RE: OT Relevance

<snip>

Debbie Mann wrote, in part:
I've had a string of serious questions that seem to have offended all, but I
don't see how they are unreasonable:

If the Old Testament is be believed at all, then God in some way, whether
directly or by his permissive will, allowed the disobedient to be punished
by their actions up to the time of Christ. This punishment was directly
related to their actions and directly turned around by miraculous or at
least dramatic intervention as soon as they repented. If there is one
message in the Old Testament it is that God is God and he is in charge and
that man should take note.

The grace of the New Testament frees us from this dramatic cause and effect?
As of the resurrection of Jesus, do we just get natural cause and effect
without the direct link between our errors and devastation or our repentance
and protection from devastation?

I see the difference between the OT and the NT in that God made a "deal"
with Abram [Gen 15] and later with him as Abraham [Gen 17] by which the
groundwork was laid for the birth of Jesus, "when the time had fully come"
[Gal 4]. All throughout the OT, the Israelites were guided by God for this
specific purpose. To that end, God had to apply a certain amount of
"coercive encouragement."

After the birth of Jesus, and more specifically, after the Resurrection, the
role of the descendents of Abraham (Israelites and Jews) as a nation has
ended. The "coercive encouragement" is no longer needed for a specific
nation (and that's why I have difficulty with those who see the US as
specifically chosen by God as the "new Israel"). If you look at the
response Jesus gave to His disciples when they questioned the reason for a
man's blindness [John 9], it is clear that there is not necessarily a
God-directed link between an individual's sin and consequences. This has to
be kept in mind when trying to judge a society when disaster strikes as, for
example, attempts by some to link the debauchery on Fat Tuesday in
"Norleens" with Katrina. Let's face it, if we would be judged on the basis
of our actions, we'd all be eligible for a hurricane, earthquake, or flood
or two. I just happen to live in an area that is, as far as I have been
able to determine, natural disaster proof: too far inland for hurricanes and
floods, on the Canadian Shield (earthquake proof), in a wooded area (not
likely to be affected by tornadoes), etc. Yet there is no evidence that our
community is any more "religious" than one, say, along the Gulf Coast or
along the San Andreas Fault. This is not to say that sinning does not have
its consequences and that overeating and obesity, smoking and lung cancer,
or questionable sexual conduct and HIV/AIDS are not linked by a
cause-and-effect relationship, or that the concept of collective guilt is
invalid. During WWII, the German citizenry paid the price of the
expansionist policies of the Nazis.

Chuck Vandergraaf
Received on Wed Mar 29 10:56:33 2006