The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?

This article is part of the discussions related to the publication Proclamation! Magazine. See the article that is part of these discussions, “Strange and Unheard of Supposed Comments By Seventh-day Adventists” through the following link:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=116362#Post116362

The Old Covenant and Its Law—Only for Israel?

Mr. Ratzlaff clearly misunderstands the reasons of God’s choosing the nation of Israel, which is a common deficiency in contemporary Protestant Theology. Many Protestant/Evangelical Christians don’t know exactly the reason for that election of Israel, and due to this lack of comprehension of the matter we see wrong statements, like this of Mr. Ratzlaff, in the article “Does Paul Conflict with Jesus?”:

“There are many indications that Jesus was seeking to move His hearers away from the ritual laws of the old covenant that pointed forward to the Messiah because now He had come. Jesus was seeking to move people away from the old covenant which was a covenant between God and Israel only to the new covenant. The old covenant was designed for the people who lived in the Promised Land. The new covenant, however, was to include people from every nation, kindred and tongue”.

That fact is that there is NO INDICATION of that. Jesus, on the contrary, recommended the most faithful respect to the “minimal” among the commandments, and so to be taught to men (Matt. 5:19):

“Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven”.

In a certain occasion, by the end of His ministry, He even recommended to “the crowds and to His disciples” (Matt. 23:2, 3):

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach”.

See that Jesus reinforced ALL that the Jewish leaders taught should be obeyed, only putting aside their hypocritical do-what-I-say-but-not-what-I-do attitude. That doesn’t seem any intention of having people DEPARTING from the law, as they knew and should practice it.

Besides, if Jesus in any minimal way had diminished the force and importance of “the least” among God’s commandments, He Himself had to be considered the least in God’s kingdom, according to His own declaration in Matt. 5:19.

The Lack of Understanding of God’s Election of Israel

Evangelical/Protestant Christians in general have difficulty in understanding the reasons why God chose Israel as His special people. It was not just for privilege, but for a mission. Israel had to be “IHWH’s witnesses”, the “light of the gentiles . . . to the ends of the Earth” (Isa. 43:10, 11 and 49:6).

Israel’s mission was to proclaim the true God, His law and His plan of salvation to all the surrounding nations, for which God even placed them in the crossroads of three continents—Europe, Asia and Africa. Through this strategically located land (to this day) caravans of merchants would cross to and fro, and the “showcase” nation was to guide these people to the true worship of the true God. Unhappily the situation was inverted: instead of being the teachers of the World, Israel became the learner of how to worship the stone and the wood, with these other peoples.

God continuously tried to attract the nation back to Him, and the New Covenant was first offered to national Israel, as can be seen in Eze. 11:19, 20; 36:26, 27 and Jer. 31:31-33.

Mr. Ratzlaff is wrong when he says that the covenant was established with Israel and only to that nation. He certainly needs to read carefully Isa. 56:2-7:

“Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely exclude me from his people.” And let not any eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.” For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant: to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-- these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

How come this covenant was intended only for Israel, but God expresses His desire to have the foreigners adopting it, in a context in which He expresses His ideal that ALL NATIONS would join Israel in that covenant, showing such acceptance by the keeping of the Sabbath?

In Psalm 67 we find the result of the wonderful plan that God had to the entire world, IN CASE ISRAEL HAD FULFILLED FAITHFULLY its mission:

“May the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you rule the peoples justly and guide the nations of the earth. May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine upon us, that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations. May the peoples praise you, O God; may all the peoples praise you. May the peoples praise you, O God; may all the peoples praise you. Then the land will yield its harvest, and God, our God, will bless us. God will bless us, and all the ends of the earth will fear him”.

The covenant which God intended to establish with Israel was the New Covenant, not the Old. This is also known as the Abrahamic or Everlasting Covenant. That the law is a part of this commandment is made clear by the fact that it consists of the law being written on the heart. That it applies in New Testament times is made clear by the fact that it is repeated in Hebrews. That the Sabbath is a part of it is clear by logic. Some law is written on the heart, and whatever law this was must be a law which existed in the time of Jeremiah and still existed in the time of the Hebrews. What else could it be but the moral law, or ten commandments? It certainly can't be the case that Hebrews has in mind that the New Covenant consists of the ceremonial law is written on the heart.

Here's another way of seeing that the Ten Commandments is being referred to.



Who is it that knows righteousness? Is it the one in whose heart is written the law.

Here's on more way.





Unrighteousness is sin, which is transgression of the law. Therefore righteousness is obedience to the law. So to be righteous by faith means to be obedient to the law by faith.

Tom, we've discussed this at length before, but I don't remember what you said about the difference between the moral law and the mosaic law. Ellen White makes it clear that the mosaic law is nothing more than a magnified version of the moral law. IOW, the mosaic law is inherent in the moral law in the same way the moral law is inherent in the two great commandments.

Matthew
22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Since "all the law and the prophets" are part and parcel of the two great commandments, how can we say the moral law is more important than the mosaic law? Isn't "all the law" of the same substance when boiled down to the lowest common denominator?

which part of the mosaic law are you referring to?



i could have continued but i thought those two points should be enough.

This isn't true. The Mosaic law had several parts, including health laws, ceremonial laws, and instructions of various types. Some parts of it still apply, and some don't.



This isn't true. The moral law is inherent in *some* of the mosaic law. The two great commandments are inherent in *all* of the two great commandments.

I think the following sums up the difference between the two covenants nicely:

are we to struggle day in and day out to "keep" the law?

or are we to let God transform our hearts so that we live the law as naturally as breathing?

Here's what Ellen White wrote about the law of Moses:


It seems clear to me that the "judgments and laws" are as eternal as the law itself; whereas, the "ritual laws" were provisional and temporary. As such, the "judgments and laws" are not restricted to the COI and the OC. They are universally binding. God writes them in the hearts and minds of those who convert to obeying everything Jesus commanded. See Matthew 28:18-20. Of course, certain aspects of the "judgments and laws" required being under a theocracy (i.e. enforcing capital punishment).

well then i guess we better go back to stoning because that was one of the judgments.

the judgments start with Exo 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. through: Exo 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.

He required Moses to write as he should bid him, judgments and laws, giving minute directions in regard to what he required them to perform, and thereby guarded the ten precepts which he had engraved upon the tables of stone. These specific directions and requirements were given to draw erring man to the obedience of the moral law... {3SG 299.1}

this was your original post: the "mosaic law" is not included in the quotes you provided.

but is included in my post:#116775

Yes, it was one of the judgments while the COI were under a theocracy. But, as I implied above, we are not presently under a theocracy; therefore, God does not expect us to enforce capital punishment.


As Tom pointed out, the Mosaic Law consists of many things. The "judgments and laws" named above are a large part of it. The ceremonial laws are also a part of it. I was referring specifically to the "judgments and laws". They are "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified" and, as such, are as eternal as the moral law itself (including the judgments involving capital punishment).

In light of what I have posted above, and in answer to the question that serves as title for this thread (The Old Covenant and Its Law — Only for Israel?), I would like to say, No.

116823 so which of those judgments do you see God writing in our hearts along with the 10c?

oh, i hadnt seen you say anything to that effect til now. but it looks like one needs to continue subdividing based on the statements you provided by the good lady.


otherwise He would? most denominations, as you know, believe Jesus is coming back to set up His kingdom here over the nations. so you mean in that sense, if that were true, then capital punishment for religious offenses would be back in force?

God will never task the Church to enforce capital punishment. He works through civil governments nowadays to enforce law and order. Paul wrote:

Romans
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

God commanded Moses and the COI to stone a Sabbath-breaker to death. Why do you think He commanded them to do so?

oh, i hadnt seen you say anything to that effect til now. but it looks like one needs to continue subdividing based on the statements you provided by the good lady.


there were civil governments back in the day also who enforced capitol punishment. its nothing new.

but any way back to the question above

Seems to me like there are two basic subdivisions within the law of Moses: 1) Moral, and 2) Ceremonial. And, yes, as you seem to be suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong), there are further divisions of the moral aspect of the law of Moses (diet, health, social, judicial, punitive, etc). However, based on my reading of the SOP, the moral aspects of the law of Moses are nothing more than an amplification (an innate, inherent part) of the law of God. And, as such, is binding today if not in particular then in principle (i.e. we are no longer obligated to execute capital punishment, women are no longer required to separate themselves during certain times, etc). The ceremonial aspect of the law of Moses, however, ended at the cross.

What have you discovered about it in your personal studies?


True. But the nation of Israel was unique in that she was also God's chosen people to proclaim the truth about sin and salvation and the coming Savior. God did not command or commission any other nation to enforce capital punishment in cases involving violations of certain religious truths (i.e. breaking the Sabbath, practicing idolatry, blaspheming the name of God, etc). Neither has God task the Church with enforcing them. It's not that they're bad "judgments and laws" and so God changed His mind about them. No way. Capital punishment is an integral part of God's covenant and character. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."


All of them. Again, they are nothing more than an amplification of the law of God. They are an innate, inherent part of it. In the same way the 10Cs are an amplification of the two great commandments (love God and man like Jesus does), so too, the "judgments and laws" are an amplification of the 10Cs and , by extension, an amplification of the two great commandments.

PS - The way this relates to the topic of this thread is that I believe the "judgments and laws" that were articulated with the advent of the OC are still binding for us today if not in particular then in principle. The OC itself, however, gives way to the NC when we embrace Jesus as our personal Savior and live in harmony with His will and way.

The fact is that the 10 Commandments represent a summary of all that is ethical and moral, which doesn't deny the fact that in the ceremonial laws there are also moral principles, which apply to all who identify as God's children.

God writes on the hearts and minds everything that is moral, ethical, appropriate. The health laws had many details regarding hygienic measures that won't apply to our times, but the principles that have to do with our best well being certainly are preserved under the New Covenant, for our bodies continue being temples of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think that in the OT we find this emphasis as Paul gives to the sanctity of the body, but that certainly is not a novelty, a new perspective just from Christ's time on. Always God's people had their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, so the preoccupation with the best health principles goes on under the New Covenant, as they have no symbolic character, pointing to Christ's expiation that would justify their demise.

Have a blessed Sabbath y'all. . .

like this?

The people ... readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. ... {PP 371.4}

You say "if not in particular then in principle". Certainly no one would disagree with this! Given you're referencing judgments which are, by definition, amplifications of the moral law, then, of course, in principle these would still be binding, since the principle is the moral law, and the moral law is binding. The whole question involves the particulars. If these were judgments particularly adapted to the circumstances of the Israelites, then they wouldn't need to be binding on us, although the principles upon which they were based (i.e., the moral law) is.



What happened to the Sermon on the Mount?



Where is there even the least hint in anything Jesus Christ's life or character in His humanity that suggests that "Capital punishment is an integral part of God's covenant and character."?

I don't see how one can read what Jesus Christ lived, said, and taught and think this.

Fortunately we have at our disposal other insights Ellen White shared regarding the covenant made at Sinai:


As you can see, not all was doom and gloom when God and the COI entered into a solemn covenant at Sinai. Yes, they were negative aspects we should avoid today. But there were also positive aspects that we should imitate today. "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do." In commenting on this pledge, Ellen White wrote:

"The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense. . . This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel. . . This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfilment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him."

As I see it, she is describing those aspects of the OC that should be a part of our experience under the NC. Do you see what I mean?

What if the COI had successfully fulfilled her purpose and mission? Then what? Wouldn't the whole world have been under God under her government? Wouldn't all of her "judgments and laws" have been binding upon everyone? Yes, I believe it would have been so. My point is, no, her "judgments and laws" were not supposed to be limited to the Jews; they were supposed to govern everyone everywhere as the inhabitants of the earth embraced her ways and the truth about God Almighty.

Yes, the "judgments and laws" were founded on the moral law both in principle and in particular. And, yes, this includes capital punishment. Capital punishment is an amplification of the truths inherent in the moral law of God. The moral law can only condemn sinners to death. It cannot pardon or save them from sin. Thus, capital punishment is consistent with law and justice. The punishment and death of Jesus on the cross speaks eloquently of these truths. Listen:

The law of God's government was to be magnified by the death of God's only-begotten Son. Christ bore the guilt of the sins of the world. Our sufficiency is found only in the incarnation and death of the Son of God. He could suffer, because sustained by divinity. He could endure, because He was without one taint of disloyalty or sin. Christ triumphed in man's behalf in thus bearing the justice of punishment. He secured eternal life to men, while He exalted the law, and made it honorable. {1SM 302.1}

The principles of justice required a faithful narration of facts for the benefit of all who should ever read the Sacred Record. Here we discern the evidences of divine wisdom. We are required to obey the law of God, and are not only instructed as to the penalty of disobedience, but we have narrated for our benefit and warning the history of Adam and Eve in Paradise, and the sad results of their disobedience of God's commands. The account is full and explicit. The law given to man in Eden is recorded, together with the penalty accruing in case of its disobedience. Then follows the story of the temptation and fall, and the punishment inflicted upon our erring parents. Their example is given us as a warning against disobedience, that we may be sure that the wages of sin is death, that God's retributive justice never fails, and that He exacts from His creatures a strict regard for His commandments. When the law was proclaimed at Sinai, how definite was the penalty annexed, how sure was punishment to follow the transgression of that law, and how plain are the cases recorded in evidence of that fact! {4T 11.3}

God has given in His word decisive evidence that He will punish the transgressors of His law. Those who flatter themselves that He is too merciful to execute justice upon the sinner, have only to look to the cross of Calvary. The death of the spotless Son of God testifies that "the wages of sin is death," that every violation of God's law must receive its just retribution. Christ the sinless became sin for man. He bore the guilt of transgression, and the hiding of His Father's face, until His heart was broken and His life crushed out. All this sacrifice was made that sinners might be redeemed. In no other way could man be freed from the penalty of sin. And every soul that refuses to become a partaker of the atonement provided at such a cost must bear in his own person the guilt and punishment of transgression. {GC 539.3}

To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Exodus 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {GC 627.2}

MM, it's very clear to me that you've misunderstood what she wrote. One can see this by both looking at Scripture, and looking at things she wrote elsewhere, both herself, and by way of endorsements of the positions of others.

I'll give examples of each of these.

First of all, Scripture:



This brings out that the OT was a negative thing. It wasn't something to be continued, but to be replaced. The key feature here is having the law written in the heart. This is absent from the OT, and why it is a negative thing that needs to be replaced, rather than continued.

Ellen White agreed:



Here's the same distinction Jeremiah made.

1.Old Covenant = law written on stones, rather than on the heart = bad.
2.New Covenant = law written on the heart = good.

Also

1.Old Covenant = going about to establish our own righteousness = bad.

2.New Covenant = we accept the righteousness of Christ = good.

Another Scripture:



1.Old Covenant = bondage = bad.
2.New Covenant = freedom = good.

Another Scripture:



The Old Covenant was replaced by a "better covenant" which is founded on "better promises."

The following is from E. J. Waggoner:



Everything is explained clearly in this one paragraph. A careful reading of this paragraph contains all the principles needed to understand the puzzle.

From the SOP:







From this we see that:
1.If Waggoner's position was the same as EGW's in PP, then Waggoner had the truth.
2.Waggoner had the truth.
3.Therefore his position was the same as hers in PP.

So, unless she contradicted herself, the quote you presented must be in harmony with what she wrote in PP, and with Waggoner, and, presumably, with Jeremiah and Paul in both Galatians and Hebrews. So on your side of the question is:

1.A single quote from a source which is not Ellen White's principle treatment of the subject, and not the source which she herself set out as the standard by which to judge whether or not Waggoner had the truth.

on the other side is:

1.Scripture, from Jeremiah to Paul, telling us that the Old Covenant was defective, led to bondage, and was inferior because in it the law is not written in the heart.
2.Ellen White saying the same thing in PP.
3.Waggoner's comments.
4.Ellen White's endorsement of Waggoner's comment.

The evidence is stacked against the position you are suggesting. The obvious answer is that there's another way to interpret the quote you cited, which would be in agreement with items 1 through 4. I think such an interpretation is easy to find. Ellen White was endorsing the sentiment behind the words "All that the Lord has said, we will do," given a New Covenant interpretation to what were originally Old Covenant words.

As a start to considering this, please take the following into account:

1.The Old Covenant leads to bondage.
2.In the Old Covenant the law is written on stone, as opposed to in the heart.
3.In the Old Covenant, one goes about trying to establish one's own righteousness, whereas in the New Covenant, one one accepts the righteousness of Christ.

No, it's not, MM. God is not violent. He's not! Look at Jesus Christ, MM. He is the revelation of God. Where do you see violence in Him?

The only way violence can be a part of the the moral law, is if it's inherent in God's character, because the moral law is a transcript of God's character.

I asked you to consider the Sermon on the Mount, but you didn't. Please consider the life and teachings of Christ. This is where the truth about God is most clearly revealed. Ellen White said this very thing, and it's true. Jesus Christ is the image of God.

yes we do. here is more from the same chapter:


no. sorry.

Tom, regarding #116983 I agree there are aspects of the OC that are bad, namely, the self-sufficient attitude of the COI. We shouldn't imitate this attitude. However, I cannot think of anything else that isn't applicable today in principle if not in particular. Can you?

Amen! Jesus is kind and loving and not willing that any should perish. He is loathe to punish sinners. I am in total agreement. However, the Bible is full of examples of God causing or commanding or permitting death and destruction. Therefore, we must address it.

Do you agree that the following passages say that, among other things, capital punishment "[illustrated and applied] the principles of the Ten Commandments", that it was "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified":


Also, do you think Jesus was commanding the use of force and violence when He ordered Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death?

You wrote, "Where do you see violence in Him?" "I asked you to consider the Sermon on the Mount, but you didn't." True, Jesus did not use force or violence to persuade people to do anything against their wishes. Amen! I'm glad He didn't. Of course, He never has, not even in the OT when He caused or commanded or permitted death and destruction. Such things were designed to punish sinners not to persuade them to love and obey God.

BTW, although Jesus did not employ the "withdraw and permit" principle, or cause or command death and destruction while He was here in the flesh, He did, nevertheless, teach the truth about such things, that circumstances would force Him, from time to time, to do such things again in the future.

It's not clear to me what you think the passage you quoted means in relation the positive aspects of the OC. I know what it means to me, it's just that I don't know it means to you. In particular, I believe Ellen White taught that the positive aspects of the OC are experienced under the NC.


No problem. Maybe if you explain what the following insights mean to you it might help me understand your point of view. BTW, the reason I'm interested in learning what it means to you is I'm hoping it will help me understand the truth more clearly. Of course, I don't have to agree with you for that to happen. That's how it works for Tom, that is, by learning why he disagrees with my understanding of the truth it helps him to understand his view of the truth more clearly.

"The covenant that God made with His people at Sinai is to be our refuge and defense. . . This covenant is of just as much force today as it was when the Lord made it with ancient Israel. . . [All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.] This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfilment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him."

do you see her points different from the point she is making here where she goes into depth at where the israelites made their mistake? or do you see her making a different point? i hightlighted certain points to make them stand out better.
Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice. The Abrahamic covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called the "second," or "new," covenant, because the blood by which it was sealed was shed after the blood of the first covenant. That the new covenant was valid in the days of Abraham is evident from the fact that it was then confirmed both by the promise and by the oath of God--the "two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie." Hebrews 6:18. {PP 371.1}
But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant. In delivering them from Egypt, God sought to reveal to them His power and His mercy, that they might be led to love and trust Him. He brought them down to the Red Sea--where, pursued by the Egyptians, escape seemed impossible--that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of divine aid; and then He wrought deliverance for them. Thus they were filled with love and gratitude to God and with confidence in His power to help them. He had bound them to Himself as their deliverer from temporal bondage. {PP 371.2}
But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God, the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught. {PP 371.3}
God brought them to Sinai; He manifested His glory; He gave them His law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}
The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"--the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}
The same law that was engraved upon the tables of stone is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart. Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness we accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our sins. His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed by the Holy Spirit will bring forth "the fruits of the Spirit." Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of Christ, we shall walk even as He walked. Through the prophet He declared of Himself, "I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart." Psalm 40:8. And when among men He said, "The Father hath not left Me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." John 8:29. {PP 372.2} [/quote]

The self-sufficient attitude is the Old Covenant in a nutshell. It's like saying "other than the Old Covenant, I can't think of anything else that is not applicable for today." If you took away that attitude, you wouldn't have the Old Covenant at all; you'd have the new!

Remember that the Old Covenant is going about to establish our own righteousness. That's the self-sufficiency you're speaking of. Instead of this, the New Covenant is accepting the righteousness of Christ.

Another way of putting it is that instead of the law being written on stone, it's written in the heart. So you could say that "law" part of the Old Covenant exists in the new; it just exists in a different place, being on the inside instead of on the outside.



I agree. And the way I address it is by pointing out what the Old Testament passages say has been misconstrued. I also suggest a way to correct this misunderstanding, which is to study the life and character of Jesus Christ, and be convinced that God is really like that.

You've taken a different tack. You deny that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son in His humanity. You've admitted you don't believe this. You think there are things about God which Jesus Christ did not reveal. You believe we need to supplement what Jesus Christ revealed in His humanity with what's written in the Old Testament.

I'm saying we need to understand the Old Testament in the light of what Jesus Christ lived and taught, and if we see discrepancies, we need to adjust our view of what happened in the Old Testament. You appear to me to be unwilling to do this, I think because you are convinced that your view of what happened in the Old Testament is correct.

It seems to me we're going around in circles here. What do you think?



I think the web site I referred you to gives a good explanation of what I think.



He didn't use it for any other purpose either.



He permitted death and destruction. Regarding the rest, you're simply assuming what you already believe to be true. I'm asking where you see what you believe to be true in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Your answer appears to be ... no answer.



So the idea is, "If you love and obey me, then I won't cause you to suffer or die." And you think this is good? This sort of thing should uplift one's view of God?

Let me ask, where did Jesus Christ ever teach that if we don't love and obey Him that He will cause us to suffer and kill us? What of the following?



Please tell me how you don't perceive that causing people to suffer and killing them if they won't love and obey you is using compelling power.



It's amazing that in just one sentence you can elicit a lengthy reply to filter through all of this. So many premises to deal with.

1."Although Jesus did not employ the "withdraw and permit" principle ..."

This is assuming there is such a thing as "employing a withdraw and permit principle." To say "employ" implies one is actively doing something. But the whole point of permitting is to deny this. So you are managing to imply the exact opposite of what is happening by your choice of words.

From the SOP:



Do you see the difference in how she put things from how you put them? She writes that they "caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them." That's a much better choice of words than yours, IMO!

The principle you are denying was illustrated by Christ, was illustrated at the cross. It's the best possible illustration of the principle.

2.or cause or command death and destruction while He was here in the flesh

This implies that Christ caused and commanded death and destruction while not here in the flesh. There are a number of problems with this idea.

3.He did, nevertheless, teach the truth about such things

This implies that the "truth" is that Christ caused and commanded death and destruction.

4.that circumstances would force Him, from time to time, to do such things again in the future.

This implies that Christ would be forced to cause death and destruction in the future.

So you seem to view Christ's life in the flesh, far from being a full and complete revelation of God, to be a sort of "hiccup," where Jesus was on His best behavior, as it were.

This begs the question, what was different about circumstances during His life while here in the flesh? That is, if Jesus Christ was forced to cause death and destruction both before and after His time with us in the flesh, why not during? That would have been more consistent, wouldn't it?

It's quite a coincidence that during the "hiccup," the one time where He was totally unconstrained and could "be Himself," He acted completely non-violently. Do you think it's possible that He was displaying His true nature? And that He has been misunderstood at other times?

We are told that Satan's goal is to misrepresent God's character, that this is how he wins homage to himself. Do you think it's possible he had been more successful at this than perhaps we have thought?

First of all, yes, there are negative aspects leading up to and including the OC. No doubt about it. Ellen White makes it very clear. The passages you posted are too plain to misunderstand. I probably should have made it more clear that I am very aware of it and am in totally agreement with you about it.

I should also probably leave it at that so as to avoid giving the impression I do not really believe it. However, the other SOP passages I posted contain insights that forces us to consider the positive aspects leading up to and including the OC. No, they do not contradict what she wrote about the negative aspects of the OC. They simply say that not all was doom and gloom, that there were some good and enviable things that came out of the circumstances surrounding the formation and practice of the OC. And, in response to the title of this thread, I am saying, no, the OC and it's laws was not intended only for the COI, that there are aspects of it that are still binding today, things still worth imitating.

Yes, self-sufficiency is a huge part of the OC. And it has no part in the NC. The purpose of the OC was to help the COI to understand and appreciate the NC. “Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant.” {PP 371.4} In the same way the 10Cs were given to help us better understand and appreciate the two great commandments, so too, the OC was given to help the COI to better understand and appreciate the NC.


You wrote, “You deny that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son in His humanity. You've admitted you don't believe this.” Perhaps this why it seems like we are on a merry-go-round. The truth is, I do believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. It’s just that I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings. I seem recall you and I agreeing on this point. Is that true?


I don’t see where you addressed this part of my post.


I read through it and didn’t see where the author specifically addressed this concern. If it’s there, please post it here. Thank you.


Why did you split this sentence off from the one following it? I say the very same thing. By splitting it off it gives the impression I didn’t say it.


True, not once did Jesus resort to the “withdraw and permit” principle of allowing death and destruction to happen while He was here in the flesh. We’ve been over this before and I thought we were in agreement on this point. However, He did teach it, that it He would in future resort to it. His confirmation that Jews and Jerusalem would alike perish is an example. Also, His doctrine regarding “weeping and gnashing of teeth” speak to it.


You wrote, “So the idea is, ‘If you love and obey me, then I won't cause you to suffer or die.’” The Bible doesn’t express it in those terms. Instead, the idea is if you despise and reject the salvation wrought out for you at such great cost to God you will be punished and destroyed according to your words and works. Paul worded it this way:


Paul isn’t using force or compelling power to push people into believing something they despise and reject. He is simply stating the truth. People deserve to know the truth.


1. You wrote, “To say ‘employ’ implies one is actively doing something.” I agree. Jesus actively works to prevent it, and He must actively work to permit it (otherwise, evil angels would disregard His established limits and cause more death and destruction than He is willing to permit).

You also wrote, “She writes that they ‘caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.’” How do you envision this playing out? I doubt that you visualize them physically forcing God to stop preventing death and destruction from wiping them out, or physically forcing Him to permit it. But how do you see it playing out? Personally, I think God decides to employ the “withdraw and permit” principle when it suits His purposes. It is clear that He doesn’t do it every time circumstances warrant it. True, whenever He does employ it, it’s not because He is being arbitrary or capricious. No way. Instead, it’s because they have filled up their cup of iniquity, they have exhausted His mercy. Ellen White put it this way:

“With unerring accuracy the Infinite One still keeps account with the nations. While His mercy is tendered, with calls to repentance, this account remains open; but when the figures reach a certain amount which God has fixed, the ministry of His wrath begins. The account is closed. Divine patience ceases. Mercy no longer pleads in their behalf. {PK 364.1}

2/3. He did. The OT records them.

4. He will. He said so many times and in many places.


Normally I would say, Anything is possible, but in this case it isn’t true. Jesus came the first time to demonstrate to us how to live in harmony with the will of God. He did not come to punish us for despising and rejecting Him. However, He has promised that the second time He comes He will punish those who despise and reject Him. Listen:

Thus they overlooked those scriptures that point to the humiliation of Christ's first advent, and misapplied those that speak of the glory of His second coming. {DA 30.2} Between the first and the second advent of Christ a wonderful contrast will be seen. {LHU 373}

The Lord had told them that He would come the second time. . . Jesus declared to the listening disciples the judgments that were to fall upon apostate Israel, and especially the retributive vengeance that would come upon them for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. {GC 25}

Matthew
24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Hebrews
9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
12:14 Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Revelation
6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Ok. Thank you for the heads up that you're about to say something which may give the impression that you don't really believe the things you just said you do.



IMO, this is OK, except for the "including the OC" part. That is, there were some good things that came out of it. This is fine. One could say the sanctuary services came out of these circumstances, and they were a fine thing, in giving instruction regarding Christ that we can, in an educational sense, continue to make use of even today.



This is really too vague, I think, to be too helpful. For example, Moses said to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. That's obviously a good thing. There are many other examples like that. Deuteronomy has many things like that. However, this isn't the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant leads to bondage. It was founded on faulty promises (the promises of the people). It is not needed in the face of the New Covenant, which is Paul's point in saying that which is old is fading away etc.

The New Covenant is all we need. Accepting Jesus Christ's righteousness, and having the law written in the heart, as opposed to going about to establish our own righteousness and having the law written on stone.

There are two different things going on her. Actually three. The first thing is that God offered the people the same covenant as He made with Abraham. At the time He said to them, "If you will hear my voice, and obey My covenant ..." the Old Covenant didn't exist yet. Her referred to "My covenant," which is the Everlasting Covenant, the same covenant God made with Abraham, the only covenant in existence at this time.

This is thing 1.

The people then did thing 2, which was to respond in unbelief. To use Sister White's words, rather than accept the righteousness of Christ (i.e., accept thing 1) they sought to establish their own righteousness (thing 2, the Old Covenant, a bad thing, which leads to bondage).

This is thing 2.

Then God, being gracious as He is, met them where they were. If they would not keep step with Him, He would keep step with them. Instead of accepting the righteousness of Christ, they wanted to establish their own righteousness. They wanted to do things. So God gave them things to do. Things which would prepare them to accept the righteousness of Christ, which was His plan all along.

If we understand things this way, everything ties together.

Under the way you've been suggesting things, it seems like you have to throw out her endorsements of Waggoner. Waggoner's position seems utterly different to me than what you've been saying. She said Waggoner's position agreed with her own. It seems to me I'm being consistent, explaining things in a way which harmonizes with Scripture, Waggoner, and Ellen White. In your explanations, up to now, I'm seeing discrepancies.



The OC leads to bondage. God wouldn't give something that leads to bondage.

The OC is faulty. God wouldn't give something which is faulty.

The OC involved establishing one's own righteousness instead of accepting the righteousness of Christ. God wouldn't give something based on that principle.

Also what you're suggesting completely disagrees with Waggoner's position, a position Ellen White said was a waste of "investigative powers" to argue against.

You wrote, "Deuteronomy has many things like that. However, this isn't the Old Covenant." If the COI had not been so needy and faulty it is very likely God would not have shared such minute details with Moses, details that are "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified". In fact, if A&E had not sinned God probably would not have increased the two great commandments to ten commandments. In the beginning it came as a surprise to the angels that there was a law.

So, yes, I agree with you that that part of the OC which involved the COI promising to obey, in their own unaided strength, everything God commanded is not to be imitated under the NC. However, everything else about the OC (i.e. everything God commanded the COI to do) still applies today in principle if not in particular. I suspect you agree with this.

Let’s consider the following insights:


1. “. . . a pledge that they would remain separate from idolatry, and would obey the law of God.” This is the original Abrahamic Covenant pledge. It involved pledging to obey the law of God.

2. “Therefore when the Lord brought them forth from Egypt, He came down upon Sinai, enshrouded in glory and surrounded by His angels, and in awful majesty spoke His law in the hearing of all the people.” God took it upon Himself to express His law in the hearing of the COI.

3. “He did not even then trust His precepts to the memory of a people who were prone to forget His requirements, but wrote them upon tables of stone.” God took it upon Himself to write His law on two tables of stone. He did so to prevent them from forgetting the details and mingling in heathen ways.

4. “But He did not stop with giving them the precepts of the Decalogue. The people had shown themselves so easily led astray that He would leave no door of temptation unguarded.” God took it upon Himself to give them further details concerning the law. He did so to prevent them from misunderstanding the law and mingling in heathen ways.

5. “Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone.” Again, God took it upon Himself to give them minute details, details which amplified His will for them so that none need err in understanding what God wanted them to do. He gave them such minute details to guard the sacredness of the law, and to guide in their path.


1. “All this they must be taught.” God knew the COI were in no position to understand the things necessary to live in harmony with the conditions of the NC. They must be taught how. The first thing they needed to know was what God required of them. So, the first thing Jesus did was He repeated the law in thunderous tones.

2. "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Here, as you say, Jesus is reconfirming the NC.

3. "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." This is the same pledge Abraham made when Jesus reconfirmed the NC with him. There is nothing wrong with the words. The intent and motive is what matters. “This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfillment of the terms of their agreement with Him. God includes in His covenant all who will obey Him. To all who will do justice and judgment, keeping their hand from doing any evil, the promise is, "Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" (Isa. 56:5). {AG 142.3}

4. “They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken . . .” The incident involving the golden calf was not the first time they broke the NC. They had been breaking it all their lives. Breaking it was nothing new. But breaking it so soon after pledging to keep it made them realize how dependent they are upon God to keep it.

5. “Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant.” Breaking the NC made them appreciate it, namely, it caused them to realize the truth about their sinful state and their need of God to help them obey.

6. In response to their new state of mind (i.e. knowing they are sinful and cannot obey the law without divine aid), Jesus gives to Moses minute details, “judgments and laws” and “ritual laws” and commands them to obey and observe them faithfully, telling them that their future success as a nation and as a person depends on it. Again,, these minute details are “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified” and, as such, are not in contradiction to the NC.

In essence, the OC is the NC amplified. The faith and dependence required to live in harmony with the laws (i.e. moral and sacrificial) of the NC is the same faith and dependence required to obey and observe the additional laws and rituals required under the OC. In fact, it was impossible to obey the NC without obeying and observing the laws and rituals required under the OC.


Yes, in one sense the conditions of OC caused a kind of bondage. Having to obey and observe some of those rites and rituals was terribly inconvenient. It was a major relief not to have to observe them after Jesus died and ascended to heaven. It is very clear, though, that God commanded the COI to obey and observe all the laws and rituals He required at Sinai. He expected them to obey and observe them. Capital punishment was penalty for disobedience. He made blessing them as a nation and as a person conditional on faithfully obeying and observing them.

You wrote, “You deny that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son in His humanity. You've admitted you don't believe this.” Perhaps this why it seems like we are on a merry-go-round. The truth is, I do believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. It’s just that I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings. I seem recall you and I agreeing on this point. Is that true?


I don’t see where you addressed this part of my post.


I read through it and didn’t see where the author specifically addressed this concern. If it’s there, please post it here. Thank you.


Why did you split this sentence off from the one following it? I say the very same thing. By splitting it off it gives the impression I didn’t say it.


True, not once did Jesus resort to the “withdraw and permit” principle of allowing death and destruction to happen while He was here in the flesh. We’ve been over this before and I thought we were in agreement on this point. However, He did teach it, that it He would in future resort to it. His confirmation that Jews and Jerusalem would alike perish is an example. Also, His doctrine regarding “weeping and gnashing of teeth” speak to it.


You wrote, “So the idea is, ‘If you love and obey me, then I won't cause you to suffer or die.’” The Bible doesn’t express it in those terms. Instead, the idea is if you despise and reject the salvation wrought out for you at such great cost to God you will be punished and destroyed according to your words and works. Paul worded it this way:


Paul isn’t using force or compelling power to push people into believing something they despise and reject. He is simply stating the truth. People deserve to know the truth.


1. You wrote, “To say ‘employ’ implies one is actively doing something.” I agree. Jesus actively works to prevent it, and He must actively work to permit it (otherwise, evil angels would disregard His established limits and cause more death and destruction than He is willing to permit).

You also wrote, “She writes that they ‘caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.’” How do you envision this playing out? I doubt that you visualize them physically forcing God to stop preventing death and destruction from wiping them out, or physically forcing Him to permit it. But how do you see it playing out? Personally, I think God decides to employ the “withdraw and permit” principle when it suits His purposes. It is clear that He doesn’t do it every time circumstances warrant it. True, whenever He does employ it, it’s not because He is being arbitrary or capricious. No way. Instead, it’s because they have filled up their cup of iniquity, they have exhausted His mercy. Ellen White put it this way:

“With unerring accuracy the Infinite One still keeps account with the nations. While His mercy is tendered, with calls to repentance, this account remains open; but when the figures reach a certain amount which God has fixed, the ministry of His wrath begins. The account is closed. Divine patience ceases. Mercy no longer pleads in their behalf. {PK 364.1}

2/3. He did. The OT records them.

4. He will. He said so many times and in many places.


Normally I would say, Anything is possible, but in this case it isn’t true. Jesus came the first time to demonstrate to us how to live in harmony with the will of God. He did not come to punish us for despising and rejecting Him. However, He has promised that the second time He comes He will punish those who despise and reject Him. Listen:

Thus they overlooked those scriptures that point to the humiliation of Christ's first advent, and misapplied those that speak of the glory of His second coming. {DA 30.2} Between the first and the second advent of Christ a wonderful contrast will be seen. {LHU 373}

The Lord had told them that He would come the second time. . . Jesus declared to the listening disciples the judgments that were to fall upon apostate Israel, and especially the retributive vengeance that would come upon them for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. {GC 25}

Matthew
24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Hebrews
9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
12:14 Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Revelation
6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Right! This falls right in line with EGW's explanation in "The Law and The Covenants" in PP.



This *is* the OC, as Waggoner explained:



I emphasized a couple of things. Note how well the final underlined thing ties into what EGW said about the law being written tablets in the heart as opposed to on tables of stone.



If you're saying:

1.God instructed the COI to do certain things.
2.If you strip away all the things which don't have to do with the 10 Commandments.
3.Then, of what's left, the same instructions apply to us, in principle.

Then I agree, as all that's left are the principles of the 10 Commandments, which, of course, apply to us.

Scripture tells us that circumcision was first and foremost a symbol of the righteousness which the one who believes has by virtue of his faith in Christ:



Abraham was circumcised as a sign of the righteousness he had by faith in Christ. Therefore righteousness is by faith, not by works. This is Paul's argument.

This corresponds to the point that EGW made that in the New Covenant (the covenant of which circumcision is a sign, the covenant God made with Abraham, the Everlasting Covenant, the only covenant under which one can be saved) the righteousness of Christ is accepted as opposed to one's going about to establish one's own righteousness (which is the Old Covenant).



This was only necessary because of their unbelief. If they had responded in faith when God gave them *His* covenant, the one He made with Abraham, they would have had the law written in their heart, and not needed to have it written on stone.

The same comment applies to the rest of the points. God only needed to do these things because of the unbelief of the people.

1.God offered the people the covenant He made with Abraham, which involves accepting the righteousness of Christ.

2.Instead of this, they chose to go about establishing their own righteousness, and thus the Old Covenant was born.

3.God met them where they were, in their unbelief, and gave them the law spelled out, so they could see that they did not have the righteousness the law required, and that it was impossible for them to establish their own righteousness, so they would return to His plan, which was, and always has been, the New Covenant; righteousness by faith in Christ.



This isn't talking about the NC! It's talking about the old. The broke the promise they had made to God, which is the OC. We can't break the New Covenant! Only God could break the New Covenant. He could have broken it by not doing what He said He would do. We can't break it. We can only choose to be a part of it or not.

This is one of the reasons the New Covenant is so much better than the Old. Instead of depending upon our promises to God, it depends upon His promises to us.

Take a look at what was said:



Just after this she writes:



The "going about to establish our own righteousness" is the Old Covenant, so when she says above



this is an expression of the Old Covenant.



Not at all! The OC and the NC are completely different. One is bad, and the other is good.

The OC leads to bondage (bad).
The NC leads to freedom (good).

In the OC, one goes about to establish one's own righteousness (bad).
In the NC, one accepts the righteousness of Christ (good).

In the OC, the law is no written in the heart (bad).
In the NC, the law is written in the heart (good).

The OC is founded upon the promises of people, and can be broken by them (bad).
The NC is founded upon the promises of God, and cannot be broken by people (good), but only by God (good), who never breaks His promise (very good), so the NC is sure (excellent).



MM, this has absolutely nothing to do with the bondage of the OC!



Again, nothing to do with this.



Nor does this. God did nothing to put them in bondage, which is what you're implying! Think of it. If you say that observing the things God instructed them to do is bondage, then God put them into bondage. It is sin which put them into bondage, by unbelief, because they didn't believe His promises. God, all the time, was working to get them *out* of bondage.

MM, there's simply no way to harmonize your ideas with the other ideas were concerned with, namely Paul, EGW, and Waggoner. We've spoken about EGW at some length, let's try the other two for awhile.

Explain your view using only Paul or Waggoner. We know Paul's view is correct, because it's Scripture. We know Waggoner's view is correct, because of what Ellen White said about it.

I can demonstrate what I've been saying by both Paul and Waggoner. Can you do so by either?

You just said a little earlier you didn't believe this. If you're going this way and that, I don't know what to believe.

Let's let that go. If you're saying that you believe that Jesus Christ, in His humanity, revealed all the man can know of God, then we are in agreement. You're saying you agree with this?



No.



Chapter 9. The principles needed to understand the case are discussed.



You don't say the same thing. You deny it. You believe God used force or violence on many occasions. You don't call what was done "force" or "violence," but in terms of the actual definitions of the words, this is what you believe. For example, in the plagues of Egypt, you believe God used more and more force and violence (inflicting pain and death) until finally Pharaoh capitulated.

Tell me how you would say this, and I can quote it, so I'm not using words you don't like, but God did X more and more until Pharaoh capitulated. It is this God doing X that I disagree with, regardless of how you choose to label X.



This is FOTAP. I'm not saying that God resorts to the "withdraw and permit" principle but that people cause His protection to be withdrawn.



??? Why would you think this?

I'm confused. I believe that all that can be known of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ in His humanity. It appears to me that you don't agree with this, and are using this "withdraw and permit" things as an example to disprove what I'm asserting. But you may be trying to do something else.



This is again FOTAP, I believe. It's not a principle that Christ "resorts" to, but, as the SOP puts it, what happens is people cause God's protection to be removed.

I really have no idea what overall point you're trying to make here, however.



What it's called isn't the important thing. It's what's happening that's important. You believe that what happens is that God will cause you to suffer and die if you don't do what He says. Don't you?



It doesn't appear to me you are taking into consideration what Paul believed, as expressed elsewhere (particularly Romans, chapters 1 and 12 come to mind) regarding wrath and vengeance. God's wrath is His "giving up" those who reject Him to the result of their choice. Rom. 1 makes that clear. The vengeance is spoken of in terms of giving your enemy food to eat, and, in so doing, heaping coals upon his head.



I agree. If this is what you mean by the language you used, I agree, and this is similar to other places of Scripture which speak of God actively doing things. However, I think the language the SOP used, which speaks of people causing God's protection to be removed, is clearer in terms of understanding what's actually happening.



It's pretty clear that they do so by force of will. They choose what they want, and God allows them to have their choice. This is the wrath of God.



I think the SOP language is better than the language you're using here, especially in the context of our present discussion.



MM, the problem, again, with saying that God "employs" it is that it gives the impression that this is God's will, something God is acting to accomplish, something that He wants to happen. The superior SOP language, that people cause God's protection to be removed, makes crystal clear what is happening. Why not use that language?



This is better. And GC 35, 36 makes clear how that wrath operates. People cause God's protection to be removed.



Here's 2:



Please not "while He was here in the flesh."

Was this simply an oversight on your part? Or did you think "while He was here in the flesh" was referring to the OT?



Here's 4:



We disagree on this point. I believe that Satan is the destroyer and Christ is the restorer, by which I mean, Satan causes death and destruction, not Christ. I believe that statement that Satan is the author of sin and all its results also brings this out.



I think Satan has been *far* more successful at this than we realize.



According to the SOP, the whole purpose of Christ's mission on earth was "the revelation of God." She didn't limit His mission the way you are. The "revelation of God" includes everything about Him, not just the "nicey-nice" side (as teresa put it).

The punishment for despising and rejecting Christ is a self-imposed punishment, which is what the following is getting at:

i wonder if part of the problem is connecting the law- i assume the 10c- with the old covenant.

or just not understanding Gods intention all along.

But that which God required of Adam in paradise before the fall, He requires in this age of the world from those who would follow Him,--perfect obedience to His law. But righteousness without a blemish can be obtained only through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Through the provision that God has made for the forgiveness and restoration of sinners, the same requirements may be fulfilled by men today that were given to Adam in Eden. {RH, September 3, 1901 par. 2}
It was the transgression of the law that resulted in sin, sorrow, and death. Satan declared that he would prove to the worlds which God has created, and to the heavenly intelligences, that it was an impossibility to keep the law of God. When Adam yielded to the temptation of the enemy, and fell from his high and holy estate, Satan and his angels exulted. But from the throne of God a voice was heard speaking words of mysterious import. "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." When man fell, Christ announced His purpose of becoming man's substitute and surety. Who was He? Isaiah says of Him, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." John says of Him, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." {RH, September 3, 1901 par. 3}

There was a connection in that the Ten Commandments are what the COI promised to keep. But it was never God's intent that they should make vain promises to Him. Instead, God wanted to write the law in their heart.

yes. im thinking the title of the thread is wrong.

the covenant God intended with israel is the same one given to adam and eve through to abraham through to us. God never intended for man to try to work his way to heaven, and the title fuels the beliefs of those that believe the God expected "works" in the ot but gives "grace" in the nt.

works:
Psa 78:22 Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:

faith:
Psa 13:5 But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation.

but i think to many minds they are reading/hearing that the law doesnt have to be obeyed, "just believe", instead of what is really being said.

What a statement is this! How can the finite man grasp it? Man may become elevated, ennobled through obedience to the commandments of God, and become loyal and true subjects of his kingdom. We may become one with Christ in spirit and character, and testify to the world that God loves us as he loves his Son. What possibilities are there before the fallen human agent! Let perfect obedience be rendered to God through the imputed righteousness of Christ, and we shall reveal to the world the fact that God loves us as he loves Jesus. It will be made evident that "he that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" {ST, May 28, 1896 par. 4}
Why is it that we are so disposed to distrust God? Why do we as a church doubt his love? Let faith increase by exercise. Let it be sustained by works of righteousness. It is sin that darkens the reason of man, and clouds the understanding. Let the affections be given to God in order that his law may be written in the heart, and the whole man will become a new creature, born again of the Spirit. Then it will be made manifest that the law of God "is perfect, converting the soul." The Lord Jesus has revealed to us the value of the human soul. He says: "O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." Again the promise is made, "I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir." Shall we co-operate with God, and possess the faith that works by love and purifies the soul?

Righteousness is holiness,
likeness to God,
and "God is love." 1 John 4:16.

It is conformity to the law of God,
for "all Thy commandments are righteousness" (Psalm 119:172), and "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:10).

Righteousness is love,
and love is the light and the life of God.
The righteousness of God is embodied in Christ.
We receive righteousness by receiving Him. {MB 18.1}


Not by painful struggles or wearisome toil,
not by gift or sacrifice,
is righteousness obtained;
but it is freely given to every soul who hungers and thirsts to receive it.
"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat, . . . without money and without price."
"Their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord,"
and, "This is His name whereby He shall be called,
The Lord Our Righteousness." Isaiah 55:1; 54:17; Jeremiah 23:6. {MB 18.2}

This is an interesting thought. Love is the light of God. That ties in with this:



and this:

What do you think must be stripped away? Are you referring to any one of the “judgments and laws” that were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified"? Or, are you referring only to the “ritual laws”?

So far you have said the OC was bad because it involved the COI promising to obey and observe everything God required of them without fully understanding their need and dependence on Him to keep their promise. I agree. I’ve been saying the same thing all along. Are you aware of the fact that I’m in agreement with you on this one point?


Are you saying having to obey and observe all those rites and rituals was not a kind of bondage that “was against us, which was contrary to us”, and that it is not a major relief not to have to do it now?


To put it in terms you are familiar with, the COI forced God to require them to obey and observe rites and rituals that “was against us, which was contrary to us”. It was not God’s original will or desire for them. Remember, initially He wanted them to live under the terms and conditions of the NC (i.e. live in harmony with the 10Cs, circumcision, and occasional sacrifices).

I believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings.

Are you saying you agree with this?


What? That’s precisely what she said. Why do you exclude capital punishment? It was an integral part of the “judgments and laws” which were “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified".


Are you saying 1) the author didn’t specifically address this issue, and that 2) you are expecting me to know how you apply the principles to it? If so, then you are expecting way too much of me. Please state your position clearly and concisely. Thank you. BTW, you have never done this, that is, you have never plainly stated why you think Jesus ordered Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death.


God demonstrated His power. “Every manifestation of creative power is an expression of infinite love.” {PP 32} “These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. {PP 109} “Thus in the midst of judgment the mercy of God was displayed, the people were tested, and it was shown how many had been led to fear God by the manifestation of His power. {PP 269} The following two passage explain why God chose to demonstration His power through the plagues of Egypt:


Demonstrating His power in the way He did and for the reasons He did was not a show of force or violence. Do you agree?


Jesus employed the “withdraw and permit” principle throughout the OT. Yes, circumstances forced Him to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to happen. The point is – Death and destruction cannot happen without God’s permission. It does not happen naturally. He must first withdraw His protection. Sinners do not cause it to happen. They don’t do something and then it happens. For example, the antediluvians did not make water flood the earth and kill everyone. Nor did the sodomites make fire burn everyone alive. True, it was on account of their filling up their cup of woe and wrath that Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and permit death and destruction to happen.


God will withdraw His protection and permit the radiant light of His presence to cause sinners pain and suffering in duration and in proportion to their sinfulness. He will also rain down fire from above and raise up fire from below. In this environment they will suffer and die.


Are you suggesting resurrected sinners will suffer and die at the end of time because God is kind to them?


Are you disagreeing with the idea the OT envisioned two different advents with two different sets of goals? Please refer to the many quotation I posted above.

He then came still closer to his people, and would not leave them, who were so readily led astray, with merely the ten precepts of the decalogue. He required Moses to write as he should bid him, judgments and laws, giving minute directions in regard to what he required them to perform, and thereby guarded the ten precepts which he had engraved upon the tables of stone. These specific directions and requirements were given to draw erring man to the obedience of the moral law which he is so prone to transgress. {3SG 299.1}

As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants. {PP 370.2}[/quote]mm, in reflecting on these statements and the issues, it seems to me that God had no reason to give the "judgments and laws" to adam and eve, nor will they be applicable in the new earth. He also hadnt given them before abraham, nor after, so it seems the only reason God gave them, based on the pp, is because of the mental state of the israelites at delivery from the egyptians.

so what ellen white meant by "amplified" seems to be explained by her other comments.




would that make sense?

i think that seeing it this way prevents a clear understanding of Gods continual protection over us.

these are just a couple:

There are a lot of things which were pertaining to the Israelites, such as polygamy, divorce, slavery, to name a few. I wouldn't call these "ritual laws," would you. Yet they don't apply to us, right? God's not in favor of divorce, slavery or polygamy, is He?

IMO, you're not really in agreement with me. You wrote, "In essence, the OC is the NC amplified." I completely disagree with this, for the reasons I explained. The fact that you could write such a think demonstrates that you don't agree with what I'm saying.



MM, God gave these things to the COI. How could they have been against them? When you speak of the rites and rituals, are you speaking of the Ceremonial law?

Sin is bondage. That's what "was against us, which was contrary to us." It's a major relief not to have to sin.



No, MM. God didn't give the COI things which were against them, or contrary to them, or put them into bondage.



Yes, which is why He offered them the same covenant He offered Abraham. But they refused that covenant and initiated their own.

God's covenant was to accept the righteousness of Christ, and have the law written in the heart. Their covenant was to go about trying to establish their own righteousness, and not have the law written in the heart.

God's covenant leads to freedom. Their covenant led to bondage, and still does.

Although God went along with their wishes, He did so in such a way as to instruct them in the ways of Christ, so they would be led to freedom. He worked with their unbelief and gave them things to help them. He did not institute a system to put them into bondage, nor give them things which were contrary to them or against them.

Since the SOP tells us that Christ lived what He taught, I believe it's sufficient to say that Christ revealed God's character fully and completely by His life.



I think you're misreading what she wrote, and that you are confusing the principles of the Ten Commandments with judgments related to breaking certain laws. IMO, it shouldn't be difficult to see that principles related to commandments are not the same thing as judgments related to breaking them.



I'm saying 2). I'm sorry I'm expecting too much of you. I have stated my position. I'm sorry you haven't understood what I've said.

I think we've spent enough time on this. Why not do what I've suggested, which is to stay with a study of the cross, of the final judgment, and with the character and life of Jesus Christ which fully revealed God?



How could I not? The whole time I've been advocated that God did not use force or violence to get His way, as your view suggests. The fact that you don't label it "force" or "violence" doesn't change what you actually believe, which is that God used what in ordinary conversation would be labeled by an ordinary person as "force" and "violence."



I should just put something where I can copy and paste it, since you keep using this language. At any rate, I either disagree with your idea here, or think the language is ill-chosen, for reasons I've explained on several occasions. I think what the SOP said, that people caused God to withdraw His protection, is a better way of putting it, being more accurate than what you are saying, clearly indicating upon whom the blame/responsibility lies.



People did this. The "circumstances" was the free will decisions that people made.



IMO, this isn't much of a point. Nothing can happen that God doesn't permit, because God is omnipotent.



Actually, they do. The cause God to withdraw His protection, according to GC 35, 36.



Yes they do. The do something, which causes God to withdraw His protection.



They did indirectly by causing God wot withdraw His protection.



They caused God to withdraw His protection.



Right! Why not just say this?



Before you said that God works to prevent sin from having destructive consequences upon those who practice it, consequences deriving from the conscience being violated. The SOP tells us if we had to bear the enormity of our guilt, it would crush us. Christ bears our guilt, and when He ceases to do so for those who have rejected Him, it crushes them.

I have no idea why you think God would have to add some arbitrary punishment on top of the death and destruction which you yourself said that sin causes. I also have no idea why you insist on speaking of "radiant light" when quotes from the SOP, such as this one, make it clear that it's not a physical issue:





I wasn't suggesting this, but I'm not opposed to the idea. That is, one could say this, and it would be true. The wicked will suffer and die at the end of time because of God's kindness to them. Amazing, isn't it?



I think the character of the One acting in both comings is the same, and was fully revealed by Jesus Christ, whose "whole purpose" was the "revelation of God." I don't think Christ only revealed one side of God, the kinder/gentler side, and that His other side, the vindictive/violent side will be revealed later.

mm, in reflecting on these statements and the issues, it seems to me that God had no reason to give the "judgments and laws" to adam and eve, nor will they be applicable in the new earth. He also hadnt given them before abraham, nor after, so it seems the only reason God gave them, based on the pp, is because of the mental state of the israelites at delivery from the egyptians.

so what ellen white meant by "amplified" seems to be explained by her other comments.




would that make sense?
[/quote]
Listen as Ellen White explains it:


Condemnation and death are integral aspects of the law. The capital punishment aspect of the "judgment and laws" were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified".

No, they're not "rituals laws". To say God is not in favor of divorce, slavery, and polygamy begs the question - Why did He give the COI laws and judgments regulating such practices? Why didn't He prohibit them? Is it possible there are underlining principles that still apply today?

Are you aware of the fact that I’m in agreement with you on this ONE point?


“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Ellen White interpreted this passage in the following way:


Again, none of the laws given to the COI at Sinai would have been necessary had they lived in harmony with the NC. The only reason Jesus gave them the “ritual laws” was because they needed something that would remind them to love and obey God. But it was a huge burden, a huge inconvenience to maintain the OC version of the ceremonial system. The NC version was so much more streamline and convenient.

I believe Jesus revealed everything we need to know about God. I believe He did it in two ways – 1) Through His actions, and 2) Through His teachings.

Are you saying you disagree with this?


I addressed this point in my last post to Teresa.


I would prefer it if you would plainly state your position. I have absolutely no idea what you believe. Why do you think Jesus ordered Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death?


You omitted the quotes I posted. Here’s my original post:


God demonstrated His power. “Every manifestation of creative power is an expression of infinite love.” {PP 32} “These judgments are sent that those who lightly regard God's law and trample upon His authority may be led to tremble before His power and to confess His just sovereignty. {PP 109} “Thus in the midst of judgment the mercy of God was displayed, the people were tested, and it was shown how many had been led to fear God by the manifestation of His power. {PP 269} The following two passages explain why God chose to demonstration His power through the plagues of Egypt:

There is nothing forceful or violent about it.


Jesus employed the “withdraw and permit” method of allowing death and destruction is a valid use of the English language. He has employed 5 different methods of causing, commanding, or permitting death and destruction. Yes, circumstances force Him to employ one or the other method. He would prefer it if people would simply love and obey Him.


You’re not understanding my point. The point is – God must do something to cause or permit death and destruction. Sinners did not withdraw their protection and permit the forces of nature to cause death and destruction.

Another point to consider. The forcers of nature are subject to God. They can do nothing without Him, not even cause death and destruction. If God let go, the laws of nature would simply stand still and do nothing. In order for them to cause death and destruction, God must employ them accordingly.


Sinners eventually harden their hearts beyond the point of being able to feel shame and guilt.


What is so kind about giving them over to the consequences of their choices? What is so kind about exposing them to His unveiled brightness and glory? What is so kind about raining down fire from above and raising up fire from below? The word justice comes to mind – not kindness.


If both sets of prophecies describing both advents are identical, how, then, could the Jews misapply them? Please refer to the many quotations I posted above (the ones you omitted). Do you see how they describe two radically different advents?

Listen as Ellen White explains it:


Condemnation and death are integral aspects of the law. The capital punishment aspect of the "judgment and laws" were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified". [/quote]

ok, mm. that is how you understand it. no problem.

M:What do you think must be stripped away? Are you referring to any one of the “judgments and laws” that were "only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified"? Or, are you referring only to the “ritual laws”?

T:There are a lot of things which were pertaining to the Israelites, such as polygamy, divorce, slavery, to name a few. I wouldn't call these "ritual laws," would you. Yet they don't apply to us, right? God's not in favor of divorce, slavery or polygamy, is He?

M:No, they're not "rituals laws". To say God is not in favor of divorce, slavery, and polygamy begs the question - Why did He give the COI laws and judgments regulating such practices?[/quote]

Because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus Christ explained.



Sure, it's possible that there are some underlying principles that would apply. That's a far cry from saying that the law applies to us, however. For example, we're not to divorce our wives for any reason we choose, as in the law of Moses.

I think you *think* you're in agreement with me, but you're not. You wrote



But this isn't what I've been saying. That's why you think we're in agreement on this point, when we're not.

What I've been saying is more along the lines that the OC *consists* of these things, not "involves" them.



We've got a whole thread discussing Col 2:14. You can bump that if you want to discuss this verse.



This is correct.



Right.



So you think God gave them a "huge burden"? I disagree. I think you also think God gave them something which led them into bondage, and I also disagree with that.

Writing "the NC version," is viewing the covenants as similar things, rather than fundamentally different. This is a large part of our disagreement, I think. Basically the OC was a bad thing, being founded on unbelief, whereas the NC is a good thing, founded on the promises of God.

Also I don't think you've latched onto the following principle:



Ellen White said that Waggoner's view was clear and convincing, and that he had been given a special gift whereby he could teach righteousness by faith better than she could. I think it would be beneficial to look at what Waggoner wrote. The "Glad Tidings," chapters 3 and 4 are a good place to look, as well as "The Gospel in Galatians." These are both online.

What I said was that according to the SOP, Jesus lived what He taught. Therefore Christ's life was sufficient to reveal God. If you intend to say Jesus Christ revealed God in "two different ways" so that it wouldn't be true that what Christ taught, He lived, then I disagree.



I'm sure if you have "absolutely no idea" what I believe, after all I've written, and quoted from others, my saying one more thing wouldn't help.



You believe that God escalated the damage of the plagues until it got to the point to where He commissioned holy angels to kill. To claim these is nothing "forceful" or "violent" about your view is to do violence to the words "forceful" and "violent."



It's an inferior use to the SOP's, and doesn't represent my view accurately. If you wish to use it to represent *your* view, that's fine.



Which is force and violence.



This view of God has nothing to do with Jesus Christ's life. Never did He teach, "If you don't do what I say, I'll destroy you. There are 5 ways I use to do this. I'd prefer you loved and obey Me, but if you don't, I'll use one of these 5 methods to destroy you."

MM, don't you see the lack of logic to "Love me, or I'll destroy you?" I mean, that this can't work?



Of course sinners are not in control of the forces of nature, so they could hardly permit or cause this to happen. Why make this point?



If God let go, nature wouldn't "simply stand still and do nothing." Nature needs the active hand of God to exist. Were God to "let go," nature would cease to exist.

You say that for nature to cause death and destruction, God must employ it accordingly. Is this what you really meant to say? Let me just ask, do you think every time someone dies as the result of a natural disaster, this is because God employed nature to do such?



From the SOP



There's no indication here of what you're claiming.

M: Are you suggesting resurrected sinners will suffer and die at the end of time because God is kind to them?

T: I wasn't suggesting this, but I'm not opposed to the idea. That is, one could say this, and it would be true. The wicked will suffer and die at the end of time because of God's kindness to them. Amazing, isn't it?

M:What is so kind about giving them over to the consequences of their choices?[/quote]

GC 543 speaks to this.



This is your idea, not mine.



Again, this is your idea, not mine. I completely agree that your idea of God is not kind.



Again, according to your way of looking at things, I agree that God is not kind. However, I believe your way of looking at things is incorrect, and that, in reality, God is kind in the judgment.

To support this idea, that God is kind, I note:



This specifically points out that God is kind in the judgment.

From Scripture we read that God is agape, that agape is kind, and that God "changes not."

So we conclude that God will not cease being kind in the judgment. God has the best interests in mind of all, including those who reject Him, and He will treat them with kindness.



They're different in that different things happen, but not different in that God is different. What Jesus revealed in His humanity is sufficient to understand God's actions in both comings.

It also happens to be what God said. I am merely agreeing with what He said. So you're right, it's "no problem". In fact, it would only be a problem if I didn't agree with God.

1. What did you mean when you wrote God wasn't in favor of divorce, slavery, and polygamy when He gave Moses laws governing the practice of them? Did God view such practices as sinful?

2. "Sure, it's possible that there are some underlying principles that would apply." Can you elaborate on this point? What are some of the underlining principles regarding divorce, slavery, and polygamy that apply today?

3. "That's a far cry from saying that the law applies to us, however." Do you know of anyone that believes this way?

4. "For example, we're not to divorce our wives for any reason we choose, as in the law of Moses." Where in the law of Moses did God give the COI permission to get divorced for any reason?

Are you saying the OC was bad because it consisted of the COI promising to obey and observe everything God required of them without fully understanding their need and dependence on Him to keep their promise? If so, then we’re in agreement on this *one* point.

Also, do you think the OC consists of things that are an amplification of the NC? For example, do you think the OC ceremonial system is an amplification of the NC ceremonial system? If not, why not?


That thread isn’t discussing the issue I’m raising here. The SOP passages you omitted here agree with the point I am making, namely, one of the reasons the OC was bad is due to the fact it required the COI to obey and observe ceremonial laws and rituals “that was against us, which was contrary to us”. This point is very much applicable to this thread.


Having to obey and observe all those ceremonial laws and rituals was a kind of bondage. I’m not using the word “bondage” in the same sense you seem to think I am, that is, in some kind of sinful sense.

You seem to be implying that the OC version of the ceremonial system, the enhanced and greatly expanded version, was a “bad thing”. Do you think God designed it based on unbelief? If not, what did unbelief have to do with it?

Do you see any similarities between the ceremonial systems under the new and old covenants? Or, do you think they are fundamentally different? If so, please explain why and how.

“We see then that the two covenants are not matters of time, but of condition.” Yes, there is an aspect of the OC that is representative of an attitude. You seem to have forgotten that I agree on this *one* point. I also believe, however, time was another aspect of the OC. “As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two covenants.” {PP 370.2} There were time dated elements of the OC, namely, the ceremonial laws and rituals that ended with the death of Jesus.

If you’re saying you believe Jesus lived out in actions while here in the flesh everything He lived out in actions in OT, then, yes, we disagree. In the OT Jesus employed the “withdraw and permit” method of allowing death and destruction to happen in consequence of sinners filling up their cup of woe and wrath. He also commanded Moses and the COI to stone sinners to death. Jesus never once acted out these things while here in the flesh. Yes, He taught them, but He never acted them out.


How about saying one more thing that actually states your position plainly. Your unwillingness to state your position plainly suggests you are embarrassed or ashamed of it. You are constantly reminding us of how important it is that we understand the truth about God, that we discern the lies of Satan about God. And yet on this very important point you are elusive and noncommittal. Why? Does it matter if we understand why Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to kill sinners? Does our salvation depend on us getting it right? Or, can we go on thinking with impunity Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to kill sinners because it’s what law and justice requires?


Why do you think the plagues consisted of force and violence? And, who or what do you think was responsible for it playing out the way did?


3 out of the 5 methods are based on your views. Here are the 5 methods Jesus employs to cause, command, or permit death and destruction to happen:

1. Jesus causes it
2. Jesus commands holy angels to do it
3. Jesus permits the forces of nature to do it
4. Jesus permits evil angels to do it
5. Jesus permits evil men to do it

Are you suggesting 3, 4, and 5 consist of force and violence? If so, why do you think Jesus would permit them to employ force and violence?



This view of God has nothing to do with Jesus Christ's life. Never did He teach, "If you don't do what I say, I'll destroy you. There are 5 ways I use to do this. I'd prefer you loved and obey Me, but if you don't, I'll use one of these 5 methods to destroy you." MM, don't you see the lack of logic to "Love me, or I'll destroy you?" I mean, that this can't work? [/quote]
The promise of punishment and death is not the same thing as saying, “Love me or I’ll destroy.” Jesus said, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” “Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God.” {1SM 230.1}

Jesus is in essence saying, “If you rely on Me to empower you to love and obey me, if you imitate My godly example, you will experience peace and happiness. However, if you despise Me and reject the salvation I wrought out for you at great cost to Myself, then I will satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice and resurrect you, judge you, punish you, and then allow you to die eternally in the lake of fire. So please, please do the right thing and let Me empower you to love and obey Me. I really don’t want you to suffer and die in the lake of fire.”


I’ve been saying this all along.

M: You’re not understanding my point. The point is – God must do something to cause or permit death and destruction. Sinners did not withdraw their protection and permit the forces of nature to cause death and destruction.

T: Of course sinners are not in control of the forces of nature, so they could hardly permit or cause this to happen. Why make this point? [/quote]
You keep insisting Jesus doesn’t do anything, that sinners cause it to happen.


Nature would not cease to exist. Water and matter wouldn’t vanish if Jesus stopped managing the forces of nature. Jesus is actively involved in causing the forces of nature to act and behave the way they do. For example, rain rises and falls as Jesus sees fit. Warm and cold fronts trade places as Jesus sees fit. Heat and air combine and cause wind as Jesus sees fit. Etc, etc, etc. Nothing is left to chance or natural law. In the same way, Jesus manages the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. True, there are times when He permits evil angels to manage the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. But whether Jesus causes it to happen or permits evil angels to cause it to happen, the result is the same, namely, sinners suffer and die according to the limits established by God Himself.


“A few persons pass on in a course of wrong until they become hardened. . . Yet their consciences do not condemn them.” {3T 270.2} “Those who desired a sign from Jesus had so hardened their hearts in unbelief that they did not discern in His character the likeness of God. {DA 407.2}

“It is by sinful indulgence that men give Satan access to their minds, and they go from one stage of wickedness to another. The rejection of light darkens the mind and hardens the heart, so that it is easier for them to take the next step in sin and to reject still clearer light, until at last their habits of wrongdoing become fixed. Sin ceases to appear sinful to them. {CC 108.5}

“The deadly lethargy of the world is paralyzing your senses. Sin no longer appears repulsive because you are blinded by Satan. The judgments of God are soon to be poured out upon the earth. "Escape for thy life" is the warning from the angels of God. {5T 233.3}

“The day of God's vengeance cometh--the day of the fierceness of His wrath. Who will abide the day of His coming? Men have hardened their hearts against the Spirit of God, but the arrows of His wrath will pierce where the arrows of conviction could not. God will not far hence arise to deal with the sinner. {FW 33.3}


No, it’s God’s idea. Here’s what He thinks about it:


These passages are in total agreement with the view I presented above (especially the last one).

The following passages make it clear that the COI, under the OC and its laws, were to woo and win the world to God, to motivate and encourage them to obey and observe everything Jesus commanded at Sinai:

It is the voice of Christ that speaks to us through the Old Testament. "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Revelation 19:10. {PP 366.3}

So in Moses also God placed a light beside the throne of the earth's greatest kingdom, that all who would, might learn of the true and living God. And all this light was given to the Egyptians before the hand of God was stretched out over them in judgments. {PP 368.3}

God called Israel, and blessed and exalted them, not that by obedience to His law they alone might receive His favor and become the exclusive recipients of His blessings, but in order to reveal Himself through them to all the inhabitants of the earth. It was for the accomplishment of this very purpose that He commanded them to keep themselves distinct from the idolatrous nations around them. {PP 369.2}

I asked you the question (which I don't think you answered)



Regarding what I meant, to be in favor of something means the thing is something you approve of, or desire.



Here's a principle. The law regarding divorce was to protect women, so this law shows that God was concerned about protecting those in need. That principle still applies.



So you're now saying that the law of Moses does *not* apply to us?



From the SOP:



Regarding where in Moses it says this, you can look it up as easily as I.

1.This isn't what you've been saying the OC consisted of.
2.It's not simply that the COI promised to obey everything God required of them without understanding something, but they thought God was requiring things of them rather than promising them the things they needed.



Regarding the Old Covenant:



I don't know how to explain it better than this.



I disagree with the idea that God gave the COI things which were against them, or contrary to them, or led them into bondage.



No it wasn't. Sin is bondage. The ceremonial law was given to point to Christ, who gives us freedom.



This is found here: http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/1888/waggonerbutler_twolaws3.html

I'd suggest reading through this pamphlet. It's covering much of the ground we're discussing.



We seem to be talking of different things. I have been referring to the Old Covenant, as Paul spoke of it, for example:



You seem to be confusing the teaching aids which God gave (which were good things, not leading to bondage) with the covenant itself (which was a bad thing, which led to bondage).



The New Covenant doesn't have a ceremonial system. It has the ministry of Christ. The sacrificial system pointed to it, so, of course, was similar to it, but I haven't been speaking of these things, but rather of the Old Covenant.



Not just "an aspect," but the covenant itself.



It doesn't appear to me you've understood *my* point, which is why, I think, you keep saying you agree with it.



The covenant is not a matter of time, but of condition. The teaching aids God gave had a time element to them, in that they were pointing forward to Christ.

I think it would help to bear in mind that it was the Old Covenant itself which led to bondage, not "an aspect of the Old Covenant," but the Old Covenant. Also I think a careful study of what Waggoner wrote would be very helpful.

What I'm saying is:
1.All that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of Jesus Christ, in His humanity.
2.What Jesus Christ taught, He lived.
3.Therefore, Christ's life was a full and complete revelation of God.

Do you agree with this? If not, which point or points do you disagree with, and why.



Or tired, MM. I could just be tired of being asked the same questions over and over and over again, and given the same answers, and then asked again, and so forth.



I've written a lot on this subject, and referred you to more things, which I think are very clear, yet you still don't understand what is being said. I don't know what else to do, MM. Surely just repeating what I've already said isn't going to help anything.

I've pointed out that this subject is difficult, more difficult than the following, upon which, it appears to me, it depends:

1.The atonement
2.The judgment of the wicked

So why don't we concentrate on these?



According to the SOP, the atonement is the great truth upon which all other truths cluster. I think getting *that* right is very important.



People were harmed and killed violently.



I think the Egyptians were primarily responsible for it playing out the way they did, by causing God to remove His protection. Also Satan was responsible, as the author of sin.



You're making a list here, and then making claims about my view in regards to your list, and then asking me questions about that, as if all you wrote were true. Wouldn't it be better for me to make my own list, and then you ask me about that?

Here's my list:

1.People cause God's protection to be withdrawn.

As to why God would permit force and violence, this is the result of sin. In order to do away with force and violence, God would have to do away with sin. God is hard at work to accomplish this very thing, and has been since sin originated.



Which is essentially, "Do what I tell you, or I'll cause you to suffer, and then kill you," isn't it? If not, why not?

Regarding this:



If Jesus is the one who causes this to happen, then you're essentially saying that Jesus says, "I don't want to cause you to suffer, and I don't want to throw fire upon you from above and below, but I have to because the law says so."

This has a couple of problems. First of all, the law is a transcript of His character, so He can't say on the one hand He's doing something He doesn't want to do, and on the other hand say the law says He has to do it (although He doesn't want to) because the law's being a transcript of His character means, by definition, that it specifies the things He wants to do.

Secondly, if He didn't want to do it, He could just not do it. The law is not greater than Christ.



I agree that sinners cause God's protection to be withdrawn (GC 35), but where have I ever said that "Jesus doesn't do anything"?



This is pure Augustine. We don't believe this as SDA's.



Unfortunately, many SDA's do believe this. But not the previous paragraph. That's Calvinism, and we come from an Arminianist (Weslyan) tradition. You're mixing different theological systems in a hat that don't belong.

The weather does not act the way it does because Jesus Christ micromanages every molecule.



They manipulate it, not manage it.



If someone is doing something with a gun, like cleaning it, and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, or if the person purposely shoots and kills someone, the results are the same, but these are very different acts, right?

Regarding the conscience and the wicked, none of the quotes have to do with the judgment. Take a look at what she says about the judgment and conscience. That's where you'd need to find something that says that some sinners won't feel guilt.

Also, you didn't deal with the point being made, which was this:



Do you think some are excluded here? That is, there are some who could bear their own guilt?



If you're convinced that your ideas are God's ideas, there's not much point in our having a discussion, is there? In this case, shouldn't I just listen while you explicate God's ideas to me?

Secondly, I've pointed out the following to you:



Notice it says, "It is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity."

I don't understand how you could read this, and then write, "This is God's thought on the matter" and quote Ellen White. This looks to be using her in a way that's diametrically opposed to her own view of inspiration.

God wants things to be like they were before A&E sinned. So, no, He is not in favor of divorce, slavery, or polygamy. But do you think He viewed them as sinful? If so, why do you think Jesus gave the COI laws and judgments governing their practice? Also, in doing so, do you think Jesus compromised and accommodated sinful practices?


Do you have inspired insights that support your view? Where in the Bible or the SOP does it say the laws and judgments governing divorce were designed to protect women?


I merely asked a question. I believe that those aspects of the law of Moses that were “only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified” apply to us in principle if not in particular. As such, they apply to us today. Do you agree?


The fact is, Tom, the Jews made it up. Nowhere in the law of Moses did Jesus give men permission to divorce their wives for trivial offenses. The laws and judgments governing divorce are designed to protect the sanctity of marriage by allowing couples who cannot resolve and reconcile their fundamental differences to dissolve their union and start over with a clean slate.

Few things speak in favor of Christianity as highly as does happily married couples. On the other hand, few things bring more reproach upon the cause of Christ than do unhappily married couples. If discontented couples cannot resolve and reconcile their differences and restore happiness, Jesus prefers it if they get divorced than to stay shackled and dishonor His name and make it stink in the face of unbelievers.

1) What else do you think I think the OC consists of? 2) Are you implying “the OC was bad because it consisted of the COI promising to obey and observe everything God required of them without fully understanding their need and dependence on Him to keep their promise” and because “they thought God was requiring things of them rather than promising them the things they needed”?

Also, are you implying Jesus did *not* command them to obey and observe the laws of God and Moses? Or, are you saying Jesus promised them “the things they needed”? If so, what did it consist of, that is, “the things they needed”?


So, does that mean you think 1) obeying the OC “judgments and laws” which “were only the Ten Commandments amplified” and 2) observing the OC version of the ceremonial system and sacrifices resulted in “nothing but bondage”? If so, then please answer the following questions:

Who commanded them to obey and observe the OC laws and ceremonial system? Or, who promised to empower them to obey and observe them?


Are you implying, then, that commanding them to obey and observe the OC ceremonial laws and rituals were designed to teach them how to find victory and freedom in Christ? If so, why, then, does it seem like you think the OC is sinful and objectionable?


Are you implying that properly obeying and observing the OC ceremonial laws and rituals led to victory and freedom in Christ?


Are you divorcing 1) the OC “judgments and laws” which “were only the Ten Commandments amplified” and 2) the OC version of the ceremonial system and sacrifices which Jesus commanded them to obey and observe from their promise to comply with His commandments and requirements?

If so, are you thereby implying 1) the OC “judgments and laws” which “were only the Ten Commandments amplified” and 2) the OC version of the ceremonial system and sacrifices which Jesus commanded them to obey and observe “were good things, not leading to bondage”?


Originally, the NC included a system of sacrificial offerings. Ellen White wrote:

Christ, in counsel with His Father, instituted the system of sacrificial offerings; that death, instead of being immediately visited upon the transgressor, should be transferred to a victim which should prefigure the great and perfect offering of the Son of God. . . . Through the blood of this victim, man looked forward by faith to the blood of Christ which would atone for the sins of the world. {AG 131.5} The very system of sacrifices was devised by Christ, and given to Adam as typifying a Saviour to come, who would bear the sins of the world, and die for its redemption. {SD 225.3}


The OC consisted of terms and conditions, namely, 1) the law of God, 2) the “judgments and laws” which “were only the Ten Commandments amplified,” 3) the ceremonial laws and rituals, 4) Jesus commanding the COI to obey and observe them, and 5) the COI agreeing to obey and observe them in their own unaided strength.

The NC, on the other hand, consisted of the following terms and conditions, 1) the law of God, 2) a system of sacrificial offerings, 3) Jesus commanding people to obey and observe them, and 4) people promising to trust Jesus to empower them to obey and observe them. Of course, the commandment to observe the system of sacrificial offerings was valid until Jesus died on the cross. At that point, Jesus substituted it for the communion service.

Ok, you believe God gave the COI laws and judgments concerning practices He was not in favor of? Why do you think He did this?



You can study into this if you wish. It shouldn't be difficult to verify what I wrote.



Anyone can see the implication of your question is that you don't believe this way. If you did, asking the question you asked would be, at the least, very misleading.



I already answered this question. Don't you recall? It was just a couple of posts ago.



Jesus said, "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to put away your wives," so clearly, they didn't make it up (or else Jesus would not have said that "Moses" allowed it).



You're speaking as in 20th century language (or 21st, if you prefer). I explained the factors involved, which is easily verified. They had no concept of "couples who cannot resolve and reconcile their fundamental differences."



You're saying now? It's OK to get a divorce on grounds other than adultery?

It consists of the attempt by the people to establish their own righteousness.



The New Covenant consists of accepting the righteousness of Christ and having the law written in the heart. The Old Covenant is founded on unbelief, as opposed to accepting this promise of God, and consists of attempting to establish one's own righteousness. This attempt can only lead to bondage, and, being founded on unbelief, is bad.



I don't understand why you're asking this.



They needed righteousness. The only place to receive righteousness is from Christ. God gave them the law, in written form, and with precise instructions, so they could learn that they did not have the righteousness required, nor could they obtain it of themselves. He did this so they would be led to Christ, in whom they could find righteousness.



MM, I've been explaining to you that keeping the ceremonial law was not bondage, and providing you links to read more about this. When you ask questions like this, it gives the impression you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.



Since the "if" did not apply, I skipped this.



This can't be, MM. To consider just one thing, consider item 1). The law of God doesn't lead to bondage. It wasn't faulty. It didn't "vanish away". It wasn't replaced by the NC.



The New Covenant consists of God's promise to make us righteous when we believe in Jesus Christ. Your item 4) is the Old Covenant, not the New! The New Covenant principle is that we believe God's promises to us, not that we make promises to Him.



This is great stuff. I do hope you'll take the time to read it carefully.

As a summary, God promised Abraham an inheritance, a promise to be received by faith. That inheritance encompasses all needful things, including the earth made new, righteousness, and Christ Himself. We don't receive the inheritance by works, or by making promises to God, but by faith, which means believing His promises to us.

This doesn't imply inactivity on our part, because righteousness is, of its very nature, active, full of works. But the works come about as a result of our believing God's promises to us.

God is faithful in keeping His promises. All that we need, He has promised to us. Believing God and His promises is the essence of the New Covenant.

“If you’re saying you believe Jesus lived out in actions, while here in the flesh, everything He lived out in actions in OT then, yes, we disagree.” The word “revealed” in 8T 286 does not imply Jesus acted out everything He taught. A simple example should suffice - the second coming and destruction of the wicked.


True, it is tiring asking the same question over and over again and being told over and over again – “I’ve already plainly stated my position in the humane hunter story.” The truth is, however, implying that Jesus risked being misunderstood each time He commanded the COI to stone sinners to death doesn’t answer the question. It merely assumes something that may or may not be true. By the way, the question is – How do you think Jesus commanded the COI to stone sinners to death? Did He command them to do something that was sinful? In other words, was it a sin to obey Jesus and stone sinners to death?

Ellen White wrote:

Those who performed this terrible work of judgment [slaughtering those who worshipped the golden calf] were acting by divine authority, executing the sentence of the King of heaven. Men are to beware how they, in their human blindness, judge and condemn their fellow men; but when God commands them to execute His sentence upon iniquity, He is to be obeyed. Those who performed this painful act, thus manifested their abhorrence of rebellion and idolatry, and consecrated themselves more fully to the service of the true God. The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi. {PP 324.2}


Are you suggesting sinners suffered and died forcefully and violently because Jesus withdrew His protection? If so, why did He do it? What was He trying to accomplish? And, did He accomplish it?


Awhile ago you said you agree with the list except for number one.


You seem to be implying force and violence does not happen until Jesus withdraws His protection. If so, then it sounds rather arbitrary to me. That is, the relationship between sinning and force and violence is arbitrary. For example, the Egyptian infants and babies died a forceful and violent death because Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted an evil angel to kill them. Why? Why do you think Jesus gave an evil angel permission to kill infants and babies? What was He trying to accomplish? And, did He accomplish it?


You really don’t see a difference? Do you do the same thing with the following kinds of promises: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” That is, do you make them mean – Believe in Jesus or the Father will kill you!!!


It is perfectly reasonable and righteous for Jesus to warn sinners to repent and obey Him because otherwise He will have to punish and destroy them. But this isn’t what He will say on judgment day. By then it’s too late warn and plead with sinners. They are neither innocent nor ignorant. They have willfully despised and rejected Him. They deserve to suffer and die. They are worthy. Jesus will not hesitate or apologize for inflicting punishment. Here’s what is says in the SOP about “inflicting” punishment:


Tom, I realize I posted several passages which affirm the truth, and I also realize you are not fond of reading so many testimonies. However, please take the time to read them. Thank you.


You insist sinners cause Jesus to withdraw His protection, and that Jesus doesn’t do anything to cause death and destruction.


Sure we do. Ellen White wrote:


At His own will God summons the forces of nature to overthrow the might of His enemies--"fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word." Psalm 148:8. {Mar 297.1}


As you can see from the quotes posted above that Jesus does indeed micromanage the forces of nature. “His hand has molded the mountains and balances them in their position, that they shall not be moved except at His command. The wind, the sun, the rain, the snow, and the ice, are all His ministers to do His will. {3BC 1144.10}


Would you say evil angels control the elements of nature as far as Jesus allows? Also, do you think Jesus and Satan use the same powers to control the elements of nature? If not, in what way do you think they differ? Consider the following insights:

The time is at hand when there will be sorrow in the world that no human balm can heal. The Spirit of God is being withdrawn. Disasters by sea and by land follow one another in quick succession. How frequently we hear of earthquakes and tornadoes, of destruction by fire and flood, with great loss of life and property! Apparently these calamities are capricious outbreaks of disorganized, unregulated forces of nature, wholly beyond the control of man; but in them all, God's purpose may be read. They are among the agencies by which He seeks to arouse men and women to a sense of their danger. {CC 231.3}

Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows. . . While appearing to the children of men as a great physician who can heal all their maladies, he will bring disease and disaster, until populous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation. Even now he is at work. In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hailstorms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and famine and distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly taint, and thousands perish by the pestilence. These visitations are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. {GC 589}


Yes, the acts are very different. But what do you want me to conclude based on this example? Are you implying Jesus accidentally causes or permits death and destruction?


Nowhere in judgment does it say sinners experience the kind of guilt and shame that leads to repentance and obedience. Also, immediately after judgment ends, the wicked turn upon one another in fits of rage and anger. This doesn’t reflect the kind of behavior one would expect from sinners who are supposedly experiencing what Jesus experienced from Gethsemane to Golgotha. How do you account for the radical difference?

Satan with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race. It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. {DA 753.2}

And on "whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." The people who rejected Christ were soon to see their city and their nation destroyed. Their glory would be broken, and scattered as the dust before the wind. And what was it that destroyed the Jews? It was the rock which, had they built upon it, would have been their security. It was the goodness of God despised, the righteousness spurned, the mercy slighted. Men set themselves in opposition to God, and all that would have been their salvation was turned to their destruction. All that God ordained unto life they found to be unto death. In the Jews' crucifixion of Christ was involved the destruction of Jerusalem. The blood shed upon Calvary was the weight that sank them to ruin for this world and for the world to come. So it will be in the great final day, when judgment shall fall upon the rejecters of God's grace. Christ, their rock of offense, will then appear to them as an avenging mountain. The glory of His countenance, which to the righteous is life, will be to the wicked a consuming fire. Because of love rejected, grace despised, the sinner will be destroyed. {DA 600.2}


Are you suggesting God will not appear in their presence in His unveiled brightness and glory? Or, are you suggesting that His unveiled brightness and glory will not cause them to suffer intense physical pain similar to what people suffered in the presence of the glory and brightness radiating from Moses’ face (which is not the same kind of physical pain caused by emotional anguish)?

this is one way to look at it. is it possible there is another way to look at it? or are the statements presented as questions the only way to look at it?

i wonder if the fact that sometimes God Himself took action, while other times He "ordered" execution have anything to study into.

I didn't say "act out" but "lived." What Jesus Christ taught, He lived, is what I said. (Item 2).

Do you disagree with item 2?



This is from "The Great Controversy"



The Egyptians caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, by stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy. You're question as to what God was trying to accomplish is assuming that God was trying to accomplish something, which seems to me to be in opposition to the idea that the people were causing something to happen.



Until He is caused to withdraw His protection, this should say.



It would be arbitrary if it wasn't something He was caused to do, as in the view you suggest.



You seem to be ignoring the point that God was caused to remove His protection.





I invited you to point out any difference, and you didn't. If you see a difference, what is it?

To be clear here, what you believe is that God warns us to do what He says, or, if we don't, then He will cause us to suffer and die by bringing fire upon us from above and below. I think I'm quoting you accurately here. Now if this is the case, He is telling us, "Do what I say, or I will kill you (after causing you to suffer)," right?



*I* don't believe God will kill those who choose not to believe in Him, which you know, so, of course, I don't make these words say this, as how would I make words say something I don't believe? What you're asking here really doesn't make sense.

You, otoh, actually do believe that God will kill those who don't do what He says, and you interpret these words to mean this, and so do the very thing you're asking me about!



Then it's perfectly reasonable and righteous for Jesus to say, "Obey Me, or I'll kill cause you to suffer, and then kill you!" because what you are suggesting is essentially this.



I read them, but don't seem much point in posting a lot of passages like that without any comment. Here's a passage to consider:



I'm quoted this a number of times, and pointed out that I don't seen an tie-in between the principles you suggest and the cross. I notice you don't point out any connection in your comments, or even mention the atonement at all.

But, according to the SOP, to understand truth, the connection to the cross must be understood. This is why I've suggested starting out by a study of the cross. Ask questions like:

a.How did Christ respond to His enemies?
b.How do we see the principles of force and violence applied?
c.How did God act towards those who were treating His Son so terribly?

and so forth.



There's a large difference between what she wrote and what you wrote. By the way, I first quoted these concepts to you(that you quoted from her), and it was for the purpose of pointing out that nature is not self-working, the point she makes. That is, nature needs God to manage it.

What has to do with Augustine is the idea that not one molecule is out of place, that everything that happens in nature is because God has explicitly willed it to be so. This is what I understood you to be saying.

Nature has been impacted by sin. God manages nature so the whole planet doesn't get wiped out, which is what would happen if He didn't. If we were all wiped out, we couldn't participate in the Great Controversy.

Because of sin, nature does not behave as initially designed. For example, there are now great waste areas where before there were none. This was not and is not a part of God's design, but something which happened because of sin.



I would say they manipulate it.



No. I think they differ in that God exercises a restraining hand, whereas Satan exercises a destructive hand.



That causing something to happen is very different than permitting it to happen.



No. I was illustrating how acts can be very different, even though the result in the same thing. Does this make sense?

This is why, in our legal system, there is a difference between manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder. The intent is very important in distinguishing between acts.



The statement doesn't say anything about being led to repentance and obedience, but about being crushed.



You're not dealing with the point.

1.If we had to bear our own guilt, it would crush us.
2.The wicked will have to bear their own guilt.
3.It will crush them.

From "The Desire of Ages":



I'm hoping the part in bold will help show the similarities in what Christ and the wicked experience.

That DA 600 quote is great. That's what I've been trying to say all this time in our discussions. "In the Jews' crucifixion of Christ was involved the destruction of Jerusalem." I've made this point many times.



I think what I was saying is that God acts kindly toward the wicked. God is love, and even treats His enemies with kindness. He loves them too. But the wicked have so warped their characters, that they cannot stand to be in His presence, which is to them a consuming fire.

Tom, sorry, but this does not make sense to me. Why was God caused to remove His protection only from the firstborn? Why was He caused to remove His protection from babies and children, for instance, but not from hardened adults like pharaoh and the magicians?

Why did God send angles to kill only the firstborn? Why did He cause babies and children to be killed, for instance, but not hardened adults like pharaoh and the magicians?

I'm asking you these questions because I don't see why your answers to these questions wouldn't apply as answers to the questions you asked me.

That's an easy answer. God did it to save those too hardened to be awakened by any other means.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My answer is that this was a judgment from God and it was an arbitrary one (in the sense of "left to one's judgment and choice") - designed by Him to achieve His purposes of showing to the whole world His superiority above all gods. As I see it, two things are essential for this subject to be understood: 1) God told them how to avoid death, and 2) God has given life and has the right to remove it, cutting short the life of sinners who can no longer be saved. God will deal with the Egyptian babies and children who died in exactly the same way as He will deal with any child or baby who dies today. As to the firstborn who had achieved the age of accountability and died, these were the hardened ones who knew how to avoid death and had seen all the miracles God had performed, but chose to defy His authority. They were lost anyway.
Is this how you see things?

Ok, then that answer applies to Rosangela's question to me as well.

Tom,

I don't think you will agree with my answer (in the post just above yours), as I understand your perspective is completely different. So I would like to hear your explanation about it.

Your response seems fine. Where I would differ would be in regards to holy angels permitting the first born to be killed by destroying angels, which I believe were evil ones.

A question can come up in regards to why Satan would cooperate with God, and also in regards to how Satan's killing newborns would display God's power. In regards to the first point, I think Satan knew God would be blamed for what he (Satan) did (like the GC statement regarding the "great deceiver" hiding his work) and couldn't resist the chance to make God look bad. In regards to the second point, God power is manifest no less in His resisting the powers of evil and managing the forces of nature as it would be in His actual doing the destruction Himself.

A final point is that the question could be raised as to how God would allow Himself to be so misunderstood, and I think the answer to this is similar to when Jesus taught the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. When I first understood that Jesus did so, *knowing* that what He said would be misunderstood as tacitly endorsing the immortal soul idea, this was a great "aha!" moment for me. My previous paradigm would not have allowed this, because it is not "correct."

However, as I thought about it, it occurred to me that God has no choice but to communicate to us in ways that are "incorrect" because we, with are so highly defective paradigms, could not understand the truth in its "correct" form. So God communicates the truth to us in ways we can understand (e.g. with immortal soul ideas for those He spoke to regarding Lazarus and the Rich Man) and then works with our paradigms to lead us into more and more truth. Jesus spoke of not being able to put new wine into old wine skins, and I believe this is the principle He was getting at.

Another point to mention is that as we perceive things differently, God has millions of paradigms to deal with. How to communicate truth to so many people at so many different places? I believe He does so by communicating different concepts for the different paradigms. At times, it can appear that God is contradicting Himself.

Here are two examples. First of all, there are the instructions for divorce given by Moses. This appears to be implying that God is OK with divorce, that it's not a sin (Or at least wasn't in the time of Moses. MM, for example, appears to believe this). Then in the Gospels, Jesus explains that divorce was only permitted because of the hardness of their hearts.

A second example is the following statement from EGW. I can't find the statement I wanted, so I'll just describe it. It speaks of how we have the incentive of heaven before us, and urges us to respond, to gain heaven and avoid hell. Many times she speaks of a heaven to gain and a hell to shun.

Elsewhere she writes things like:



and



So it appears on the one hand that she is speaking against the idea of using hope of punishment and fear of reward to incent people, but then she does that very thing. Is she contradicting herself? No, she's addressing different groups of people.

And so with God. God does not contradict Himself, but He addresses different people, with different truths to impress upon them. As some truths are learned, that opens the way for others. For example, a proper understanding of the atonement opens the way to understanding other subjects.

Regarding the concept of putting God in a favorable light, it appears to me that you try to do this. That is, that you look for interpretations which not only match what is said in the text, but that do so in a way that speaks to God in as favorable a way as your understanding of the text permits. I don't know how clear I'm being hear, but this is a positive comment. I perceive and appreciate these efforts.

Finally, this is a rather long post, and I'm not expecting that you'll see things as I do, but hope that this helps to at least explain a bit better where I'm coming from.

Thank you for your answer, but something is still unclear to me. Do you agree with the “arbitrary” part? Did God choose to remove His protection from some and not from others? Or how is it that only the firstborn were killed? How do you see it?

according to the bible/sop it was against the gods of egypt.

God had been providing for the egyptians, as well as all nations, all along but that had been attributed to the "works" the heathen/pagans had done for their gods.

God revealed His power by withholding His power. man and demons can steal, kill and destroy, but only God can create and sustain. man and demon can help sustain, but history says we destroy, since land depletion of nutrients is known since the earliest of times.

egyptian history, as well as the bible, tells us the significance of the firstborn.

What you mean is that He ceased sustaining the life of the firstborn?

I think it's clear that God removed His protection from some and not from others. God always removes His protection selectively, because if He didn't, we'd all be wiped out. Does that answer your question?

They are simply questions I posed to Tom. I imagine there are other questions one could ask of Tom.


I think it does. And I have been diligently trying to pursue it with Tom. But he seems unwilling to concede that God has ever taken action Himself. He seems to believe, although I'm sure that he does, that God has commanded or ordered holy angels and godly, as well as ungodly, humans to cause death and destruction.

Tom, what do you make of the following insight:

Those who performed this terrible work of judgment were acting by divine authority, executing the sentence of the King of heaven. Men are to beware how they, in their human blindness, judge and condemn their fellow men; but when God commands them to execute His sentence upon iniquity, He is to be obeyed. Those who performed this painful act, thus manifested their abhorrence of rebellion and idolatry, and consecrated themselves more fully to the service of the true God. The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi. {PP 324.2}

I think this is the same principle spoken of here: http://sinbearer.com/light_on_the_dark_side_of_god.htm

See Chapter 9.

"God's changelessness, Christ's benevolent character, and the track record of the people themselves suggest the latter may have been, not His ideal, but His best effort to cope with their stubborn, willful waywardness."

"But nowhere do we find God railing against polygamy, although Christians today, with few exceptions, see the wrong of it. The same could be said for slavery."

"Placing this language within our new model, God may be saying here and in numerous other places, in essence: You have chosen to deal with this emergency militarily, in harmony with the methods of the nations around you, instead of exercising the faith required to rely totally upon Me. Therefore, since you have chosen this method and I must either reject you for it or direct you in it, I choose to do the latter. When you go to these nations to war, you must utterly destroy them; otherwise, they will be a snare to you for all future generations. If you're going to do it your way, He seems to say, then do it right."

Tom, I do not understand how you are applying what Campbell wrote about God deciding to direct the COI in their desire to dispossess Canaan militarily and what Ellen White wrote below:

Those who performed this terrible work of judgment were acting by divine authority, executing the sentence of the King of heaven. Men are to beware how they, in their human blindness, judge and condemn their fellow men; but when God commands them to execute His sentence upon iniquity, He is to be obeyed. Those who performed this painful act, thus manifested their abhorrence of rebellion and idolatry, and consecrated themselves more fully to the service of the true God. The Lord honored their faithfulness by bestowing special distinction upon the tribe of Levi. {PP 324.2}

it seems to me that tom does see God as taking action,

just not the way you see God taking action.

but either way you misunderstood the intent of the question and i dont believe i would be able to explain it to you.

do you really believe this? or is it just an unfortunate mistake in phrasing?
i can see it as a possibility.

we know that people in the church are all at different stages, or places, in their lives, their walk.

they more we study and learn, if we are studying the bible/sop, the more we learn and change.

I'm sure you're right. I often do not understand your comments.


I believe what I wrote the way I wrote it. "He seems to believe, although I'm sure that he does, that God has commanded or ordered holy angels and godly, as well as ungodly, humans to cause death and destruction." What are you questioning?


I don't understand your comment. Are you saying, yes, it is possible that Campbell's ideas explain the insights Ellen White articulated in PP 324?

Do you agree with the ideas Campbell describes in Chapter 9 of the online book Tom linked? He said that God set aside His ideal will and decided to direct the COI in their desire to dispossess Canaan militarily. If so, do you think God directed them in how to transgress His law? If not, why not?

you believe that God commands unholy men to cause death and destruction?


i cant answer your questions as stated because they dont relate to what has been said.

i can say that i came across the 7 seven stages of spiritual maturity when it first appeared in 2000. while at first i held off judgment as to whether it had any legitimacy, i have to say that when i first gave my life to God i was at stage one, below stage 1 if that is possible due to the dysfunctional family and church i came from.

if the stages are legitimate, and i am coming to believe they are since being on these forums, i am still not very high.

the 7th stage is being like Christ and behaving at all times as He did.

do you reject the possiblity of campbell being correct?

Yes. "God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

Jeremiah
25:9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.


Please remember I addressed this post to Tom. Here's what I said: "Tom, I do not understand how you are applying what Campbell wrote about God deciding to direct the COI in their desire to dispossess Canaan militarily and what Ellen White wrote below:"

In response to this you wrote, "i can see it as a possibility." I asked for clarity by posting, "I don't understand your comment. Are you saying, yes, it is possible that Campbell's ideas explain the insights Ellen White articulated in PP 324?"


I'm not familiar with the 7 stages of spiritual maturity. Does it attempt to explain why inexperienced Christians are sometimes unlike Jesus? Ellen White wrote, "The first step toward heaven is conviction of sin, the second is repentance and obedience." She also wrote:


Peter describes newborn babes in Christ, who are growing daily on the milk of God's Word, as those who have crucified "all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings." James says that those who have gotten the victory over evil speaking is a perfect person, able to control every other desire. Does this sound like the description of newborn babes so popular nowadays? If not, is it possible such modern descriptions are unbiblical?

1 Peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.

James
3:2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same [is] a perfect man, [and] able also to bridle the whole body.


No. I think it is clear that God would have driven the Canaanites out of the Promised Land had the COI been faithful and obedient. However, I do not believe God compromised with sin when He directed the COI in their desire to slaughter the inhabitants of Canaan. IOW, I do not believe it was a sin to conqueror Canaan militarily. I don't know what you believe about it.

ok. how do you see God commanding unholy men? does He come down and tell them to do it?

that is why i was asking if it was an unfortunate mistake in phrasing?

i believe slavery and multiple wives, etc., are a heinous sin in the sight of God.

i also believe that because we live on this planet and know little else than sin, that we do not view sin in the same light that God does.

Can you explain how God uses "His enemies as instruments to punish" sinners? I suspect He employs legitimate methods which do not violate their freedoms. What do you think?

Why, then, do you think God directed the COI in the practice of such heinous sins as slavery, polygamy, etc? Also, do you think it was a sin to conqueror Canaan militarily? I still don't know what you believe about it.


Do you think living on this planet prevented Jesus from seeing sin in the same light as His Father? If not, then do you think it is possible to live on this planet and see sin in the same light as Jesus did?

Do you mean like puppets? That is, God uses His enemies like puppets?

I read statements like the one you quoted and understand them to mean that God uses the things which these people do to further His means. For example, here's a statement that brings out the same purpose:



So it's not that God causes His enemies to do the things they do, as in pulling their strings like puppets, but He works with the results of what they do of their own volition to accomplish His ends.

MM, I don't understand why you keep asking this question. It's been answered dozens of times, by many people on this forum, in the same way, by quoting what Jesus said:



Regarding your question to me regarding what Campbell wrote, it seems to me that what she wrote directly applies, and I don't know how to explain it more clearly than she did.

which would be? im just trying to understand what you are saying...

again im just trying to understand your understanding....do you see divorce and slavery as heinous sins in the sight of God?

are we born God-men as Jesus was?

No, not like puppets. God works through the influence of His Holy Spirit to plant ideas and to motivate people to act them out. You seem to think God uses the evil deeds of His enemies as "instruments" to punish sinners. Whereas I believe she is saying God uses "His enemies as instruments to punish" sinners.

Here is how Ellen White uses the term "instruments" elsewhere in the SOP:


As you can see, God doesn't wait until after someone says or does something to use it as His "instrument" to accomplish His will and purpose. No way! Instead, God works through His Holy Spirit to influence them to say and do the very things needed to fulfill His will and purpose. God also worked through the COI as instruments to accomplish His will and purpose. Ellen White describes it in the following passage:


Satan also uses people "as instruments" to accomplish his will and purpose. He also uses the power of influence to plant ideas and to motivate people to fulfill his will and purpose. Of course, he must work within the limits established and enforced by God. He is not at liberty to do as he pleases. Ellen White describes it this way:

Yes, Jesus said the law of Moses permits divorce because their hearts are hard. But it doesn't answer my questions. And I don't know why you think it does. Did Jesus direct the COI in the practice of heinous sins?


You're right, she clearly explains her point of view. There is no need for you to clarify it. However, her point of view does not address my questions. BTW, I agree with her that God set aside His ideal will in order to direct the COI in their desire to employ weapons of war to slaughter the Canaanites and to occupy their land. What she didn't say was whether or not it was a sin to militarily dispossess the Canaanites. You have also not answered this question. I have no idea what you believe about it. Ellen White wrote this about it:


There is nothing in what she wrote above that suggests it is a sin to employ military measures or capital punishment to punish and destroy sinners.

I believe God gave Moses "judgments and laws" directing them in how to practice divorce and polygamy. Yes, there is an unlawful way to practice divorce and polygamy, and the laws of God forbid it. It is a heinous sin in the sight of God. Do you think it was a heinous sin in the sight of God when the COI practiced divorce and polygamy in accordance with the laws of God? I don't.


When we experience rebirth and conversion in God's appointed way, yes, we are like Jesus. Humanity and divinity are combined within us. Ellen White wrote this about it:


As such, I believe it is possible to see sin in the same light as God. Do you agree?

Tom, are you one of those who think "these commands seem to be contrary to the spirit of love and mercy enjoined in other portions of the Bible"? Do you have a hard time thinking "they were in truth the dictates of infinite wisdom and goodness"?

lets see if im understanding you here. as long as the israelites heeded the laws concerning slavery and divorce, etc., slavery and divorce were no longer heinous sins to God?

God plants ideas in people to do evil? or, as long as God planted the idea it is not evil?

I'm not following you. Let's take the Jews as in idea. Are you saying that God planted the idea in the Romans to kill the Jews?



You just quoted what she said. Of course I believe God uses "His enemies as instruments to punish" sinners. What good does just quoting her do? What does she mean in saying this? That's the question!

I believe what she means is that God uses the results of those who choose to act against Him to further His purposes. So even though they do what they of their own free will choose to do, they further God's purposes.

I'm not seeing the different between "puppet" and "instrument" in your view. You say it's not like a puppet. How is it not like a puppet? Is there a chance the person whom God is using, in your view, might not do what God wants? In other words, that the instrument, or puppet, might say no?

It's sounds like a puppet to me. God pulls the strings by planting thoughts in their heads. That sounds like what you're saying. How is this wrong? (i.e., how is my representation of your thought wrong)

I don't see how the quotes you presented have to do with the subject we're discussing. Enemies of God do not present themselves to Him to do His will. For example:



What does this have to do with God's using His enemies?



Do you think divorce, polygamy, etc. were God's will? Do you think it's possible for God to direct people in things that are not His will? I do. I think we have many examples of this in Scripture.



I think what she wrote does address your questions. That's what I've been saying.



Is something which is not God's ideal will a sin?



I agree with what you wrote earlier when you said that God set aside His ideal will in order to direct the COI in their desire to employ weapons of war to slaughter the Canaanites and to occupy their land. Regarding your question about God's wisdom, no, I don't have a hard time thinking that God did what was best. I have a great respect for God's decision-making abilities.

It is never a heinous sin to live in harmony with the laws of God. Do you agree?

"God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

In what way do you think God uses His enemies as "instruments to punish" sinners?

that was an answer to the part in blue? i mean that is how you interpret the messenger of the Lords statement?

im very confused by your answers, they seem to be saying that God does not consider slavery, divorce, and such as heinous sins. or as long as God limits what can be done they are not sins in His sight. is that what you are saying?

Do you think God used the Romans “as instruments to punish” and the Jews? I do. I think God used the power of influence to direct the Romans. I also think that He worked hard to ensure things played out according to His will, that things didn’t get out of hand and play out differently than He purposed.


Tom, I cited several examples of how Ellen White used the term “instrument”. As you can see, it is reasonable to conclude she uses it to explain how God uses the power of influence to motivate people to act out His will and desire. “God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

You interpret her statement to mean God uses the evil deeds of His enemies as instruments to punish sinners. Whereas I believe it means God uses "His enemies” as instruments to punish sinners. Please note that she doesn’t say God uses the evil deeds of His enemies. Instead, she plainly says God uses "His enemies" as instruments to punish sinners. I agree with the idea that God can use the evil deeds of His enemies to accomplish His purposes. It’s just that I also believe He can use "His enemies" to accomplish His purposes.


Yes, I believe God has directed people in practices that were contrary to His ideal will. However, you still haven’t answered my question. Do you think in so doing that God was also directing them in the practice of sinful behavior?


Not if God directs them. Do you agree?


Are you saying you are not one of those who think "these commands seem to be contrary to the spirit of love and mercy enjoined in other portions of the Bible"? Are you suggesting it makes perfect sense that such commands are “in truth the dictates of infinite wisdom and goodness"? Ellen White describes it this way:


The quotes above make it clear that Jesus and His holy angels torn down the walls of Jericho so that Joshua and his soldiers, acting "as His instruments to punish" sinners, could utterly destroy its inhabitants. That is, Jesus used Joshua and his soldiers like a slaughtering weapon to cut down His enemies. Do you agree?

PS - The following quote beautifully explains how God uses the power of influence to accomplish His purposes (this principle acts like a two-edged sword, it cuts both ways):

Angelic agencies, though invisible, are cooperating with visible human agencies, forming a relief association with men. Is there not something stimulating and inspiring in this thought that the human agent stands as the visible instrument to confer the blessings of angelic agencies? As we are thus laborers together with God, the work bears the inscription of the divine. With what joy and delight all heaven looks upon these blended influences, influences which are acknowledged in the heavenly courts! Human agencies are the hands of heavenly instrumentalities, for heavenly angels employ human hands in practical ministry. Their acts of unselfish ministry make them partakers in the success which is a result of the relief offered. This is Heaven's way of administering saving power. The knowledge and actions of the heavenly order of workers, united with the knowledge and power which are imparted to human agencies, relieve the oppressed and distressed. {ML 305.2}

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. As soon as you do, I will be more than happy to answer your question.

HINT: If you look closely you'll see my answer near the question I underlined above. Now, I hope you will answer my question.

My last post to Tom above addresses this question.

PS - The current discussion speaks to the question that serves as title for this thread in that the "judgments and laws" that God commanded the COI to obey included utterly destroying the inhabitants of the Promised Land.

Mike, if divorce and polygamy aren't sins, neither are slavery and private vengeance. These and other sins were temporarily tolerated by God, but they are condemned by the law of God, and God designed to gradually lead His people to that understanding. Meanwhile, God made provisions in the civil laws that He gave to Israel, in order to lessen or minimize the evils caused by these ancient customs.

"This merciful provision [the cities for refuge] was rendered necessary by the ancient custom of private vengeance, by which the punishment of the murderer devolved on the nearest relative or the next heir of the deceased. In cases where guilt was clearly evident it was not necessary to wait for a trial by the magistrates. The avenger might pursue the criminal anywhere and put him to death wherever he should be found. The Lord did not see fit to abolish this custom at that time, but He made provision to ensure the safety of those who should take life unintentionally." {PP 515.2}

Rosangela, I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying God directed the COI, through "judgments and laws" which "were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified", in the practice of heinous sins?

I think He did in the manner I explained.



You're saying God influenced the Romans to kill the Jews?



Get out of hand? Have you read the account?



Out of hand?



You're saying that God acted in such a way to make sure that this happened? Just like this? No less and no more?



But this is what she meant, which is the important thing. This is clear simply by reading her writings as a whole. She simply doesn't have the concept of God's character which would be required to have intended for things to be understood as your interpreting them.

We're talking about the destruction of Jerusalem here. She has dozens of statements to explain her meaning in regards to this event.





MM, I don't understand how you can read her description of what happened and come to the conclusions you have. She could not have said more clearly that the punishment which befell the Jews came about as a result of their causing the Spirit of God to be withdrawn from them, leaving them defenseless. There is no indication that God inspired the Romans to do these cruel things. Cruelty is Satanic.



God would hardly influence anyone to act in a Satanic fashion.



Do you think that practices that are contrary to God's ideal will can be, or should be, characterized as sinful practices? Let's consider one in particular: polygamy. Do you believe that polygamy is contrary to the law of God?



I don't think so, if I'm understanding you correctly. Let's consider some act, say X. If X is a sin, it's a sin because it's contrary to the moral law. The fact that God directs the people in X doesn't make X not a sin.

I think your reasoning is that if God directs them in some activity, it can't be a sin. But if we look at the things God gave the Israelites counsel regarding, this includes things like polygamy, which we know is contrary to the moral law, and thus a sin.



I think I answered your question.





God was defending the Canaanites. He was their defense. When forced to withdraw, they were defenseless against the Hebrews, but it was not God's will that they gain the land by warfare.

No, I'm saying that God gave in the civil laws rules about slavery, divorce, polygamy and private vengeance, in order to lessen or minimize the evils caused by these ancient customs.

Daniel 10 gives us a rather interesting picture--

As we read the chapter we gain a glimpse of what takes place BEHIND THE SCENES.

Forces of evil are struggling to control Cyrus' mind for 21 days,while Daniel was fasting and praying.

"As people we do not understand as we should the great conflict going on between invisible agencies, the controversy between loyal and disloyal angels. Evil angels are constantly at work, planning their line of attack, controlling commanders, kings, and rulers, the disloyal human forces." 4BC 1173


"The struggle here described was essentially one between the angels of God and the 'powers of darkness seeking to counteract the influences at work on the mind of Cyrus' (see PK 571, 572)." The evil angels were not about to leave, even when Cyrus leaned toward the right decisions. It wasn't until Michael, whom we see as Christ Himself, the captain of the hosts of heaven, came, that the evil angels were forced to retreat.


Spiritual warfare!
Daniel 11 would give a long outline of physical warfare, but Daniel 10 graphically tells us that behind the physical there are spiritual powers fighting for the control of the human race.
The physical is but the outworkings of the spiritual.

EGW says "The king of Persia was controlled by the highest of all evil angels...but Michael came...holding the powers in check, giving right counsel against evil counsel" (4BC 1173)

When God's people reject Him, do His angels continue to fight the evil angels? Or are they called back allowing the evil angels influence to prevail?


Reading the Psalms illustrates this as well -- (Psalms 107)

Israel forgets God and ends up in trouble "then they cry unto the Lord" and He delivers them. Then they forget God and their enemies come against them, "then they cry unto the Lord" and He delivers them (repeated, repeated, repeated...)

Now the above is easy enough for me to understand.

The issues that raise serious questions is --
Why did God command His people to kill?

Yes, the Cananite "cup of iniquity was full" and mercy was withdrawn. God as Creator and sustainer has ever right to determine that point.

But it's scary when people think they have the Divine command to kill those they deem "beyond hope".

There have been groups of people who look at the stories of Israel in Canaan and excuse the most awful crimes -- example --
The Catholic Inquistition defends itself based on these stories.

A time is coming (and already is in some parts of the world) where people think they are obeying God's command when they engage in genocide. And in the endtime that death sentence will be pronounced on God's commandment keeping faithful, and people will think they are doing God's will by carrying it out.

Rosangela, I'm still not clear. Are you suggesting the "civil laws" were not an amplification of the moral law? Was it a sin for the COI to practice slavery, divorce, polygamy in accordance with the laws God gave them?

Dedication, what do you think? Does God ever use His enemies "as instruments to punish" sinners. Or, does He only use the evil deeds of His enemies "as instruments to punish" sinners? What do you think Ellen White meant in the following quote:

"God will use His enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth of God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored. {LDE 242.3}

I would say all of them were in harmony with the moral law, but not all of them would be exactly amplifications of the moral law.


It was a sin to practice these things, but the people, because of the hardness of their hearts, wasn't prepared to see this at the time. Therefore, God was patient with them. It should be noticed that God didn't command them to practice slavery, divorce, polygamy and personal vengeance. What He did was to give them laws which would minimize the effects of these harmful practices which had been practiced for centuries.

These are excellent points. By misunderstanding God's character, people are in danger of doing heinous things while all the time thinking they are acting in harmony with Him. That's a reason it's so important that we understand God's character.

excellent statements and texts brought to the discussion.

everyone adds points not occuring to others.

How can a minute detail be in harmony with the law but not an amplification of it?

"Moses was commanded to write, as God should bid him, judgments and laws giving minute instruction as to what was required. These directions relating to the duty of the people to God, to one another, and to the stranger were only the principles of the Ten Commandments amplified and given in a specific manner, that none need err. They were designed to guard the sacredness of the ten precepts engraved on the tables of stone. {PP 364.1}


If it was (past tense) a sin to practice them what changed that it was now (present tense) okay for God to give them direction in how to practice them?


Yes, I can see how God gave them direction in how to practice them with the least negative effect. They served as a bridge to bring the COI where God wanted them. However, what is still not clear to me is if you believe it was a sin to practice such things in accordance with God's law. I assume your answer is, no, but you know what they say about people who "assume" things!

You can't practice polygamy in accordance with God's law.

ellen white says that God takes us where we are at. i guess it would depend on how we understand that. another place she says He meets us where we are at.

He has made us a binding agreement upon condition of our obedience, and he comes to meet us in our own understanding of things. ...{RH, April 5, 1887 par. 12}

My Saviour, we open the door of the heart, and we say, Come in and take full possession. . . . {GCB, April 6, 1903 par. 41}
Take us just as we are. Wash us in Thy blood, and put upon us the robe of Thy righteousness. Help the sick and the afflicted ones. Take us all into Thy compassionate arms, and speak pardon to us today. Be with us and help us, and Thy name shall have all the glory. Amen. {GCB, April 6, 1903 par. 42}

this is one i am going to have to study.

"With the pure Thou wilt shew Thyself pure; and with the froward Thou wilt shew Thyself froward"--that is, as God meets us where we are, so we are to meet men where they are. Let us not, by refusing to meet our fellow-men where they are, place ourselves outside the compass of God's love and mercy (MS 116, 1902). {3BC 1143.5}

For instance, do you consider that the following command is an amplification of God's moral law?

Leviticus 21:5 They shall not make any bald place on their heads, nor shall they shave the edges of their beards nor make any cuttings in their flesh.


As Teresa said, God meets us where we are. Suppose a polygamous man in Africa joins the church. Don't you think some rules can be added to regulate his conduct? For instance, suppose a hypothetical rule says that if he keeps all his wives he should provide for all of them. Is this rule sanctioning his polygamy?


No, my answer is yes, it was a sin, although it was a sin of ignorance.

Yes, I do. My understanding of this detailed amplification of the moral law is that it prohibited the COI from imitating the pagan rites associated with pagan ceremonies. So many different things come to mind - have no other gods, make no graven images, do not be a stumbling block to unbelievers - to name a few.


Are there not ordained laws in the Bible directing the practice of polygamy? If so, then we need not discuss hypothetical cases, right? Where in the Bible do you get the impression that the laws directing the practice of polygamy were temporary?


Do you have inspired support to back up this idea? I have never read in the Bible or the SOP where God gave the COI laws directing them in the practice of sin.

i believe what roseangela may be trying to point out, (and she is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, but if she will permit me) it is against the standards of the seventh-day-adventist church to allow polygamy. but if we are in a country where polygamy is practiced, then we need to institute the ot laws governing polygamy for the sake of those families, while teaching that polygamy is a sin in Gods sight.

these are some statements from the messenger of the Lord that touch on this issue.notice this is pertaining to king david after the "regulations" concerning polygamy had been instituted by God.
Polygamy had become so widespread that it had ceased to be regarded as a sin, but it was no less a violation of the law of God, and was fatal to the sacredness and peace of the family relation. . . . {CTr 82.2}

Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world. . . . It was Satan's studied effort to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice. {CC 36.5}

The sin of Jacob, and the train of events to which it led, had not failed to exert an influence for evil--an influence that revealed its bitter fruit in the character and life of his sons. As these sons arrived at manhood they developed serious faults. The results of polygamy were manifest in the household. This terrible evil tends to dry up the very springs of love, and its influence weakens the most sacred ties. The jealousy of the several mothers had embittered the family relation, the children had grown up contentious and impatient of control, and the father's life was darkened with anxiety and grief. {CC 72.2}

Their keen sense of the high, holy character of God was deadened. Refusing to follow in the path of obedience, they transferred their allegiance to the enemy of righteousness. ... Polygamy was countenanced. Idolatrous mothers brought their children up to observe heathen rites. In the lives of some, the pure religious service instituted by God was replaced by idolatry of the darkest hue. {PK 58.2}

these statements are a combination of instances from before and after the regulations of God were instituted controlling the evil practice of polygamy. notice that God considered it evil before and evil after His regulating the practice.

there are similar statements for the other practices.

Teresa, yes, polygamy was not God's original plan for marriage. Nor was it His idea will even though He gave the COI direction in how to practice it. But to say polygamy is a sin because it inevitably results in bad homes and marriages overlooks the fact the same things have been observed in monogamous homes and marriages. Not saying you are saying this. Whether or not bigamy or polygamy ends in bad homes and marriages depends of the people involved and why they've adopted it. In those cases where it was preferable to the alternative (destitution or prostitution) I'm quite certain God was able to bless them with happiness. In such cases it seems hardly fair or kind to criticize it as a "heinous sin".

i dont think you realize that it is not i that you are disagreeing with.

i would like to sit in on some of the discussions you could have with ellen white were she still here.

Mike,

Wouldn't it be easier if you listed the polygamy/divorce laws you are speaking about so that we could discuss them?

Aren't you employing circular reasoning here? Your reasoning seems to be:

1.Thing A, in general, is a sin.
2.God gives counsel regarding Thing A in the law of Moses.
3.Therefore thing A is not a sin.

So given you feel this way, how could anyone provide any Scriptural support to counteract your idea? You would reclassify any example given to make the thing under consideration not sin in your mind.

What people are saying here is:

1.Thing A is a sin.
2.Because of the hardness of people's heart, God made allowance for this, and gave them counsel in regards to thing A.
3.Thing A did not change from being a sin to not being a sin because of God's kindness and patience in dealing with those who were practicing it.

Your characterization that



is, IMO, extremely poorly worded. I don't see that anyone has claimed this. I've seen the items I've delineated claimed.

Perhaps a difficulty here is that in your mind these things are equivalent. That is, you don't see any difference between God's making allowance for sin, because of the hardness of people's heart, wherein He provides counsel and God's "directing them in the practice of sin."

Tom, there is nothing circular about saying it is not a sin if we obey the laws of God.

Rosangela, here are the verses that deal with polygamy:

Mike,

About the passages of Exodus and Deuteronomy, some commentators, as James, Fausset and Brown, not even see them as implying polygamy. Anyway, since certainly there were already polygamous marriages when the people left Egypt, laws were made to prevent confusion and protect the rights of the weak (slaves) and the impartiality of parents in relation to their children. IOW, the laws weren't about polygamy, but about the rights of those who might suffer damage because of it.
As to the levirate law, this law simply required the bachelor brother to marry his brother’s wife in case she was left a widow and childless. It's clear that the law has in view monogamous relationships, because the law doesn't mention that the brother should marry the "first" wife of his deceased brother.

Rosangela, yeah, I suspected that was your position on those passages. You're not alone. The fact God nowhere specifically condemns it, but rather directs them in it, begs the question - Was God directing them in practicing sin? Your answer is, Yes. That's what I find interesting. It totally freaks me out that anyone can believe God gave the COI laws directing them in practicing sin.

As it pertains to the title of this thread, though, I would say, no, the "laws and judgments" which were "only the Ten Commandments amplified", belong to everyone, not just the Jews, in principle if not in particular.

i can understand that.

maybe we dont really realize what all sin entails. maybe that was the only way God could work to save us without having to just wipe this little blot of a planet out of existence.

Mike,

But it totally freaks me out that anyone can believe that polygamy, slavery, private vengeance (which are clear violations of God's law), are not sin, if only they are practiced according to some instructions!

"Freaks me out". Very good, Rosangela! Very American.

You have an unfortunate "gift" to put things others say with a "twist" so that is sounds like what's being said, but really isn't. Neither Rosangela, nor anyone else, is suggesting that God is "directing" anyone in sin. This would imply that God wanted them to do these things. God wanted them NOT to do these things.

God did not "direct" them in sin, but God, given they were determined to act contrary to His will, gave them counsel, in order to help them, in mercy, suffer as little as possible, given the unfortunate decisions they had made.

And it totally freaks me out that Adventist missionaries would insist a man give up some of his wives when he becomes a Christian. Whatever happened to the following verses?



Once joined, they are pledged for life...."Till death do us part."

As an example, it may be a sin to marry an unbeliever, since we are not supposed to be unequally yoked. However, once this mistake is made, should they be divorced and marry another instead? Which sin would be greater?

It is a sin to divorce wrongfully.



Paul states it plainly thus:



We may believe the practice of polygamy is not ideal. It may even be wrong. But I think it is worse to force people to divorce, and thereby commit adultery. According to Jesus' words, making that man divorce without proper grounds is to force him to sin, is it not? We have no right to enter into such controversy with those who have ignorantly entered into polygamy before becoming Christians.

In any case, most of us (is it up to 60% divorce rate now?) are pathetically hypocritical in criticizing the polygamists of the mission field regions. We just practice "serial polygamy"...one after another. We think as long as the law says you can have one at a time, then it must be ok. But God does not view it thus. A so-called "legal" divorce may have no validity in His sight.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

I was just repeating Mike's expression. But first I had to look it up in the dictionary.

Tom and Rosangela, I'm surprised you believe God gave the COI godly direction in something you adamantly believe is a sin under any and all circumstances. But, as GC pointed out, it isn't a sin to follow God's direction.

i also have to believe those sins are quite heinous in Gods sight.

i tend to think that saying it isnt a horrible sin if God gives guidelines would make it seem not horrible ever. God declares whatever causes us needless pain and suffering to be sin. polygamy causes untold suffering to all participants.

and i do agree with gc that it is not up to us to "inflict" divorce on those who were polygamous upon joining the church.

GC, in the eyes of God, can one be married to more than one wife?

I wish to be clear that I'm not countenancing the splitting up of marriages you spoke of, only about the logic of your argument. I think and easier and better argument would be that God does not to see families split up, with children left fatherless, etc.

As I pointed out in post #118642,