so when did "an eye for an eye" start and why?

and how was it to implemented?

"Eye for eye" came up as a way to limit the "justice" which was being applied, which was along the lines of "head for eye." The principle was to repay in kind, as this is better than the alternative of overwhelming destruction for a small offense.

Jesus taught and demonstrated the superior principles of "turn the other cheek," "walk the second mile," which are summarized in the injunction to "love your enemies."

look at the verses and the time frame. there does not seem to be any "justice" before the flood. nothing happened to cain for killing. nothing happened to lamech for killing. there came a time that the earth was filled with violence. but after the flood then a system seems to have to been set in place.

as for your second point, was that what God hoped for after the fall?

I'm not really following your train of thought in regards to your comments in the first paragraph.

Regarding your question regarding my second point, yes, God hoped for this after the fall. God has always hoped that we would love others as He loves us.

this was commanded by God just after the flood. apparently it was not commanded before the flood. we not only do not have any evidence that consequences happened before the flood, it would seem from the two texts recording murder/killing that none were expected.

Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

I don't think it would be right to conclude anything regarding what was happening before the flood from this. I think the right conclusion would simply be to regard what was being brought to the attention of the reader in Gen. 9. I don't think the implication is one way or the other in regards to these things before the flood.

that might be true, but we are given a bit of a glimpse in these two passages.

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Gen 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.



Quote:
Gen 4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
Gen 4:24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

To the crime of murder, in which Cain had led the way, Lamech, the fifth in descent, added polygamy, and, boastfully defiant, he acknowledged God, only to draw from the avenging of Cain an assurance of his own safety. {PP 81.1}

One would think after killing someone once, that would be the end of the matter; that is, you can't kill someone seven times. So perhaps the "sevenfold" shouldn't be taken literally, and this may speaking of the same principle as "life for life."

we seem to be thinking in different directions.

i dont see any consequences assigned to either cain or lamech for murder. conseqences for anything are not recorded until immediately after the flood. was God hoping that violence would be curbed by assigning consequences?

Seems to me the law of God has been in force since before the fall of A&E. True, God did not execute A&E the instant they sinned; instead, He implemented the plan of salvation. Nevertheless, death did come in consequence of their sin. Jesus is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev 13:8) To symbolize His death God covered A&E with animal skins.

In the case of Cain, again, God chose not to execute them the instant they sinned. Why not? No doubt to teach other important lessons. Ellen provides a sensible reason why God let Cain live:


In the case of Lamech, God chose not to execute him for good reasons. Not much is said about it, but perhaps it was to dedmonstrate the negative results of polygamy? Listen:


And, what of the millions of other sinners who escaped immediate punishment for their sins? I suppose the Flood was soon enough. The antediluvians were punished for their sins in the Flood. Not that they didn't suffer the consequences of sinning before they died in the Flood. Sin always pays it wages in suffering and death. But the Flood was different. That was God punishing them.

this isnt a question of whether the law of God was in effect or not. that was a given. but an eye for an eye was not in effect. according to egw-and indirectly the bible-mild, or no, consequences didnt make the world a better place.

i think where the tom-camp have a problem with this is the lack of love in carrying out consequences. we do it in the spirit of satan not the spirit of God. nor do we do it with restoration in mind, if possible.



or God ending all the violence. as He will do at the second and third comings. so is God ending it the same as God punishing?

Teresaq, an interesting insight to consider is the fact sinners die a long, lingering death, instead of being immediately executed, because God implemented the plan of salvation. Otherwise, the human race would have ended with the immediate execution of A&E. As a result, people experience varying degrees of suffering and death. Sin pays its wages according to the degree of sinfulness. This could be construed, I suppose, as a natural form of "eye for an eye".

It appears, though, that God Himself does not execute justice according to the "eye for an eye" principle, at least not during probationary time. It seems to be all or nothing with God, or what is sometimes referred to as "full cup" justice. But when He called out the Jews as His chosen people and nation, He seems to have thought it prudent to implement a system of justice based on the "eye for an eye" principle. I like what you said about it (I think it was you), that it was to prevent people from executing justice unfairly.

i dont think i did say that. i believe it was tom.

but i like the



that seems to be a very real possibility and i think he has a lot of ellen white backing. others may not see it that way, but i believe it is probably the best explanation of Gods dealings with us.

check it out if you are so inclined and let me know what you think.

An interesting article indeed. I enjoyed reading it. It was well thought out and mapped out. But it seems to overlook the fact God does not start over afresh with a group every time a new believer joins the church. That is, God does not revert back to thundering from Sinai and treating the group like Stage 1 sinners every time a Stage 1 sinner joins the group. This being the case, how do new Stage I sinners progress through the other stages when the group is well past, say for example, Stage 5?

I suppose they would have the benefit of the Bible record of God dealing with sinners slowly progressing through the various stages. Also, they would have the benefit of reading about the various stages in the article you posted. Plus, they would have the benefit of the examples of the existing members at church who are at Stage 5 and beyond. Ultimately, they have Jesus as an example of what it means to be a child of God.

Having all these testimonies at their disposal would seem to preclude some of the lower, less favorable stages. Who can honestly start off at Stage 1 in light of all these concrete examples? Also, God has not actively interacted with the church in a very long time, at least not like He did in the days of Moses or in the days of Jesus. In other words, we do not see or hear God working with us on different levels as we pass through the various stages described in the article you posted.

At this point, it is all very academic, depending on what we read about in history books, especially in the Bible. Nothing will change, so far as we can observe, as we progress from one stage to another. That is, God will treat us the same way He has been treating us all along. For example, we will not see God one day thundering from Sinai and then speaking to us with a still small voice several stages later. God is not active like this any more, not like He used to be. We have the Bible to read, so He doesn't have to act differently any more.

Of course, we know God will pour out the latter rain when the time is right, which depends on several factors, one of them being - enough people need to be at Stage 7. Then we can expect God to change how He interacts with His church.

hmmmm, we certainly are individuals and do get different understandings out of the same material.

i had to go back and review the paper a bit because i didnt remember it quite saying the same thing.

Perhaps I missed something. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, or so I've been told. What did you see that makes you think I saw something different?

i dont see how you got that from this statement.

Oh, okay. I see what you mean now. Thank you. It's just that when I read through the article I got the impression the author was describing group dynamics, the progression of the majority of individuals in a group. God seems to do this, too, at times. Looking at the last days church, He labeled them Laodicea no doubt because more than half of the individuals in the group are lukewarm.

But nowadays I don't see God acting in progressively different ways toward the church or toward the world in order to accommodate the majority need of individuals in a group. God seems to be silent. He is neither thundering nor whispering. At least not like we read about it in the Bible. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

The author seems to be saying God treats a group differently as the majority of individuals move from one stage to another and that such treatment motivates growing and maturing until the group attains the final stage. So, my question is, in light of what the author of the article postulated, how can a group progress from one stage to the next since nowadays God remains the same, since He doesn't act any differently no matter what stage the group has attained?

God does act differently, depending on what stage the group has attained. To assert God remains the same doesn't mean God doesn't adjust for the given groups, but that His adjustments are consistent with adjustments He would have made for similar groups throughout history.

i dont see it having to do with a "group" at all, but individuals. perhaps the give-away is:



that would mean the church is filled with different stage people, and only those of us who find stage 7 and beyond attractive, or at least want it to be attractive, will be responding to the "still, small voice"-if this author is right-on.



part of the answer-or my answer/understanding-is above your quote. God is raising up a group, or better yet a group, made up of individuals here and there, are responding to that still, small voice. i hope and pray that im one of those.

oops, it seemed my original post hadnt gone through

Teresaq, yes, the article addresses individuals, not in isolation but in a group. The author cites how God treated the nation of Israel differently depending on the stage the nation as a whole had attained. During the time of Ahab things were pretty bad. But when Elijah complained about it, God reminded him of the 7,000 who were faithful. Nevertheless, since the 7,000 were in the minority God treated Israel according to the predominate stage of the majority, which was very much different than the stage the 7,000 were at.

At any rate, that has been my dilemma since reading the article - How do I apply it to my own life now. Is God treating the group I belong to according to the stage I'm at or according to the stage the majority are at? In the Bible, God labeled the group I belong to - Laodicea, because the majority of the group are lukewarm. If God is treating the group I belong to like lukewarm stage people, what's in it for me (assuming, for the sake of discussion, I am not also at the lukewarm stage)?

Again, the author makes the point that a persons view of God is dependent upon how God is treating the group they belong to. They will form opinions about God as they behold how He treats the group they belong to. If this is what the author is advocating, then I perceive a problem, namely, God hasn't changed how He has been treating the group I belong to, the SDA Church, for over a 100 hundred years. How can I progress from one stage to another if God is forced to stay the same since the majority in my group have been lukewarm for several generations (with no signs of letting up)?