Old Testament Wrath

[ServantOfOurLord]

Hello everyone, this is my first post. And I know this is a question that has been asked (sort of) a lot of times before but I have never found a good answer, so I want to ask in my own way to perhaps get more clarification on the issue.
The Old Testament (as well as Revelation of the New Testament) shows God doing some really terrifying things. As examples I'll point out genocide, forced labor, plagues and pestilence, famine and cannibalism, as well as drowning in the flood, which is a terrible experience as well.
So the question isn't "why does God do these things?" that everyone seems to ask, because that's been answered before. And every answer I have seen is something to the effect of "God had to because...". For instance, in the Genocide of the Amalekites, people say that they were so bad, and such a threat to the Jews that there was no other way. But I wonder then, doesn't that limit God's omnipotence? If God can do anything, and I mean anything, then why didn't he get the Amalekites to stop attacking some other way?
Really, how it seems to me, and I don't really want to believe it, is that God could have done it some other way, because he is definitely smarter than me and can come up with all sorts of plans given his ability to do anything, yet he chose to solve that problem with genocide instead. It seems as though it wasn't that God wasn't able to do something else, but rather that he chose to do it in that way. Which would mean that God wanted to have the Jews commit genocide.
I mean he could have just smote them himself in a sort of mercy killing instead of having the Jews kill them with swords, or the Jews could have adopted at least the infants who had no idea what their parents were doing and wouldn't have grown up to be like them without their parent's influence. God, I'm sure, could have thought up a lot of other plans that would have protected the Jews that I could never dream of, but those are some possibilities.
And then this follows for all the other bad things in the Old Testament. People were tortured with slavery, plagues, pestilence, famine, and cannibalism, because God wanted to do those things, and not because there was no other way for an omnipotent God to handle them.
So to break it all down into a simple question (way too simplified I know), why does God want to be cruel to humans, and how can he still be a loving God if he does? Or if my premise is all wrong then the question I suppose should change as well. Why was God incapable of coming up with a more peaceful or humane plan than the one he had during the Old Testament?

In the Old Testament, God's kingdom was here on earth. In the New, it is within us. In the Old we were in bondage to Satan. In the New, Christ came as our perfect example. He taught peace, love, etc. We are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, overcome evil with good, leave vengeance to God, be merciful, forgiving, etc.
He was tempted in all ways we are, yet he resisted sin. He overcame Satan, released us from his bondage, and made it to where we too can overcome Satan IF we choose to.
While I do not understand everything, I DO understand the simple teachings of Christ. He said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Because he is THE way, it only makes sense to me that we must simply trust what he says and walk in faith. As we walk in faith, one foot in front of the other, we understand more and more. It's a great temptation to what to have everything figured out right now ... but we are told if we are faithful in what is least we will also be faithful in what is great.

 

[South Bound]

So to break it all down into a simple question (way too simplified I know), why does God want to be cruel to humans, and how can he still be a loving God if he does?

Ah, yes. The classic atheist "Do you still beat your wife?" question. Who said God was cruel to humans?

Why was God incapable of coming up with a more peaceful or humane plan than the one he had during the Old Testament?

Who says God is incapable?

I've responded to you in two other threads and its pretty clear that you're not interested in the answer, but just in condemning God.

So, in what way will asking these questions make Hell any less hot for you?

 

[Moral Orel]

Who said God was cruel to humans?

The Bible says that God did things to humans that were cruel. Smiting someone is one thing, but causing them to cannibalize each other is cruel. There are plenty of other examples, but I wonder how you think this applies to the "do you still beat your wife?" question? That question is asked as a trap to get someone to admit they beat their wife. The Bible says that a wife was beaten and that in some cases it was God doing the beating. His wrath in the Old Testament shouldn't really be in question. Have you read the Bible?

Who says God is incapable?

Did you really read my post? Every single person I have asked about why God did the things he did in the Old Testament has said that "God had to..." which makes him incapable of some other plan. So the question posed by the thread is why does he want to because he clearly could have done it some other way?

 

[South Bound]

The Bible says that God did things to humans that were cruel. Smiting someone is one thing, but causing them to cannibalize each other is cruel.

You say "the Bible says" and yet, you don't cite the verses. Is that possibly because you know your claims are not true?

The Bible says that a wife was beaten and that in some cases it was God doing the beating.

Again, you say "the Bible says", but you don't cite the verses. Why?

His wrath in the Old Testament shouldn't really be in question.

You keep moving the goalposts. Is it His wrath? Or His actions? Make up your mind.

Have you read the Bible?

Yes. Between seminary and twenty-five years in ministry, I've read it.

Every single person I have asked about why God did the things he did in the Old Testament has said that "God had to..." which makes him incapable of some other plan.

The idea that God had no other option is your premise, not what the text states.

 

[Hospes]

...it doesn't seem as God "allowed" Pharoah's heart to be hardened, it seems more that he hardened it. He wanted to show his glory, so he stopped Pharaoh from chickening out halfway through the plagues of Egypt. ..."God hardens who he hardens" and essentially that we are clay pots and don't have the right to tell the clay maker what he does with his clay.

Hi Nicholas.

You ask some good questions and touch on so many points I find it hard to decide where to enter the conversation. So I edited a couple of things you said and will take a shot at having a narrow discussion around them. Full disclosure: Note my selective editing in order to avoid the free-will debate and note I am a Calvinist - though it would be nice if you held off any presuppositions on my views based on that fact. (There seems so many caricatures of Calvinists based on deliberate or unintentional misinformation.)

Do you think part of your questions may have to do with not seeing the value of God being glorified? It does seem He values his glory hugely and does things very often, if not always, for its sake.

Do you think part of your questions may have to do with not recognizing the Christian assertion we are creatures at the disposal of a creator? (The potter and clay idea.)

I know it is our nature to not value God and greatly value ourselves, thus we see little value in God's glory and are highly resistant and offended at being mere creatures. Even so, our lack of valuing one thing and highly valuing another does not necessarily make our value judgments correct.

 

[Moral Orel]

Full disclosure: Note my selective editing in order to avoid the free-will debate and note I am a Calvinist - though it would be nice if you held off any presuppositions on my views based on that fact. (There seems so many caricatures of Calvinists based on deliberate or unintentional misinformation.)

Lucky for us, I have no idea what a Calvinist is, so I will speak to you as if you were a generic Christian, no offense intended if "generic" is impolite.

Do you think part of your questions may have to do with not seeing the value of God being glorified? It does seem He values his glory hugely and does things very often, if not always, for its sake.

I can see the value of God being glorified, of course. But there are a lot of peaceful, amazing, and magical things that can be done to increase his glory, isn't there? I mean, in the case of the Amaleks, he could have just caused miracle earthquakes, tornadoes, tidal waves, etc. But only during an attack from the Amaleks and it would have made all the difference in what actually happened. To understand the quandary I'm struggling with, I have to think of morality in terms that it would apply to humans. So the answers that I get that address why I shouldn't do this are invaluable. But they still offer difficulty, such as your next quote:

Do you think part of your questions may have to do with not recognizing the Christian assertion we are creatures at the disposal of a creator? (The potter and clay idea.)

If I am to think of myself as clay and God is the potter, then I would think of all this wrath as a neutral action, of course. If I make a house of Legos, I get to smash it if I want, and there is nothing good or bad about that. But the problem is that if we are nothing more than clay pots, then why is it "good" when God does something good for us? The analogy confuses me to be honest. Say I have a clay pot that I made and love more than all my other clay pots. If I keep that pot clean and shiny and place it on my highest shelf so that everyone can see it, would you call that a morally good act? That doesn't seem to follow. Sure it makes a justification for the idea that if I smash a pot that I made, then it isn't a morally bad act, but the analogy doesn't work in both directions.
I could understand an analogy that at least places us at a position equal to pets, but that seems to be too high of a position as well. I wouldn't ever harm a pet by beating it. I might put it to sleep humanely if it was incurable, but I wouldn't drown it. So I know that analogy isn't appropriate to the relationship of humans to God, and I have to settle for the potter and clay in the Bible.

 

[Moral Orel]

So the question posed by the thread is why does he want to because he clearly could have done it some other way?

The idea that God had no other option is your premise, not what the text states.

I quoted myself first. You're not even reading my posts are you?

 

[orangeness365]

To Paul1149: You're getting closer to the answer though, thank you for that. I believe what you're saying is that the problem couldn't be resolved without the terrible things, and that there wasn't another solution for God to come up with, not that God wasn't able to come up with that solution. But it just seems so clear the alternate solutions that God could have used to at least alleviate some of the suffering that he caused/ordered. You talked about "free will" in other posts as well, but God doesn't always honor that. He hardened the Pharaoh's heart so that he could work his miracles to increase his glory, and he even enamored the Egyptian people to the Israelites so that they would hand over their valuables as the Jews left Egypt. He could have put just a bit of fear in the Amalekites or any of the other nations that threatened Israel to keep them from attacking the Jews instead of ordering their complete annihilation, and it wouldn't have been something that he hadn't done before. He put terror of the Israelites over some cities to keep them from attacking as well.
The problem I have, then, is reconciling what seems like two totally different Gods from the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament God puts righteousness above all else, yet the New Testament God puts mercy above all else. How can the morality of an unchanging being go from ordering genocide and all the other atrocities to telling people to turn the other cheek, and then go back to being full of wrath like it says in Revelation? They seem mutually exclusive.
On a side note, I know the Bible is full of stories of woe that have nothing to do with God as well. I don't expect God to show up and make everything perfect, and I understand that terrible things happen everyday (and always has) when God had nothing to do with it. I'm just talking about the things that are in a direct result of God's command or power.

In the Old Testament and the New Testament, God is dealing with fallen people that are under punishment and death, and is trying to save as many people as possible that will repent and follow Him. People suffer because of the fall, and because through suffering people can become gold and silver in the spirit. God is both righteous and merciful.

Malachi 3:2-3
2But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. 3He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the Lord.a

2 Corinthians 4:17-18
English Standard Version
17For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, 18as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.

 

[Hospes]

I can see the value of God being glorified, of course. But there are a lot of peaceful, amazing, and magical things that can be done to increase his glory, isn't there? I mean, in the case of the Amaleks, he could have just caused miracle earthquakes, tornadoes, tidal waves, etc. But only during an attack from the Amaleks and it would have made all the difference in what actually happened.

If God's glory is the highest good, and the Amalekites were perpetually defacing it, then is it unreasonable for them to be punished severely? (I am assuming you believe severity of punishment should be per the severity of the crime.) And the severity of the punishment is a source of glory in that it makes others place importance on what God thinks, i.e. it instills fear in those that may be inclined to acting similar to an Amalekite. (BTW, I do wonder - from what you have written - if your core question may be about the nature of punishment, rather than a about God's behavior.)

To understand the quandary I'm struggling with, I have to think of morality in terms that it would apply to humans. So the answers that I get that address why I shouldn't do this are invaluable.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a morality not applying to us? Are you referring to the difference in roles regarding right behavior, e.g. my role as father gives me leeway for certain actions toward my son that do not belong to another.

If I am to think of myself as clay and God is the potter, then I would think of all this wrath as a neutral action, of course. If I make a house of Legos, I get to smash it if I want, and there is nothing good or bad about that. But the problem is that if we are nothing more than clay pots, then why is it "good" when God does something good for us? The analogy confuses me to be honest. Say I have a clay pot that I made and love more than all my other clay pots. If I keep that pot clean and shiny and place it on my highest shelf so that everyone can see it, would you call that a morally good act? That doesn't seem to follow. Sure it makes a justification for the idea that if I smash a pot that I made, then it isn't a morally bad act, but the analogy doesn't work in both directions.

The clay pot analogy shouldn't be taken too far; in the case of God and man both involved are persons, whereas the potter and pot are not both persons. That considered, why shouldn't showing favor to your creation be "a morally good act?" For that matter, why shouldn't you showing wrath toward your creation also be moral?

You ask good questions in a good way; I hope I am not boring you.

 

[Moral Orel]

If God's glory is the highest good, and the Amalekites were perpetually defacing it, then is it unreasonable for them to be punished severely? (I am assuming you believe severity of punishment should be per the severity of the crime.) And the severity of the punishment is a source of glory in that it makes others place importance on what God thinks, i.e. it instills fear in those that may be inclined to acting similar to an Amalekite. (BTW, I do wonder - from what you have written - if your core question may be about the nature of punishment, rather than a about God's behavior.)

People always forget about the children and infants when they talk about the Amalekites. Not every Amalekite had ever done anything to deface God's glory. So some people were being punished for something they hadn't done. Now, agreed, those Amalakite's would have been taught by their parents to do the same things, but they hadn't yet, and they likely wouldn't have if shown some other way.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a morality not applying to us? Are you referring to the difference in roles regarding right behavior, e.g. my role as father gives me leeway for certain actions toward my son that do not belong to another.

There's a limit to what you would ever consider doing to your son though, is there not? There are punishments that won't have value. I have a son whom I have never struck. When he was little we gave him time-outs, and it's been a long time since he needed anything more than a verbal warning to correct his behavior. In the case of someone really terrible though, I understand a need for something much more drastic. And I would even be able (maybe) to accept the death penalty for the adult Amalekites. But they didn't need to be butchered with swords. And if my son had a little brother, I wouldn't punish him if his older brother did something wrong just because it would be reasonable to assume that the littler one would grow up and want to imitate his older brother.

The clay pot analogy shouldn't be taken too far; in the case of God and man both involved are persons, whereas the potter and pot are not both persons. That considered, why shouldn't showing favor to your creation be "a morally good act?" For that matter, why shouldn't you showing wrath toward your creation also be moral?

You ask good questions in a good way; I hope I am not boring you.

Then the analogy makes no sense to me. The part of the Bible I remember it from has everything to with free will, which is a contentious debate on its own. If I am nothing more than clay in the hands of another person, I don't have control of my actions. God puts me on the shelf he chooses, or he smashes me on the ground. It doesn't make sense to me to claim that an analogy involving an intelligent being and an inanimate object can be compared to an intelligent being and another intelligent being. If it is morally good to do good for a good clay pot, then it should be morally bad to do bad to an innocent clay pot. But again, with free will considered, how can a clay pot be good or bad?