Actually, the God in the OT and the NT are not as different as people think. Jesus was raised in the synagogue for a good amount of his life and no doubt read the scriptures multiple times over, yet he doesn’t really condemn or contradict the actions of God in the OT. The reasons for this are relatively simple when one takes into consideration the history of Israel.
There are many instances of God’s mercy given in the OT. One of the most prominent is the number of times he forgives and aids the ancient Israeli’s in spite of them violating the covenant they formed with him.
The reason there seems to be a discrepancy between OT God and NT God is a result of the changes in Mankind, not the changes in God.
To fully understand this we have to start from the covenant with Abraham.
The idea was that from Abraham and Sarah would be born a son out of whom a new nation would be born. This nation would be God’s chosen. Through this nation God would reveal his plan for all of humanity. The idea was that once this nation grasped God’s purposes, they would spread it to other nations.
Abraham disobeyed God and slept with his wife’s maidservant Hagar since his wife was barren. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael as a result. God was rather miffed at Abraham’s disobedience but forgave him and told him to try again and to get it right this time. Sarah gave birth to Isaac. Isaac fathered Jacob and Esau.
(Now on a side note, I’ve seen in claimed that according to the Bible, God is partly responsible for the situation in the Mideast due to promising the same land to both Ishmael and Jacob. This is false. After Abraham sent Hagar away, God promised Hagar that her son Ishmael would also be patriarch of a large nation. God did similar to Esau after Jacob stole Esau’s birthright by disguising himself as Esau and getting Isaac’s blessing. Esau later became known as Edom and went off on his own and his descendants became the nation of Edom. Esau and Jacob made peace later. Coincidentally, there are many parallels between the relationship of Jacob and Esau and the relationship of the nations they founded, Edom and Israel. Now Ishmael isn’t mentioned much after he is sent away, but Genesis mentions that his lands were east of Egypt towards Assyria. This would imply that they were somewhere to the southeast of what would become the nation of Israel. God’s intention was for Abraham’s descendants to have their own lands and exist peacefully with each other.)
Anyway, Jacob had 12 sons who would become the patriarch’s of the tribes of Israel (named after Jacob when he changed his name). After the Exodus, God formed a new covenant with the Isrealites. In exchange for their obedience to his law and commandments, God would make them a powerful nation and would use them to spread his message. This was revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai, where moses was also given the ten commandments.
Now, it bears mentioning that contrary to popular belief, the two stone tablets most likely did not contain 5 commandments on each as is often portrayed in pop culture. The stone tablets represented the covenant, and just as in modern day, any agreement drawn up between multiple parties results in each party getting an identical copy of the agreement. The two tablets represented a copy of the covenant for God, and a copy for the Isrealis. They also probably contained the whole covenant, not just the ten commandments. God gave his copy to the Israelis as a reminder that he was always with them.
Now reading through the ancient laws Israel, many of them seem rather harsh and/or overly specific and anal, but we need to take these laws with the context of the times in which they were written.
A good example to look at is the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” thing. It is probably the most mentioned of the ancient Isreali laws. I see many people today misuse this passage as justification for severe punishments, most notably the death penalty. However, as others in this thread have pointed out, Jesus implies that it is wrong. Why?
Simple. Back in the ancient days, “eye for eye” was merciful. Most of the “civilizations” in that day gave those in power complete and utter power to do as they please. If you stole a loaf of bread from someone, you could be put to death. If you spit on the street, you could be put to death. If you sneezed at the wrong moment, you could be put to death. It was all at the whim of whomever had the power. These were the same civilizations that included in some of their religious rites ritual sacrificing of infants. Things that would be considered positively barbaric by today’s standards were commonplace back then. The whole purpose of the Isreali laws laid down in the Bible was to have punishments fit the crime. The death penalty is employed, but only for serious offenses.
Another point to make is that the laws had to be simple and exact to leave little room for interpretation. The new laws were foreign to the ancient Isrealis. Many of the ideas were new. You make them too vague or too revolutionary, and the people will misinterpret or even worse, disregard them. I once heard the situation with the ancient Isralis described in the following analogy:
Remember back in first grade when the teacher separated the class into different reading groups based on ability? At the top you had the ones who could already read. These kids were like eagles, soaring above the rest of the class. They needed less supervisional instruction and more independent work. Then you had a group or two in between. Then you had the group that was unable to read. These were like turtles, they were behind in speed compared to everyone else. They needed extra guidance and help to advance to the level of eagles. If you left them on there own, they would make little progress, and perhaps even regress from what they’ve been taught.
Now, which group of “readers” do you think God was working with? The eagles, or the turtles?
God’s purpose was that with enough encouragement, these laws would become almost second nature. Eventually they would become almost a part of the person himself. Once this was accomplished, mankind could become truly civilized. The laws would slowly change, because the harshness and specifics would no longer be needed. The importance was in the spirit of the laws, not in the formal declaration of them. However, without the formal declaration first, the spirit could never be realized.
Thus, God gave the Israelites the power to conquer the promised land. With the exception of the Phillistines, most of the peoples that resided there were truly barbaric. Human sacrifice was common. Laws were harsh and punishments were out of proportion to the crime. The rich oppressed the poor. The powerful oppressed the lowly. (Compare this to the Israeli laws where the poor, though having lower social status, still had ample protections under the law.) God allowed Israel to conquer these people so as to show what civilization truly could be. Now the case of the Phillistines was interesting, because the Phillistines were the most technologically advanced society at the time. Although they were still barbaric from a sociological standpoint, they had better weapons, armor, and tools than all other civilizations in the area. The Israelis truly were insects in comparison militarily. This is probably why they are so prominent in the stories. It was to show that even a highly advanced technological society could be defeated by the one with God on its side.
However, over time the Israelis turned away from God, effectively breaking their end of the covenant. God in turn punished them by letting them get captured. Then they would repent, turn back to God, and god would allow one of the judges to raise an army and once again free the Israelis. This cycle continues until Israel decides they want a king like the rest of the peoples around them. The Kings eventually lead to Israel being split, and both the northern and southern kingdoms eventually being conquered. The temple is destroyed, the original covenant essentially ended (though the seeds of God’s original plan have still been sown).
Jesus comes along when society, though far from perfect, is more advanced than in Moses day. Although much of what he preaches is revolutionary to the current society, it isn’t nearly as out there as it would have been when the original covenant is formed. Jesus is in his own words the “fulfillment of the law.” In other words, he represents the embodiment in spirit of what the old laws were representing. Through him the specifics of the old covenant are replaced by a new covenant representing freedom from the law itself, but not its intent. It also brings about the extension of God’s purposes to the Gentiles, something that was always part of the original plan.
There was no new God, just a different and updated way of society realizing his purpose.
at the end of the last sentance, although if you feel like living up to your word…