It can’t be BOTH so which is it?

Not EVERYTHING in the Bible is spelled out as consistently and clearly as say God’s jealousy, the rights of slaves, the property that is women or its utter inconsistency between old and new covenants. Let’s not get into the weeds by dissecting adjectives or comparing chapter and verse. Let’s take a Sinai view from 7500 feet above sea level at some overarching themes.

EYE FOR AN EYE v TURN THE OTHER CHEEK

There is a lot of bloodlust in the Hebrew Bible, a collection of stories, songs, poems and prophesies we find in our Old Testament. The Law of Moses was that justice requires “an eye for an eye,” and that justice was meant to be carried out quickly and severely. So severe were the edicts of God, who we’ll get to below, that not even babies or livestock were spared. On several occasions, YHWH commanded the Israelites to commit utter genocide that didn’t stop with the humans. His bloodlust was such that not a living thing was to be spared! YIKES. Sorta like the concept of hell, this justice seems unduly harsh. But that was the “old way.”

The “new way” of looking at justice, according to Jesus, was DON’T strike back, don’t repay evil with evil. That’s now considered barbaric. Instead, we are to turn the other cheek. Justice in the New Testament became self sacrifice, embodied in the man-god (demigod) Jesus. No babies or goats were harmed after 33 CE. Nowhere in the second half of the Bible—the good half, the Jesus part—is anyone instructed to plunder, rape and pillage. Nope. If you were wronged, bend over and say, “Thank you Father, may I have another?” First Peter 4:12-19 asserts that sharing in suffering makes you one with Christ.

These two concepts, while written 500-800 years apart scholars believe, couldn’t be more opposite than if they were the North and South poles. What is God’s justice, then, because it can’t be both! Does judgment come in this life at the hands of God’s elect or in the afterlife at His hands? Are we to pluck out our attacker’s eye as one covenant suggests? Or turn the other cheek and endure double the pain?

TRIBAL WAR GOD v ABBA FATHER

The Old Testament God, YHWH, is a brute force who led his tribe, Israel, into battle. This was not a foreign concept at the time, say two millennia BEFORE Common Era. The Canaanite God, Ba’al, was the son of the Most High, El, and a tribal warrior god. Scholars believe ancient Israelites revered and worshipped them all (see Exodus). But as we pointed out above, this version of the Biblical God, seems bloodthirsty, unsatisfied until every living thing is killed. I mean there was that whole flood narrative in Genesis. Gods in the ancient world were bloodthirsty and YHWH was no different. Look at the story of Abraham and Isaac. Blood sacrifice was known in the ancient world to appease the gods.

I won’t belabor that point. But when Jesus arrives on the scene, he paints a VERY dissimilar portrait of YHWH. In fact, that Hebrew alliteration is abandoned for the Greek Adonai or the Aramaic Abba for father. Never before in Hebrew culture was God depicted in this way. He was unknowable, unfathomable. Only the anointed High Priest was able to survive in the presence of the Almighty, according to Hebrew scripture. He was unapproachable. That is, until this hippie rabbi comes along telling a completely different story. So which is it?

Is the God of the Bible a bloodthirsty warrior God of ancient tribal people housed in a tent? Or is he the cuddly daddy God of Jesus, who is totally approachable, kind and compassionate, housed in Heavenly Glory?

You can’t read the Bible cover to cover and say there are no inconsistencies! Just like his two vastly different covenants, God himself seems to transform right before our eyes (somewhere between Malachi and Matthew). How is one to make logical sense of this? And these are just two overarching themes! When you dig down to verse level, there are TONS of incongruencies. It cannot be read literally or you’ll go mad making sense of it. Prove me wrong.