I’d recommend this interesting essay to readers. It was published by the Christian Research Institute.
The essay has some deficiencies, in that there are other important differences (and nuances within the differences noted). For example, the OT law was also something extended to non-Israelites (i.e., God expected the elohim allotted to the nations (Deut 32:8-9, reading with the Dead Sea Scrolls, as in the case of ESV) to rule those nations justly–in accord with Yahweh’s good law. That’s but one example of how the societal and moral goodness of the law was intended to make life better for the Gentile. But of course this didn’t happen, and the gods of the nations are condemned for it in Psalm 82. Additionally, as I’ve discussed on several episodes of the podcast, chaos in any nation, Israel or otherwise, was linked to abandonment of God’s justice and moral law. Following the law (even if only “written on the heart” in the case of Gentiles) was a moral and social benefit intended by God (not an “imposition” — the article’s word for how sharia law was to extend to outsiders — and so I’d quibble with that paragraph a bit). I’d also reword the footnote about how there are OT passages where God hates sinners. God doesn’t hate the non-Israelite for being a non-Israelite. That cannot be the case given the original covenant blessing was *designed* to extend to Gentiles (Gen 12:3). Rather, the non-Israelite (and the Israelite — see the current Naked Bible podcast series on Ezekiel!) becomes detestable when they practice wickedness, or their lives are characterized by something God deems detestable. I don’t think that distinction was articulated well here.
You get the idea, and I won’t drone on about things that could be added or tweaked. The essay is a good starting point for this topic.
David Wood would be an awesome guest interview for the podcast!
Hey Mike, sorry if this is an off-topic comment to make on a post like this, but what do you think of N.T. Wright’s view of early high christology, specifically that Jesus of Nazareth in his self understanding was in a sense embodying the “return of YHWH to Zion” in his public ministry and specifically in his final ascent to Jerusalem; tying up the loose ends undone after the Exile, one of which is (perhaps of greatest importance) where in passages in Ezekiel the presence of YHWH leaves the temple, but that other prophets such as Isaiah (who calls it “good news”) and Malachi predict will be rectified when one day YHWH returns to the temple. The Gospel according to Mark implies that this is what Jesus ministry meant in his quotation of such passages. I remember you mentioned this in your Tribulation episode on the podcast, which to me was an mind-blowing episode, but it left me with the question of whether you endorse N.T. Wright’s view early high christology fully or agree with his critic Larry Hurtado that for the earliest Christians like Paul the ‘parousia’ was the “return of YHWH.” Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, or if you’ve answered it in a Q&A episode, but I’ve been wanting to know your view on this topic for months Mike, seeing as you’re a very learned scholar who makes it his aim to look at the NT through the lens of the Old, and digest what he finds for the layman. Thanks for your answer Mike, or if you could quickly point me to a relevant resource since I know your time’s valuable, I’d equally appreciate it. God bless you, my friend.
I think Pitre’s correction to Wright is warranted.
When God in the OT commanded groups of people to be killed, it was after generations of repeated and horrifying sinful acts, or pollution of the genetic pool by spiritual beings. Islam commands destruction to anyone merely for not converting to Islam, or for minor offenses such as insulting the “prophet”. Big difference between the two.
Islam was also a profit-centered killing machine. People were subjected and killed, and property taken for the sole purpose of enriching islam invaders. Where do we see that in the OT?
Can you show me where in the Koran this is evidenced
” Islam commands destruction to anyone merely for not converting to Islam, or for minor offenses such as insulting the “prophet”?
There may well be differences but I have a serious problem with a person of any faith condemning people of other faiths. We are seeing a rise in hate crimes against Muslims in this country, and I fear that this kind of attitude can promote that.
From Surah 2
190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
That’s a sampling. It’s not like the Quran is filled with this sort of stuff, but it’s in there (references to “fighting” the unbeliever aren’t hard to come by).