Radical Discontinuity

The first essay in Show Them No Mercy was entitled "Radical Discontinuity", in which the author basically suggested that the loving New Testament Jesus reinterprets the violence of the Old Testament in a way to suggest the the OT authors had an incomplete understanding of the nature of God. Jesus was such a pivotal person, that his presence completely redefines and trumps previous ideas of God, including God as a prescriber of genocide.

As in many theological debates, the question remains of what to do about all the passages that gave us a headache in the first place? The OT often and commonly states that God told the Israelites to kill thus and so city, often including women and children, and even the animals. The author supporting "Radical Discontinuity" between the Old and New Testaments suggests that those biblical passages were written by humans, and that they showed the incompleteness of their view of God.

The problem with that viewpoint is clear. Can we really claim that much of the OT is unbiblical? Can we say that God as he is presented in the OT is not Christlike? I suppose we could, but to do so would essentially be to rid ourselves of any notion of God's inspiration of scripture, or even the trustworthiness of any of scripture (being as Jesus, Paul and others really seem to uphold the OT as valid, God-breathed scripture.)

It is a distressing problem. On the one hand, the loving Jesus is the person at the center of this whole thing and to uphold any divinity of Christ almost seems to juxtapose the loving Christ with the genocidal OT concept of God. On the other hand, that is what the Bible gives us, and if we are going to learn of our concept of Christ from the Bible, then some trust in the Bible is essential.

Some authors who critiqued this essay claim to have better solutions in their essays, so I will see if they offer any hope. This author jettisoned the bible for Jesus. While Jesus is a worthy cause, i dont know whether 86'ing scripture is helpful.