Chapter 4: The God of the Bible. One of the most perplexing questions I found myself facing was what to do with all of the Old Testament wars. As I read some of the books and listened to some of the arguments, I felt divided. Early in my reading, it seemed to me that most of the conservative writers were not consistent or even honest with the New Testament. On the other hand, as I began to read writers from the liberal camp, it seemed that many of their arguments were not honest with the Old Testament.
In some of the newer liberal books, God was displayed as a non-violent deity who would never condemn or hurt anyone. The writers seemed to imply that God really doesn't punish people, and He certainly would never sentence someone to hell for eternity. Often, Jesus was represented as a person who came to proclaim universal, non-violent, non-judgmental, all-accepting salvation for everyone. All the violent acts in the Old Testament were summed up as having been outside the divine will of God.
They were merely the result of man messing things up, so to speak. Following the lead of the liberals, I attempted to read the Old Testament in such a way that I too could explain away each act of violence or war as merely a mistake on man's part and not God's perfect will. I did find a few good examples, such as the statement "Thou shalt not kill" from the Old Testament law, or the story about Abraham avoiding conflicts over the water wells.
There was even the story about the revivals under Jehoshaphat, in which God said, "Ye shall not need to fight in this battle; set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the Lord with you." (2 Chronicles 20:17). However, I eventually realized that my liberal glasses were flawed. When I was completely honest with myself, I felt that there simply was no way, even in my most generous rendering, that I could excuse every act of war and violence in the Old Testament as merely man's mistakes.
Even the command "Thou shalt not kill" from the Ten Commandments was clearly a reference dealing specifically with unlawful murder. To my dismay, I found that the very Old Testament law that established "Thou shalt not kill" also established an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I had to admit that all throughout the Old Testament, wars and battles were actually called for by a direct command of God. No, I did not find in the Old Testament a pacifist God at all. Quite the contrary, I found just the opposite.
I found that the Scriptures portray God as a warrior. As it says in Exodus, "The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name." (Exodus 15:3). These passages challenged me, but I needed to accept this truth as much as any other if I were to understand truly the God of the Scriptures. Holy, holy, holy. Although it certainly is true that God is represented as immeasurably gracious, merciful, and forgiving, He also is revealed to us as being holy. That's a funny word today.
In its most simple translation, the word means separate, or rather, set apart, not aloof, irritated, or even sanctimonious, but separate. Separate in that God is completely above and beyond humans in morality, justice, righteousness, and love. One of the few glimpses of God given in the Bible is from the prophet Isaiah when he received a vision of heaven. When Isaiah came face to face with the holiness of God, it changed his life.
"I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood Seraphim; each one had six wings; with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said, 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.' And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of Him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
So I said, 'Woe is me, for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.'" I felt that this understanding of the Old Testament was essential if I was going to understand the real God of the Bible. R.C. Sproul commented on this passage, wrote, "The Bible says that God is holy, holy, holy; not that He is merely holy, or even holy, holy.
He is holy, holy, holy." The Bible never says that God is love, love, love, or mercy, mercy, mercy, or wrath, wrath, wrath, or justice, justice, justice. It does say that He is holy, holy, holy. The whole earth is full of His glory. This holiness is morally pure. There is no trace of defilement.
As I was beginning to consider the God of the Old Testament, I often identify with the feelings of Isaiah, "Woe is me, for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips." As I attempted to grasp the holiness of God, I suddenly was gripped with reality that everything about me was deficient: my speech, my life, and even my own people group. And unlike us, God does not have to try to be good or keep the law as we do. The law flows from His very essence.
God is perfect, non-compromising, non-changing, and just. This is the God I saw revealed in the Old Testament. Moses. One of the most impressive accounts of God revealing Himself describes what happened shortly after He gave the Old Testament law to Moses. Pleading with God, Moses cried, "Please, show me Your glory." Moses began to beg God to show him more completely who He was. The burning bush, the pillar of fire, and a cloud of smoke were not enough.
Moses wanted even closer intimacy and begged God to show him all of His glory. God explained that He could not completely grant Moses His request because it would kill him. However, God permitted Moses to see a portion of His glory as He went behind a rock. God said, "So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and will cover you with My hand while I pass by." Could you imagine having been there when this happened? I wonder how I would have recorded what happened.
The way Moses recorded this for us in Exodus is somewhat peculiar. Instead of describing God's physical appearance, Moses described God by His attributes, or rather in definitions, that express His very nature or essence. "And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.
And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, 'The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.'" What a beautiful picture of God's mercy. I am eternally grateful for the compassion of God displayed there before Moses. However, as beautiful as this is, it is only half the picture. Moses went on to reveal even more about God's nature.
"And that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." That phrase in the middle of verse 7 still gets me. "And that will by no means clear the guilty." What Moses is saying here about God's character is that God will not just overlook sin. If a law of God is broken, then it must be punished. In other words, God will not just say, "Ah, that's all right. Go on, just forget about it.
It's okay." This passage showed me that sin in my life is serious to God. I can't just ignore it. I must deal with it. To be honest, pondering this truth still makes me tremble. But it also makes me rejoice when I consider what abundant grace and forgiveness has come to us through Jesus Christ. Jesus made the provision for that guilt finally to be taken away and cleared. Going on with Moses, God revealed yet another attribute of His nature with an even more curious description.
"For the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Jealous, what a name. This is the God of the Old Testament. That didn't sound like the all-inclusive God I had recently been reading about. It sounded closer to the idea that God is a warrior. Jesus. Now I had to come to terms with who God is in the New Testament, and at times this seemed a great paradox. If Jesus is the express image of God, then why didn't He teach the same thing in the New Testament as in the Old?
How could I explain the life example and teaching of Christ? Jesus' radical call to non-resistance, loving our enemies, and even doing good to those who mistreat us seemed diametrically to contradict the idea of God being a warrior. If God in the Old Testament said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," then how could Jesus now say, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?
But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other." How could I reconcile the differences? God cannot change. I began to understand that the change from the Old to the New Testament was not a change in the nature or character of God, but a change in how we serve God, and ultimately how we live in His kingdom. The heart of God has never changed. As a matter of fact, God cannot change.
Scripture tells us that there is not even the slightest hint of the ability to change within the nature of God, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. In the New Covenant, God is just as holy and zealous to establish His kingdom as He ever was. He also is just as serious about our lives being dedicated to Him alone as He was in the Old Testament. In this sense, you could still call His name Jealous. Making peace is not an end unto itself. It is not God's final goal.
As a matter of fact, speaking of what radical devotion to Him would produce in relationships, Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies will be those of his own household.
He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Change. All that said, the changes that Jesus made when He came to earth were momentous, even revolutionary. The war for the souls of men still rages on. What changed was how we go to war. As I read through the Sermon on the Mount, it became clear to me that Jesus was incontestably making significant changes in lifestyle, worship, and behaviors.
Six times in the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus begins His radical changes with, "Ye have heard that it hath been said," or, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time." Dismissing the old as if it were already centuries expired, Jesus initiates His changes with the daring manifesto, "But I say unto you," this is significant. It is significant for two reasons. First, it is significant for the very fact that a change of this magnitude was even made in the first place.
I felt that recognition of this fact was the only way to be honest with harmonizing the two Testaments. Just like the changes made in dealing with temple worship and salvation, these changes in lifestyle, devotion, and even war were obviously substantial.
The writer of Hebrews said, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." Because finding fault with them, he says, "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." In that, he says, "A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." This does not make the Old Testaments obsolete.
Again, the heart of God has never changed. Understanding God's heart can help guide our zeal and passion. What has changed is the means by which God's will is to be accomplished and manifested. The authority of Jesus. The second significant thing to note is who was making the change. Only Jesus had the authority to make such unquestionable changes. No prophet or disciple had the authority to make such changes, not even John the Baptist.
No one in history before or afterward had authority to make changes as Jesus did. The last verse in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount reveals the way people perceived His teachings. And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. So now it was all becoming more clear to me.
To understand the question, "How do we deal with the Old Testament?" I first realized that the nature of God has not and cannot change. God is still a warrior. On the other hand, I also came to terms with the fact that the way we fight the battle in the New Covenant has undergone a complete metamorphosis. Examples of the new battle plan. Not only did Jesus give these teachings to us explicitly, He also practiced them as a living demonstration of His new way.
Once, when Jesus and His disciples were planning to pass through the village of the Samaritans, noticing that they were just passing through, the Samaritans conspired to stop them by not allowing them to enter. James and John, remembering the Old Testament way that Elijah had dealt with a challenge similar to this, asked Jesus if they could call down fire from heaven and annihilate them.
"Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And they went to another village. The New Testament battle plan was for salvation, not destruction. We see another conspicuous example when Jesus was being apprehended in the Garden of Gethsemane right before His crucifixion.
This opportunity afforded a very pointed object lesson. Not long before Jesus' abduction in the Garden, Jesus had given the apostles a missionary charge significantly different from the first one. This one was going to be for the long haul. In the first commission, Jesus had told them to take nothing, no money, or even a change of clothes. But now Jesus, anticipating a longer journey, instructed them to pack several things.
And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack." One of the things Jesus told them to pack along with the other provisions was a sword, saying, "And he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." After the instructions, the apostles found two swords and said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is
enough." People argue about the size of these swords.
Exactly how big these swords were is a debate that will never be answered. Regardless of their size, the important point of the object lesson is that Peter was trying to use this thing as a weapon to defend Jesus. When the guards came to take Jesus, the disciples asked him, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" Without waiting for an answer, Peter reared up and hacked off the ear of Malchus, who was a servant of the high priest.
Jesus then reached down, picked up Malchus' ear, miraculously reattached it, and made the proclamation, "Put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Significant words, significant command, and a notably significant change. That's not the way they did it in the Old Testament. This clearly was a change in the battle plan. Furthermore, Jesus' pronouncement on those who "live by the sword" is weighty, to say the least.
There is an interesting quote from way back in the early church that speaks of what resulted from this decree. Tertullian, an early Christian writing as early as AD 190, asked concerning this verse, "How will a Christian man participate in war? In fact, how will he serve even in peace without a sword? For the Lord has taken the sword away." It is also true that soldiers came to John the Baptist and received the instructions for their conduct. It is true also that a centurion believed.
Nevertheless, the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier. To understand finally the God of the Old Testament was to understand my purpose in life as I never had before. I now understood that God did not call us to passivity. He called us to fight, and fight to the death, our own personal death, my death. Indeed, it was the method and battle plan that had changed, not God.
As the reconciliation of Old and New Testaments were beginning to make more sense, the whole idea of a Christian just war grew more and more ridiculous. However, I have to admit that still, when I read the history of these saints from AD 400 and 500, such as Saint Augustine and Cyril, I was very unsettled. I couldn't help but be intimidated by the vastness of their influence, as well as their antiquity. However, I was still left with a conspicuous gap in my mental timeline.
I thought, "Writings from the 400s are agreeably very old, but still, that's more than 375 years after the church began. If Augustine wrote his just war theory sometime about AD 410, then what did the church do before that? Was this the way the church had always believed?"