The Old Testament does not portray a different God than the New Testament presents. When one argues that the God of the Old Testament is polar opposite of the One presented in the New Testament, there are several fallacies and oversights to address.
First, there is the oversight that, in the beginning (according to biblical worldview), everything was very good. That is, all was according to God’s intention as “the way it should be.” Based on the record, Mankind is the creature who disrupted bliss, and God is the One left “holding the bag,” so to speak. The accounts thereafter are God’s attempts at turning humanity back again to both Himself and mankind’s lost noble state. This is admittedly not an easy feat.
Secondly, God is the One who makes promises of redemption to ruined mankind and even chooses a few to help him enact His plan. His plan is actually to bless the whole world. It is not God, then, Who threatens His own promises by stubbornness, unreasonable and shameless actions, and an utter lack of trust. But, in each case where His chosen cohorts abdicate their posts, God picks them up and brushes them off. He cultivates their sense of responsibility to Himself and to the plan He has in mind for making them rich and famous, among other more superior blessings like a provision for redemption.
Thirdly, God strikes up a covenant with a nation, of which He is the sole founder and protector. This special treatment means they are a national example just as Adam and Eve were individual representatives for the rest of humanity. So, Yahweh brings out Israel from oppression. They, in turn, complain, slander, and malign His plan and intentions for them – saying He does not provide for them, protect them, or have a good enough plan for them. Besides this, they accuse Him of murderous and cruel intentions, despite His doing miraculous things for their comfort, sustenance, and safety. As a result of this abuse He graciously makes His intentions and plan very clear to Israel. This He does in the form of a covenant. Said covenant contains not only God’s responsibilities in prospering the fledgling nation and expanding their borders; it outlines the people’s responsibilities. This is, after all, a theocratic kingdom covenant after the model of ancient Hittite Suzerainty Treaty. With the covenant drawn, there may be no mistake about God’s intentions and plans.
Fourth, the people of the theocratic kingdom dash the covenant (which touted blessings not only to Israel but all nations around them, if kept) to pieces by depraved actions. What’s more, they do so not 40 days after the covenant is ratified. That would be like the following situation: the people of a benevolent monarchy marching weeks to hold a coronation in a special place for a 400 year-awaited king, but one month after the ceremony, they [because of sheer inner impulse and non-political mischief] dethrone him. And, all this happened while the coronation mountain was aflame with a terrifying (god-like) fire and with an awe-striking voice coming out of the clouds above the fire. Would any king or kingdom stand for such a thing? Would these things speak more to the detriment of the king or be tell-tale of the self-destructive and senseless subjects? Would the king not try to root out the rebels? Still graver, within the coronation ceremony all Israel promised faith and fidelity to the whole of their responsibility in that covenant. They said, “All the words of this covenant we will do.” They said it three times.
Naturally, the King (God) did purge the rebels. Yet, even this was according to the covenant stipulations agreed upon only days before. Every time after that first judgment made upon the enemies of Israel’s state, God was sure to keep up His end of the deal: blessings for obedience, cursing for disobedience to the covenant. That was the elected course of action. There was even a restoration clause. If, in the middle of punitive judgment, the nation or individual would cry out for mercy from a changed heart; then, God would hear and restore.
Whereas Israel and humanity may think God unreasonable in His judgments, His ability and promises to bless are witnessed as proportionately magnanimous. His favor was often shown. However, perhaps (as with anyone) the negative seems more memorable but was assuredly not undeserved. If there is anything unreasonable, it is mankind’s obvious inability to keep reasonable laws, such as the Ten Commandments. Besides this, it is irrational to think there should be no natural repercussions for disregarding reasonable laws, especially when those laws give evidence to and propagate the dignity and success of all humanity.
Finally, we have it. The cycle of judgment and restoration teaches us something about us more than something of God. The severity of God seen in the Old Testament was according to that covenant agreement which stipulated God would serve as a corrective, instructive, and even punitive Agent. By self testimony, God claims judgment is a “strange work” to Him. It is His last resort; He delights in mercy, not in judgment.
Nevertheless, the LORD of Israel was contracted to deal with the people (one particular nation especially) according to their doings. What humanity learned is there is a serious flaw within us. It is impossible for us to love God supremely and love others selflessly, all the time – the essence of Jesus’ message. There may be willingness, but there is no real ability. This is further evidenced by the struggle, not only against evil but against right. We find the right thing harder to do (or “just beyond” us) in the most needful times, let alone all the time. At the base of it, we are spoiled by our own innate lack of morality. If there is any message of the Old Testament, it is not of God’s being angry, vengeful, and hateful. It is rather that mankind cannot keep himself in, even in the face of external law and impending judgment. We cannot redeem ourselves in our own eyes, let alone God’s. We fall far short of reconciling ourselves to Him.
Thankfully, God is all-knowing and all-wise, and He is all-caring! No wonder that He wove prophecy of a New Testament into the fabric of the Old Testament. Whereas God was bound in the Old Covenant [by His character as well as by agreement] to be a corrective, instructive and even punitive Agent; in the New Covenant we see Him dealing differently with mankind. However, we must not conclude from it that God’s character is somehow bi-polar. Rather, we must (according to good reason) first assume His character as consistent. Then we must investigate why His actions are “allowed” to be different within the stipulations of this New Testament (Covenant).
The answer is simple. In the New Covenant, God swears not to work outward corrective miracles but inward ones. That is, He promises to deal with the innate lack of moral character within each individual. He also promises to take up residence within the individual’s inner make-up, bringing life to deadness there. Most of all, He promises not to deal with individuals according to their offenses against Himself. How can God do this and still be fair and impartial? He is allowed to act in this merciful way, because He Himself willingly opts to bear the judgment for the sins of the masses. He can do that since He is God, and since He is the standard of morality.
So, Jesus Christ, the Son of God bought the satisfaction of God the Father’s fair and angry justice against humanity. He provided reconciliation to the Creator for each human by serving the judgment sentence pending on each one’s record. So, God may fairly pardon each human who claims his part of the provision Jesus obtained. Again, He obtained it by willingly and obediently dying on the Cross and rising again. It had to be that way, since the Godhead took counsel about it before the world was founded. Christ’s obedience and self sacrifice is the prescribed exchange for our rebellion and selfish indulgence.
One enters this New Covenant by agreeing to its stipulations. You must first agree with God that you are as He says – in need of remedy concerning your natural sinfulness. That means your mind must change about whether you are “good enough” or not. You must come to a vote of “no confidence” in yourself and belief structures which have (up to now) insured you of betterment, ability to successful self-governance, or even of eventual eternal perfection. Finally, you must transfer that confidence to Jesus Christ as the only One who provides healing in your moral fiber, reconciliation to God, and pardon from judgment. You can do that by calling out to Jesus privately or aloud. But one most certainly believes with the heart, says the Scriptures.
The God of the New Testament is the same God as the Old Testament. But, where the Old Testament was weak in that it could only reveal need, the New is far better. Jesus can take away sin and heal inwardly. In this way, God appears more gracious in the New Testament than in the Old. However, if one looks closely into Old Testament prophecy, the New Testament was in the mind of God from the beginning. The character of God does not change. His covenants have changed, but the latter highlights God’s mercy, whereas the former highlights mankind’s need for that mercy. That mercy is found in the self-sacrificial Son of God, Who is the Mediator of the New Covenant. His provision is all-encompassing, and His offer is non-discriminate toward rich, poor, more deviant, less deviant, the “smart” or the average, the privileged or the abused. All are equal in standing before coming to Him. Everyone who comes to Him are raised upward by Him.