Concept

OT vs NT God Objection

Intro

"The Old Testament god commands genocide, drowns the world, and burns down cities. The New Testament god loves enemies and dies for them. These cannot be the same god." This is one of the most common objections you will hear, and Richard Dawkins made the version most people quote.

It is also one of the oldest. Back in the second century, a man named Marcion taught the same thing. He said the angry creator of the Old Testament was a different (and lower) god than the loving Father of Jesus. The early church looked at his proposal and rejected it as decisively as anything they ever rejected. The reason is not that Christians liked all the hard passages. The reason is that Marcion's theory does not survive contact with the actual text of either Testament.

Read the Old Testament cover to cover and you find some of the most tender language about God in human literature. "As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him" (Psalm 103:13). "How can I give you up, O Ephraim?... My heart is turned over within Me" (Hosea 11:8). "His compassions never fail; they are new every morning" (Lamentations 3:22-23). The Old Testament's God is the steadfast-love God, again and again.

Read the New Testament cover to cover and the warnings about judgment get sharper, not softer. Jesus speaks of hell more than anyone else in Scripture. He pronounces seven woes on the religious leaders in Matthew 23. He warns of weeping and gnashing of teeth. The book of Revelation has plagues and a lake of fire.

Both Testaments are the same God acting in two ways. He is patient with sin until it becomes destructive, and then He stops it. He forgives the repentant and judges the unrepentant. The cross is where both meet: real wrath against real evil and real love poured out in the same place. Jesus tells us straight: the God He calls Father is the same God who spoke to Moses and Abraham (Matthew 5:17-18, John 8:58). To read two Gods into the Bible, you have to skip a lot of the Bible.

In full

The atheist polemic, articulated as far back as Marcion of Sinope (c. AD 85-160), condemned at Rome AD 144, and revived in modern New-Atheist literature (Richard Dawkins The God Delusion 2006 ch. 2 "the most unpleasant character in all fiction… a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"; Christopher Hitchens god is not Great 2007 ch. 7-8; Bart Ehrman God's Problem 2008), that the God of the Old Testament (commands genocide, drowns children in the Flood, hardens Pharaoh's heart, demands animal sacrifice, sends bears against children, decrees capital punishment for trivia) is a categorically different and morally inferior being from the God revealed by Jesus Christ in the New Testament (forgives, heals, blesses children, dies for enemies). The argument's force depends on equivocating between two distinct divine-action modes (judgment-against-pervasive-evil vs redemptive-grace-toward-the-broken) while reading them as evidence of two distinct divine characters. The equivocation defeater diagnosis exposes the conflation; the affirmative case demonstrates that (a) Jesus Christ explicitly identified the God of the OT as His own Father, (b) the OT itself contains the same grace-and-mercy attributes the objection assigns exclusively to the NT, (c) the NT contains the same judgment-and-wrath attributes the objection assigns exclusively to the OT, and (d) the canonical-trajectory pattern, "the New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed" (Augustine), is the unanimous reading of the entire patristic + Reformation + modern Christian tradition. The objection is Marcionism rebranded, and Marcionism was condemned by every major patristic theologian (Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 5 books; Irenaeus Adv. Haer. I.27, III.3, IV.27; Origen; Justin Martyr) precisely because it cannot survive engagement with the actual canonical text.

The objection

Standard formulations:

Marcion (c. AD 144): the OT YHWH is the Demiurge (a lesser, just-but-cruel creator-god), distinct from the Father of Jesus Christ (a higher, purely-loving divinity); the OT must be discarded along with the Pauline-non-conforming gospels, leaving only an edited Luke + ten Pauline epistles.
Dawkins (The God Delusion 2006): the OT God is "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction", the catalogue of attributes runs to a sentence of pejoratives; the NT-God is moralized but inherits the worst features (eternal hell, blood-atonement) while abandoning OT specificity.
Hitchens (god is not Great 2007): the OT is "celestial dictatorship"; the NT softens the rhetoric but cannot escape the OT's moral monstrosities since Jesus reaffirms OT scripture (Mt 5:17-18) and identifies the OT YHWH as His Father.
Bart Ehrman (God's Problem 2008): the inconsistency between the OT's just-Judge and the NT's loving-Father is itself evidence that biblical theism is incoherent.

Sub-claims typically bundled into the composite charge:

Genocide commands in Joshua / Deut 7 / 1 Sam 15 (Canaanite herem) vs Jesus's "love your enemies" (Mt 5:44)
Capital-punishment statutes (Mosaic Law) vs Jesus's "let him without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7)
Wrath-of-YHWH (Flood, Sodom, Korah, Uzzah) vs "God is love" (1 John 4:8)
Tribal exclusivism (Israel-only covenant, foreign-bride prohibitions) vs "neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:28)
Animal sacrifice (Levitical system) vs "I desire mercy not sacrifice" (Hos 6:6 → Mt 9:13)
Sub-claim: any continuity argument is "selective Bible-reading" by Christians

Why the objection feels strong

Five factors give the polemic surface plausibility:

Selective citation. Cherry-pick the Conquest narratives + capital statutes from the OT and the Sermon-on-the-Mount + Last-Supper-tenderness from the NT, and you get a contrast. Read both Testaments fully and the contrast collapses (Jesus's most violent rhetoric, the Olivet discourse, the woes of Mt 23, the eschatological judgment, is in the NT; YHWH's most tender rhetoric, Hos 11:8, Isa 49:15, Ps 103, Lam 3:22-23, is in the OT).
Cultural distance from ANE warfare context. OT military judgments are read through a 21st-century lens that has lost the cultural-anthropological framework (proto-historical hyperbole; ANE conquest-rhetoric conventions; covenant-judicial framing), which is why most pre-modern Christian readers didn't experience the contrast; they read in canonical context.
Marcion's framing has unconscious cultural traction. Most Western Christians have never heard of Marcion but have absorbed Marcion-style framing implicitly through pop-Christian deemphasizing of the OT (sermons preferring NT texts, devotionals skipping Leviticus, lectionaries underweighting prophetic-judgment passages). The objection trades on a cultural-Christian half-Marcionism.
Atonement-theology distortion. Pop-Christian "God-the-Father-was-angry-but-Jesus-saved-us-from-Him" framings (a deformation of penal-substitutionary atonement) accidentally reinforce the Marcion contrast. The biblical pattern is the Father gave the Son (John 3:16; Rom 5:8; 8:32; 1 John 4:9-10), Father and Son act together in atonement, not against each other.
The objection is rhetorically punchy. Dawkins's catalogue-of-pejoratives reads well aloud; the apologetic response requires nuanced engagement with multiple OT passages simultaneously, which is harder to deploy in 30-second exchanges.

Equivocation defeater (5-step pattern)

Per the recurring 5-step equivocation-defeater pattern (used across Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection, Cosmic Dictator Objection, Imprecatory Psalms Objection, Biblical Slavery Objection, etc.), when an atheist objection hinges on a contested key term:

Step 1, Identify the contested term

The objection treats "the God of the Old Testament" and "the God of the New Testament" as two distinct objects. They are not. The same divine being is the referent in both Testaments; the objection equivocates between one God's varied actions across redemptive-history and two distinct divine beings.

Step 2, Distinguish two senses

Sense A, Different divine actions in different redemptive-historical contexts. The same God acts as Creator (Gen 1) + as Judge of pervasive evil (Flood, Sodom) + as Covenant-maker with Abraham (Gen 15-17) + as Lawgiver to Israel (Exodus-Deuteronomy) + as Promiser of restoration (Isa 53; Jer 31:31-34) + as Incarnate-Servant (Jesus Christ in the Gospels) + as Returning Judge (Olivet discourse; Revelation 19). One divine character, varied actions across the unfolding redemptive narrative.
Sense B, Two distinct divine beings. The Marcion / Dawkins / Hitchens reading: the OT-YHWH and the NT-Father are categorically distinct beings, with the latter morally superior to the former. This is the explicit theological claim the objection requires.

Step 3, Show which sense the objection targets

The objection requires Sense B. Without two distinct beings, the "different gods" rhetoric collapses into the trivially-true observation that "the same God acted differently in different historical-covenantal moments", which neither Christianity nor any other Abrahamic tradition has ever disputed.

Step 4, Show which sense the canonical text uses

The canonical text uses Sense A and explicitly rejects Sense B at every load-bearing point:

Jesus identifies the God of the OT as His Father. Mt 5:17-18 ("do not think I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets... not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law"); Lk 24:27, 44 ("beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures"); John 5:46-47 ("if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me"); Mt 23:35 (Jesus references Abel through Zechariah as one continuous OT-witness); John 8:56-58 (Jesus identifies Himself as the "I AM" of Ex 3:14, the OT divine-name).
The OT contains the grace-and-mercy attributes the objection assigns exclusively to the NT. Ex 34:6-7 (the most-quoted OT passage about God's character, "the LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in lovingkindness and truth"); Hos 11:8 ("How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I surrender you, O Israel? My heart is turned over within Me, all My compassions are kindled"); Isa 49:15 ("Can a woman forget her nursing child... even these may forget, but I will not forget you"); Ps 103 (entire psalm on YHWH's compassion + forgiveness + slowness-to-anger); Lam 3:22-23 ("His compassions never fail, they are new every morning"); Mic 7:18-19; Jer 31:3 ("I have loved you with an everlasting love"); Ezek 18:23, 32 (YHWH explicitly disclaims pleasure in the death of the wicked).
The NT contains the judgment-and-wrath attributes the objection assigns exclusively to the OT. Mt 23 (the seven woes against the Pharisees, Jesus's most extended invective); Mt 25:31-46 (the eschatological judgment of the nations); Mk 9:43-48 (Gehenna fire); Lk 12:5 ("fear Him who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell"); John 3:36 (the wrath of God on those who reject the Son); Acts 5:1-11 (Ananias and Sapphira struck dead); Rom 1:18-32 (the wrath of God against ungodliness); Rev 19 (the divine warrior on the white horse with the sword from His mouth, treading the winepress of the wrath of Almighty God). The book of Revelation is more violent in its judgment-imagery than any OT prophetic text.
The Father-Son relationship is collaborative, not adversarial. John 3:16 (the Father gave the Son); Rom 5:8 (God demonstrates His own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us); Rom 8:32 (He who did not spare His own Son); 2 Cor 5:19 (God was in Christ reconciling the world); 1 John 4:9-10 ("in this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins"). The cross is the Father's initiative as much as the Son's obedience; the Father is not the angry-deity from whom the Son rescues us.

Step 5, Conclude the objection equivocates

The objection requires Sense B (two distinct beings). The canonical text uses Sense A (one God, varied actions across redemptive history) and explicitly rejects Sense B at every load-bearing point, Jesus self-identifies as the OT YHWH; both Testaments contain both wrath-and-grace attributes; the Father-Son relation is collaborative not adversarial. The objection equivocates.

Patristic + scholarly tradition

The OT-vs-NT-God reading was already a live option in the 2nd century, Marcion of Sinope formalized it. The early Church's response was unanimous, sustained, and decisive: Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho (c. AD 155); Irenaeus Adv. Haer. I.27 + III.3 + IV.27 ("one and the same God who created the world and gave the Law and called Abraham and spoke through the prophets is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"); Tertullian Adversus Marcionem (5 books, c. AD 207-212, most extended ancient refutation, line-by-line engagement with Marcion's truncated canon); Origen Hom. on Numbers + Comm. on John; Athanasius De Incarnatione (the Word who became flesh is the same Word through whom the OT was given); Augustine De Civ. Dei 16-17 + Quaest. in Hept. 2.73 (Novum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet, standard medieval + Reformation hermeneutic); Aquinas ST I-II q.98-108 + III q.40-46 (one divine truth at different stages of redemptive economy); Luther preface to OT (1523), "Search the Old Testament... here you will find the swaddling clothes and manger in which Christ lies"; Calvin Inst. 2.10-11 (one covenant, varied administrations). Modern: G. K. Beale + D. A. Carson Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (2007); Christopher Wright The God I Don't Understand (2008) + Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (2004); John Goldingay OT Theology (3 vols., 2003-2009); Sandra Richter The Epic of Eden (2008); Paul Copan Is God a Moral Monster? (2011), canonical-evangelical engagement of the Dawkins / Hitchens form.

Self-undermining symmetry (meta-defeater)

The atheist polemic deploys moral realism, the OT-God's actions are morally monstrous; the NT-God's are not (or are at least better). This presupposes the moral realism that, on Tom Holland's Dominion argument, is itself a Christian inheritance. Naturalism cannot underwrite the moral standard the objection requires (cf. Atheist Moral Realism Objection + Sharon Street's Darwinian Dilemma + Mackie queerness). The objector is borrowing capital from the Christian tradition to attack one half of the canon while preserving the other. This is not just selective; it is self-undermining: the moral framework that judges the OT-God as monstrous is the same framework the OT-God's law-tradition (Sinai → Prophets → Christ) produced.