Many people familiar with the old testament have pointed out that the God of the OT is difficult to love–all that smiting, all those rules, etc. Some have even said that god is like an alcoholic.
Interestingly, though, the NT god has none of these characteristics. One of the most common things Christians talk about is god’s (alleged) love of his (alleged) creations.
I’ve often wondered about how this might have helped Christianity prosper.
I’ve often wondered about how this might have helped Christianity prosper.
There are a number of factors that enabled the success of Christianity but I suspect a big part of it was that it tapped into a widespread cultural world-weariness combined with a longing for transcendence. It explained why life was so hard and offered a means of escape.
But it is interesting to note that some of the parables of Jesus actually involve a rather harsh and demeaning view, perhaps even comedic, view of God.
This is what gives me pause about Prof Ehrman’s new book about the ethics of Jesus. The idea that he taught indiscriminate love of humankind and that Christianity introduced altruism into the West. I see a tension between this view and the apocalyptic viewpoint of a righteous remnant vs the demonic world order. The former will be saved and the latter utterly destroyed to establish the Kingdom. If God loved the whole world then why was he going to destroy a huge chunk of it at the Parousia? There is evidence in the NT of a more exclusionist, proprietary attitude on the part of the historical Jesus. Maybe just maybe the “love all humankind” stuff came after the fading of the apocalyptic viewpoint?
The author of the book of Revelation may have distorted the views of Jesus somewhat, but I’m not so sure their apocalyptic viewpoints were that far apart.
Provocative but I think there might be a case to be made. There was a scholar whose name escapes me that proposed that the historical Jesus would have been a firebrand apocalypticist like John, his mentor, seems to have been. The ‘love and mercy’ message would thus have been secondary to the tradition, perhaps a response to the dire outcome of the First Revolt. I’m not sure I’d go that far; ahavah/chesed/agape seem embedded early. Surely there would have love for the community, but outside? You could see the ‘turn the other cheek’ message as a quietist, pacifist strategy to hunker down and wait out the interval until the Parousia.
I mentioned this perceived tension in the comments to Prof Ehrman’s Jan 15th post, ** you do not have permission to see this link ** I’ll be interested to read his response.
Stephen said
I’ve often wondered about how this might have helped Christianity prosper.
There are a number of factors that enabled the success of Christianity but I suspect a big part of it was that it tapped into a widespread cultural world-weariness combined with a longing for transcendence. It explained why life was so hard and offered a means of escape.
But it is interesting to note that some of the parables of Jesus actually involve a rather harsh and demeaning view, perhaps even comedic, view of God.
This is what gives me pause about Prof Ehrman’s new book about the ethics of Jesus. The idea that he taught indiscriminate love of humankind and that Christianity introduced altruism into the West. I see a tension between this view and the apocalyptic viewpoint of a righteous remnant vs the demonic world order. The former will be saved and the latter utterly destroyed to establish the Kingdom. If God loved the whole world then why was he going to destroy a huge chunk of it at the Parousia? There is evidence in the NT of a more exclusionist, proprietary attitude on the part of the historical Jesus. Maybe just maybe the “love all humankind” stuff came after the fading of the apocalyptic viewpoint?
Yes, it seems that the concept of a fallen world through Original Sin is essential to squaring that circle … something along the lines that the choice was originally offered whether or not to suffer the fall, and once that choice is made, the creation is no longer the kind of thing that is going to be able to go on endlessly, but God loved the world so much that he set in motion the process of instilling Yeshu’ with the holy dove so that he could teach the way to survive the coming and inevitable collapse of the world, given its fallen state.
The temptations would be a critical part of shoring up that kind of early and very low Christology, as that is when Yeshu’ in effect makes the choices that avoid falling anew. With a sufficiently low Christology, it’s not inconceivable that Yeshu’ is not the first stem thrown up from the roots of Jesse, but simply the first to get through the temptations gauntlet, but in any event, if the entirety of human history is seen to be like a growing season in a wheat field, it might just be that the harvest time is approaching, and if offered a chance to be wheat for the granary rather than straw for the fire, that is an opportunity that should be grabbed.
That would suggest a period of ongoing Christology inflation, as the question of “why him?” answered, “Because he was from a (possibly distaff) branch of the House of David” is in the 2nd century CE perhaps less compelling an answer than “he was a divine being who accepted being incarnated as a human and then crucified” when the audience becomes increasingly Gentile.
Prof Ehrman did indeed respond to my question-
But isn’t there a tension between the idea of love for all humankind, and the apocalyptic idea of a chosen remnant living by the strictures of the Kingdom in anticipation of the Parousia vs a demonic world system? Do you think the historical Jesus really taught love for the Romans? If Go[d] so loved the world then why is he going to destroy a good chunk of them in order to establish his Kingdom?
Yup, there’s definitely a tension. My sense is that when Jesus talked about helping out those in need it did not mean that he thought those in need would survive the day of judgment. The two issues (our reaction to needs and God’s ultimate judgment) were in some ways distinct from one another.
I suspect the quietism and pacifism was a “hunkering down” maneuver. Let’s present a harmless face to the world, wait out the conflict, and prepare for the imminent Kingdom. I think that if we could go back we would find a group united by love for the community but with the expectation that the world system will be destroyed. With the fading of the apocalyptic viewpoint this love of the community could easily mutate into a way to approach those outside.
Even while Paul considers agape as the greatest spiritual gift, he focuses on unity among the brethren. The world is dominated by demonic forces that will be destroyed. The “wheat” does not identify with the “tares”.
Recall that the parable of the sheep and the goats is commonly considered to be one of the stronger cases to be among survivors of actual teachings of Jesus in the gospels, precisely because its message of how one is saved is so distinct from the Pauline message.
Note from the parable of mixing good and bad seed, that what makes the harvester select “good wheat” as opposed to “weeds” are characteristics common to all good wheat … but do not have to be characteristics shared with the harvester.
That is, logically, the character a person has to have to enter the kingdom of god is not intrinsically a specification of the character of God.
BruceRMcF said
Recall that the parable of the sheep and the goats is commonly considered to be one of the stronger cases to be among survivors of actual teachings of Jesus in the gospels, precisely because its message of how one is saved is so distinct from the Pauline message.
Note from the parable of mixing good and bad seed, that what makes the harvester select “good wheat” as opposed to “weeds” are characteristics common to all good wheat … but do not have to be characteristics shared with the harvester.
That is, logically, the character a person has to have to enter the kingdom of god is not intrinsically a specification of the character of God.
I take your point but the concept of the “righteous remnant” is fundamental to the apocalyptic view. And it’s paired with the pessimistic view that things have gone so far off that it will require direct divine intervention to make right. The expansive view is more similar to the earlier prophetic message. Repent and all will be well. In the Kingdom the nations will have a place. Perhaps this tension between the prophetic view and the apocalyptic view was inherent in pre-Revolt thinking. Scholars often point out how little originality there is in Jesus’ teachings.
Stephen said
BruceRMcF said
Recall that the parable of the sheep and the goats is commonly considered to be one of the stronger cases to be among survivors of actual teachings of Jesus in the gospels, precisely because its message of how one is saved is so distinct from the Pauline message.
Note from the parable of mixing good and bad seed, that what makes the harvester select “good wheat” as opposed to “weeds” are characteristics common to all good wheat … but do not have to be characteristics shared with the harvester.
That is, logically, the character a person has to have to enter the kingdom of god is not intrinsically a specification of the character of God.
I take your point but the concept of the “righteous remnant” is fundamental to the apocalyptic view. And it’s paired with the pessimistic view that things have gone so far off that it will require direct divine intervention to make right. The expansive view is more similar to the earlier prophetic message. Repent and all will be well. In the Kingdom the nations will have a place. Perhaps this tension between the prophetic view and the apocalyptic view was inherent in pre-Revolt thinking. Scholars often point out how little originality there is in Jesus’ teachings.
What I am saying is that “righteous remnant” requires a view as to what it means to be righteous, and if what it means is not intense devotion to the ritualistic portions of the law, Beit Shammai style, but is in some very substantial portion to love your “neighbor”, with neighbor defined broadly, Beit Hillel style, and to do so irrespective of whether your neighbor loves you, then it’s like, “well, they had a shot at being in the righteous remnant, and they just failed to take it.”
Then rather than, “be all-loving and all-caring in an imitation of an all-loving, all-caring God”, you could well have “be all-loving and all-caring because that’s ultimately what our feckless, mercurial, sometimes furiously wrathful, God and Creator of the Universe demands”.
Questionguy said
Many people familiar with the old testament have pointed out that the God of the OT is difficult to love–all that smiting, all those rules, etc. Some have even said that god is like an alcoholic.
Interestingly, though, the NT god has none of these characteristics. One of the most common things Christians talk about is god’s (alleged) love of his (alleged) creations.
I’ve often wondered about how this might have helped Christianity prosper.
Can’t remember if I’ve already responded to this OP. If so, I apologize.
First, the characterization of the “God” of the OT as “difficult to love” is subjective, and, so to speak, objectively so. Modern readers tend to focus on certain passages and then contrast them with our own ideals. If we actually read the whole context in which every “awful” passage appears, I think we will discover a moral dilemma that we ourselves can’t waive away.
For instance, the “Conquest” narrative (the historical question of its occurrence is irrelevant; let’s suppose it’s all a fiction and focus on the moral issues raised by the narrative we have received) often comes under fire as immoral. But the question I ask is, what was the alternative? Leave the Hebrews enslaved? Abandon them in the wilderness? Solely introduce them into Canaanite society and allow them to assimilate and become pagans? (this last one is pretty important: if Israelite religion completely abandoned mono-religion, what kind of society do we really think we would have? Do you honestly think you would have the freedom to question and speculate religious topics as we do here?)
Robert said
brown.connor4 said
Can’t remember if I’ve already responded to this OP. If so, I apologize.With only 10 posts in this thread, it’s very easy to check. No, you haven’t.
First, the characterization of the “God” of the OT as “difficult to love” is subjective, and, so to speak, objectively so.
Of course it’s subjective, presented as the opinion of many people about love, no less. Do you not have a subjective opinion on this subject? Do you find the God of the Old Testament, all that smiting, all the rules, easy to love?
Modern readers tend to focus on certain passages and then contrast them with our own ideals. If we actually read the whole context in which every “awful” passage appears, I think we will discover a moral dilemma that we ourselves can’t waive away.
For instance, the “Conquest” narrative (the historical question of its occurrence is irrelevant; let’s suppose it’s all a fiction and focus on the moral issues raised by the narrative we have received) often comes under fire as immoral. But the question I ask is, what was the alternative? Leave the Hebrews enslaved? Abandon them in the wilderness? Solely introduce them into Canaanite society and allow them to assimilate and become pagans? (this last one is pretty important: if Israelite religion completely abandoned mono-religion, what kind of society do we really think we would have? Do you honestly think you would have the freedom to question and speculate religious topics as we do here?)You don’t? Apart from a Judeo-Christian culture developed subsequent to the conquest narrative, do you think it unlikely that people would have been able to develop the freedom to question and speculate on religious topics as we do here? Don’t you find such questioning and speculation present in cultures quite removed from the Conquest narratives in the Old Testament?
“with only ten posts in this thread…”
Yes, if my entire life were dedicated to THIS BLOG.
brown.connor4 said
Robert said
brown.connor4 said
Can’t remember if I’ve already responded to this OP. If so, I apologize.With only 10 posts in this thread, it’s very easy to check. No, you haven’t.
First, the characterization of the “God” of the OT as “difficult to love” is subjective, and, so to speak, objectively so.
Of course it’s subjective, presented as the opinion of many people about love, no less. Do you not have a subjective opinion on this subject? Do you find the God of the Old Testament, all that smiting, all the rules, easy to love?
Modern readers tend to focus on certain passages and then contrast them with our own ideals. If we actually read the whole context in which every “awful” passage appears, I think we will discover a moral dilemma that we ourselves can’t waive away.
For instance, the “Conquest” narrative (the historical question of its occurrence is irrelevant; let’s suppose it’s all a fiction and focus on the moral issues raised by the narrative we have received) often comes under fire as immoral. But the question I ask is, what was the alternative? Leave the Hebrews enslaved? Abandon them in the wilderness? Solely introduce them into Canaanite society and allow them to assimilate and become pagans? (this last one is pretty important: if Israelite religion completely abandoned mono-religion, what kind of society do we really think we would have? Do you honestly think you would have the freedom to question and speculate religious topics as we do here?)You don’t? Apart from a Judeo-Christian culture developed subsequent to the conquest narrative, do you think it unlikely that people would have been able to develop the freedom to question and speculate on religious topics as we do here? Don’t you find such questioning and speculation present in cultures quite removed from the Conquest narratives in the Old Testament?
“with only ten posts in this thread…”
Yes, if my entire life were dedicated to THIS BLOG.
The post is about the difference of character between the “God” of the “OT” and the “God” of the “NT”. The problem is that the OP makes a blanket generalization: the “god” of the “ot” is always X and the “god” of the “nt” is always Y.
I have read the OT. I am by no means religiously inclined to embrace it wholesale either historically or theologically. But I do not find it uniformly appalling as many critics today do. There are numerous passages that show the Israelites (priests? prophets?) could conceive their god as compassionate, forgiving, and even inclusive (of non-Israelites).
The problem is that the OP makes a blanket generalization: the “god” of the “ot” is always X and the “god” of the “nt” is always Y.
Does OP make such an absolute statement, or did OP merely (accurately) observe that many people characterize the god of the Hebrew scriptures that way?
I do not find it uniformly appalling as many critics today do.
I gathered that from your prior defense of genocide.
brown.connor4 said
For instance, the “Conquest” narrative (the historical question of its occurrence is irrelevant; let’s suppose it’s all a fiction and focus on the moral issues raised by the narrative we have received) often comes under fire as immoral. But the question I ask is, what was the alternative? Leave the Hebrews enslaved? Abandon them in the wilderness? Solely introduce them into Canaanite society and allow them to assimilate and become pagans? (this last one is pretty important: if Israelite religion completely abandoned mono-religion, what kind of society do we really think we would have? Do you honestly think you would have the freedom to question and speculate religious topics as we do here?)
If we suppose that it’s all fictional, then what makes telling the fiction that they brought monotheism into Canaan, rather than developing it later in situ as the archeological record would suggest, fundamental to the kind of society that we have?
It is not as if the myths about what kind of religions fictitious predecessors had are the causes of the religion of the people crafting the myth. Rather the reverse … having developed a monotheistic religion out of an earlier tradition of loyalty to a national God among others in the celestial pantheon, the myth-making is the consequence of the religion.
Given that the clear conclusions of archeology seem to be that the Israelites were indigenous Canaanites who separated themselves out by cultural practices, what makes me curious is why they built their cultural mythology on a conquest narrative? They could have easily imagined occupation of a deserted wasteland. Was that the only form of hegemony and validation they could understand? Military conquest?
The clear conclusions of archaeology
I mean, you can lose the genetic signal of an entire founding group in just a couple centuries. Cuneiform arrives in Canaan in the 2nd Millennium BCE. It’s not a writing system developed by indigenous Canaanites, someone brought it there.
Idrimi’s inscription is really cool. He basically self-exiled to some Habiru in Canaan and became their leader. He’s not indigenous. So I can see why a tribe like the Israelites, named after a Jacob which is a name found in Mesopotamia first, could be plausible. It’s a fairly consistent thing across cultures, the ruling class is usually intermarried with a more advanced place.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The inscription includes the “first certain ** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)