how are we to understand this?

This is how The Good News Bible translates the passage:

"He caused them great distress by pouring out his anger and fierce rage, which came as messengers of death."

This is one of the possibilities. In case the text is indeed referring to angels, some see it as a possible reference to the slaying of the first-born, but it could also refer to all the plagues. About this, Barnes says, "The idea here is not that the angel himself was evil or wicked, but that he was the messenger of evil or calamity; he was the instrument by which these afflictions were brought upon them."

The reference doesn't seem to be to fallen angels. Ellen White says,

"A single angel destroyed all the first-born of the Egyptians and filled the land with mourning. When David offended against God by numbering the people, one angel caused that terrible destruction by which his sin was punished. The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." {GC 614.2}

The Scriptures often present God as doing that which he presents. For example, Scriptures say that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites (whereas the SOP says the serpents were there the whole time), and that God destroyed Jerusalem (whereas the SOP says Satan was responsible). Many more examples could be given.

Rosangela presented the statement in the EGW that is most often cited as presenting the idea of God's dispatching killer angels. The following statements are much more typical of her writings:







If we simply consider the following statement by Jesus Christ:



the idea that God would dispatch killer angels should be banished from our minds forever.

Tom, what you said does not harmonize with what Ellen White says, referring to the death of the firstborn:

"The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits." {GC 614.2}

Obviously the quotes you presented refer to the second part, "will be exercised by evil angels when He permits."

What, however, do you make of "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels"? She presents two classes of angels - holy and evil - and says that both exercise the same destructive power. It's clearly implied that a holy angel caused the death of the firstborn. I know I won't convince you, but could you please give your explanation for the GC passage?

God sometimes abbreviates the lives of incorrigible sinners in order to save those who can still be saved. The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the death penalty in Israel for defiant sins, are all examples of that.

that GC 614 quote does seem to be pretty clear.

i came across this and similar applications and i wonder if there is not more to study about the meaning of the slaying of the firstborn here.

First of all, let's establish who was responsible for the death of the first-born in Egypt:



Who is "the destroyer"?









We note in PP that "the destroyer" had smitten the first-born, as well as committing the destruction of the other plagues, and we see that "the destroyer" is Satan.

From Revelation, we read:



"Apollyon" means "the Destroyer." We know this is talking about Satan, because he is the angel of the bottomless pit.

So far we have seen:
1.The destroyer caused the destruction of the plagues.
2.The destroyer is Satan.

A bit later in the same chapter in "The Great Controversy" that the quote you're asking about is taken from, we read:



Regarding the plagues to be poured out we read:



Since the plagues of Egypt were of a similar character to the plagues about to be poured out, and these plagues are the result of God's withdrawing His protection from Satan, this agrees with what we've seen above, that "the destroyer" who caused the destruction of the plagues in Egypt was Satan.

Let's consider some statements in the immediate context of the quote you're asking about:



This is immediately before the quote. We note:

1)The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent.
2)The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn.
3)Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble.

In the final sentence, she compares what happens with the destruction of Jerusalem. Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, she writes:



This is presenting the same picture we saw before. She compares the destruction of Jerusalem with the final plagues from both directions (i.e. compares the former to the latter, and the latter to the former, saying they are similar) and presents the same principles for both events, that God's Spirit, persistently resisted, is finally withdrawn, leaving those who have rejected God to the devices of Satan.

We again note that she says the plagues of Egypt were of a similar character to the final plagues.

Here is what we read immediately following the quote:



Once again we see Ellen White referring to the Spirit of God being withdrawn.

So recapping what we have so far:

1.The plagues of Egypt were of a similar character to the final plagues.
2."The destroyer" caused the destruction of the plagues in Egypt.
3.Satan is "the destroyer."
4.The final plagues, similar in character to the Egyptian plagues, will come about as a result of the Spirit of God being withdrawn, and Satan being allowed to wreak havoc.
5.Immediately preceding the quote in question, Ellen White emphasizes these same principles, that destruction comes as a result of the Spirit of God being withdrawn, and Satan doing his destructive work.
6.Immediately following the quote in question, Ellen White emphasizes these same principles, that destruction comes as a result of the Spirit of God being withdrawn, and Satan doing his destructive work.

So if the quote in question were to be taken as saying that holy angels were responsible for the destructive work of the plagues, we're thrown into a sea of contradictions, not the least of which is that the immediate context, both before and after, are voicing principles diametrically opposed to this.

As to the quote itself, I think it is similar to where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." in that, if this were the only quote we had on the subject, it would seem like the immortal soul idea were correct. Or when Paul talking about how dying was a good thing for him, because then he would be with Christ. Or when in Peter it talks about preaching to the spirits in prison. There's a bunch of these. Ah, I left out the "best" one, where the rich man speaks to Lazarus.

Anyway, if one considers these Scriptures, they seem to teach there is an immortal soul. But if we take into account what Scripture as a whole teaches, as well as other principles such as context and historical setting, we see that Scripture teaches that the soul is immortal, and there are explanations for these "outlier" texts.

The GC 614 text is like that. While she says that the same destructive power is used, she doesn't say in the same way. The holy angels destroy by releasing, whereas the evil angels destroy by destroying; but it's the same destructive power in each instance.



Yes, I agree. I believe He does this by the means explained by the SOP above, which is to say, withdrawing His protection. Of course, the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah are not due to Satan's activities, but natural disasters, but the same principles apply. The Spirit of Prophecy tells us we are preserved from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen, by the Spirit of God. We don't realize how much we owe to the grace of Christ protecting us.

However....

Some more interesting quotes:

because i got into it with one espousing a "stay for the slay" variation of the shepherds rod ezekiel 9, i became quite familiar with the chapters destruction of jerusalem and Gods people delivered of the great controversy as well as a few related issues. meeting error can make one really study which apparently comes in real handy for other occasions.

because of that i can see partly where tom is coming from.
combining the two chapters we get a picture of what it will be like on that horrible day.

the "retributive judgments of God" on jerusalem were not inflicted by Him in any form. it was purely the people themselves turning on each other and the romans finishing the job, but no "destroying angel" is mentioned in the events of the destruction of jerusalem.

delaying His judgments in this case would be holding back the romans "wrath", as well as the jews themselves from destroying themselves (according to the other paragraphs in that chapter). the chapter continues in its graphic description of that horrible time.

so, does that mean the "destroying angel" is symbolic of something? at least at the second coming....

The Old Testament didn't really have the concept of Satan that was developed in the New. To this day, Jews do not have concept of Satan that Christians have. They think of him very differently.

One sees often in Scripture the idea that anything that happens is of God's doing, even if it isn't God who did it. For example, in one spot we are told that Satan moved David to number Israel, while in another spot it says that God did it. In one place we are told that Saul killed himself, and another says that God did it. In one spot it says God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. The SOP tells us the serpents were there all the time.

In the parable of the wheat and the tares, to the question "who did this?" Jesus answered, "an enemy has done this." The tares and the wheat have to both be allowed to grow, so their true character can be seen. To the evil that is done in the world, Satan points his finger at God, while God's way is to allow the tares and the wheat to grow, so the truth can be seen. Who's the killer, Satan or God? An examiner of the tares and wheat should provide the answer!

if i hadnt done that study, as i mentioned in my post, i would not be so open to the possibility of an alternative understanding than what the scriptures/sop seem to clearly say. the same for the "wrath of God", if my own study hadnt revealed certain things....

i came across this one person who believes, based on isaiah, that the lost will be around for 100 years after the third resurrection. that sounded like major heresy to me and i backed off him big time. but in my studies i noticed certain sentences about that time that i hadnt thought about before.

it will take the lost some time to build weapons, especially considering they have to start from scratch since the earth will have been destroyed and then there is the 1000 years of decay on top of that. thats a long time.

i started off going to say that i didnt totally buy into the 100 years but as im typing and thinking about it i think im talking myself into believing it might be.

we are told that they "march over the broken, uneven surface of the earth". that is considerably different than when man started making weapons after the fall. they had a fairly perfect world. even after the flood God protected this earth from the complete wipe-out of plants and trees.

and this is giving me a new understanding of the reason for the "cleansing fire". so many things we read that we understand the words on the page, but the comprehension of their meaning completely escapes us.

but anyway, my whole point about that particular gentleman and his 100 years is that i can understand the "resistance" to accept a different interpretation of what we are used to believing. and i believe it is an honest conclusion that a different view may not be right. after all the scripture/sop does seem to be very clear.......until other verses/sentences start registering.....but even then it can take time. i read that gentleman thoughts about 3 years ago and i am just now starting to see where he might be right, at least in part.