Why Is The Old Testament So Brutal?

[nb408]

I'm not sure if this is scripture but I hear that God is the same today yesterday and forever. However in the old testament people were judged by their actions alone and it was brutal. Turning his back on the Israelite's and not listening to their prayers for their previous wrongdoings. Telling people it's to late to repent; he won't hear their cries or prayers and they will be crushed by the sword for worshiping false idols. When I read the new testament I know that God will never leave me nor forsaken me. I know that he loves me more than I can imagine. Then when I read the old testament it's really hard for me to see that same loving and forgiving God. It seemed like it was so much harder to get into heaven back then. I want to understand why God did these things and how it's fair to the others who didn't get the same chance as I do. Right now I'm reading through Ezekiel and it's difficult for me to understand. Is there any clarification or advice you can give me to better understand why God had to do it this way?

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi NB, Hebrews 13:8 tells us that, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever".

Now, as to the rest of your post, even the OT at its most "brutal" is not a true demonstration of the reality of life apart from God, from His grace and, especially now, from His Son. Remember that Jesus taught us that God has always caused His sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and that He sends His rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45).

God's judgment in the OT was rarely, if ever, immediate, even upon those who were 'not' His people. Rather, He was long-suffering with all and acted to judge a people (and His people) only when their sinfulness had reached such a height that their hearts could not be turned. Remember that God was willing to spare Sodom if only 5 righteous people could be found there. Consider also how many chances and reasons to repent He gave to the Egyptians in Exodus before He finally brought the waters of the Red Sea down upon their heads.

The Book of Ezekiel is a tough one, but even there you can find God's grace on every page if you are willing to look for it. Why don't you take a break from Ezekiel for a few minutes and read something like Psalm 103 to remember and understand what the true heart of God is for His children.

I hoped that helped a little. If not, let me know and I'll try again.

Yours and His,
David

“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the LORD, “Though your
sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they
are red like crimson, they will be like wool."
Isaiah 1:18​

 

[St_Worm2]

You may also want to consider what lesson God was teaching us in the OT, especially by way of His own people, Israel. Again and again they proved themselves unfaithful and capable of nothing greater than our progenitors (who showed themselves 'incapable' of obeying even the single commandment they were given to obey, and that w/o a nature predisposed toward sin).

The OT is a demonstration of the one thing we are good at, disobedience. It was meant to show us how utterly incapable we are of anything else and then, seeing the truth of this, to drive us to God to seek His mercy and forgiveness as our only and last resort. As St. Paul told us in the NT, the "Law" was meant to be our "paidagogos" (our harsh "tutor"), whose true purpose was to "lead us to Christ so that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24).

 

[outsidethecamp]

In the OT, we are looking at a small region of the world where God was trying to preserve a nation from which His Son would come through. Christians believe in a spiritual Adversary and this Adversary (Satan) was trying to wipe out the Nation of Israel every chance he got. It was easy for him to turn the pagan nations against Israel, at will.

But if you think the OT was violent, have you looked around in the last 200-300 years, lately?

In Steven Pinker's presentation of what he calls the “Pacification Process”, 5,000 years ago, life on earth was characterized by anarchy. He says the history of violence is getting less and less. Hmmm, not sure about that.

Ok, let’s look at some of Mr. Pinker’s work. (you have to watch the video first).

Percentage of death in warfare.
Crow Creek 1325 AD. Higher percentage than World War II he says. 60% versus under 10%.

Crow Creek Massacre: 486 deaths were found by archaeologists. Well, I guess he is right. Almost the whole tribe of over 550 were killed. The population of the world in 1940 was 2.3 billion. In World I and II, only 60 million died. I find it interesting that he picks the Crow Creek Massacre to compare with World War II.

What about Pol Pot killing 2.5 million of his 6 million citizens. That is certainly more than the percentage of WW I and II next to Crow Creek, but still only 27-30% of the population.

On his graph “The Abolition of Judicial Torture”, he only goes as far as 1850. So, we don’t see China and Russia from 1850 to the present. We don’t see Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen or African Countries or Idi Amin’s Uganda.

Some of his graphs do ring true like his Abolition of Death Penalty for Non-Lethal crimes. Well, at least in “civilized” countries. But what is a civilized country? Is that a country that only does really bad stuff under cover. Covert Operations?

Mr. Pinker says, “What were the immediate causes of the Humanitarian Revolution?”

Printing and Literacy, Affluence (1900s it pretty much goes straight up). My question would be, What happens then when affluence is no more? I think we are about to find out in the next few years.

On his graph, “Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?”

He talks about what people call the “Peaceful 19th Century”.
Napoleonic Wars – 4 million deaths
Taiping Rebellion – 20 million deaths
American Civil War – 650,000 deaths
Shaka Zulu – 1-2 million deaths
War of the Triple Alliance (60% of Paraguay)
Paraguay had 292,000 people in 1890.
African Slave Trading Wars (??)
Imperial Wars in Africa, Asia and South Pacific (??)

That’s fine. The 19th century does not look very peaceful, though.

However, it pales in comparison to the 20th century. I know, I know, he is all about percentages and the world population has grown so violence has really gone down. But still, I thought his graph should have gone way up.


So, in the interest of fairness, let me provide you with the worst genocides of the 20th Century

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945)
12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
8,000,000
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20)
1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88)
600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987)
570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66)
500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39)
500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002)
400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001)
400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979)
300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71)
300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII)
300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97)
?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996)
220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000)
200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98)
200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56)
200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972)
150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99)
100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999)
100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79)
?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974)
70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83)
70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71)
60,000
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61)
50,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990)
40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947)
30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20)
30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain)
30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999)
30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968)
30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000)
25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89)
20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority)
20,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83)
13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957)
10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion)
10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997)
6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001)
3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973)
3,000
Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06)
2,000​

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

He measures atrocity in percentages and say that even though World War II was in absolute terms the worst war that killed the most people, in terms of percentages of world population, it was not the worst. And he goes back to 500 BC!?!?!

I listened to his presentation, although I did not listen to the question and answer session. I was only interested in his presentation.

I found it interesting that one of his reasonings for what he says as “violence declining”, is his “Better Angels” slide.
1. Self-Control
2. Empathy
3. Moral sense
4. Reason

And his “crucial question.” Which Historical Developments Bring Out Our “Better Angels?”
1. A State and Justice system with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence can reduce and eliminate violence by:
a. Eliminating the incentives for exploitative attacks
b. Reduce the need for deterrence and vengeance
c. Circumvent self-serving biases, which:
i. Exaggerate the adversaries malevolence
ii. Exaggerate their own innocence

He says these two sides, the adversary and the victim can be intoxicated with their own biases.

He also says the people and societies with higher intelligence commit fewer crimes. I would say that people of higher intelligence commit more “intelligent” crimes. All you have to do is look at the U.S. Congress and other countries political machines (how about Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq), Goldman Sachs, AIG, Federal Reserve, etc, etc. Yet, he does not deal with any of this kind of “violence” against humanity. Greed and Avarice via intelligence, hmmm. When you steal money from others or create laws that enslave people economically and socially, then this is violence, too. But, this is not covered.

Also, what about the 60 million abortions since the 1960s? Infanticide? If that is not violence then what is it? He does not cover this.

How about the legalism of euthanasia in the Netherlands? Will that spread into European countries and beyond?

What about the new genetically modified foods that are not digestable, the quest to outlaw vitamins and minerals (in favor of the pharmaceuticals, the heaviest lobbyists in Congress), laws to prohibit gardening in your own backyard, etc ,etc. Government’s desire to control the water below our property? Violence comes in many forms, my friend.

Great Britain and Australia outlawed guns thinking that it would bring down violence, but violence only increased.
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz1ZfN3BnA1

 

[TheBarrd]

In the OT, we are looking at a small region of the world where God was trying to preserve a nation from which His Son would come through. Christians believe in a spiritual Adversary and this Adversary (Satan) was trying to wipe out the Nation of Israel every chance he got. It was easy for him to turn the pagan nations against Israel, at will.

But if you think the OT was violent, have you looked around in the last 200-300 years, lately?

In Steven Pinker's presentation of what he calls the “Pacification Process”, 5,000 years ago, life on earth was characterized by anarchy. He says the history of violence is getting less and less. Hmmm, not sure about that.

Ok, let’s look at some of Mr. Pinker’s work. (you have to watch the video first).

Percentage of death in warfare.
Crow Creek 1325 AD. Higher percentage than World War II he says. 60% versus under 10%.

Crow Creek Massacre: 486 deaths were found by archaeologists. Well, I guess he is right. Almost the whole tribe of over 550 were killed. The population of the world in 1940 was 2.3 billion. In World I and II, only 60 million died. I find it interesting that he picks the Crow Creek Massacre to compare with World War II.

What about Pol Pot killing 2.5 million of his 6 million citizens. That is certainly more than the percentage of WW I and II next to Crow Creek, but still only 27-30% of the population.

On his graph “The Abolition of Judicial Torture”, he only goes as far as 1850. So, we don’t see China and Russia from 1850 to the present. We don’t see Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen or African Countries or Idi Amin’s Uganda.

Some of his graphs do ring true like his Abolition of Death Penalty for Non-Lethal crimes. Well, at least in “civilized” countries. But what is a civilized country? Is that a country that only does really bad stuff under cover. Covert Operations?

Mr. Pinker says, “What were the immediate causes of the Humanitarian Revolution?”

Printing and Literacy, Affluence (1900s it pretty much goes straight up). My question would be, What happens then when affluence is no more? I think we are about to find out in the next few years.

On his graph, “Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?”

He talks about what people call the “Peaceful 19th Century”.
Napoleonic Wars – 4 million deaths
Taiping Rebellion – 20 million deaths
American Civil War – 650,000 deaths
Shaka Zulu – 1-2 million deaths
War of the Triple Alliance (60% of Paraguay)
Paraguay had 292,000 people in 1890.
African Slave Trading Wars (??)
Imperial Wars in Africa, Asia and South Pacific (??)

That’s fine. The 19th century does not look very peaceful, though.

However, it pales in comparison to the 20th century. I know, I know, he is all about percentages and the world population has grown so violence has really gone down. But still, I thought his graph should have gone way up.


So, in the interest of fairness, let me provide you with the worst genocides of the 20th Century

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945)
12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
8,000,000
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20)
1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88)
600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987)
570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66)
500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39)
500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002)
400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001)
400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979)
300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71)
300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII)
300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97)
?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996)
220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000)
200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98)
200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56)
200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972)
150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99)
100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999)
100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79)
?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974)
70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83)
70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71)
60,000
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61)
50,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990)
40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947)
30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20)
30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain)
30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999)
30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968)
30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000)
25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89)
20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority)
20,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83)
13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957)
10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion)
10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997)
6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001)
3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973)
3,000
Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06)
2,000​

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

He measures atrocity in percentages and say that even though World War II was in absolute terms the worst war that killed the most people, in terms of percentages of world population, it was not the worst. And he goes back to 500 BC!?!?!

I listened to his presentation, although I did not listen to the question and answer session. I was only interested in his presentation.

I found it interesting that one of his reasonings for what he says as “violence declining”, is his “Better Angels” slide.
1. Self-Control
2. Empathy
3. Moral sense
4. Reason

And his “crucial question.” Which Historical Developments Bring Out Our “Better Angels?”
1. A State and Justice system with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence can reduce and eliminate violence by:
a. Eliminating the incentives for exploitative attacks
b. Reduce the need for deterrence and vengeance
c. Circumvent self-serving biases, which:
i. Exaggerate the adversaries malevolence
ii. Exaggerate their own innocence

He says these two sides, the adversary and the victim can be intoxicated with their own biases.

He also says the people and societies with higher intelligence commit fewer crimes. I would say that people of higher intelligence commit more “intelligent” crimes. All you have to do is look at the U.S. Congress and other countries political machines (how about Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq), Goldman Sachs, AIG, Federal Reserve, etc, etc. Yet, he does not deal with any of this kind of “violence” against humanity. Greed and Avarice via intelligence, hmmm. When you steal money from others or create laws that enslave people economically and socially, then this is violence, too. But, this is not covered.

Also, what about the 60 million abortions since the 1960s? Infanticide? If that is not violence then what is it? He does not cover this.

How about the legalism of euthanasia in the Netherlands? Will that spread into European countries and beyond?

What about the new genetically modified foods that are not digestable, the quest to outlaw vitamins and minerals (in favor of the pharmaceuticals, the heaviest lobbyists in Congress), laws to prohibit gardening in your own backyard, etc ,etc. Government’s desire to control the water below our property? Violence comes in many forms, my friend.

Great Britain and Australia outlawed guns thinking that it would bring down violence, but violence only increased.
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz1ZfN3BnA1

I am impressed.

 

[Unix]

Since the 19th century, both leaders and citizens should have known better than to go to war or start genocides since there has been printed newspapers for all this time (and at the turn of the century telegraphs as well in some countries), and radio was very popular in the early 20th century. Perhaps the vast masses weren't (quickly) informed during most of the 19th century, but still these figures do confirm that the 19th century was the most peaceful century, and usually historians talk about the "long 19th century".
1914-1998 is the really violent period, I include the end of '90s because www had been invented. During this period all people got news brought to them one way or the other with few exceptions: isolated countries.
The wars since 1991 can be explained by that war has become entertainment through live TV broadcasts and in recent years through different feeds on the web and in smartphones being consumed by a vast percentage of the world population. So the moral (the actions, not the theory, many times referred to as ethics in the U.S.) among those weren't directly affected has really gone down since 1991 until present.

 

[outsidethecamp]

With all the talk about over population get ready for the most violent times in the history of mankind.

 

[Look Up]

I'm not sure if this is scripture but I hear that God is the same today yesterday and forever. However in the old testament people were judged by their actions alone and it was brutal. Turning his back on the Israelite's and not listening to their prayers for their previous wrongdoings. Telling people it's to late to repent; he won't hear their cries or prayers and they will be crushed by the sword for worshiping false idols. When I read the new testament I know that God will never leave me nor forsaken me. I know that he loves me more than I can imagine. Then when I read the old testament it's really hard for me to see that same loving and forgiving God. It seemed like it was so much harder to get into heaven back then. I want to understand why God did these things and how it's fair to the others who didn't get the same chance as I do. Right now I'm reading through Ezekiel and it's difficult for me to understand. Is there any clarification or advice you can give me to better understand why God had to do it this way?

Hi nb408,

Theodicy questions (e.g., How can a good and powerful God allow evil?) are variously conceived with varied underlying assumptions, though even in a wholly naturalistic world view--an atheistic one--one must face history and evil somehow. To label certain acts of divine judgment in the OT as "brutal" given definition to the term which suggests injustice on God's part is to place a value judgment on God which one would do well to consider as to origin and justification. How do you know God is acting unjustly in such-and-such instance(s)? Ironically the issue is similar to one the doubting Ezekiel had to whom the Lord declares, "You will be consoled when you see their [shockingly wicked] conduct and their actions, for you will know that I have done nothing in it without cause, declares the Sovereign LORD" (Ezek. 14:23).

Suffering Job similarly defends his righteousness (cf. ch. 29, and unbeknowst to Job, God has already declared that he is "blameless and upright" 1:8, 2:3). Job asks God for a hearing so that he can defend his innocence, and accuses God as having "turned cruel to me, and with the might of your hand, You persecute me" (30:21). Later the Lord restores Job's fortunes, and he is comforted "for all the evil the LORD had brought on him" (42:11), but between suffering and comfort, the Lord appears to Job, asking him, "shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty" (40:1) and asking Job to render an account of the greatness and mysteries of His creation, at which Job repents (40:45, 42:1-6): "now my eye sees You; therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes (v. 6). God is greater than Job had thought. The reader is in effect asked whether Job's God is worth trusting in spite of trouble and in the midst of suffering.

Not to be forgotten and not unlike the context Ezekiel faced, Habakkuk asks God, "how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you, "Violence!" and you do will not save?" (1:2). Yet in time, God reveals, He will judge the judges of Israel (He will judge the Chaldean army). Habakkuk will "rejoice in the LORD" even though "the fields yield no food" and "there be no herds in the stalls" (3:18, 17).

Question then arises not "why God had to do it this way" but whether the God of Israel is worth trusting--or whether some other religion, some other god, has a better offer in the face of sin and suffering and judgment in the world and in history. If there is injustice and violence, the undelivered righteous and flourishing wicked in the world (read Psalms 37 & 73), horrible suffering and great terrors--some brought on by the LORD--is the LORD worth waiting for, worth making one's refuge? "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom. 11:36).

 

[outsidethecamp]

Hi nb408,

Theodicy questions (e.g., How can a good and powerful God allow evil?) are variously conceived with varied underlying assumptions, though even in a wholly naturalistic world view--an atheistic one--one must face history and evil somehow. To label certain acts of divine judgment in the OT as "brutal" given definition to the term which suggests injustice on God's part is to place a value judgment on God which one would do well to consider as to origin and justification. How do you know God is acting unjustly in such-and-such instance(s)? Ironically the issue is similar to one the doubting Ezekiel had to whom the Lord declares, "You will be consoled when you see their [shockingly wicked] conduct and their actions, for you will know that I have done nothing in it without cause, declares the Sovereign LORD" (Ezek. 14:23).

Suffering Job similarly defends his righteousness (cf. ch. 29, and unbeknowst to Job, God has already declared that he is "blameless and upright" 1:8, 2:3). Job asks God for a hearing so that he can defend his innocence, and accuses God as having "turned cruel to me, and with the might of your hand, You persecute me" (30:21). Later the Lord restores Job's fortunes, and he is comforted "for all the evil the LORD had brought on him" (42:11), but between suffering and comfort, the Lord appears to Job, asking him, "shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty" (40:1) and asking Job to render an account of the greatness and mysteries of His creation, at which Job repents (40:45, 42:1-6): "now my eye sees You; therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes (v. 6). God is greater than Job had thought. The reader is in effect asked whether Job's God is worth trusting in spite of trouble and in the midst of suffering.

Not to be forgotten and not unlike the context Ezekiel faced, Habakkuk asks God, "how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you, "Violence!" and you do will not save?" (1:2). Yet in time, God reveals, He will judge the judges of Israel (He will judge the Chaldean army). Habakkuk will "rejoice in the LORD" even though "the fields yield no food" and "there be no herds in the stalls" (3:18, 17).

Question then arises not "why God had to do it this way" but whether the God of Israel is worth trusting--or whether some other religion, some other god, has a better offer in the face of sin and suffering and judgment in the world and in history. If there is injustice and violence, the undelivered righteous and flourishing wicked in the world (read Psalms 37 & 73), horrible suffering and great terrors--some brought on by the LORD--is the LORD worth waiting for, worth making one's refuge? "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom. 11:36).

Since I cannot raise someone up from death, then if I murder someone it is unjust. God has power to bring the dead back to life. He has the power to go down into hell and preach the good news and give all OT people one last chance, so we must always remember that God is always righteous and just in what He does.

"What God is, only God is." "God does what He does, because He is Who He is." (James Fowler)

Theodicy pertains to the so-called "problem of evil", and the questions often posed concerning: "Where does evil originate? or "Why does a just God, a good God, allow evil in the world He created?"

John seems to clearly indicate the diabolic origin of all character that is not consistent with the character of God. "He who sins derives what he does from the devil" (3:8). Much of evangelical thinking has been steeped in the humanistic fallacy of human self-generation of character in behavior; i.e. that man generates his own sin, evil and unrighteousness (even though they often deny that man can generate his own righteousness). The ill-defined theodicy of evangelicalism has been unwilling to accept the premise stated by John, that Satan, the devil, the Evil One, the deceiver, the destroyer is the personal spiritual source and origin of sin, unrighteousness, evil, death, etc.

 

[Look Up]

Since I cannot raise someone up from death, then if I murder someone it is unjust. God has power to bring the dead back to life. He has the power to go down into hell and preach the good news and give all OT people one last chance, so we must always remember that God is always righteous and just in what He does.

"What God is, only God is." "God does what He does, because He is Who He is." (James Fowler)

Theodicy pertains to the so-called "problem of evil", and the questions often posed concerning: "Where does evil originate? or "Why does a just God, a good God, allow evil in the world He created?"

John seems to clearly indicate the diabolic origin of all character that is not consistent with the character of God. "He who sins derives what he does from the devil" (3:8). Much of evangelical thinking has been steeped in the humanistic fallacy of human self-generation of character in behavior; i.e. that man generates his own sin, evil and unrighteousness (even though they often deny that man can generate his own righteousness). The ill-defined theodicy of evangelicalism has been unwilling to accept the premise stated by John, that Satan, the devil, the Evil One, the deceiver, the destroyer is the personal spiritual source and origin of sin, unrighteousness, evil, death, etc.

Whatever the influence of spiritual paternity in Satan (John 8:44), it is worth repeating that the Bible and Jesus nowhere excuses human accountability in sinning against God and neighbor. Nor does the Bible anywhere imply divine unholiness or unrighteousness, for example, on account of God using Satan and demons in serving His purposes (e.g., Job 1-2, 1 Ki. 22, 2 Thes. 2) or on any other account. For one thing, there is no other standard for judging that which is right other than God Himself. For another, we do not necessarily understand or fully understand the nature of divine causality in demonic and human affairs or divine purposes save as they have been revealed to us. And then too, as the clay has no right to complain how the Potter uses it, so humans have no standing and no right to call God to account for the ways He uses His creation (including themselves as creatures); God is the standard, the highest possible Court, the Sovereign (at least in the Bible's ubiquitous view). Yet also to the one who trusts God has been and is and will be good to him in Christ Jesus, that is especially in His cross work and resurrection in the forgiveness of sin, no trial and tribulation, not even death nor Satan, can separate such a one from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3-4, 8-9, cf. Isa. 40, 55, Ps. 115:3, 1 Pet. 1, and so on).

 

[outsidethecamp]

The OT is so brutal, because Satan is real and did everything he could to wipe out Israel, in whom the Messiah was to come through. The thinking is, no Israel, no Messiah. His brutality was consummated in the torture and death of Jesus Christ. Since then, he has been trying to wipe out the true Church. The thinking is, no Church, no return of Jesus Christ.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

God is perfect. It is what makes Him God.. why He is so dependable. He does not mince words, He is Truth. Being such, there was no grace in the Old Testament because Christ had not come. Man suffered by it's own vices, it was brutal eye for eye. You reaped what you sowed without mercy.

 

[Look Up]

The OT is so brutal, because Satan is real and did everything he could to wipe out Israel, in whom the Messiah was to come through. The thinking is, no Israel, no Messiah. His brutality was consummated in the torture and death of Jesus Christ. Since then, he has been trying to wipe out the true Church. The thinking is, no Church, no return of Jesus Christ.

1) If we are considering brutality as recorded in the OT as on account of Satanic action, however occasional the explicit canonical evidence, one would expect little difference in substance in the NT (which could be argued) but (2) the issue in the OP concerns the brutality of God (brutality at least by way of allegation), not Satan: "why God did these things" (such as the examples listed in the OP).

... Being such, there was no grace in the Old Testament because Christ had not come. Man suffered by it's own vices, it was brutal eye for eye. You reaped what you sowed without mercy.

1) The Mosaic sacrificial system was meant in part for the forgiveness of offenses. This is gracious. And the deliverances of God under Moses, various judges and kings was gracious, and the prophesies of many prophets all stemmed from the grace of God. These are but a few instances of the grace of God evident in the pages of the OT.

2) "Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb. 10:28-31 NIV

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we [in the Christian era] have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" Heb. 10:26-27.

It is true that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15), but also true that "from everyone who has been given much [and more has been given after Christ than before], much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked" (Luke 12:48).

 

[St_Worm2]

God is perfect. It is what makes Him God.. why He is so dependable. He does not mince words, He is Truth. Being such, there was no grace in the Old Testament because Christ had not come. Man suffered by it's own vices, it was brutal eye for eye. You reaped what you sowed without mercy.

Hi C & L, if you look, I think you will find that God's mercy towards us began in Genesis 3 immediately following the sin and fall of our progenitors, and can then be found on nearly every page of the OT & NT right on through to Revelation 22. In fact, His mercy toward us began 'before' the Creation ..

"He chose us in Him *before* the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will" ~Ephesians 1:4-5​

The OT is replete with His love, grace and mercy towards us. Psalm 103 is certainly a great example of this (see the highlighted portion in particular):

1 BLESS the LORD, O my soul;
And all that is within me, bless His holy name.
2 Bless the LORD, O my soul,
And forget none of His benefits;
3 Who pardons all your iniquities;
Who heals all your diseases;
4 Who redeems your life from the pit;
Who crowns you with lovingkindness and compassion;
5 Who satisfies your years with good things,
So that your youth is renewed like the eagle.

6 The LORD performs righteous deeds,
And judgments for all who are oppressed.
7 He made known His ways to Moses,
His acts to the sons of Israel.
8 The LORD is compassionate and gracious,
Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness.
9 He will not always strive with us;
Nor will He keep His anger forever.
10 He has not dealt with us according to our sins,
Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
11 For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.
12 As far as the east is from the west,
So far has He removed our transgressions from us.
13 Just as a father has compassion on his children,
So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.
14 For He Himself knows our frame;
He is mindful that we are but dust.

15 As for man, his days are like grass;
As a flower of the field, so he flourishes.
16 When the wind has passed over it, it is no more;
And its place acknowledges it no longer.
17 But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him,
And His righteousness to children’s children
18 To those who keep His covenant,
And who remember His precepts to do them.

19 The LORD has established His throne in the heavens;
And His bsovereignty rules over all.
20 Bless the LORD, you His angels,
Mighty in strength, who perform His word,
Obeying the voice of His word!
21 Bless the LORD, all you His hosts,
You who serve Him, doing His will.
22 Bless the LORD, all you works of His,
In all places of His dominion;
Bless the LORD, O my soul!
​

Yours and His,
David

“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the LORD, “Though your
sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they
are red like crimson, they will be like wool."
Is 1:18​

 

[Chicken Little]

I'm not sure if this is scripture but I hear that God is the same today yesterday and forever. However in the old testament people were judged by their actions alone and it was brutal. Turning his back on the Israelite's and not listening to their prayers for their previous wrongdoings. Telling people it's to late to repent; he won't hear their cries or prayers and they will be crushed by the sword for worshiping false idols. When I read the new testament I know that God will never leave me nor forsaken me. I know that he loves me more than I can imagine. Then when I read the old testament it's really hard for me to see that same loving and forgiving God. It seemed like it was so much harder to get into heaven back then. I want to understand why God did these things and how it's fair to the others who didn't get the same chance as I do. Right now I'm reading through Ezekiel and it's difficult for me to understand. Is there any clarification or advice you can give me to better understand why God had to do it this way?

look around at most of the world and tell me he was cruel?
he wasn't cruel to control all the freaky and blood thirsty in the world,
we do the same thing now and call it " advanced civilization" and then turn and point our fingers at God. when half the world lives in prison of some kind because if you let them out they would go raping and pillaging.
lets try try and have an advanced civilization without happy pills , drugs prisons and abortions? .... what does it look like to you exactly with out those
" advanced civilizations things" ? just don't blame Him. it doesn't have anything to do with him.

 

[Norbert L]

I'm not sure if this is scripture but I hear that God is the same today yesterday and forever. However in the old testament people were judged by their actions alone and it was brutal. Turning his back on the Israelite's and not listening to their prayers for their previous wrongdoings. Telling people it's to late to repent; he won't hear their cries or prayers and they will be crushed by the sword for worshiping false idols. When I read the new testament I know that God will never leave me nor forsaken me. I know that he loves me more than I can imagine. Then when I read the old testament it's really hard for me to see that same loving and forgiving God. It seemed like it was so much harder to get into heaven back then. I want to understand why God did these things and how it's fair to the others who didn't get the same chance as I do. Right now I'm reading through Ezekiel and it's difficult for me to understand. Is there any clarification or advice you can give me to better understand why God had to do it this way?

The NT is just as brutal, consider Ananias and Sapphira. Put it to you this way, God's grace has a very long time stamp but it will reach a point where we're all weighed in the balance. There will be those who absolutely think He never left or forsaken them but an abridged version of Matthew 7:22-23 tells us otherwise, "Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name ... Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Yes, He will never leave or foresake us, the thing is the brutality occurs in the NT when we're confronted with the possiblity of how we will leave and foresake Him. Hebrews 3:7-12

 

[St_Worm2]

There will be those who absolutely think He never left or forsaken them but an abridged version of Matthew 7:22-23 tells us otherwise

Hi Norbert, I'm having a little trouble following what you are saying. It seems to me that, if what the Lord said in Matthew 7:22-23 is true, then God did not leave or forsake anyone (because He "never" knew them). Nor did those spoken of in v22 leave or forsake Him, right? (again, because they were "never" His children to begin with .. though clearly they thought they were ). Is that what you meant, or did you mean something else?

Thanks!

--David
p.s. - sorry for going slightly off topic here!

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm not sure if this is scripture but I hear that God is the same today yesterday and forever. However in the old testament people were judged by their actions alone and it was brutal.................

The idea that the God of the O.T. was more harsh than the God of the N.T. seems to me to be a false premise.

The great tribulation that is coming on the earth is called the wrath of God.

If we assume around 7 billion people on the earth at it's start - around 5.4 billion people will die horrible deaths as the God the N.T. pours out His wrath on the earth.

If we take the millennium to be literal - at Christ's return He will personally judge the remaining inhabitants of earth. He will kill hundreds of millions of people who are found unworthy of going into the millennium. The number will perhaps be higher than a billion.

If we consider the millennium section of Revelation as being literal - He will likely kill billions more at the end of the millennium.

Isaiah 63 gives us a picture of our Savior that many do not consider. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom.

The messiah - the God of the N.T. is a fearful God - much more so IMO than the God of the O.T. as we say.

Who is this who comes from Edom,
With garments of glowing colors from Bozrah,
This One who is majestic in His apparel,
Marching in the greatness of His strength?
“It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save.”
Why is Your apparel red,
And Your garments like the one who treads in the wine press?
“I have trodden the wine trough alone,
And from the peoples there was no man with Me.
I also trod them in My anger
And trampled them in My wrath;
And their lifeblood is sprinkled on My garments,
And I stained all My raiment.
“For the day of vengeance was in My heart,
And My year of redemption has come.
“I looked, and there was no one to help,
And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold;
So My own arm brought salvation to Me,
And My wrath upheld Me.
“I trod down the peoples in My anger
And made them drunk in My wrath,
And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”

The God of the Bible is the same today as He was yesterday.

But, as I read it, He shows Himself even more fearsome in the N.T. than in the Old.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I'm not sure if this is scripture but I hear that God is the same today yesterday and forever. However in the old testament people were judged by their actions alone and it was brutal. Turning his back on the Israelite's and not listening to their prayers for their previous wrongdoings. Telling people it's to late to repent; he won't hear their cries or prayers and they will be crushed by the sword for worshiping false idols. When I read the new testament I know that God will never leave me nor forsaken me. I know that he loves me more than I can imagine. Then when I read the old testament it's really hard for me to see that same loving and forgiving God. It seemed like it was so much harder to get into heaven back then. I want to understand why God did these things and how it's fair to the others who didn't get the same chance as I do. Right now I'm reading through Ezekiel and it's difficult for me to understand. Is there any clarification or advice you can give me to better understand why God had to do it this way?

God did listen to their prayers and offer forgiveness repeatably, despite them consistently turning their backs on Him and going about their ways time and time again, despite broken promises. The Old Testament is full of this. He would let them be on their own for a time with their sin, as that is what the seemed to think they wanted, and they would turn back to Him again and beg forgiveness and for his protection, which He would grant.

The Old Testament does have brutal times and brutal stories but I always saw the strong love and glory of God throughout all of it. I've seen people bring up the same concerns as you, but I never questioned it - to me it is consistent with Old and New Testament. I did read the bible cover to back like a book and not in sections or pieces as part of a reading plan, so this may be why I saw the progression of it making sense. I know a lot of people read the bible in various orders as part of reading plans, or wanting to read one book first instead of the other, and this may lead to some of the mindset you're speaking of. Not saying this is what you did necessarily, but just a thought.

And we must also remember He was establishing systems and a new covenant He would eventually bring in place to benefit us all, and that if something doesn't make sense to us, we cannot fully understand the mind and inclination of God and his eventual plans and how it all ties together. Even people in the David professed confusion about some of God's actions at times, such as David, but this is human nature.

 

[Lik3]

Hi NB, Hebrews 13:8 tells us that, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever".

Now, as to the rest of your post, even the OT at its most "brutal" is not a true demonstration of the reality of life apart from God, from His grace and, especially now, from His Son. Remember that Jesus taught us that God has always caused His sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and that He sends His rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45).

God's judgment in the OT was rarely, if ever, immediate, even upon those who were 'not' His people. Rather, He was long-suffering with all and acted to judge a people (and His people) only when their sinfulness had reached such a height that their hearts could not be turned. Remember that God was willing to spare Sodom if only 5 righteous people could be found there. Consider also how many chances and reasons to repent He gave to the Egyptians in Exodus before He finally brought the waters of the Red Sea down upon their heads.

The Book of Ezekiel is a tough one, but even there you can find God's grace on every page if you are willing to look for it. Why don't you take a break from Ezekiel for a few minutes and read something like Psalm 103 to remember and understand what the true heart of God is for His children.

I hoped that helped a little. If not, let me know and I'll try again.

Yours and His,
David

“Come now, and let us reason together,” says the LORD, “Though your
sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they
are red like crimson, they will be like wool."
Isaiah 1:18​

I am glad that you mentioned that. I too was wondering why in some parts of the OT, God's punishments seems so brutal at times.