Do OT and NT contradict?
Question 1015
The Old Testament prescribes animal sacrifices; the New Testament says Christ has rendered such offerings obsolete. The Old Testament records God commanding the destruction of entire peoples; the New Testament commands love of enemies. The Old Testament permits divorce in certain circumstances; the New Testament tightens the standard. If the same God inspired both Testaments, why do they appear to be in tension so frequently? The question is a serious one and deserves a serious answer rather than a dismissal.
Not All Tensions Are the Same Kind
Before addressing specific examples, it matters to recognise what kind of question this actually is. Apparent contradictions between the Testaments fall into distinct categories: differences in covenantal arrangement, differences in what has been disclosed at different points in redemptive history, differences in administrative application across different peoples and periods, and genuine theological tensions that require sustained engagement. Treating all of these as the same kind of problem produces confusion. Each deserves the right diagnostic before it can be resolved.
Covenantal Differences Are Not Contradictions
A substantial proportion of apparent contradictions dissolve once the covenantal framework is understood. The sacrificial system, the dietary laws, the temple worship, the civil legislation of Israel — these belonged to the Mosaic covenant, a specific arrangement between God and the nation of Israel at a particular point in redemptive history, serving particular purposes within that history. When Hebrews describes the Levitical priesthood as having become “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13), this is not a retraction of something previously presented as permanent. Jeremiah 31:31-34, written within the Old Testament period itself, already announced that a new covenant was coming that would supersede the Mosaic one. The old covenant carried its own expiry notice.
Jesus does not abolish the law in Matthew 5:17; He fulfils it. The type reaches its antitype. The shadow finds its substance. This is what progressive revelation leads us to expect: not that the earlier stage was wrong, but that it was preparatory, and that its preparation has now been completed in Christ. The dietary laws served to mark Israel’s distinctiveness as a covenant people in their particular historical context; Peter’s vision in Acts 10 is the formal announcement that this function has been fulfilled and the boundary dissolved. This is development, not contradiction.
The Character of God Across Both Testaments
The more emotionally charged version of this question concerns the God of the Old Testament. The God who orders the slaughter of the Canaanites seems very different from the God who tells His disciples to love their enemies. The apparent tension here is real, but it is less stark on examination than it first appears.
The Canaanite judgement was a specific divine verdict on peoples whose wickedness had, by God’s own assessment, reached a particular threshold. Genesis 15:16 notes that “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete,” implying that the judgement, when it came, would be a proportionate moral response rather than ethnic cleansing. The Old Testament also makes clear that Israel itself would face comparable destruction at Assyrian and Babylonian hands when its own wickedness reached a comparable level. The pattern is consistent: what changes between the Testaments is not God’s moral character but the form of His administration. In this present age, God is extending mercy to the Gentiles in a way that was always promised but is now being fulfilled through the gospel rather than through national judgement.
Paul’s doxology in Romans 11:33 — “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways!” — is a response precisely to the complexity of how God’s purposes for Israel and for the Gentiles unfold across time. The complexity does not indicate contradiction; it indicates depth that exceeds our frameworks.
Where Genuine Tensions Remain
Not every apparent tension dissolves with covenantal or redemptive-historical explanation, and intellectual integrity requires acknowledging this. The relationship between divine sovereignty and genuine human responsibility, the full scope of what the cross accomplished, the place of Israel in God’s purposes after Christ’s first coming — these involve real theological complexity. That complexity is not a sign of internal contradiction. It is a sign that the biblical revelation is richer and more multi-faceted than any single systematic framework can fully contain. The tensions call us deeper into Scripture rather than away from it.
So, Now What?
When you encounter a supposed contradiction between the Testaments, resist the pressure to either dismiss the question or concede that Scripture is therefore unreliable. Take the example seriously, ask what category it belongs to, and work through it carefully. The majority of apparent contradictions resolve with a clearer understanding of covenant, context, and progressive revelation. Those that remain genuinely complex will deepen rather than destabilise your understanding of Scripture, because wrestling honestly with the biblical text consistently produces greater understanding of the God who gave it.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.”Matthew 5:17