord unleashed the ten plagues upon Egypt (Ex. 7-11). The strict laws of this covenant can seem odd or even harsh to us now but when they are easily understood once taken with proper Exegesis, but  the Laws of the Old Testament seemed out of place after  Jesus. In fact, these laws and customs were upheld so tightly by some and distorted so slightly by others that it led to the crucifixion of Jesus. It comes down to the fact that Jesus broke the ancient Hebrew laws. He did what was righteous and just whether it obeyed the law or not (Mt. 12: 1-14, 15: 1-20).

Jesus’ wisdom was years beyond that of people of his time. Paul further stresses this by saying that Christ killed the old laws (Rom. 7: 4-6). This was not accepted by the Sadducees who obeyed the literal law. God made a covenant with Moses, but the coming of Jesus brought forth a new covenant that replaced the old covenant with Moses. Rather than God changing, it was man who changed. The birth of Jesus brought a new era. Love and peace were emphasized over fear and justice. “The word ‘peace’ appears in almost every book of the New Testament” (Hoppe, 2006, p. 36).  God’s forgiveness was stressed rather than his judgment. People were no longer told to fear God but rather to love him for he loved them without measure. This new covenant came with Christ and brought a dramatic new perspective on God. He may not have changed, but certainly the way people viewed God did change. Paul addressed this in Romans by saying that even though a Gentile does not bear the mark of the covenant, it does not mean the man is a sinner. There may be many men who are not circumcised, but they uphold the law better than those who are circumcised. Paul also emphasized that with the coming of Christ we are free from the law for Christ has created another. (Rom. 2: 17-19,  7: 4-6).

The teachings of the New Testament changed also with the new covenant. Sinners were still sinners but they were approached rather than avoided. Teachers such as Paul and the Apostles reached out to sinners because they needed the most help. God’s forgiveness and saving grace led people from sin into the light of God. An open-mindedness replaced the strict ideologies of the Jewish tradition. After Jesus, God was more commonly referred to as Father. As stated by McFague, “Father is not God’s name[.] Rather, it is one of the many images for God…, ‘not meant to describe God so much as to suggest the new quality of relationship being offered to them [by God]‘ ” (McFague, 1982). Addressing God paternally deepened the relationship that early Christians had with God.

The image of God is similar to the concepts of leadership later recognized by Machiavelli. He asked the simple question, “[Is it] better to be loved than feared, or the reverse[?]” (Machiavelli, 2003, p. 66). Machiavelli argued that a leader should want to be feared rather than loved because fear will keep people obedient. If people love their leader and something goes wrong, then they will blame the leader. In the case of love, the citizens have the real control, not the leader. Machiavelli thinks fear is preferable, but he makes it clear that one must not use fear to the point of hatred. Ideally, Machiavelli believes a leader should be both feared and loved but also states that it is impossible (Machiavelli, 2003, pp. 66,67). God accomplishes this ideal state. “God is alternately tender and hostile, creator and destroyer” (Miles, 1995). In the Old Testament, his image leans more towards fear. In the New Testament, his image leans more towards love. All the while he is both feared and loved – the ideal way to lead followers.

Although God is eternal and it seems that his image has changed over the course of time, one must remember that the people of this Earth have changed. The world is very different from the age of the Bible. Even now, his image is still changing. I feel that I even view God’s image differently than that of the Bible.  The heretic Marcion, who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries, believed that the Christian God of the New Testament was a completely different deity than Yahweh of the Old Testament. Although a heretic, I sympathize with him. It is difficult to discover what seem as flaws or contradictions in an image we deem as perfect, divine and flawless. Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, said it another way, “Yahweh was the just God; the Christian God was the good God” (Jung, 1951, par. 89; 1969a, par. 408). The biggest problem I have is the context and the Exegesis. I understand the fact that the world was very different then and we cannot apply our view of the modern world to the past. This perception of the situation just seems to me as another way of accepting ethical relativism. This ruins my image of God. It justifies actions in the past that aren’t justifiable today even when they were both according to the same God. I find it difficult and unsettling to accept paradoxical images of God.

Bibliography

Edinger, E. F. (1996). The New God-Image. Wilmette: Chiron Publications.

Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. http://www.forgottenbooks.org: Forgotten Books.

Hoppe, L. J. (2006). Priests, Prophets and Sages: Catholic Perspectives on the Old Testament. Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger Press.

Machiavelli, N. (2003). The Prince. (D. Donno, Trans.) New York: Bantam Dell.

McFague, S. (1982). Metaphorical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Miles, J. (1995). God: A Biography. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Mills, M. E. (1998). Images of God in the Old Testament. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.

Patrick, D. (1981). The Rendering of God in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

The New American Bible. (2006). The Catholic Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press.