I'm referring to this theology more as a cultural and mythological phenomenon, which is why I specified "evangelical". If you step outside of the text for a min

I'm referring to this theology more as a cultural and mythological phenomenon, which is why I specified "evangelical". If you step outside of the text for a minute and look at how these things have gotten unpacked, maybe you will catch what I mean. Many people interpret the new covenant as God's change of heart. I don't think it is internally possible to acknowledge that the new testament and old testament gods are "different", for that would be a surface violation of monotheism, which is the common understanding of Moses' "first commandment". (this is problematic on many levels, but its the state of popular Christianity). To many Christians, Moses' first commandment is still wrapped up in "put no god before me", which they interpret to mean that Buddhists and Muslims can't "get saved" or some other similar thing. Ugh. The point being that its not safe for some fearful Christians to acknowledge that in their own belief system, "god" takes radically different characters in different contexts... That's too much cognitive dissonance and flirts with a violation of monotheism. The same cognitive dissonance hovers around trinitarian theology, which people also idolize. Whereas in popular practice, there are myths saying God changes his basic agreement with humankind, and that it represents a change of heart. That God has a moment. Even if theologically the idea of the old and new covenants is that human beings have come to a fresh relationship with god through some realization and change in their hearts, in evangelicalism it is too commonly is unpacked as "God used to be angry, but now he forgives us. Specifically because of Jesus sacrifice, we get a 'second chance.' Don't blow it." I understand what your saying too, and find it compelling. I just don't wanna ignore the cultural myths attached to these theologies. Those are what make it a religion... how people unpack it. All that said, I really do like your interpretation of the kernel of these theologies. I'd also point out that Jesus says "I came to fill up the law". Jesus emphasized the positive character of the law, whereas Moses' was prohibitive, framed in negative terms. A lot of messianic type folks miss that one. They interpret this as a statement of pending apocalypse. But it's really just more of a throwback to the original grace, and simple righteousness, of an integrated passion for your life and the people in it. "What does the lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your god?" says Micah as he forecasts that some of the the poorest, marginalized people will realize, in a major way, that the answer to that question is "not much else".