What’s so good about the Old Testament?


I write a quarterly column for Preach magazine, in which I explore a significant word or phrase in the Bible and the ideas that it expresses. I have written for them on:

This column explores the question ‘What’s so good about the Old Testament?’ as part of a whole edition of the magazine on this issue.


The God we find in the Old Testament is vindictive and cruel. He issues arbitrary edicts; he exterminates people on a whim; he is prejudiced, misogynist and homophobic. As a result, the Old Testament is full of stone age barbarity. Jesus, on the other hand, is loving and inclusive. He is concerned for the marginalised; he restores the broken; and he preaches a gospel of love. Thank goodness we have Jesus to tell us the truth about God, in contrast to the misleading impression of the OT.

This might be a slight exaggeration of a particular view, but in one form or another, this view is quite widespread both within and outside the church today. And it is not new—it was first articulated by Marcion of Sinope (85–160), an important early theologian and evangelist, who wanted to present Jesus as the loving one who rescued us from the wickedness of the god of the Old Testament. 

Critical to exploring this issue is the question of interpretation, of how we read texts. This is illustrated by the popular reading of John 1.17; most read it as saying ‘For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’ (AV). Yet there is no ‘but’ in the text! John is not contrasting the law with the grace of Jesus, but making them a parallel—we have received ‘grace upon grace’, the gracious gift of the law in Moses, and the gracious gift of the new covenant in Jesus. It is more of the same, not something good in place of something bad. 

Here are seven things that are good about the Old Testament, which shows why we need it so much. 

1. Its poetry, promises and psalms. You don’t have to be a Christian for long to find sustenance in the remarkable imagery of the Old Testament, particularly the poetic promises of the prophets. Early in my Christian life, I held on to the promise of direction ‘This is the way; walk in it’ (Is 30.21); like others, I longed to have ‘my strength renewed’ (Is 40.31); and I sang about ‘beautiful feet’ that bring good news (Is 52.7). 

2. Its central truths about God. When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandments, he cited two key OT texts—Deut 6.4 (‘You shall love the Lord your God…’) and Lev 19.18 (‘You shall love your neighbour…’). But both of these are attached to central claims about who God is: he is ‘one’, the central confession of both Jewish and Christian belief; and he is the lord to whom we give account. ‘The Lord is gracious and compassionate’ runs like a thread through the law, the prophets and the writings. 

3. Its theology of practical living. The New Testament was written to a small, fledgling movement, struggling for a place in a mighty empire. But the OT was written in the context of a nation finding its place in the world. Here we find much practical wisdom on how to conduct life together as the people of God, and it is here we must go to reflect on questions of work and wealth, of land and environment, of justice and peace. 

4. Its foundational importance for the NT. When Paul speaks of scripture as ‘God-breathed’ (2 Tim 3.16), and essential for the life of the disciple, he is referring to the OT. When he urges on Timothy the importance of the ‘public reading of scripture’ (1 Tim 4.13), he means the OT. When he passes on, as of ‘first importance’ that ‘Christ died…and was raised according to the Scriptures’ (1 Cor 15.3–4), these are the OT scriptures. 

5. Its anticipations of Jesus’ claims. You cannot go far in reading the gospels before you are stumbling across reference upon reference to the OT—and without realising this you will not understand what the gospels are saying about Jesus. ‘You are my son, my beloved; with you I am well pleased’ (Mark 1.11) alludes to both Gen 22.2 and Isaiah 42.1; Jesus is the precious son, offered as a sacrifice, the faithful servant who will bring righteousness to many. 

6. Its status as canon. Everywhere in the NT the assumption is made that and new and the old are in continuity, and that the OT are the scriptures of the Jewish-Gentile people of God who now follow Jesus as Lord. We have been grafted in to Israel (Rom 11.17) and the two (Jew, Gentile, Eph 2.15) have become one; the scriptures of Israel are our scriptures.

7. Its integrity, reflecting the nature of God. We noted the central confession of scripture, that God is one, and in him ‘there is no variation or shadow of turning’ (James 1.17). There are clearly tensions between the two testaments, and they are not trivial. But if scripture is indeed breathed out by God, then we cannot set them in opposition to one another; we cannot dismiss the one in favour of the other.

This does not answer all the questions suggested at the beginning; indeed, it heightens the challenge to read the whole of Scripture with coherence. There is work to do, especially in reading the ‘difficult’ passages of the OT—but it is work we cannot avoid.


Another good resource in this area is the Bible Project video on the loyal love of God, part of their ‘Character of God’ series.


DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

92 thoughts on “What’s so good about the Old Testament?”

  1. All good, and needing to be said.

    In one form or another, this view is quite widespread both within and outside the church today. And it is not new—it was first articulated by Marcion of Sinope (85–160), an important early theologian and evangelist, who wanted to present Jesus as the loving one who rescued us from the wickedness of the god of the Old Testament.
    It is very prevalent, even among churches that think of themselves as evangelical. We are in the grip of a first-order heresy, polluting the very life-blood of the Church.

    I saw it in my own fellowship. One day the vicar announced that for the foreseeable future all sermons would be based on a series of books by James Aryan Smith, starting with The Good and Beautiful God. Such books do not of course say outright, “Marcion was a fine theologian, and this book follows in his footsteps.” Rather, they simply ignore the OT and, when discussing the NT, ignore all that seems harsh and uncompromising there, so as to leave a beguiling residue of sugar. A Christian form of cancellation, and spiritually deadly.

    The ‘Woke’ revolution consuming the Church is another example. God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures is being remoulded in accordance with Marcionist concepts of what is good and loving. The proper antidote is to read the NT with integrity and in its wholeness, to remind ourselves that in the NT fear of God is commended as a good and proper response to an encounter with the living God, and to seek the holiness without which no one will survive the fire.

    Reply
    • Absolutely agree Steven that we are in the grip of a first order heresy.

      TGC in 2020 gave Dane Ortlund’s book – Gentle and Lowly – which announced in the face of all of scripture that God is “deep down” (as if God in the cross is not God deep down) gentle and lowly – one of the nine fruits of the Spirit – the popular theology book of the year. And when its erros were pointed out people like Tim Keller and John Piper just said nothing – as they now do about Mark Driscoll – when whether or not they have any responsibility for his behaviour they hold to beliefs which gave support to his behaviour. That is being in the grip of a first order heresy. And none other than Andrew Wilson poured out his admiration of the book. The only reason why Ortlund came to this conclusion is because his choices and his Calvinism led to his dividing God into good and bad God – and then led him to speak only about good God.

      So forgive me if I continue to repeat and repeat that the cross is the fullness of God’s character – that the word love summaries ALL of God’s character – and that the primary attributes of God are his holiness, justice, mercy and grace. And that gentleness is for example a subexpression of mercy and grace – acting towards people in a way that will reveal God’s eagerness to show them mercy – it is choosing character over power when possible. All the nine fruits of the Spirit are outworkings of one or more of these four – “love” (as in the love mentioned in the fruit of the Spirit) – the attitude of desiring the best welfare of another in all situations – is all four.

      Reply
      • I have tried to make points as clearly as I do here to TGC people until I was blue in the face. They simply ghosted me – acted as if I did not exist. They refuse ALL correction relating to their Calvinism FROM ANYONE. They hold it to be of prime importance (as a group – it’s not as if Tim Keller for example is a Calvinist – he’s never supported a Calvinist doctrine in his life – he must therefore be seen to be a populist who sees TGC as his golden ticket) evidenced by their directing people only to theological institutions which support it – while NOT ONCE engaging in the public space with anyone in any way concerning it. At least in John Piper’s case the reason given is that they don’t wish to be divisive – when the issue already divides the church! And when no discussion of doctrine rightly motivated is EVER unedifying – or don’t they believe that – does all doctrine divide? Their actions speaks to more than their Calvinism – it shows that they are deeply poorly motivated – and we must seek to hold them to account.

        Reply
  2. Thanks for the article. This question about God’s violence etc in the Old Testament is a popular one used by the New Atheists to attack Christianity. And it’s a good question too. As an Anglican clergyman I have had to deal with it many a time from believers and non-believers (seekers) alike and there is no easy answer. A few thoughts though. First, we are in no place to judge God. “Shall not the God of the earth do right” (Genesis 18:25). He is God, and we are not. And second, God’s final revelation is Jesus, the very one who said: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son….” (John 3:16). Whatever doubts I may have about some of the things in the Old Testament, the revelation of Jesus, who is God, lays them to rest. God bless. Mark

    Reply
    • Mark – so how would you respond to the standard criticism here from Ivan Karamazov, `It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket.’

      I’ve found that this is the standard reason for atheism and rejection of Christianity – people look around them and see a nasty vindictive world in which nasty vindictive things happen – and aren’t very impressed by a creator God who can create something like that.

      I’ve always thought that presenting it as a nasty God of the Old Testament versus a nice God of the New Testament ignores the reality of the world that we see around us.

      I’m a Christian, but I don’t have a good answer to this; I’m a Christian despite all that contradicts it (which is pretty much everything).

      Reply
      • I think there are the beginnings of an answer in reflecting together with them:

        a. Where do you get your sense of outrage? If we live in a material world, why should we have any concern for ‘violence’ or ‘evil’? Violence is just a matter of fact, and ‘evil’ is a moral category that cannot arise in a material world.

        b. What kind of world would you like it to be? What kind of world would you create? One where all evil things were either disallowed or punished immediately? If so, what would happen to a person like you in that world?

        c. Let’s turn the question inside out—not, is there a God who made this world, but, given its violence and evil, would you like to live here with or without the hope of a God who is just?

        I explored some questions around this in my comments about Stephen Fry here:

        https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/stephen-fry-and-god/

        Reply
        • Ian – firstly, when it comes to Stephen Fry – I’m not the one to argue against him. As I understand it, he has actually tried to commit suicide – and from what I read about it, this clearly wasn’t simply a cry-for-help – it was a genuine attempt to dispose of his life and only by very good fortune did he fail.

          Therefore, if he has presented intellectual arguments that can be knocked down by clever people, this only indicates that he hasn’t articulated things very well. This is a situation that is very far from anything I have ever been in – so I prefer to stand back and not comment on it.

          So now, let us look at the issues.
          a. The beginnings of the Old Testament present us with a God *outside* creation, who makes his creation and then looks at it and sees that it is very good. If we consider that morality is something that is of God, then it is very difficult to see where it comes into the equation – and I like Moltmann’s solution, where he suggests that the OT perspective isn’t Trinitarian and lacks the dimension of the Holy Spirit – the moral dimension comes because creation is infused with the Holy Spirit.

          I’d also suggest that we haven’t yet reached the `seventh day’, because God isn’t resting and creation is not (yet) `very good’ in any reasonable sense of the word.

          b. Clearly there are huge problems with this world, which we, from a privileged perspective, don’t really experience first hand. We have to follow news sources to find out just how bad it can get; we haven’t lived in Iraq during the USA/UK bombing campaign. The world we would like to live in clearly isn’t this world – as Christians we live in hope for something better; creation is groaning for the redemption – and it is the redeemed world that we would like the world to be.

          c. From the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, I infer that many would like to live in hope of salvation, but when they understand what it really means, they’re not so keen on it. The rich man wasn’t exactly keen on heaven and did not relish it; he simply wanted to escape the torment of the alternative, where he found himself.

          I don’t know if these answers are any good (or indeed if they meet the points) – these are (more or less) the first things that entered my head in response.

          Reply
        • Thank you for this…

          “not, is there a God who made this world, but, given its violence and evil, would you like to live here with or without the hope of a God who is just?”

          Useful evangelistically…

          Reply
          • Certainly is. I have not considered before that argument of how violence should be understood in a material world. I have however proved to people that they believe we are more than material in their supporting the view that sexual assault be seen to be in a different category to physical assault.

            Asking people to be God for a moment lets them lead the discussion. How should the world work? How should God if he exists run the world? Should he absolve all people from guilt – which means that when people wrong us God does nothing? Or should he hold us all to account?

            And considering the fact that God’s justice is ALWAYS motivated by the desire to restore – shall we refuse those who are wayward the opportunity to be disciplined for the sake of their transformation? Or does a loving God not act like a good parent?

      • Hi Jock, I get where you are coming from. Like you, despite what seems at times like a contradiction, I remain a Christian. I think, first of all that it is Christ that keeps me going. His life, His teaching, HIs example – and HIs willingness to die for me – allay some of the doubts or difficulties I have with some aspects of the Old Testament. Second, as an Anglican who has studied Eastern Orthodoxy a little, I am quite comfortable with mystery, which is the stuff which I don’t know about God, which is a lot! As human beings we want all the answers but as we see in the Book of Job, God doesn’t give them all to us (see chapters 38 – 42). And lastly, I guess that that is the nature of faith. Trusting God that He knows what He is doing even though we may not fully understand why. I never fully understood my father’s decisions when I was young, but then as I grew I understood a lot more why he did and said the things he did. The more we press on to know God, the more these ‘issues’ will either resolve or become less important. Not much of an answer I know, but the way I deal with thing (while still asking and seek answers). God bless. Mark

        Reply
    • My NIV translation of Gen 18:25 says “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” implying that God astonishingly does give Abraham the space to call Him out. We hold this in tension with Isaiah’s “My ways are not your ways…” (Isaiah 55.)
      One of the great things about the OT which Ian didn’t mention is the struggle – the way so many of its writers struggle and argue with God, in a way that few of the NT writers (writing in the joy of the Resurrection’s aftermath!) seem to do. Jesus of course did at Gethsemane.
      I am not qualified in theology.

      Reply
  3. It’s long – if you don’t want to read it – don’t. Scroll past it. I can’t see what to remove without losing things that matter.

    This is an extremely important topic. I do not see it as living on its own island – it’s got links to four primary issues of faith (and possibly more?) which ensure that we will not rightly perceive God’s character in either the Old or New Testaments:

    1. Every part of God’s character is love:

    The gospel is NOT:
    God is holy and just BUT merciful and gracious.
    (as if God is Jekyll and Hyde – Old Testament and New Testament)

    It is:

    God is holy and just AND merciful and gracious.
    There is no part of God’s character which can be separated from his love – God doesn’t for example love until he gets angry.

    2. We misunderstand the new covenant – the age we are in – because we imagine that God’s holiness and justice have been destroyed by the cross – making God tolerant of wrongdoing and making God’s love unconditional. God’s love in Christ is not unconditional (see Jonah 2:8, Romans 11:22, and Hebrews 10:29). God’s justice in the new covenant is delayed – in order that we might repent – but otherwise no less severe than in the Old Testament. And God’s mercy and grace are no less real in the Old Testament than in the new.

    3. We fail to look at all of God’s actions through the lens of the cross. If we did we would come to see that God’s justice in the Old and New Testaments should always be interpreted (whether or not this is revealed in every passage) to be always directed towards if possible creating the circumstances in which it will become possible to offer mercy. Even when God’s justice is vengeance (see Nahum 1) his actions are still limited by seeking to restore whenever possible. Again – looking from that same cross perspective – we must also see hell as justice which seeks IF POSSIBLE to restore – the only difference being that in the case of those in hell restoration isn’t possible (or otherwise people would not be in hell). This doesn’t mean God is grieving for those in hell – it’s the opposite – his holiness leads him to hate them. And finally I believe that whilst punishment in hell is most definitely eternal we should not – considering the constant single motive for God’s justice – interpret hell as eternal punishment for sin – but rather punishment for eternal sin. Those in hell go on sinning and therefore go on being punished. Again I have nowhere in scripture which proves that either of these possibilities is true about hell – I’m pointing out that to this point no-one has succeeded in showing me that the wages of one sinful act are eternal punishment – and since they have not I conclude that we the bible tells about the motives of God’s justice in the cross must be the determining factor. I’m open to change if anyone wants to make that case. Our error is in building a doctrine of hell only around God’s holiness. We should definitely ensure that our doctrine of hell is consistent with God’s holiness – but it must be also be consistent with God’s justice.

    4. Fleshing out number 3 since God is unchanging in all his character attributes – and since in being God these attributes are in no way externally influenced – this means God’s motives are unchanging. There is therefore never a reason to speak as if God’s justice has different motives at different times. Calvinism – in splitting the world into those damned before creation (who are objects of retributive justice) and those chosen for salvation (who are objects of restorative justice) does exactly that. This helps to sustain the false notion that I sought to defeat at the beginning – the bad God (holiness and justice) vs good God (mercy and grace) false tension in the gospel in our thinking, believing and preaching. I therefore conclude that there is simply no way in which it is appropriate to think of Calvinism as an agree to disagree between friends issue. Calvinism attributes terrible unexplained actions and motives to God. It distorts the truth fundamentally. The distance between Calvinism and non-Calvinism is far more fundamental than appeared to be the case in the recent William Lane Craig and James White debate (which was very focused on philosophy and not on the implications of Calvinism for biblical undetstanding). Calvinism leads to our having to conclude each of the following things (each flowing from the former):
    – that God is not unchanging in mercy (since where else but in his character can we look to explain God’s saving some and not others).
    – that the cross is not revelation of God’s character because there are unexplained inconsistencies in how God relates to the world in the cross
    – since the cross is not reliable revelation of God’s character we are now free to live as Pharisees – able to believe particular truths about God without needing to experience – confirm – their truth through the testimony of God’s character to our spirit.

    If anyone can further my understanding on anything above – or if they can see why anything needs to be corrected – I always welcome feedback. Sorry for the length – I really feel like each of the above four things strongly relates to this issue of Old and New Testament God – we will only sort these things out if we deal with these four issues at the same time.

    Reply
    • Philip – what do you mean by Calvinism? Because if you’re referring to the acronym TULIP – then my understanding is that John Calvin wasn’t exactly a Calvinist. I don’t necessarily want to defend John Calvin, but several of the theologians whom I do read (Brunner, Barth, Moltmann) seem to take inspiration from him.

      His take on the parable of the sower, which he gives in the context of explaining his `predestination’ stuff (towards the end of the 3rd book of the Institutes) seems to put it into perspective – and at odds with the `Calvinism’ that you have quite rightly rejected.

      You should go back to source (the Institutes) rather than some popular precis (which doesn’t really do it justice at all).

      Reply
      • Hi Jock,

        Thank you for your reply.

        I tried to “go back to the source” here by seeking to responsibly follow the implications of biblical doctrine through.

        I don’t believe in any of T U L I or P. I do believe in irresistible grace but not in the same way as the Calvinist. I believe that God’s holiness and justice lead us to the door of hell where we must repent – but they are irresistible – we have a choice as to whether to repent. Having repented however we are then for the first time able to see his mercy and grace – and no-one who repents can resist God’s mercy and grace. So conversion is both resistible and irresistible.

        And I believe in perseverance of the saints but not because of God’s predetermining everything in the life of the “believer” (I put “believer” in quotes because once everything we do is predetermined there is no sense in which we are a believer).
        When Philipians 1:6 says (ESV) “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” the reason why God will bring his work to completion is because his love will be available throughout to the person who has faith – but it’s the second part that I don’t believe is well understood by either Calvinists or non-Calvinists – those who respond positively to God’s love once keep doing so. This last concept is essential – it lies behind our being able to be assured that those who refuse God on earth will continue to do so in hell.

        I will leave it to those better informed than I to decide whether or not X person’s beliefs were/are in alignment with the theology I outlined in my first post.

        Reply
        • Oops – the sentence that read:
          “I believe that God’s holiness and justice lead us to the door of hell where we must repent – but they are irresistible” should have ended with the word resistible not irresistible.

          Reply
    • Whatever else Calvin wrote I believe he got it right when he wrote (on Ezekiel 18:23)
      “Besides, it is not surprising that our eyes should be blinded by intense light, so that we cannot certainly judge how God wishes all to be saved, and yet has devoted all the reprobate to eternal destruction, and wishes them to perish. While we look now through a glass darkly, we should be content with the measure of our own intelligence. (1 Corinthians 13:12.) When we shall be like God, and see him face to face, then what is now obscure will then become plain.”

      Phil Almond

      Reply
      • God … wishes them to perish. This flatly contradicts Scripture – II Pet 3:9, not to mention Ezek 18:23 itself. Also, what a strange idea that our eyes are blinded by the light. To go on to say that we see through a glass darkly is to presuppose that we are not blinded. Rather, the intense light (II Cor 4:6) makes us less blind (II Cor 4:4). Paul was blinded by the light on the road to Damascus, but he soon recovered his sight and spiritually saw more clearly than before.

        Reply
        • Steven, True. But there is always a problem when theologians use their own logic to go beyond what is written. Although Calvin believed Double Predestination was true, he also said it was a dreadful and horrible decree. So if the hallmark of a Calvinist is adoration of Double Predestination, or making it centre of one’s theology, then not even John Calvin was a Calvinist. He came to this conclusion (tucked away at the end of Book 3 of the Institutes), but it was a conclusion he presented with some hesitation and it shouldn’t really define his teaching (unless you’re looking for tabloid-style simplification).

          Reply
    • ‘And finally I believe that whilst punishment in hell is most definitely eternal we should not – considering the constant single motive for God’s justice – interpret hell as eternal punishment for sin – but rather punishment for eternal sin. Those in hell go on sinning and therefore go on being punished. Again I have nowhere in scripture which proves that either of these possibilities is true about hell – I’m pointing out that to this point no-one has succeeded in showing me that the wages of one sinful act are eternal punishment ‘

      Have you considered Jas 2,10-11? – if you break the law in just one point you are as guilty as if you’d broken the whole law.
      To me this is all tied up with God’s Holiness and the doctrine of Sin. We have no idea of God’s absolute utter Holiness – we can’t have as mere human beings – and of His consequential absolute utter abhorrence of sin. Even breaking just one point of the law renders us guilty before God, separated from Him and in need of the atoning sacrifice Jesus made in order to be reconciled with Him

      Reply
      • Hi Jean,

        Thank you for taking me forward again! Let me explain in what way. I hope you will not mind my including you in on my ruminations.

        I have been saying on this forum that there is nowhere in the Bible where God is said to hate sin – we do however see that God is said to hate evil and hate evil doers. But whilst this is still my conclusion something has been troubling me – we are told that Jesus’ death on the cross is his becoming sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God. And we know that the cross is God’s wrath poured out against sin. Shouldn’t these two things combine to lead us to conclude that God hates sin? And if he does why would he not also hate sinners – as he hates evil doers?

        What your James passage has helped me to see is that the existence of sin in our lives is always proof that we have at some point WILFULLY chosen to live opposed to God. And God hates all wilful sin. However this wilful sin isn’t the same as someone showing wilful contempt for God’s love shown in the cross – it isn’t “evil doing” – at least it isn’t until someone experiences God’s grace in the creation or the cross and responds in way to either which God considers inadequate. All the same however this is what breaking one part of the law being breaking all of it means. If we had not sinned wilfully at some point we would be without sin. It has suddenly hit me – your passage is proof that there is no such thing as original sin – or otherwise it would be possible to say that someone’s sin could ALWAYS be only sin of the flesh and therefore hasn’t ever been an expression of breaking the whole law. There is no doctrine of original sin so the existence of sin in any person should be considered evidence of their having chosen to set their life course against God at some point in their lives – even if only for a moment.

        So your James 2:10-11 is the bit that I was missing. I hadn’t adequately revealed the relationship of sin and evil doing.

        So – if it isn’t clear – I believe that your verses add to – instead of defeat – my view – but if you believe my conclusions are wrong or could be said better I look forward to hearing from you.

        I am making this distinction between sin of the flesh and sin of the will but I haven’t shown what words in scripture are used to refer to each. I have noticed that there seemed to be references to sin of the flesh as if it was evil – maybe your bible passage has led to my understanding this better too! Anyway this needs to be fully followed through.

        Finally your input – and your talking about God’s holiness – has I believe led me to see the nature of God’s holiness more clearly. I am arguing that God’s holiness ISN’T intolerant of sin of the flesh – because God identifies with weakness (though he will likely be angered by evil that is able to flourish because of sin) – he doesn’t have contempt for weakness. He does however have hatred for evil which is wilful contempt for his love.

        Thanks again. I hope to meet you one day – as you repeatedly show me the way ahead. I think it would be great if at least some people on this forum were able to gather at a suitable gathering point – I will let Ian be the one to lead on that if he is interested – I sense that God is doing something really important here.

        By the way – in case you find it encouraging I listened to this great video in which this amazing woman of God preaches the word of God with clarity and passion. Hope you enjoy it.
        https://bigcircumstance.com/2020/08/29/guest-post-jean-shepherd-on-working-with-god/

        Reply
        • Well I never! Have u been stalking me online? I don’t know how u found that – whenever people google my name they get a male American radio presenter or singer!

          Philip – I don’t see why you differentiate between ‘sin of the flesh’ and ‘sin of the will’ and you don’t appear to have any scripture to back up this difference??
          To me it is just all sin – a missing of the target, a failure 2 live up 2 God’s standards, a putting ME first because I am at the centre of sin!

          As 4 getting some of the folk on this forum 2gether….I’d be concerned lest there was a murder committed! – only joking there – things are not as acrimonious as they once were!

          Reply
          • My history with the forum isn’t as long as yours I suspect.

            Do you respond to the failure of others as if wrongdoing which arises from their weakness and wrongdoing which arises from their wilfulness is to be treated in the same way? If not why not? Since you should look at others through God’s eyes not through your own? And considering the fact that the love we show others is not our love but the love of the God who in dwells us?

            Hope you don’t mind such a direct question.

            I believe that I have shown that there is a distinction between sin of the flesh and sin of the will in my showing that there is nowhere in scripture which says that God hates sin – or sinners – we know in scripture that God loves sinners (John 3:16) – and yet we read of God hating evil (Romans 12:9) and hating evil doers (Psalm 5:5-6). I don’t for example believe that when Jesus is talking with the woman who has had five husbands and the one who she has now is not her husband that he is holding back feelings of revulsion – he does not because she knows she is a sinner – she knows her need for God – her sin is not wilful – it is weakness. So instead of telling her to repent he offers her living water. Her behaviour was as I explained above at one point wilful but her current behaviour is not wilful – but arises out of weakness resulting from her original decision (the same decision we all make when we first refuse to submit to God while having the ability to submit).

            I’ll have to see if I can present a more detailed Bible case… I guess I have always felt that the fact that God hates evil doers but does not hate all human beings was proof enough.

            As a starting point we see in Matthew 26:41 that a person can be willing to obey God but be weak. Does God treat unwillingness to obey him as he does sin arising from weakness accompanied by a desire to please him?

          • Expressed in other words what I am arguing is that God responds to us according to our MOTIVES. Imagine if he did not – imagine if he condemned a man for killing another man in war time as much as he condemned a man for murder? Same act – but different motives.

          • Or in the case of the woman – a state of heart NOT INCONSISTENT with pleasing a God whose grace has not until she encounters Jesus been adequately revealed to her?

          • One last thing – acts of the will are not necessarily sins of the will. Paul’s behaviour before encountering Jesus was wilful – but ignorant. To be an evil doer we must have both knowledge and motive.

            1 Timothy 1:13 ESV
            though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

  4. Q: what’s so Good about the OT? – A: it’s all about Jesus: “The OT tells the story that Jesus completes; it declares the promises of God that he fulfils; it programmes a mission that he accepted & passed on; it teaches a moral orientation to God and the world that he endorsed, sharpened and laid as the foundation for obedient discipleship”. – Christopher J H Wright, ‘Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament’, (Monarch, Oxford 2005) p.252.

    Reply
    • Hello Francis,
      That is a book recommended by the author of *Jesus on Every Page* David Murray.
      A commendation of Murray’s book is from Sinclair B Ferguson:
      “With deceptive ease Dr. David Murray brings his readers on to the Road to Emmaus for a few hours of conversation about Jesus and the Old Testament. With an enviable grace and simplicity he teaches us how to read the Old Testament as Christians. Jesus on Every Page is a book on Christ-centered biblical interpretation that doesn’t involve complex grammatical, rhetorical, or hermeneutical complexities that cause the ordinary Christian (and pastor for that matter) to glaze over and despair. Rather, as a most agreeable companion, Professor Murray walks along- side us and points out the most important landmarks we need to notice if we are to make our way through the Old Testament for ourselves and see how it points to Christ. Far from talking down to us from the lofty heights of technical Old Testament scholarship (although he is familiar with them), he tells us that he once sat where most of us sit. But then, as a quality teacher, he is able to help us learn what he himself has so obviously done. Here, then, is an ideal primer for beginners, a great refresher course for anyone who has got lost in the woods attempting to read Scripture the Emmaus Road way, and a wonderful reminder to us all that it was Jesus himself who taught us that he is at the heart of the entire Bible, and not just the righthand side of it!”

      Other recommendations from David Murray are:
      2. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament by Sidney Greidanus.
      3. Beginning at Moses by Michael Barrett.
      4. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture by Ed Clowney.
      5. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses by Vern Poythress.
      6. The Christ of the Covenants by O P Robertson.
      7. Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture by Graeme Goldsworthy.
      8. The Unfolding Mystery by Ed Clowney.
      9. The Promised One: Seeing Jesus in Genesis by Nancy Guthrie.

      Others who visit this site will be able to make other(and newer) recommendations. There is a series of New Studies in Biblical Theology, covering Old Covent Books, edited by DA Carson.

      And while there is likely to be little applause for one of Andrew Wilson’s recommended books of this year, *Providence* by John Piper will probably be a challenging read delving into scripture. It is freely downloadable (over 700 pages). I’ve not read it yet, other than the intro.

      Others have recommended “Through New Eyes”, by James B Jordan, who has been prominent in their Christian theological development. Again, freely downloadable

      Reply
      • Hello Francis and hello Geoff,

        That’s quite a list of books you put together Geoff. Anything that shows us that we should be interpreting all of scripture in the light of the cross – and which shows where types of Christ are revealed in it – is helpful in an age of liberalism.

        I was recently watching Mike Winger’s first video in a hugely long series of videos called Finding Jesus in the Old Testament (link below).
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWlpQauXiTU

        The thing that really hit me was how he explains that when we find Jesus in the Old Testament it isn’t because we are being “creative” but because the New Testament tells us where we should be finding Jesus in the Old Testament – and how we can know when our understanding is responsible.

        Reply
        • Hello Philip B.
          I’m getting lost off in the cascade of comments.
          Thank you for the link to Mike Winger. Just watched the intro, and yes, I think he’s right to be excited. It seems as though it will be a contemporary take on a theme that DA Carson has traced in church, Christian theology history in a series of lectures. It is not new.

          While I have some of the books mentioned, I’ve not read them for a while, so I’m unable to say which may specifically hone in on the cross, but I’d suggest that all longitudinal biblical themes, figures, echoes and patterns coalesce on Christ, his incarnation, life, death and resurrection (and return).

          I think that if we’ve been raised to study the bible book, by book or systematically (I wasn’t, as I wasn’t converted till 47 years old, as a solicitor, and yes to your dismay, on an Alpha Course at my doctor’s house; nevertheless I only really encountered teaching on the OT as character studies, prophesies) it is not easy to change a mindset.

          The first I encountered, was through self-directed study while studying for Local Preacher licencing in the Methodist church. It was through the trilogy of Australian Graeme Goldsworthy and his book on preaching, and an online, now defunct site, Beginning with Moses. It was all so unalike anything else I was encountering and being taught. Indeed, it seems to me that it remains either novel and or opposed in large swathes of Christianity, squeezed out on both sides, liberal and conservative.

          Then in 2010 I had a stroke and it was around that time I came across an online taught D.Phil course. Edmund Clowney and Tim Keller were the lecturers. Someone posted their own course notes. It was at that stage that the beautiful multifaceted longitudinal biblical theological study, started to come more into focus as I had more time to look into it.

          Perhaps as a primer, Jesus on Every Page comes to mind. But here is a link to a guest article by Glenn Scrivener, a UK based Australian Anglican Minister.

          https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/where-is-jesus-in-the-old-testament

          Reply
          • Interesting to hear about your background. When anyone comes to Jesus by any means I assure you I am not dismayed.

  5. Hi Ian

    I appreciate your defence of the OT. It is at heart a story of promise that leads to new creation. I would not wish to side in any way with those that detract from it. It is the word of God. However, I want to mention an emotional problem I have; I find its judgement passages hard to handle; they crush me. This has really only become a problem as I have got older (I’m 66). It is also closely tied into an ongoing depressive illness. When I am reasonably well (the illness is cyclical presently) I can cope with them fairly well but if I am tired or under the weather judgement passages in the OT or NT are difficult if they are protracted and graphic. I have been studying Revelation and find the graphic descriptions of judgement there can shake me.

    I write this because I’m sure many people particularly if they are weak mentally or physically must feel the same way. I remind myself God is good, just, and kind. He does not desire the death of any.

    Reply
    • Hi John
      I feel and believe that I deserve that judgment. But I also believe and feel that Christ has endured that judgment when he died on the cross – the doctrine and truth of penal substitution – contra Ian Paul.

      Phil Almond

      Reply
      • Philip – I don’t know Ian Paul’s view, but I’d say that the `penal’ part of `penal substitution’ doesn’t really make an awful lot of sense. Take (for example) the book of Job – the book makes it crystal clear that the trials and tribulations that Job encounter are absolutely nothing to do with getting punished for his own personal sin.

        If someone is basically `in Him’, then punishing them for their sin is basically counterproductive – a Christian is well aware of his/her sinful nature; punishment does nothing to bring this to his/her attention or knock the sin out of the person.

        My views on quite a lot of these things were shaped by a series of lectures I heard in 1985 by Jurgen Moltmann (the Gifford lectures at Edinburgh University) and the series was published in a book entitled `God in Creation’.

        I’ll try to summarise briefly (and in a way that doesn’t do any justice at all) one of the chapters. He’s dealing with the question of where does an omnipresent God put the creation, especially when the creation is outside God – and how does the creation cohere with the idea of a perfect God (when there is clearly imperfection).

        He quoted someone (name I can’t remember) who came up with the idea that the first creative act of God was, in an act of self-humiliation, to create a God-forsaken space, outside God, where he could put his creation. This explains the presence of radical evil in the world. In the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus somehow enters into this God-forsaken space and pulls us out of it.

        Holy Scripture doesn’t go into the details of this, but it doesn’t seem commensurate with the idea that God thinks we need to have our bottoms spanked until they turn purple and that this punishment was instead inflicted on Jesus.

        Reply
        • I do not recognise this understanding of Penal Substitution… Though I do recognise it as a common parody. Aka Steve Chalk I think…

          And “bottoms spanked” you’re right there… It’s not in scripture.

          Reply
          • Ian – well, perhaps you could explain what `Penal Substitution’ is supposed to mean (at least your understanding of it). It sounds dodgy to me.

            I do accept Isaiah 53v5, but the term `Penal Substitution’ would imply God doing the wounding – and this doesn’t seem correct to me.

            I’ve never heard of Steve Chalk – my apologies – so could you link to what you are referring to?

        • Jock
          The point is that we all deserve condemnation: katakrima defined by Strong

          katakrima: penalty
          Original Word: κατάκριμα, ατος, τό
          Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
          Transliteration: katakrima
          Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ak’-ree-mah)
          Definition: penalty
          Usage: punishment following condemnation, penal servitude, penalty.

          See Romans 5:16, 5:18, 8:1
          And there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (8:1) because Christ endured the penalty we deserve on the Cross.

          Phil Almond

          Reply
          • Philip – yes, but …. in none of the verses you mention does it explicitly state that God is actively doing the punishing.

            I think that is the point where I have the difficulty – and I prefer solutions where the `he was pierced’ of Isaiah 53v5 can be kept in the passive voice.

          • Indeed… Phil. Agreed

            Re Jock: (reply link exhausted)

            Who punishes? Surely only one has the moral right…. and *in Christ* he was reconciling the world to himself “. Penal Substitution isn’t to do with an angry and bitter God.

            Though beware….. Our God” isn’t a tame lion ” (CS Lewis I think)

            Matthew” Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

            And ” Our God is a consuming fire”

          • Hi Jock

            Romans 2:5-11, 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10, Matthew 13:36-43, Romans 8:3, Matthew 25:41-46, Isaiah 53:10…and others

            Phil Almond

        • Hi Jock,

          I know you’ve read my long initial post in which I explain that God’s justice is always motivated by if possible creating the conditions under which it will be possible to offer mercy.

          I believe this is key. If we don’t see this we will understandably baulk at this idea of punishment. But the area in which we have things wrong is not in respect of the existence of God punishing sin – but in respect of his MOTIVES in doing so.

          Whatever we think about penal substitution it must be part of a coherent defendable understanding of God’s justice. God’s being just means that he MUST reward righteousness and he must punish wrongdoing. If the cross isn’t God’s punishing sin then it separates ways from God’s justice – which would mean that we had good reason to believe that even after the cross we still do not have the hope of having any standing before God.

          What is the cross if it isn’t holiness, justice, mercy and grace? If it isn’t justice God would simply announce “you are all forgiven” – there would not be any need for Jesus to die.

          Reply
          • Philip – thanks for yours.

            I’m not going with the reward and punishment. I think of the cross as God dealing with sin and conquering sin (in a way that I don’t understand, but I trust him), so that in Him, we are more than conquerors.

            I can try to explain it through Romans 7v21-25

            So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

            When Paul is describing the condition of a Christian (he’s writing in first person singular, present tense) I really don’t see how punishment comes into the equation. Christ dealing with sin on our behalf, conquering it, so that we have the victory and we know that in Him we are rescued from the body of death yes – but punishment? I don’t see it.

            The purpose of the creation is to create a Holy community. Many do not want to be holy, they reject God etc ….

            But I don’t see how punishment really forms part of the way that God deals with a believer, such as Paul, who delights in God’s law, but at the same time sees the law of sin at work within him. Here, I can’t see that punishment plays any role at all in driving out the law of sin.

          • In case it helps God’s anger is NOT directed at all sin. There is sin of the flesh and sin of the will. Sin of the flesh is sin arising from weakness – God is not angered by weakness – he IDENTIFIES with weakness. He is DRAWN to weakness. He will however often be angered by the evil which is able to flourish because of it.
            That leaves sin of the will. This is when we are free to worship God – because grace is available to enable us to turn to him – and we do not. God feels anger towards this sin.
            There was a time – we know from the fact that we are all are sinners – when you were not a slave to the flesh and yet you chose (an act of will) to rebel against God. It’s not an amazing coincidence that everyone on earth chose this – the reason we have is because the presence of sin in the world has made people more susceptible to making this choice. It is this sin of yours and mine which Jesus is angered by – and which his justice must punish.
            Whilst I have made this distinction it isn’t correct to say that Jesus has only died for people’s rebellion and not their sin. Instead we should see the existence of all sin as arising from a choice in each of us – an act of the will – not to submit God.
            If with this qualification and what I explained above about the motives for ALL of God’s justice is of no help to you I cannot see anything else to suggest other than to say – brother – your rebellion is obnoxious to God and his justice must punish it.

        • ‘Holy Scripture doesn’t go into the details of this, but it doesn’t seem commensurate with the idea that God thinks we need to have our bottoms spanked until they turn purple and that this punishment was instead inflicted on Jesus.’

          When an idea doesn’t seem commensurate with Holy Scripture – I’ll stick with Holy Scripture thank you!

          Reply
          • Hi Jean,

            Thank you for taking me forward again! Let me explain in what way. I hope you will not mind my including you in on my ruminations.

            I have been saying on this forum that there is nowhere in the Bible where God is said to hate sin – we do however see that God is said to hate evil and hate evil doers. But whilst this is still my conclusion something has been troubling me – we are told that Jesus’ death on the cross is his becoming sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God. And we know that the cross is God’s wrath poured out against sin. Shouldn’t these two things combine to lead us to conclude that God hates sin? And if he does why would he not also hate sinners – as he hates evil doers?

            What your James passage has helped me to see is that the existence of sin in our lives is always proof that we have at some point WILFULLY chosen to live opposed to God. And God hates all wilful sin. However this wilful sin isn’t the same as someone showing wilful contempt for God’s love shown in the cross – it isn’t “evil doing” – at least it isn’t until someone experiences God’s grace in the creation or the cross and responds in way to either which God considers inadequate. All the same however this is what breaking one part of the law being breaking all of it means. If we had not sinned wilfully at some point we would be without sin. It has suddenly hit me – your passage is proof that there is no such thing as original sin – or otherwise it would be possible to say that someone’s sin could ALWAYS be only sin of the flesh and therefore hasn’t ever been an expression of breaking the whole law. There is no doctrine of original sin so the existence of sin in any person should be considered evidence of their having chosen to set their life course against God at some point in their lives – even if only for a moment.

            So your James 2:10-11 is the bit that I was missing. I hadn’t adequately revealed the relationship of sin and evil doing.

            So – if it isn’t clear – I believe that your verses add to – instead of defeat – my view – but if you believe my conclusions are wrong or could be said better I look forward to hearing from you.

            I am making this distinction between sin of the flesh and sin of the will but I haven’t shown what words in scripture are used to refer to each. I have noticed that there seemed to be references to sin of the flesh as if it was evil – maybe your bible passage has led to my understanding this better too! Anyway this needs to be fully followed through.

            Finally your input – and your talking about God’s holiness – has I believe led me to see the nature of God’s holiness more clearly. I am arguing that God’s holiness ISN’T intolerant of sin of the flesh – because God identifies with weakness (though he will likely be angered by evil that is able to flourish because of sin) – he doesn’t have contempt for weakness. He does however have hatred for evil which is wilful contempt for his love.

            Thanks again. I hope to meet you one day – as you repeatedly show me the way ahead. I think it would be great if at least some people on this forum were able to gather at a suitable gathering point – I will let Ian be the one to lead on that if he is interested – I sense that God is doing something really important here.

          • The above comment should have been posted in reply to a different comment of Jean Shepherd’s. Apologies – will also post there.

    • Hi John,
      I know I should not meddle with the interpretation of scripture done by hard working theologians but I found Revelation stunningly different when I looked at the passages about judgement in revelation differently. Usually the hard nosed Evangelical is happy to see the wicked purged by the pouring out of the bowls of wrath but I read it as the suffering endured by Christ on our behalf. Jesus is the Land over which the bowls are poured. The frogs are Caiaphas, Herod and Pilate. The Great City is the Trinity broken in three. The whole narrative seems to be the first hand account of the Holy Spirit’s experience of the crucifixion. Of course this idea can be shot down immediately but I think, because Revelation is ABOUT Jesus everything in it can be read from this perspective.
      Safe in Him, look at the victory won. He identified with us, took on our sin, became sin for us. The identity of the wicked earth becomes Him.
      As Nathan said to David — You will not die for your sin. Your [greater] son will die instead.
      I loosely translate in a NT fashion!
      I suggest reading Revelation as if it is narrated by the Spirit. He is the Angel bringing the message. The Horn and Eye of fire.

      Reply
    • Hi John,

      I am sorry that you are suffering from a depressive illness.

      I want to run an idea by you in case it’s of any value. It may not be – but if you can just let it pass by if it is not helpful then that frees me to offer it.

      Depression can have medical causes – but one non-medical cause of depression is that it is due to turning anger inwards.

      When reading your comment – which refers to your specifically reacting to examples of God’s judgement – and your dealing with depression – I was thinking it might be helpful to ask you whether you have explored this link between anger and depression.

      Why might someone want to turn their anger inwards? They would if they weren’t convinced that their own anger could possibly be well motivated – when it may be. What is well motivated anger? The cross shows us – it’s anger that is quickly turned into action (Ephesians 4:26) in order to be directed to good purpose. But what if our anger is not well motivated? We aren’t actually entitled to ask that question – to make judgements about ourselves. We are supposed to live trusting that God will show us things about ourselves as and when he believes that it is for our good – and while trusting God to consider all of our emotions as potentially useful.

      I have argued elsewhere here that we must view ALL of God’s justice – even when it is rage – even when it is vengeance – as always being consistent with God’s wishing to if possible create the circumstances in which it will be possible to offer mercy. We are supposed to look at all of scripture through the lens of the cross so whether or not the motives of God are revealed in a particular bible passage we are entitled to import motives from those revealed in the cross. I find it hard to imagine that if you believed that God’s anger was ALWAYS seeking if possible to lead people back to himself – and always expressed in a way that seeks to bring that about – I believe that you would embrace passages of scripture in which God judges as edifying – as food for your soul.

      Most evangelicals believe that God’s justice has different motives at different times – at one minute retributive – at another restorative. But that’s not possible. It isn’t because God is unchanging in ALL his character attributes (including his justice) and never externally influenced – which means there is no event which can cause God’s motives for acting to change.

      God bless you.

      Reply
  6. Article V11, of 39 Articles:
    VII. Of the Old Testament
    The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

    Reply
  7. One point that wasn’t mentioned about the Old Testament – the presentation of God alluded to in the original post (vindictive and cruel) is not bourne out by the characters whom we encounter.

    The patriarchs were a bunch of rotters, every single one of them – and yet they are men of God.

    Also – consider the character of Noah. He is a very real and believable character – and why? Because the first thing he did after he got out of the arc was to get himself a decent drink. And, as everybody who has experimented with their own home-brew knows full well, the drink is even better if you have made it yourself. As soon as he got out of the arc, he planted a vineyard and as soon as it was ready, he turned it into wine.

    While the stories surrounding the characters may be allegorical, I believe that the characters themselves, the men and women of God, are real people – and the stories we are told about them give deep insight into their characters.

    In the Old Testament, we see the `special revelation’, the `once for all’ event, applied to the most unlikely of sinners.

    If you look at the `vindictive’ passages, which were probably the output of Levitical priests, stating who should be put to death, it becomes completely clear that every single one of the patriarchs should have been put to death if these rules had been rigorously applied. But they weren’t.

    Reply
    • The patriarchs were a bunch of sinners – it does not follow that they were a bunch of rotters. We are responsible for our sin – but we are not our sin. Our sinful nature is distinct from us – and so is our new nature – that’s why we are told to “put on our new nature” (Ephesians 4:24). If pre-conversion we are totally depraved** – as Calvinism teaches it is the same thing as saying that we ARE our sinful nature. It brings with it all the associated shame and it would mean that we would not have any reliable means of knowing if we have been saved (unless our being saved means that we literally become someone else in which case I guess we would know that we had become someone else!).

      It should be clear then that when a self-interested preacher doesn’t wish to tell people that they are sinners out of relationship with God because he doesn’t want to shame them he is either confused or ill motivated.

      So there is us, our sinful nature, and our new nature. Three separate things. Which is why the gospel can be summarised by the statement “Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will lift you up”. We CAN humble ourselves.

      Your points about Noah led me to conclude that Australians (I am Australian) could relate well to him.

      **There is a sense in which under Calvinism we are totally depraved AFTER conversion – in that we remain incapable of doing any righteous act which isn’t the predetermined consequence of an impartation of grace.

      Reply
      • ‘we are totally depraved AFTER conversion – in that we remain incapable of doing any righteous act which isn’t the predetermined consequence of an impartation of grace.’ Doesn’t this make any discussion about whether the patriarchs were good or bad all rather irrelevant? Genuine question.

        Reply
      • Jean – I don’t think so. There are certain things that are written on the hearts and minds of people. For example, the principle of one man and one woman is a creation ordinance, yet Jacob had *two* wives. With Abraham, he was even given an express commandment, nevertheless had a child with Hagar. In all these situations, we see the division and rancour in the family life which resulted in the deviation from the creation ordinance.

        I don’t think that Judah needed a Levitical priest to tell him that intercourse with a prostitute was wrong; Levi and Simeon were well aware that the bloodshed they caused (Dinah and the Shechemites) was indefensible.

        I’d say that they were all well aware of the moral standard.

        Yet these people are the patriarchs, men of God.

        Reply
    • The patriarchs were a bunch of rotters, every single one of them – and yet they are men of God. … It becomes completely clear that every single one of the patriarchs should have been put to death if these rules had been rigorously applied.
      You are not very charitable, are you. This seems to me completely over the top (and symptomatic of a less than impartial state of mind as you pronounce upon the OT). Perhaps you could quote provisions of the Law to support your statement that Noah (which God elsewhere, Ezek 14:14, cites as one of the most righteous men that ever lived), Abraham and Isaac, to name but three, would have been put to death under the Law. Even if you can, what about Rom 4:2f, 4:15, 5:13 and all Paul’s reasoning inbetween? And Hebrews’ emphasis on faith, even in Noah’s case (Heb 11:7)?

      And perhaps you could go on to indicate which scriptures characterise the sons of Jacob as ‘men of God’ (men of faith?) in some qualitative sense. That they were all flawed characters is not in dispute.

      Reply
      • Steven Robinson – apologies – I tend not to proof-text.

        But I think you missed the basic point that I was trying to make – that the OT should actually give encouragement to sinners. If we start to believe that our personal sin is so bad that we can’t possibly see the kingdom of heaven, then we need only look to the OT for characters who are even more flawed. At the same time, they were people of faith, who however flawed they may have been, were in the number of the Saviour’s family.

        Revelation, chapter 4, the 24 thrones are generally taken to signify the 12 patriarchs (sons of Jacob) of the Old Testament and 12 apostles of the NT. I’d say that this suggests that they were men of God – which is somewhat amazing given the stories that we are told about them in the book of Genesis.

        Yes – the way I expressed it was over the top. At the same time, it is very difficult to find examples of `good’ characters in the OT – they all have some glaring fault – and at the same time were people of faith – and the fact that the OT is like this is clearly by design and not by accident.

        Reply
        • I don’t know that the characters in the OT are even more flawed than we, and in any case Paul’s argument in Romans overrides all that. He indicates that whether we enter the kingdom of God has nothing to do with our degree of sinfulness. But if the basic point is that Genesis (which seems to be the part you are thinking of) does not portray those singled out for mention as moral heroes, fine. It is indeed encouraging.

          Regarding Rev 4, I don’t actually agree with the interpretation proposed (which I accept is common). The 12 sons of Jacob were never described as ‘elders’, and John, an apostle (in my opinion the author of Revelation), was not among the 24 elders since he was a bystander looking at them. Better to interpret the group as representing all Israel, OT and Gentile/Jewish NT, as suggested by the elders themselves (Rev 5:9-10).

          Reply
  8. *Pierced For our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution*: Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach.
    Here is an overview of the book, tracing the doctrine and opposition to penal substitution.

    https://banneroftruth.org/uk/resources/book-review-resources/2007/pierced-for-our-transgressions/

    Here are the last two paragraphs of the overview:

    “Some who believe in penal substitution have replied by pointing out that Christ suffered willingly, or by noting that God gave himself in Christ to suffer in our place. But while these things are gloriously true, neither actually answers the objection. If guilty sinners are acquitted and an innocent third party is punished, then irrespective of his willingness an injustice has been committed, and it is unthinkable that God would do such a thing.

    How are we to respond? The flaw in the argument is the unstated premise that Christ is unrelated to the believer, an unconnected third party. This is not true, for believers are in union with Christ ““ he is in us, and we are in him, indwelt by his Spirit (e.g. John 17:21; Romans 6:5; 8:1; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 1:27; Philippians 1:1). It is for this reason that the imputation of our guilt to Christ and his righteousness to us, his punishment and our acquittal, are just in the sight of God. The apostle Paul captures both sides of the exchange in a single verse: ‘God made him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).”

    Reply
  9. Here are my seven reasons to study the Old Testament today alongside the New:

    1. God made the world and made man, who rebelled against God in a prehistoric treason and polluted himself. The rest is about God moving to restore things.
    2. The Old Testament contains prophecies that have not come true yet.
    3. The Old Testament prophesies Jesus; he said that the scriptures of his day spoke about him. (A Bible with cross-references is helpful.)
    4. The New Testament explains how God relates to individuals; the Old Testament reveals more how he relates to nations.
    5. The Old Testament tells how the Jews agreed to obey laws that God gave. Those laws are for running a nation in the ancient Near East (Israel), not a church comprising volunteers, so Christians need obey mainly only those laws relating to interpersonal morality. Nevertheless the original laws are God’s guide to sin and righteousness. We can learn a lot about God and man from the Jewish law and how difficult it was to obey; people in the Bible have the same concerns as ourselves.
    6. Bible study is the study of one’s own story, and how can one not wish to learn that – the Old Testament as well as the New, for Christians are grafted spiritually into Israel.
    7. Jesus’ words are nearly all easy to understand, because he spoke most of them to everyday folk; but a few of his sayings are hard for us to understand, because his culture is different from ours. Then you need to know what his words would have meant to his listeners – who were mainly Jews soaked in the Old Testament. (For example: ‘god’ means something different to Hindus, who believe in many gods that did not create the world.)

    Reply
    • Generally in broad agreement Anton. However re no. 4 : both Gospels and Epistles are, I think, still orientated communally ( the Gospels having strong allusions concerning contemporary Jewish beliefs and practices [or the corruption of them]; and Epistles highlighting, for example relationships within the Christian communities. Which brings me to another point : the role of God’s covenants; first to Israel and then by extension to the church( or as you have said – by grafting). The Covenants reveal the real nature of God’s redeeming love and His ultimate purposes. They also elaborate the requirements placed upon His covenant people.

      Reply
  10. Ian Hobbs – approximately 10 – 15 years ago I might have agreed with what I think you mean by `Penal Substitution’ – and back then I would have been able to quote large numbers of verses from Paul’s letter to the Romans, the gospel according to St Matthew, etc … etc … etc …, but now I’m afraid that it fundamentally doesn’t make sense to me any more.

    Yes – we’re agreed on basic things – because of my personal transgressions, the once-for-all event was necessary. If I could have repented of my sins, turned from them and gone and sinned no more, then the crucifixion would not have been necessary. Christ was crucified because of my transgressions – and because there has not been a single person, other than Jesus, in the whole of creation, who could repent of their sins, turn from them and sin no more.
    We all agree on that.

    The point of disagreement is where it is God who is punishing Jesus. I simply don’t see this. I do see, in the once-for-all event, God (in the second person of the Trinity) reaching into the God forsaken space (so that he cries `God, why have you forsaken me?’) and dealing with sin once and for all. Ugly, yes – but I cannot understand it in terms of God (the father) punishing God (the son), because that simply does not make sense to me.

    I do not understand it in the context of Jesus praying to God asking to have the cup taken away from him – with the conclusion that, in harmony with God the father, Jesus was ready for the task.

    Scripture does not state that God (the father) actively punished Jesus – it falls short of expressing it in this way – and none of the verses that Phil quoted had God actively punishing Jesus in the crucifixion.

    So either I have misunderstood the doctrine of `Penal Substitution’ or else I don’t accept it.

    Reply
    • Hi Jock
      Sorry – only two of the texts I gave support the doctrine of penal substitution (Romans 8:3 and Isaiah 53:10). The rest support the doctrine of eternal retribution on the unsaved. My full case for penal substitution can be found at

      1. Philip Almond
      March 7, 2017 at 4:43 pm | Reply
      https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/on-the-cross-when-jesus-died-was-the-wrath-of-god-satisfied/comment-page-3/#comment-344392

      It includes the following comment on Romans 8:3:

      7 Condemned sin in the flesh
      ‘For the impossible thing of the law, in which it was weak through the flesh, God sending the Son of himself in likeness of flesh of sin and concerning sin condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the ordinance of the law may be fulfilled in us the[ones] not according to flesh walking but according to Spirit’ (Romans 8:3)

      Conservative exegetes differ about what Paul means in this statement. John Murray thinks that ‘condemned sin in the flesh’ refers to the breaking of the powers of sin. I am not sure what Cranfield’s view is: pages 382-383 Volume 1 of his commentary.
      Schreiner: ‘The sacrificial death of the Son of God, therefore, was the means by which sin was condemned. He took upon himself the punishment that those who violated God’s law deserved’ (page 403)
      Moo: ‘The interpretation that best meets the criteria above sees the condemnation of sin to consist in God’s executing his judgment on sin in the atoning death of his Son. As our substitute, Christ “was made sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21) and suffered the wrath of God, the judgment of God upon that sin…’ (page 481)
      Lloyd-Jones: ‘The expression “for sin” carries in it the notion of ‘a sacrifice for sin’, which is the central teaching of the Apostle everywhere. This is the gospel in which he rejoices, that God has established the way of salvation for us by what He has done in the sacrifice of His Son, the one whom He has ‘set forth to be a propitiation’, as he has already told us in chapter 3, verses 25 and 26’
      I think Moo, Schreiner and Lloyd-Jones are right; This view of the verse explains why in 8:1, ‘then there is now no condemnation to the[ones] in Christ Jesus’

      Phil Almond

      Reply
      • Hello Philip,

        I kind of regret having picked up on this, because I have the feeling that I’m basically interfering with a discussion – which is supposed to be about the Old Testament. Anyway, for what it is worth, here are notes I made on Romans 8v3 which are (more or less) a summary of James Philip. You can attribute the good bits to him – and the errors to me.

        I stop well short of stating that God (the father) actually punished Jesus (the Son). God condemned the sin, in the person of the Son, which was our sin that he was bearing on our behalf. He condemned the sin – I don’t see Paul saying that he punished the Son.

        What God has done in having `condemned sin in sinful man’ is the basis of the Spirit’s work. It is this condemnation of sin in sinful man that is supplied to the believer’s experience, setting him free. The law could not do this, as Paul showed at great length
        (Romans 7v7-25), not through any inherent weakness of its own, but through having been pressed into service by sin and turned into something that, by its own nature, it is not; namely, a destroying power. But what the law could not do, God has done in Christ.

        `Condemned sin in sinful man’ does not mean `express moral disapproval’; the law was able to do that. It is God’s condemnation of sin, in the person of his Son and above all, in his death that is in view. `Condemned’ is an executive word and means that sin in sinful man has been judicially sentenced to death and its power taken away.

        ***********
        Paul is thinking in terms of justification rather than sanctification. The way in which the righteousness of the law is once for all fulfilled in us is by the imputation of Christ’s righteous to us, by faith. Significantly, though, Paul adds the words `who do not live according to the sinful nature, but according to the Spirit.’ They indicate that when the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us by imputation, we are also placed in a new sphere. A justified person necessarily begins to live `according to the Spirit’, which is
        the only real evidence that the person has been justified at all. These two things always go together in Paul’s thinking: Until a person is justified, the person cannot be holy. A person who is not holy cannot possibly be justified. When the burden of guilt is lifted from a person, that person is thereby set free from prison and bondage and starts to live a new life, a life `according to the Spirit’.
        ***********

        Reply
      • Jock Thanks for replying

        I stand my essay. To me the cumulative elements of the case I make are quite convincing.

        Phil Almond

        Reply
        • You will seize any opportunity to push your ‘eternal retribution’ idea, but there is no scriptural support for that whatsoever.

          Reply
          • I recall another reader referring a few days ago to the practice of citing proof texts – in the present case without so much as a word of explanation – ‘to bolster particular brands of theological juggling’.

            Rev 14:9-11 warns of the terrible consequences of receiving the mark of the beast etc. Since the beast has still not made himself known, this text cannot support your belief that everyone since the time of Jesus (if not Creation) who does not believe in him will suffer ‘eternal retribution’. The phrase does not appear in Revelation or anywhere else in the Bible, so you are at liberty to invest it with whatever horrors you like. Evidently you think it means being tormented forever and ever, and that Jesus and the angels will stand in front of them forever and ever while they suffer (notwithstanding that a few chapters later we read of the old earth passing away, and there being no more curse, and Death and Hades themselves being consumed in the fire).

            I am moved to reflect on how the same words in Scripture can get interpreted in such different ways. How is that? Often it has nothing to do with how intelligent or faithful a reader is, so that the more intelligent/faithful you are, the more theologically correct you are. A lot of the differences have to do with personality and character. For example, some people are naturally disposed to take (shall we say) a rosy Dane Ortlund view of the gospel, where aspects of Jesus inconsistent with their understanding of gentleness and lowliness are downplayed, because they hate conflict, hate disagreement, wish suffering to be avoided at all costs, and can’t imagine that anyone will perish when he comes before the throne. They value inclusiveness and kindness and tolerance above everything and perhaps it is in such a milieu that they have been brought up. Others have personalities which are differently oriented and, partly for that reason, are more open to the less palatable aspects of the revealed totality of God that we find in Scripture. Others, again because of personality but in my experience few in number, are not in the least disturbed by the idea of Jesus and the angels watching the damned being tormented for all eternity. It’s not they are more insightful or faithful, but they just don’t register any moral dissonance and are therefore not moved to look for a less gruesome vision.

            I won’t try to explain the meaning of these verses any further as, in my experience, anything I say by way of tempering your understanding just does not penetrate. (You may recall previous exchanges.) But anyone else interested in a less absolute understanding of ‘eternal punishment’ and such words might click on my name and scroll down to the text beginning just before the topographic map.

          • Hi Steven,
            I hope that you are surviving the British weather.
            I read the information at the link via your name and am replying with specific focus on the paragraph that begins with the word “Eternal” and the one following it.
            I have no reason to doubt your analysis to do with some things which are described as being eternal being not in fact eternal (however I haven’t yet done any analysis to verify what you say – I’m planning to get some bible software which will enable me to do such things). However can you clarify how you can conclude that hell is not eternal (or if this is not what the paragraph that begins with the word “Everything” is intended to mean can you clarify what it means?) in the light of Matthew 25:46?

            ESV
            And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

            I also note that your analysis is related to how you see human beings – as not being more than dust and therefore not being immortal. You say “Man’s soul is not immortal. In the beginning, God formed his body from the dust of the ground. Only after God breathed spirit into his nostrils did he become a living soul”. I have responded to you on that in a different article – I wondered because you did not reply whether you saw it. I was asking you to following your view through. How does Adam and Eve relate to God if they have no spiritual dimension, what then is the fall if they weren’t in relationship with God in Eden? And what does Christ’s death on the cross intended to achieve – since there has been no rebellion if there has been no relationship?

            Hi Phil Almond – whilst I am engaging with Steven on the eternal issue I am hoping to have an understanding of how you see the retribution component. I have argued here and previously that all of God’s character attributes are unchanging – never externally influenced. This means that our doctrine of hell must – if scripture does present God’s holiness and justice as unchanging and God to never be changed by people – be harmonised with both God’s holiness and justice. With that in mind I therefore ask you to clarify how you see God’s motives in relation to justice – I’m hoping that if you support my view that there can only be one motive for God’s justice at all times that you will present me with an answer for how God’s justice is motivated at all times – including in respect of hell (hell cannot be an exception – I just argued that the behaviour of human beings does not have the power to cause God to behave contrary to his unchanging nature). Thanks and have a good evening.

          • To clarify Phil Almond – I believe in torment – in the existing of suffering which appears purely vindictive unless seen in the light of man’s sin – and I believe that God acts with vengeance – however my doctrine of God’s justice requires me to also think of God’s punishment of sin as always proportional (I am able to do this by seeing hell as punishment for eternal sin instead of eternal punishment for sin – those in hell go on sinning and therefore go on being punished) – and never inconsistent with his always seeking to restore people whenever it’s possible. I would therefore not choose to use the word retribution for fear that it would not preserve the unchanging motives present in the justice of God. I hope that makes sense.

          • I regret using the word proportional – I don’t mean that God’s justice is a question of quantity according to the seriousness of people’s sin – all rebellion against God is serious. Although quantity does come into it – God must do enough (and not more as part of his mercy) to cause people to come to their senses and turn to him.

  11. There is a dialogical character to the scriptures that has not been noted here. For example, the way the wisdom tradition, like Job, critiques the more firm ‘certainties’ of the dominant Deuteronomic voices – do good and you will be blessed, do bad and you will be cursed. Or the way Samuel, Kings and Chronicles offering quite contrasting perspectives on Israel’s history.
    I think this is found in the relationship between NT to OT. For whenever the NT quotes or alludes to OT texts they change them, conceptually or literally, in nearly every case. Jesus at Nazareth – both what he reads and how he preaches on the text – is a very striking example of this.

    Reply
    • I think that is a very good point David. It’s almost as if Jesus when alluding to OT texts is often taking them deeper and in another direction.

      Reply
    • Thank you David, for adding to the weight, for reading the Old Covenants/Testament.
      It is also a reminder of further reasons: they are the scriptures Jesus read and studied,(his Bible) as a precocious youngster, and later as teacher with authority.
      He also read it aloud, in synagogue and audaciously applied it to himself as fulfilment.
      If Jesus did so, how much more do we?
      I know that you are aware that there is far more to wisdom literature than a false dichotomy based on works, such as wealth and health being as sign of God’s favour and blessing, poverty and ill health a sign of sin and disfavour.
      I hope this article will be a stimulus for look at the OT in some greater depth.

      Reply
  12. Re the relationship between NT and OT : ” For whenever the NT quotes or alludes to OT texts they change them, conceptually or literally,in nearly every case” [David Runcorn].
    Even allowing for the fact that Jesus declares that He had “not come to abolish the Law or the prophets but to fulfill them. ” , this could mean to “deepen them” (among other things) ; but where does it say he had come to “change” them? Or where does it say he had come to take them in “another direction” [Chris Bishop].
    For example, does it mean that God’s everlasting and unconditional covenant with Abraham is no longer everlasting (eternal?) or unconditional (Genesis 17:7-8)? In which case ,say, everlasting doesn’t actually mean everlasting.
    Or are we thinking of more contemporary issues such as SSM or issues pertaining to gender definitions? Genesis chs.1 – 3 (and , of course, Gen. ch 17) are an integral part of the Torah, so it would be good to know how our Lord proceeded to “change” the ground rules; especially if we are being led in “another direction”!

    Reply
  13. I wondered how long it would be until SSM and gender issues crept into this discussion.. What I meant Colin, is that Jesus often interprets the OT scriptures in ways that were not familiar to their hearers and puts a different slant on their meaning. So for example in his dialogue with the Sadducees (Mark 12 v 18-27), Jesus talks about marriage and the resurrection being a nonissue since he says that ‘they will be like angels’. However to reinforce his point, he then quotes apparently unrelated OT passages about Moses and the burning bush as proof that” God is not the God of the dead but of the living, for to him all are alive”. Now I would imagine that to the average Jewish Sadducee, the passage about Moses and the burning bush is about God introducing himself to Moses so Moses knows which God he is speaking to. It means just that. Nothing about resurrection here. To the Sadducees, there is no obvious connection.

    But Jesus takes this passage in a new direction and shows them that there is i.e. Jesus is God talking to them now, just as God was talking to Moses then. He invariably used OT scriptures creatively in ways that highlighted Himself and did not stick to what their ‘plain meaning’ might state. He then rebukes them for not knowing the Scriptures!

    And then there are the passages when Jesus says ‘you have heard that it was said – but I say ..’ taking OT passages and directing them to their inverse. Matt 5:38-39 is one example that comes to mind. Jesus certainly fulfilled the scriptures- but not in ways that were expected of Him and I would venture to say, of us.

    Reply
    • Chris Of course Jesus does not give the “plain meaning” in this setting . The Sadducees denied the possibility of the resurrection and Jesus, being Jewish, is answering them in a manner that they will (hopefully) understand. He challenges their ignorance of the Scriptures. He then takes an OT passage and confronts them with a developed understanding. But this is not the same as changing the meaning to interpret it in such a way as to amend the original intention of its authors. The Word of God is being enlarged but not altered.

      Reply
  14. Th 24 elders of Revelation seem to me to be echoed in 2 Samuel where the 12 warriors from the 10 tribes fought the 12 warriors of Judah. The dance of Manahaim . Around the throne in Rev. they are not fighting but unified in worship. Representing the true Israel of God. Another instance where something in Revelation is alluded to in the OT and given new meaning.

    Reply
  15. No it’s not changing the meaning but directing it to himself. As for Matt 5:38:39 then Jesus has changed and reversed the injunction given in Lev 24:19-21.

    Reply
  16. Hello Chris,
    Agree that Jesus is directing it to himself. It is suggested that He’s not changing Leviticus, the proportionality of the law in contrast to the surrounding pagan cultures, rather, is he not redirecting the letter of the law to absorbing the principle bodily into himself (a life for a life; that is the substitutionary principle of the sacrificial system) as the One who took the blows and beatings, loved his enemies even to death, perfect even as the Father is perfect.
    I’d say this, is teaching in Matthew is Jesus foreshadowing the cross. Completely counter cultural, then and even more so today, and in complete contrast to pagan gods.

    As put by DA Carson in his book, Jesus Sermon on the Mount And His Confrontation with the World – (The OT law here was given to the nation to be applied judicially as a one of restraint. To be applied personally.
    “… Jesus is speaking in Matt 5:38-42 of personal abuse and personal self-sacrifice, using the misunderstanding of the OT law as his starting point. The four examples he gives bears this out…
    “The legalistic mentality which dwells on so-called fairness makes much of one’s rights.
    “What Jesus is saying in these verses, more than anything else, is that his followers have no rights.
    ” They do not have the right to retaliate and wreck their vengeance v39, to their possessions v40, time and money v41ff. Even their legal rights may sometimes be abandoned…

    ” Personal self-sacrifice displaces personal retaliation: for this is the way the Saviour himself went, the way of the cross…
    “And the way of the cross, not notions of right and wrong, is the Christian’s principle of conduct.”

    Reply
    • Hi Geoff,
      Thanks for your reply. I do take your point. However, I would argue that to the hearers who were steeped in the Law, they would see a complete change in teaching as to what they previously understood as an injunction given by God through Moses, regarding retaliation.

      Reply
  17. Indeed, Chris,
    Jesus hones in on the principle or purpose or nature of the law, into which the letter of the law is drafted and to be understood. So rather than a complete change to the letter of the law (which remained intact) it is, in effect, his authoritative judicial decision, pronouncement of the law and its application. They had massively got the restraining nature law wrong,
    Carson writes this:
    “By Jesus day, however, both these fundamentals (given primarily as restraint and given to the Hebrew people as a nation not designed to by discharged by individuals swept up in personal vendettas, but by the judiciary) were frequently overlooked. It became all too easy to see the law as prescriptive and only marginally restrictive. The question then became. How far may my personal retaliation extend, without breaking the law? Worse, the law was thus being dragged into the personal arena, where it could scarcely foster even rough justice, but only bitterness, vengeance, malice, hatred.”
    “Jesus responds with sweeping authority

    Reply

Leave a comment