The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question on Ceremonial Defilement

When it comes to the ceremonial law, I like to say that the Old Testament ceremonies were pictures of Christ that looked forward with faith to the cross, just as our New Testament ordinances (baptism and the Lord's Supper) look backwards in time with faith to the cross. Because the ceremonies represented Christ and foretold the gospel, it was vital that they not be compromised or corrupted in any way - hence the particular detail in each picture of Christ in the Old Testament. Even violating the ceremonial law could result in death (as it did for Nadab and Abihu in the Old Testament (Leviticus 10:1-3) and for those who are "sickly" and those who "sleep" for making light of the Lord's Supper in the Corinthian church (1st Corinthians 11:27-30). The ceremonies tell the gospel! But in our time of looking backwards in time with faith, we observe only the ceremonies that Christ has instituted. Paul warned the Galatians about falling back into a superstitious obedience to the ceremonial law.

The civil laws of ancient Israel do not apply directly to us, because we don't live there and the ancient theocracy doesn't exist anymore. But the ancient civil laws do apply wherever "general equity" does. Here's what I mean:

There's a law in the Bible that requires a fence around the roof in home construction (Deuteronomy 22:8). The general equity is harder to see unless you know that folks in that time used to entertain on their rooftops. It was like today's backyard, you might say. So the principle that still applies today might be, "put a fence around your swimming pool. Use a trigger lock on your firearms. Keep sharp objects away from Robin," etc.

The moral law was also completely fulfilled in every detail by Christ, so that the Law cannot be used to condemn those who have been justified by Christ. But it still reflects the will of God morally and is binding on all men in all times.

But the two Testaments do seem so completely different from one other, at least to at first. In the Old Testament God seems harsh and judgmental - even capricious. But in the New Testament  we find Jesus apparently abrogating the death penalty for adultery, forgiving theft, etc, and being a friend to sinners. From Old Testament to New, it looks like God radically changed and decided to "lighten up." Or that He decided that His old plan wasn't working and decided to come up with an entirely new plan. This new plan appears to be far less burdensome than the old one, allowing for far more leniency and liberty.
 
That's the way it looks to those who have been taught that only the New Testament really matters and the Old is "irrelevant." But in fact, the Bible is one Book from Genesis to Revelation, written over thousands of years on three different continents and (mostly) in two languages. The plan of God to redeem a people for Himself remains unchanged from Eden.
 
How then can we explain the apparently huge differences between God's seeming Old Testament harshness and His New Testament mercy? As a new believer I was often quite frankly offended by some of the stories I found in the Old Testament, where it seemed to me that God was being unduly harsh and judgmental. I thought, "He wouldn't have done that in the New Testament!"
 
On the advice of a mentor of mine, as I read through the whole Bible, I was to put a red "X" in the margin of the page next to any text which offended my sensibilities. I found quite a few in the Old Testament, where it seemed to me that God was "too quick to judge" and acted with "undue" harshness. There were passages where it also seemed, to be brutally honest, that God was being completely arbitrary and unfair! Three in particular bothered me:
 
The story of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3),
The killing of Uzzah (1 Chronicles 13:1-11), and
The extermination of the people of Canaan
Each of those red Xs" in the
margins represented a place where I disagreed with God. These were points at which God and I had very different ideas of what is right and what is fair. If I could not resolve these differences, I knew that I would simply have to accept God's definition of what is good and bad, fair and unfair. When I disagree with God, He is right and I'm wrong! But I put the "X"s in the margins anyway, if only to discover where God and I differed and also to see if those differences are truly negated in the New Testament.
 
Nadab and Abihu were "innocently" playing games with the firepans and holy objects in the tabernacle (they were probably teenagers, according to Bible scholars) when God suddenly burned them alive with fire from the altar. Their father Aaron (and Moses' brother) was offended by the deaths of his sons and appealed to Moses. But God said, "I will be treated as holy by those who come near Me (Lev 10:3)." Was God really being unfair? Were Nadab and Abihu just innocently fooling around and then suddenly killed in an arbitrary act of a harsh God acting impulsively? Actually no. They knew what they were doing, and they knew that they were in the very presence of God. The text suggests that they were drunk as they goofed off in the presence of the LORD. They had been trained in minute detail how to properly minister in the tabernacle, yet they behaved as if God didn't even really exist. They showed no fear of Him even as they stood before His altar. No, God was not unfair after all.
 
But what about Uzzah? Uzzah only tried to save the Ark of the LORD from falling into the mud from the ox-drawn cart. And what did Uzzah get for his trouble? ZAP! God kills Uzzah right on the spot. Uzzah was only trying to help, and there wasn't exactly time to think before acting - the Ark was toppling! Surely God was unfair in this instance, right? I just had to look a little deeper to find the answer to that question. Uzzah was a Kohathite. The sole responsibility of the Kohathites was to cover and transport the holy objects and utensils of the tabernacle (see Numbers 4:15 and 19-20). No one but the priests were allowed to even look upon the holy objects, let alone actually touch and handle them. The Kohathites were trained to approach two at a time walking backward and carrying a cover between them so that the cloth would cover the Ark. It was to be carried by men using staves inserted through rings (so placing the Ark on an oxcart was definitely a violation). The Kohathites were trained from childhood to no other vocation but the moving of the tabernacle. Every Kohathite knew better than to use an oxcart to carry the Ark - and they certainly knew better than to reach out and actually touch the Ark of God. In fact, mud would not have desecrated the Ark had it fallen - mud is not guilty of sin as men are. Uzzah treated the Ark like museum piece instead of the altar of the living God, arrogantly daring to touch it. Was God unfair and arbitrary in His response to Uzzah's betrayal of his lifetime of training? Not at all. Uzzah actually deserved what he got.
 
Surely the genocide of the Canaanites by the Hebrews was unfair though. God ordered the Hebrews to conquer the land and kill everything that breathed Canaanite air - men, women, children, livestock, pets! That definitely seems absolutely cruel and arbitrary to a "New Testament Christian." Why would God order the complete destruction of an entire race of people He created, and why put women and children to death?
  
So, were the Hebrews unfairly favored over the Canaanites? They weren't given the land because they deserved it. They were given the land because God was driving out a hideously wicked people. The Canaanites received justice for their wickedness. The Hebrews, no doubt better in our estimation than the Canaanites were, nevertheless were not blessed because of their own righteousness "for you are a stubborn people," the LORD had said. The Hebrews received MERCY. The Canaanites received JUSTICE.
 
When we are offended by stories in the Bible, it is often because we presume upon God's mercy. We think that God is somehow obligated to show mercy to everyone, just because He has shown mercy to some. But if God is obligated to forgo justice and show mercy, then how can we still call it mercy? Mercy means we DON'T get what we deserve. Justice means we GET what we deserve. If mercy is mandatory, it can no longer be called mercy at all!
 
Jesus Christ was asked this same kind of question about the seeming unfairness of providence (see Luke 13:1-5). Where was God when the tower of Siloam fell on innocent passers-by? What about the innocent Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices? Christ's answer was a terse as the Deuteronomy passage above:
 

 
The Galileans and victims of the Siloam tower collapse were not inncocent victims who deserved better than they got, according to Jesus. We ALL deserve what they received. NO ONE IS INNOCENT, and God is under no obligation to show mercy to anyone. The wonder is not that God shows mercy to some and justice to the rest. The wonder is that God shows mercy to anyone at all!
 
Only once in history has an innocent suffered.
 
If any act of God should truly offend us; if there is any Bible story where God can truly be said to have been unduly harsh and unfair, you won't find it in the Old Testament. It's in the New. A completely innocent, totally pure, sinless and perfect Man suffered and died for the wrongdoing of others - you and me.
 
Was that unfair? Absolutely yes. Yet was God unjust? Absolutely not.
 
Throughout the Old Testament, Christ is pictured! He is the heel that bruises the serpent, the Passover lamb, the High Priest who intercedes for His people, the King who delivers them from evil. Christ's work is pictured in every detail of Old Testament law, both ceremonial and civil. Christ is the culmination and fulfillment of the Old Testament! That is the main reason why the Old Testament seems harsher. Another reason is the Jews had corrupted the intent and application of the Law with their traditions. God didn't change! His plan was never changed, altered, or improved upon from before the founding of the world.
 
-Robin