Yes, of course. The law of Moses is based on mercy. It allowed for forgiveness. I should have made this point more clear. Thank you for stating the obvious. Case in point: Moses was unclear what to do about the guy caught breaking the Sabbath. Should he be forgiven or stoned to death? So, he inquired of God. The Lord knew the man's heart, and He commanded Moses to stone him to death. Of course, God could have withdrawn His protection and given evil angels permission to kill him, but He chose rather to permit the Jews to do it. What does this tell us about the law and character of God?

Timing is everything, as they say. The law of Moses outlined very specific punishments for specific crimes. They were administered under a Theocracy. Nowadays, we are no longer a Theocracy, right? So, things have changed. I do not pretend to understand everything God outlined in the law of Moses. At times I am tempted to think certain aspects of it were unfair. But I immediately recognize such thoughts as the voice of Satan. I am convinced that the law of Moses represented God's will for the COI. I am in no way confused as to whether or not it reflects a compromise to accommodate their hard hearts and sinfulness.

Regarding Scott's question - Yes, of course, it would have been. Why? Because under the circumstances, where they led her into sin, Jesus would have commanded Moses to handle the case accordingly. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tommorow.

That's not how the Bible describes the "strange acts" performed by God. Please show me in Bible where it says such a thing. God has never acted contrary to His law in order to accommodate hard-hearted sinners. The law of Moses describes under which circumstances a man may have more than one wife at the same time. Men who obeyed these laws were not guilty of sinning. Do you agree?

1. Although Jesus did not "demand" her death, He did, nevertheless, allow for it. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

2. Jesus always acted in harmony with the law of Moses. He was acting in harmony with it when He commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death. He was acting in harmony with it when He commanded Elisha to give Naaman permission to bow with his master leaning on his hand before a false god in the house of Rimmon.

Scott and Tom, do you think that everything that happens is God's will?

Do you think it was God's will that there should be a flood? Of one thing I am certain--that Satan had no part in bringing on the flood beyond the fact that he had led mankind to such depths of evil as to provoke this response from God. Ellen White tells us he feared he would lose his own life during that flood because of its intensity. Certainly he would not have wanted to throw his own life away.

Would it have been good of God to just "forgive" the antediluvians and not to have cleansed the earth of their wickedness?

Would it be good of God to not punish the wicked? Would this be more just and fair?

Would it be good of God to simply turn away from wickedness and see it not, nor do anything to check its evil tide?

If you can truly answer "yes" to all of these last five questions, then there is no need for me to attempt an explanation of my view regarding the punishments of God. However, doubting this to be the case, let me make a feeble attempt...

As Ellen White echoes some of my sentiments well in the following paragraph, let me begin here.


If God, in His wisdom, needs to punish sinners to teach them necessary lessons ("For whom the Lord loveth, he correcteth..."), then it seems only natural that there must be consequences to misdeeds. If one of the rules says, "Do not squeeze a man's 'family jewels' to inflict pain upon him," and if the punishment is to have one's hand chopped off, then there can be no excuse for not meeting such an infraction with its due justice. God was basically telling women to keep their hands off a man's private parts. Considering the punishment a wife would have received to have slept with that man fighting her husband (getting even better acquainted with those "secrets"), getting her hand removed is quite merciful by comparison. Let the punishment fit the crime, as we say.

As MountainMan stated, during the time of Moses, the government was a Theocracy. Nowadays, if you were to cut off a woman's hand, you would be imprisoned by our non-theocratic government. You would be looked upon by society with disdain, and in so doing would besmirch the name of Christ.

God expects us to "obey them that have the rule over you." This means we are no longer expected to comply with the civil laws which Moses had commanded under the Theocracy where they are trumped with our current government's laws, for they have essentially been replaced by the laws of the authorities God has allowed to rule over us.

So, to be as clear as I can be: In Moses' time, I believe it was God's will that the hands be cut off of women who broke this specific law; whereas in our time today, it is not God's will that we should seek to administer justice this way.

Now, has this answer satisfied your question?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is sarcastic.



To know God's character, we should look to Jesus Christ, not Moses. We see how God would have acted in how Jesus treated the woman caught in adultery. You wrote:



So we have:
1.Jesus did not undermine the law of Moses.
2.Jesus' instruction was that the law of Moses should be obeyed.
3.The woman was not stoned.

So there's your answer.

Maybe you're confusing voices here.



You seem to be confused to an extent, because you cannot answer a simply question like why God would want women's hands to be cut off. You just say, "I don't know." That sounds like confusion.



I'll repeat it, to make the post easier to follow:

Scott's question: "Do you think that Jesus’ words, to those who caught the woman in adultery, would have been the right words in Moses’ time to someone who caught a woman in adultery?"



I agree with the "yes, of course" part, but the explanation is a bit disappointing as it appears you don't believe Jesus responded the way He did because of His character, but because of special circumstances. You seem to take this same stance in general, that a thing is not a sin because it violates the law in general, or is wrong in general, but whether a thing is right or not depends upon the circumstances. E.g., polygamy is a "sin," it is "contrary to the will of God," a "violation of the law," "not sanctioned by God in a single instance," yet you see it as being not necessarily a sin, depending on the circumstances. You appear to take this same position in other contexts, so I commend you on being consistent.

Do you see exceptions as being possible for any violation of the law? Is it limited to polygamy and killing? Or are their circumstances when lying and stealing, for example, might not be sin?

Ok. Here's an example:





This is a really strange thing for you to assert, as it's meaningless for you. For example, God's law says, "That shalt not kill" (or "thou shalt not murder" if you prefer). You believe that God killed people, but it wasn't a violation of His law, because He was doing it. If someone else did it, it would have been a violation of His law, but God cannot violate His own law. So your assertion that God has never acted contrary to His law is meaningless, as, by definition, you interpret anything that God does as not being contrary to His law, regardless of what God does.

Scott and I, otoh, do believe that God has never acted contrary to His law. He has always acted like Jesus Christ.

Regarding your question on polygamy, my answer is that polygamy is contrary to God's will, was never sanctioned by Him in a single instance, and is a violation of His law.

Clearly not. All one need do is take a look at the world, and it is clear to see that many things happen which are not God's will. Any time anyone sins, or is sinned against, something happens contrary to God's will.

Jesus taught us to pray "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." If His will were being done here, this prayer would be unnecessary.



Permissive, yes. Ideal, no. He saw that men had become so evil that their every thought was evil, and repented that He made man. He would rather that had not happened.



Many have seen this as evidence that Satan *did* have a part in the flood. He feared for his own life because he didn't realize the repercussions of his actions. I'm not saying this is what I think, just that other people have taken this very passage and come to the opposite conclusion that you have.



How could God have forgiven the antediluvians without repentance? If they had repented, that would certainly have been preferable.



Your question is assuming a false premise. You are assuming that it's possible for God to punish or not punish the wicked, as if this were an arbitrary decision God makes. Punishment comes upon the wicked because of their own choices and decisions, not because of something God arbitrarily does to them:





That wouldn't help the wicked any, because they would still be enslaved by sin. Repentance is necessary. The goodness of God leads to repentance. God, by being good, does all He can to lead people to repentance, and heal them of their sin.



I'm not following your explanation regarding women's hands being cut off. In what way does the punishment fit the crime? Isn't cutting a woman's hands off about as out of proportion with the crime as can be? If this is fair punishment, why didn't it apply to men as well as women?



Let's say that one were in a situation like the Taliban had in Afghanistan, where one could cut off a woman's hands without reprisal from the government. Then would it be OK? Or is the law of Moses only applicable in a theocracy? If it's only applicable in a theocracy, and since there is no theocracy, how can you be upset with the idea that it's no longer in force?



Previously you quoted from Christ who stated that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away, and applied other Scriptures which I would say apply to the moral law. I would say that these passages mean we should obey God rather than man, and do what is required by the law, regardless of the government. You are making an exception to the law based on the government. You are saying in some circumstances the law applies, in others it doesn't. But that doesn't match with Christ's words. He didn't teach "follow the law if doing so doesn't conflict with the government."



I appreciate your addressing it. I have the questions I addressed above, such as why you think God wanted women's hands to be cut off, but not men's. It seems very easy to see that this law was not reflecting God's ideal will, but was heavily influenced by the culture of the Israelites. Otherwise there wouldn't be a reason for women to have been treated the way they were. Surely it's not God's ideal will that women be treated worse than men.

Hi MM,

If Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses when He didn’t stone the adulteress then would you say that anyone at anytime could have fulfilled the law of Moses without killing those who broke it?

If Jesus commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath breakers in the OT, but in the NT he told them that they could only stone them if they had no sin in their lives would it be a ok to suggest that those meeting out the punishments in the OT also could have turned and walked away feeling that the sin in their lives was too great to meet judgment and punishment on others?

Jesus is, after all, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow!

scott