Does O.T. immorality get a free pass by virtue of it being in the O.T.?

[poolerboy]

Continued from this thread.

As an academic discussion, perhaps. But it has nothing to do with the morality of the Bible.

I think you're not understanding what I'm getting at. I'm not talking about the biblical morality for humans to follow. I'm talking about holding morally accountable God for the atrocities done before the events in the New Testament. For example if God permits a barbarism of getting one's unruly child and having his parents take him to the middle of a town to be stoned to death, this is worthy of bringing up in a discussion of morality. The fact that the NT might have done away with the way things were done back in the "good ol' days" of the OT doesn't change the fact that they were permitted at one point. There's no statute of limitations for barbarism and accountability in this regard, regardless of hermeneutics.

the term "morality of the bible" is an open-ended phrase that doesn't necessarily narrow down to whether we're talking about the issue of the morality it prescribes or about the morality it projects.

You're more than welcome to respond here.

Sorry, but what the texts of the Bible actually say is that the morality of the Bible is what's given in the New Testament.

Oh? Go on.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh? Go on.

That's easy: both Jesus and Paul say that the Old Testament law is summed up by loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

That right there is the morality of the Bible.

 

[poolerboy]

That's easy: both Jesus and Paul say that the Old Testament law is summed up by loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

That right there is the morality of the Bible.

Orly?

"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubbron and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid." —Deuteronomy 21:18-21​

Next time I see my neighbor I'll take note to "love" him with as much vigor as prescribed in the O.T.

 

[Kulindahr]

Orly?

"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubbron and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid." —Deuteronomy 21:18-21​

Next time I see my neighbor I'll take note to "love" him with as much vigor as prescribed in the O.T.

Is your neighbor a Jew living in the land of Israel prior to ~30 A.D.?


"It has pleased the Holy Spirit that you should not have a heavy load to carry, and we agree. You need to do only these things: Stay away from any food that has been offered to idols, eating any animals that have been strangled, and blood, and any kind of sexual sin. If you stay away from these things, you will do well."

-- Acts 15:28f

That's the only moral code set down in the NT at all. It plainly eliminates all those Old Testament items aimed at a particular people in a particular culture in a particular place.

So if you want any "rules" that explain anything about what loving your neighbor is about, that's the only place to find them -- the Old Testament is not for today, and was never for anyone but Jews.

 

[hotatlboi]

That's the only moral code set down in the NT at all. It plainly eliminates all those Old Testament items aimed at a particular people in a particular culture in a particular place.

I don't think poolerboy is necessarily arguing that point.

Rather he is saying, how can you rationally believe that a perfect being with supposedly perfect morality EVER promulgated such a heinous command as murdering your children, to any culture, any people, at any time in history?

Such a command is not the product of a perfect morality, nor a perfect being.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think poolerboy is necessarily arguing that point.

Rather he is saying, how can you rationally believe that a perfect being with supposedly perfect morality EVER promulgated such a heinous command as murdering your children, to any culture, any people, at any time in history?

Such a command is not the product of a perfect morality, nor a perfect being.

He was presenting it that way, though, when he took the Old Testament passage as being instructions for today.

To me, the point of that rule was to drive home that children should behave so as to benefit the family, which in that culture meant respect and obedience to parents. What I wish is a way to find out if it was ever actually done. Seriously, what parent is going to do such a thing?

Of course there are parents today who effectively do things to their children that are just short of killing them.

 

[poolerboy]

Is your neighbor a Jew living in the land of Israel prior to ~30 A.D.?

I don't think poolerboy is necessarily arguing that point.

Rather he is saying, how can you rationally believe that a perfect being with supposedly perfect morality EVER promulgated such a heinous command as murdering your children, to any culture, any people, at any time in history?

Such a command is not the product of a perfect morality, nor a perfect being.

hotatlboi hit the nail on the head.

"It has pleased the Holy Spirit that you should not have a heavy load to carry, and we agree. You need to do only these things: Stay away from any food that has been offered to idols, eating any animals that have been strangled, and blood, and any kind of sexual sin. If you stay away from these things, you will do well."

-- Acts 15:28f

That's the only moral code set down in the NT at all. It plainly eliminates all those Old Testament items aimed at a particular people in a particular culture in a particular place.

So if you want any "rules" that explain anything about what loving your neighbor is about, that's the only place to find them -- the Old Testament is not for today, and was never for anyone but Jews.

That's the apostle's take for gentile believers. Jesus' position for Jewish Christians was that it is to remain and was silent on whether gentile believers should or should not follow suit. So the OT not being binding might only partially be true.

To me, the point of that rule was to drive home that children should behave so as to benefit the family, which in that culture meant respect and obedience to parents. What I wish is a way to find out if it was ever actually done. Seriously, what parent is going to do such a thing?

I don't know, you'll have to ask Abraham who thought it a brilliant idea to follow the voices in his head and attempt to kill his son. Moreover, many were apparently passing their children through fire so as to appease Molech, so I don't see how it would be inconceivable for something similarly barbaric to be performed in following Yahweh. But even if for the sake of argument no one ever decided to follow this, the "morality of the Bible" here still stands: an appalling lack thereof.

Of course there are parents today who effectively do things to their children that are just short of killing them.

And you don't think it a bit foolhardy (putting it mildly) to add a stoning-to-death prescription as a proper disciplining method for children? How can that even be considered discipline if they're not learning a lesson...since they'd be dead?

 

[Kulindahr]

That's the apostle's take for gentile believers. Jesus' position for Jewish Christians was that it is to remain and was silent on whether gentile believers should or should not follow suit. So the OT not being binding might only partially be true.

Jesus said he fulfilled the Law, that is, filled it full. If it's filled full, no one has to add to it at all. Thus by Jesus' words, the OT law no longer applies.

 

[conrad]

In this day and age it would seem to me quite obvious that the only "morality" that is important is not what seems to have been the morality in some time past; that is true whether you are talking about the Old or New Testaments, or the morality of the Church of Middle Ages, the morality of the Pilgrims and Puritans, or even the morality of the so-called Fundamentalist Christians ot times past and of their detractors both in the past and the present.

One need not be a learned biblical scholar to understand that even in the Bible there is a progression in morality. If you will read carefully, you will note that what clearly indicates a pathetic sense of right and wrong that the writers seem to think came from God Almighty. The later social prophets did rail against much of what most folks would call immorality even today. Micah's words should give those who seem so convinced they are right today pause. He see's the whole duty of man " to do justly, the love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." One could put that in today's language as: Be fair; be kind, and always keep in mind that you could be wrong because you are human not God.

IF YOU WILL TAKE THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE RATHER THAN GETTING HUNG UP ON WHAT CLEARLY DOES NOT EVEN MEASURE UP TO THE THINKING OF DECENT FOLKS TODAY, you will, I think, find that there is much more of good news liberation than outworn condemnation.

If the God pictured in the Old Testament is less good than you imagine yourself to be you obviously ought not to retain that picture. It was not God who had changed, but the controlling picture of God, that Jesus of Nazareth and the New Testament writers chose to challenge.

 

[Kulindahr]

One need not be a learned biblical scholar to understand that even in the Bible there is a progression in morality. If you will read carefully, you will note that what clearly indicates a pathetic sense of right and wrong that the writers seem to think came from God Almighty. The later social prophets did rail against much of what most folks would call immorality even today. Micah's words should give those who seem so convinced they are right today pause. He see's the whole duty of man " to do justly, the love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." One could put that in today's language as: Be fair; be kind, and always keep in mind that you could be wrong because you are human not God.

That passage is translated better by the old KJV: "to do justice". We'd say "to accomplish justice", which means fighting for it and for the oppressed to get it.

Now if you take the OT as what the Bible claims, then these words of Micah are the proper explanation of what the Torah was about -- not a list of rules for their own sake, but in order to teach justice and mercy.

Still, that leaves issues like the bears being sent to slaughter the children who'd taunted a prophet.

 

[poolerboy]

Jesus said he fulfilled the Law, that is, filled it full. If it's filled full, no one has to add to it at all. Thus by Jesus' words, the OT law no longer applies.

I was with you up until you jumped to your unsupported conclusion. If someone were to hypotheically seal the Constitution such that no such altering and amending could take place, would that mean the Constitution no longer applies? The Seal of the Prophets is Muhammad but the fact that "seals" the prophets by being the last one does not mean the others are irrelevant. The concepts of open canon vs. closed canon apply similarly in that simply because the canon is closed it does not therefore mean it isn't applicable in some authoritative way.

You are correct that "fulfill" (Koine Greek: plēroō) here means to fill fully. Jesus in Matthew (a highly Jewish gospel) required his followers to fulfill the Law even better than the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees. The author of Matthew even indicates what he means in the very next passage (the famous "Antitheses" ; Matt 5:21-48 ). No where does this indicate that fulfill means that it is therefore no longer applicable.

I don't endorse the following individual or his overall message, but his description of this passage seems mostly spot on.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-NzXUQ2lZ0[/ame]

 

[Kulindahr]

I was with you up until you jumped to your unsupported conclusion. If someone were to hypotheically seal the Constitution such that no such altering and amending could take place, would that mean the Constitution no longer applies? The Seal of the Prophets is Muhammad but the fact that "seals" the prophets by being the last one does not mean the others are irrelevant. The concepts of open canon vs. closed canon apply similarly in that simply because the canon is closed it does not therefore mean it isn't applicable in some authoritative way.

I have no idea what you're talking about with a "seal" or an open or closed canon.

When a prophecy is fulfilled, that means it's done with -- you don't look for the thing to happen any more. When a plan is fulfilled, that means the job is done, and you don't keep working on it. When a building schematic is fulfilled, that mean's it's finished and you don't have to build any more.

When the Law was fulfilled, that means you don't have to keep doing those things any more.

You are correct that "fulfill" (Koine Greek: plēroō) here means to fill fully. Jesus in Matthew (a highly Jewish gospel) required his followers to fulfill the Law even better than the Jewish leaders, scribes and Pharisees. The author of Matthew even indicates what he means in the very next passage (the famous "Antitheses" ; Matt 5:21-48 ). No where does this indicate that fulfill means that it is therefore no longer applicable.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is showing how impossible it is to fulfill the Law. He's doing the same thing Paul does later: showing that the Law doesn't bring righteousness. When He talks about teaching people to not follow it, He's referring to the self-righteous of the day who made rules for others to follow, in ways that got them out of paying attention to the deeper meaning under the Law: mercy, love, compassion.

That builds on the Old Testament, where God says He despises all the feast days and rituals and empty obedience. Jesus is continuing a message that had been building through the prophets, that the Law was meant to lift them to see mercy and faithfulness and not picky details.

I don't endorse the following individual or his overall message, but his description of this passage seems mostly spot on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-NzXUQ2lZ0

He's correct: the fullest meaning of the Torah is that rules and regulations cannot bring righteousness. The Old Testament itself teaches that, in passages such as I references above. Jesus made it plain that "Don't murder" means don't even get pissed at him, don't call him or even think of him as foolish. When the Torah gives a rule, that rule is meant to strike at the heart and show that we cannot possibly go without breaking it, because it isn't just killing, or skipping church, or whatever that breaks the command, it's having even the desire to do anything even similar.

The Law was meant to show us just how hopeless we are. That's the meaning that Jesus brought out, the full meaning.

But it was also meant to demand righteousness, but only Jesus was ever righteous. He was righteousness itself, because we can never be righteous.

So He fulfilled it in both the Hebrew sense and the Greek sense -- and if the Greek sense wasn't meant to apply, we would have the scriptures in Hebrew.

 

[poolerboy]

I have no idea what you're talking about with a "seal" or an open or closed canon.

The closure of the canon reflects a belief that public revelation has ended and thus the inspired texts may be gathered into a complete and authoritative canon. By contrast, an open canon permits the addition of additional books through the process of continuous revelation.

By seal I only meant the closure of canon from further addition.

When a prophecy is fulfilled, that means it's done with -- you don't look for the thing to happen any more. When a plan is fulfilled, that means the job is done, and you don't keep working on it. When a building schematic is fulfilled, that mean's it's finished and you don't have to build any more.

When the Law was fulfilled, that means you don't have to keep doing those things any more.

That's all fine if Jesus had been speaking in English, but plēroō (the word translated into English as "fulfilled") doesn't mean what it means in English like when we say "I have fulfilled the contract" meaning I have met the obligations and I am no longer bound to it. In the Greek (and even in the Hebrew) it means to fill fully, that's it. The rest is your own belief not grounded on fact.

He's doing the same thing Paul does later: showing that the Law doesn't bring righteousness.

No, he isn't. This is exactly the very problem many Chrisitans have with the text: that they impose views onto the text that the very text itself never makes. You have to let each book speak for itself. Even Christian apologetic websites concur at times that there are conflicting messages like with the abolish-fulfill passage of Jesus in Matthew and that of Paul's like in Ephesians. A similar thing happens in the whole dispute over sola fide in Protestanism and Catholicism. Who was right? Was Paul correct or was James? They both have different messages and it should come as no surprise since neither wrote their epistles thinking that they were going to be fused together in one canon and have their adherents assume they're both on the same page. This is one reason why Martin Luther hated that book.

The Law was meant to show us just how hopeless we are. That's the meaning that Jesus brought out, the full meaning.

That's the same old tired canard that Christians use in the interpretation of the Antitheses. Here's a scholar with a better analysis:

An "antithesis" is a contrary statement. In the six antithesis recorded in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus states a Jewish Law and then sets his interpretation of that Law over and against it. I should emphasize that Matthew does not portray Jesus as contradicting the Law; for example, he does not say, "You have heard it said, 'You shall not commit murder,' but I say to you that you should." Instead, Jesus urges his followers to adhere to the Law, but, to do so more rigorously than even the religious leaders of Israel. [...] As we can see from these examples, far from absolving his followers of the responsibility to keep the Law, Matthew's Jesus intensifies the Law, requiring his followers to keep not just its letter but its very spirit. This intensification of the Law, however, raises a number of questions. One in particular has occurred to many readers over the years: can Jesus be serious? Is he really saying that no one who becomes angry, or who lusts, or who returns a blow can enter into the kingdom?

Readers of Matthew have frequently tried to get around this problem by softening Matthew's rigorous statements by imposing views not presented in the text itself. For example, it is commonly suggested that Jesus means to set up an ideal standard that no one could possibly achieve to force people to realize that they are utter sinners in need of divine grace for salvation. The point of Jesus' words, then, would be that people cannot keep God's Law even if they wanted to. The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus in Matthew does not suggest that it is impossible to control your anger or lust, any more than the author of the Torah suggests that it is impossible to control your coveting.

 

[Kulindahr]

By seal I only meant the closure of canon from further addition.

Well, duh, but what the heck does that have to do with anything?

That's all fine if Jesus had been speaking in English, but plēroō (the word translated into English as "fulfilled") doesn't mean what it means in English like when we say "I have fulfilled the contract" meaning I have met the obligations and I am no longer bound to it. In the Greek (and even in the Hebrew) it means to fill fully, that's it. The rest is your own belief not grounded on fact.

If something is filled fully, completed, carried through to the end, accomplished, made complete in every particular, then nothing more needs to be done. If my TDNT wasn't in storage, I'd give you places in Greek secular writings where the verb is used in just that way.

No, he isn't. This is exactly the very problem many Chrisitans have with the text: that they impose views onto the text that the very text itself never makes. You have to let each book speak for itself. Even Christian apologetic websites concur at times that there are conflicting messages like with the abolish-fulfill passage of Jesus in Matthew and that of Paul's like in Ephesians.

There's no conflict in the two pieces on that website, and both of them disagree with what you're saying.
But the question there is wrong: obviously Jesus didn't abolish the Law; He said He didn't. But He did everything it demanded -- and in fact broke it on more than one occasion, giving the principle that mercy overrides rules, a principle already seen in the Prophets.

A similar thing happens in the whole dispute over sola fide in Protestanism and Catholicism. Who was right? Was Paul correct or was James? They both have different messages and it should come as no surprise since neither wrote their epistles thinking that they were going to be fused together in one canon and have their adherents assume they're both on the same page. This is one reason why Martin Luther hated that book.

That's the same old tired canard that Christians use in the interpretation of the Antitheses. Here's a scholar with a better analysis:

Jesus was speaking to the "scribes and Pharisees", who prattled about how they followed the Law, and showing His listeners that they didn't, in fact, and that anyone who claimed to follow the law perfectly was a liar. If He was instead raising up an even more demanding Law, then there was no "good news" at all, just a message that hardly anyone was ever going to get into the Kingdom of God.

What He says here has to fit with the rest of His message, and what your source says is the case just doesn't. Nor is it what the Apostles, who learned from Him, taught, nor those who studied under them.

 

[poolerboy]

Well, duh, but what the heck does that have to do with anything?

If something is filled fully, completed, carried through to the end, accomplished, made complete in every particular, then nothing more needs to be done. If my TDNT wasn't in storage, I'd give you places in Greek secular writings where the verb is used in just that way.

In this context when it's being juxtaposed, or, better stated, set against to "abolish" (kataluō) it would not. You also miss a key part in that statement. Jesus goes on to say, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" [italics, mine]. That last part "untill all is accomplished" regards the end of the age (my NRSV even confirms this in the footnotes and references 28:20). When we take a look at 28:20 we get, "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" [italics, mine]. My NRSV notes, "To the end of the age, i.e., to the coming of Jesus as the Son of Man for judgment." So if the law stands until all is accomplished (i.e. to the coming of the age) then it remains. That this stands in conflict with Acts or with Paul is only an inconvenience to those who assume the canon is non-conflicting and harmonious.

There's no conflict in the two pieces on that website, and both of them disagree with what you're saying.

Oh?

But He did everything it demanded -- and in fact broke it on more than one occasion.

Can you give an example?

What He says here has to fit with the rest of His message, and what your source says is the case just doesn't. Nor is it what the Apostles, who learned from Him, taught, nor those who studied under them.

Your assumption is that the books were written by the Apostles or people who carried out the Apostles "true" message or perhaps that the Apostles understood Jesus' message clearly (remember in Mark that very few knew who he really was or what he came for, including the disciples!). I don't furrow my brow too much at these discrepancies because I don't assume these texts to be in perfect harmony and non-conflicting.

 

[Kulindahr]

In this context when it's being juxtaposed, or, better stated, set against to "abolish" (kataluō) it would not. You also miss a key part in that statement. Jesus goes on to say, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" [italics, mine]. That last part "untill all is accomplished" regards the end of the age (my NRSV even confirms this in the footnotes and references 28:20). When we take a look at 28:20 we get, "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" [italics, mine]. My NRSV notes, "To the end of the age, i.e., to the coming of Jesus as the Son of Man for judgment." So if the law stands until all is accomplished (i.e. to the coming of the age) then it remains. That this stands in conflict with Acts or with Paul is only an inconvenience to those who assume the canon is non-conflicting and harmonious.

There's no conflict with Paul: the law remains, but it is no longer a set of rules that anyone has to follow; it remains for instruction as to how relationships with God work.

And of course the canon is non-conflicting; it's inspired, and God isn't going to inspire contradictory things.

Oh?

What, didn't you read them?

Can you give an example?

Healing on the Sabbath, reaping grain on the Sabbath are the two best. He deliberately did both, to show that mercy trumps the law. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", shows that it isn't just Jesus who can do such things, that Sabbath rules are no longer a law.

Your assumption is that the books were written by the Apostles or people who carried out the Apostles "true" message or perhaps that the Apostles understood Jesus' message clearly (remember in Mark that very few knew who he really was or what he came for, including the disciples!). I don't furrow my brow too much at these discrepancies because I don't assume these texts to be in perfect harmony and non-conflicting.

There's little dispute that the Pauline letters are genuine. Matthew was written by A.D. 55 or so, and since it seems to draw from Mark, that was completed fairly early as well. I see no reason to believe that those writers would have changed or distorted anything Jesus said.

 

[poolerboy]

There's no conflict with Paul: the law remains, but it is no longer a set of rules that anyone has to follow; it remains for instruction as to how relationships with God work.

And we see clearly the immorality of God in reviewing the record. That you view the law as non-binding does not give His acts a free pass. Only to people who have a belief that God is all good attempt to amerliorate and justify the cruelty of the text by saying that what is perceived as immoral and evil is actually good incomprehensible to the mind of man. Such is the genius of the unfalsifiable.

And of course the canon is non-conflicting; it's inspired, and God isn't going to inspire contradictory things.

Your matter-of-factly assertion is but a mere belief that can be compared to anyone else's unsubstantiated belief.

What, didn't you read them?

Indeed I did. Question is did you? Doesn't seem like it.

Healing on the Sabbath, reaping grain on the Sabbath are the two best. He deliberately did both, to show that mercy trumps the law. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", shows that it isn't just Jesus who can do such things, that Sabbath rules are no longer a law.

The Law of Moses says nothing about healing as constituting "work" on the Sabbath. That was the conclusion made by the lawyers and Pharisees, some of which allowed for healing if the person was in great danger. Jesus is merely setting his interpretation far above those of the lawyers and Pharisees.

There's little dispute that the Pauline letters are genuine.

Actually that's incorrect. They are broken into three separate categories: ones are in the Undisputed Pauline epistles, others are in the Deutero-Pauline category (meaning they have secondary standing because they're disputed) and finally the last ones are in the Pastoral Epistles (held to be probably pseudonymous since they tend to be considered unauthored by Paul and rather by a later member of one of his churches who wanted to appeal to Paul's authority in dealing with a situation that had arisen after his death).

Matthew was written by A.D. 55 or so, and since it seems to draw from Mark, that was completed fairly early as well.

P64 has been dated to the late 2nd century or possibly early 3rd (dates generally agreed upon). Only the fringe scholar Carsten Peter Thiede is responsible for dating it to the 1st century (as well as 7Q5). 7Q5 is hardly agreed upon to be the dating you've given it and mostly comes from the outlandish conjecture by O'Callaghan and later Thiede. Much to the contrary of being based on "the science of papyrology" as you've stated in other threads, the argument rests upon claiming a few words and letters, many of which are disputed and others which have to be modified in order to somewhat fit the argued verses, are part of the Gospel of Mark. Computer searches don't even identify the text as such as many scholars have now done.

 

[primalurge]

I sort of have to beg to differ. I think the kid has a good point about the barbaric acts supposedly instituted by God. I believe the answer lies in the revelation of himself as Christ where he cleans up misconceptions and errors that men were doing in his name believing to be led by God. the thing I find most hard to reconcile is that Yahweh seemed to be a God of War in the O.T. and Christ was most certainly a Pacifist. I don't believe that the Trinity is scizophrenic, so I can only deduce that Israel was waging wars believing they had the backing of God and perhaps were mistaken. I don't know my friends, I try to ignore the O.T. it just confuses me.

 

[Kulindahr]

I sort of have to beg to differ. I think the kid has a good point about the barbaric acts supposedly instituted by God. I believe the answer lies in the revelation of himself as Christ where he cleans up misconceptions and errors that men were doing in his name believing to be led by God. the thing I find most hard to reconcile is that Yahweh seemed to be a God of War in the O.T. and Christ was most certainly a Pacifist. I don't believe that the Trinity is scizophrenic, so I can only deduce that Israel was waging wars believing they had the backing of God and perhaps were mistaken. I don't know my friends, I try to ignore the O.T. it just confuses me.

There's a good book that covers this; IIRC it's The Kingdom of God, by Bright (not the dork who heads Campus Crusade for Christ).

In brief, the picture is one of a king waging a war he must wage, against rebellious subjects, when what he'd like to do is make peace. Then the crown prince sneaks off (with dad's knowledge) and switches sides. The king's wrath against the rebels falls on the prince, giving the king a way to make peace.


Even in the OT, though, Yahweh has shifted from being a God of War, and from being a God of Rules; that's all over the prophets.