Fair enough then. I have to say that if we were to get overly simplistic about things, it really seems like
OT = Vengeful God
NT = Loving God
Please God don't smite me for typing that.
Hehe, I understand that, helenofbritain. Not only is there the vengeful aspect which is difficult, but there are also issues such as inconsistancy, varying theologies and some apparently totally irrelevant stuff!
The Old Testament is a mish-mash of ancient literature, built up, edited and reworked over a period of over a thausand years. It contains conflicting outlooks (Leviticus vs. Deuteronomy for 2 different religious worldviews), duplications with similar ancient stories (The Gilgamesh Flood story, something I'm writing a dissertation on), and even duplicates within itself, (1 Samuel to 2 Kings covers the same period and events as 1 + 2 Chronicles, yet reports events differently).
Our understanding of the OT as a text has deepened enormously over the last 200 years. Of course, our understanding of it as a religious revelation has been going on for much longer. I think in the end, Christianity is not the faith of the 'dead letter' but a living faith. The obscurity of some of the OT can be seen as representing God's gradual revelation to humanity, culminating of course in the ultimate revelation of Christ.
With regards to twosid's comment about the death from touching the Ark, there are many incidents like this. In Joshua 7, a Achor's wife and children are burnt along with him because of his sin which they had no knowledge of. Or, perhaps the even more bizzare occurance in 1 Kings 20:35-37, in which a prophet walks up to a fellow prophet and says: "Hit me! God commands it!" The poor prophet refuses to hurt his friend, to which the other prophet replies: "Because you have disobeyed God, you will be eaten by lions." The poor pacifist then meets his end.
I think a principle to remember in a lot of the Old Testament is that the key part of God's redemption had not yet been revealed. Much that happened to the Israelites was an illustration or a lesson. Furthermore, scripture is understood as inspired by God in that what God wanted written, was written. This doesn't necessarily mean that every incident recorded is a historical fact.
For example, in the case of the man who steadied the Arkand died, what can we take away from this ? 1. God is supremely powerful. 2. Humans are so insignificant. 3. God cannot compromise his holiness (They'd been told not to touch the Ark under any circumstance). 4. It kinda says, 'What chance to we have of being acceptable to God on our own merits?' thus all salvation must be a gift of God, one can't 'earn' grace.
And the Ark carrying guy who died to give us those lessons? Well....just say, for argument's sake, he didn't. Say this was just a story made up to instill a fear of God, if it makes us learn the above lessons, does it necessarily matter? Could not God have intentionally ensured this story was included so that we might learn such lessons?
Many of course would not be comfortable with that idea; again, fair enough, if that man really did die for the sake of the lesson, God is God and never unjust, someones death does not prevent him from redeeming him.
