The Mystery of a Contradictory God
Readers of the Bible often find themselves grappling with an unsettling contrast: the God of the Old Testament appears commanding, wrathful, and sometimes violent, while the God of the New Testament, especially as revealed through Jesus Christ, is portrayed as loving, merciful, and self-sacrificing. How can these two seemingly different divine personalities be reconciled?
Some theologians argue that the contrast is a matter of progressive revelation, in which God unveils His nature gradually to humanity. Others maintain that God’s justice and mercy are two facets of the same divine character, operating in different contexts. However, skeptics counter that these differences point to evolving human perceptions of the divine rather than a single, consistent deity. The debate is far from settled, but it has shaped biblical interpretation, religious doctrine, and theological discourse for centuries.
Progressive Revelation: A Divine Plan Unfolding
One common explanation among Christian theologians is the concept of progressive revelation—the idea that God revealed Himself gradually, tailoring His message to different stages of human understanding. The Old Testament, in this view, reflects an earlier phase in God’s plan, where laws, covenants, and divine judgments were necessary to establish a moral and social foundation for Israel. As history progressed, the full depth of God's love and grace was revealed through Christ in the New Testament.
This view finds scriptural support in passages that depict the New Covenant as an advancement over the old. The Book of Hebrews explicitly contrasts the Old Testament system of laws and sacrifices with the superior, eternal covenant established through Jesus:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." (Hebrews 8:7, KJV)
Here, the writer suggests that the Old Testament laws served a purpose but were always meant to be fulfilled and transcended by Christ. Jesus Himself seems to echo this sentiment in the Sermon on the Mount:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17, KJV)
Advocates of progressive revelation argue that the severity of the Old Testament was never the final picture but rather a necessary stage leading to the full revelation of God’s mercy in Christ. The harsh laws and divine judgments, in this view, were part of a larger process designed to prepare humanity for grace. However, critics argue that this explanation does not fully account for the apparent moral discontinuities between the two Testaments.
Justice and Mercy: Two Facets of the Same God
Another perspective asserts that God’s justice and mercy are not contradictory but complementary. The Old Testament’s emphasis on law and judgment underscores divine holiness and moral order, while the New Testament highlights grace and redemption. Rather than seeing these aspects as separate, some argue that they form a unified vision of God’s nature.
Even in the Old Testament, there are moments of profound mercy. God spares Nineveh when they repent in the Book of Jonah, and the prophet Hosea’s story illustrates divine love overcoming human unfaithfulness:
"I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him." (Hosea 14:4, KJV)
Similarly, the New Testament does not eliminate divine justice. Jesus speaks of final judgment, warns of damnation, and cleanses the temple in righteous anger (Matthew 21:12-13). The Book of Revelation, often overlooked in this discussion, presents a vision of Christ as a conquering judge who executes divine wrath upon the wicked.
From this perspective, the Old Testament and New Testament do not depict different Gods, but rather different expressions of the same divine nature in different contexts. However, this argument struggles to explain why God’s commands in the Old Testament—such as those ordering the destruction of entire cities in the Book of Joshua—appear so irreconcilable with Christ’s message of enemy love and forgiveness.
A Human Patchwork: The Skeptical View
Skeptics take a different approach, arguing that the differences between Old and New Testament depictions of God stem not from a divine plan but from evolving human conceptions of the divine. According to this theory, ancient Israelite religion was shaped by its cultural and historical circumstances, producing a God who reflects the values of tribal warfare, strict law codes, and collective identity. Later, as Jewish thought and early Christianity developed under different conditions, so did their portrayal of God.
The Documentary Hypothesis, a well-known academic theory, suggests that the Old Testament is composed of multiple sources (J, E, P, D) written at different times and by different authors, each with varying views on God. These sources were later combined, sometimes resulting in conflicting images of the divine. For example, one passage describes God as a warrior leading Israel in battle (Exodus 15:3), while another emphasizes His compassionate nature (Exodus 34:6-7).
Early Christians, according to this view, reinterpreted Jewish scriptures to align with their belief in Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, frequently cites Old Testament prophecies, reframing them as foretelling Christ. However, skeptics argue that these reinterpretations often ignore the original meanings of the texts, instead reshaping them to fit new theological narratives.
The Challenge of Moral Inconsistency
One of the strongest criticisms against the idea of a unified biblical God is the apparent moral discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, God commands acts of war and destruction, as seen in Deuteronomy:
"But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." (Deuteronomy 20:16, KJV)
In stark contrast, Jesus teaches love for one’s enemies:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44, KJV)
Critics question how a perfectly moral God could issue such divergent commands. Some theologians attempt to resolve this tension by interpreting certain Old Testament passages as culturally bound or non-literal. Others propose that human authors misunderstood or misrepresented God’s will at different points in history.
However, if divine morality is absolute, why would it appear so inconsistent across different texts? If God is unchanging, as passages like Malachi 3:6 claim ("For I am the Lord, I change not"), then why do His actions seem to shift so dramatically?
One God or Two?
At the heart of this debate is the question of whether the Bible presents a single, coherent vision of God or a collection of competing theological perspectives. Those who see unity argue that all of scripture, from the laws of Moses to the teachings of Christ, reveals aspects of the same divine character. Others contend that the inconsistencies are too great to be harmonized, suggesting instead that the Bible reflects humanity’s evolving religious thought rather than the words of an unchanging deity.
If the Bible presents a unified God, then His character must encompass both judgment and mercy in a way that is ultimately just and loving. If, however, the differences are too vast to reconcile, then we may be looking at an ancient text shaped by human hands rather than divine guidance.
The question remains open, inviting each reader to wrestle with the complexity of scripture and to draw their own conclusions about the nature of the God—or gods—depicted within its pages.
