Does polygame violate the 7th commandment?

From another topic, a poster asked the above. I thought this would make an interesting question for a topic.

Might this question be founded on a somewhat simplistic view of the law of God?

(Thomas, I don't think so. If you wish, you can present an argument that it is).

No one wants to take a shot at proving that polygamy is a violation of the 7th commandment?

Tom, the onus is upon you to prove polygamy violates the 7th commandment. That it violates the law is not the issue.

Thomas, I agree with the idea that the question implies a simplistic view of the law. The truth is, sin violates the law, whether it violates this commandment or that one is a different matter. The law, however, is divided between the first four and the last six commandments.

So, which part of the law does polygamy violate in particular - the part that pertains to our relationship to the Godhead or the part that pertains to our relationship to one another? I suspect this aspect is important.

Why should the onus be on me? If you asked 100 people (by which I mean 100 reasonably knowledgeable SDA's) which commandment polygamy violated (given that it violates a commandment), I'll bet 100 would say the Seventh.



I'm glad you concede that it violates the law.

Tom, you are evading the burden of proof. Citing 100 unnamed reasonably knowledeable SDAs isn't proof. I could produce a similar list. What saith the Lord? Please post an inspired quote from the Bible or SOP that plainly says polygamy specifically violates the 7th commandment. Thank you.

Also, please address the law that requires men to marry his brother's widow.

If you've got some weird theory that nobody else has, the burden of proof is one you. If I said that cheating on your income tax is not a violation of the last 6 commandments, it would be up to me to come up with some argument to support that assertion.

What's your argument that polygamy does not break the last 6 commandments?



What? I'm saying if you just randomly selected 100 SDA's, from any church, anywhere, that all 100 would say that polygamy is a violation of the 7th commandment, just like they would all say that getting paid for unnecessary secular work on Sabbath is a violation of the 4th. You can't come up with a list like this.



The Lord says that you should have one wife, not two. The Lord says not to commit adultery.



Since you're the one with the odd idea, I really think it would be appropriate for you to present your argument first. If you refuse to do so (which you may well do, since there is no such argument that can be made) then I'll produce an argument as you request. But my preference, again, since you are the one with the unusual idea, that you would present some reasoning for your idea, so I'll give you one more chance to go first.

To make it easy, you don't even have to present an inspired quote. Just present some argument, any argument, that polygamy is a sin, but not a violation of the Seventh Commandment. Or, baring an argument, just say what you're thinking, and why you would make such a claim.



I've been addressing this. I've pointed out the EGW said that God did not sanction polygamy even once. Are you disagreeing with her regarding this?

Since it cannot be expected that the other brother is unmarried in this quote from Deuteronomy:

5"When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
6"It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.
7"But if the man does not desire to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.'
8"Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, 'I do not desire to take her,'
9then his brother's wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, 'Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.'
10"In Israel his name shall be called, 'The house of him whose sandal is removed.'

If Ellen is right that God did never sanction polygamy, we must conclude that God did not sanction all the laws recorded in the books of Moses.

This is from a Jewish site. The whole article is interesting.



So maybe we don't have to conlcude that God did not sanction all the laws records in the books of Moses. Whew!

TE: What's your argument that polygamy does not break the last 6 commandments?

MM: The fact God permitted it. The fact He did not specifically prohibit it. The fact He made a law requiring a man to marry his brother's widow.

TE: The Lord says that you should have one wife, not two.

MM: Where in the Bible does God say, Thou shalt not have more than one spouse at a time.

TE: The Lord says not to commit adultery.

MM: What is adultery? Isn't it having sexual relations with someone you're not married to? In the case of polygamy, they're married, right?

TE: Just present some argument, any argument, that polygamy is a sin, but not a violation of the Seventh Commandment.

MM: Since polygamy is not adultery or fornication, it is not a violation of the 7th commandment. It is, however, a violation of God's orignal "order".

Also, since no one can violate one of the last six commandments, and not instinctively know it is morally wrong, it must be a violation of one of the first four commandments.

The Seventh Commandment is "that shall not commit adultery." I asked you to present an argument, and your argument starts out, "Since polygamy is not adultery ..."

This is not an argument, MM. This is just circular reasoning. You are assuming your conclusion. Your argument should *end* with, "therefore polygamy is not adultery." It shouldn't start out with "since polygamy is not adultery" because that's the very thing you're trying to prove.

I could just as well say, "Since polygamy is adultery, it is a violation of the seventh commandment." Do you understand the point? Hope so.

Perhaps you would like to try again?



This is just the same thing, a circular argument, assuming your conclusion. Actually, you're thinking here is amusing. It seems to be, "Polygamy is a sin. I see that now. However, my theory states that no one can violate one of the last six commandments, and not instinctively know it is morally wrong. Since I can't be wrong about this, polygamy must not be a violation of the last six commandments."

Perhaps you are wrong about this. As far as I'm aware, you have presented absolutely no evidence that the no one can violate one of the last six commandments and not know instinctively that it is wrong. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this idea? Anything?

Tom, your response to my last post makes me think you missed the one right before it. Here it is again:

TE: As far as I'm aware, you have presented absolutely no evidence that the no one can violate one of the last six commandments and not know instinctively that it is wrong. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this idea? Anything?

MM: Romans 2:13-15. Romans 12:3.

The first text speaks of the work of the law written in their hearts. Why would you interpret this to be precisely the last 6 commandments? In Romans 1, God pronounces the heathen to be at fault for not acknowledging God, and giving Him thanks. (around vs. 18-21 or so). This is dealing with the first four commandments.

I don't see anything in Paul's writing which would indicate that he had precisely the last 6 commandments in mind, so that's one problem. An even greater problem is that you have postulated that *no* sin of the last 6 commandments can be committed in ignorance. All Paul has said is that the heathen are conscious of *some* sin, not every sin.

Here's Paul's argument. All have sinned, and all have some consciousness of that fact. That's it. Paul is not arguing that every man is conscious of every sin that he can commit, provided that it's a sin involving specifically the last 6 commandments.

Finally, Paul himself, in speaking of covetousness, indicates a progression of his knowledge of this sin. He says "then the law came, and I died" indicating that he came to a realization, over time, that he had been coveting. Therefore it was not something he was immediately aware of.

In short, you seem to be reading in an awful lot to get out of the texts that you cited the idea that Paul was teaching that no violation of the last 6 commandments can be done in ignorance. Would you please present some actual argument, that reasons from premises and has a conclusion? That would be easier to discuss. When you simply present some texts which are speaking to a different question, and present no argument, I have to guess what you are thinking, and what your argument might be. It's much clearer if you present the argument yourself.

The second text doesn't look to be discussing the last 6 commandments at all.

You seem to have this backwards. Wouldn't God be more inclined to permit behavior having to do with violating one's behavior to man than with God?



The way you are interpreting this law seems to have God sanctioning polygamy. Is that what you are saying, that God sanctioned polygamy?

I'm not sure what your point is here. However you interpret the meaning of Leverite marriage, isn't is obvious that this would have to do with the 7th commandment? After all, it is the 7th commandment which has to do with marriage.

Which of the first 4 commandments do you think this is dealing with?



Genesis teaches this. Jewish law itself recognizes this fact. (and, of course, Jesus made this point on the Sermon on the Mount. EGW makes the same point).



Not if God doesn't sanction polygamy, correct? Unless you think God is an unnecessary party to a marriage.



If God has not sanctioned polygamy, even once, then in no case has God joined together the superfluous marriages.

Tom, you still haven't proven your point - that polygamy specifically violates the 7th commandment. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" prohibits unlawful sexual relations. It doesn't define monogamous marriages. Nowhere in the Bible is polygamy condemned or forbidden.

Because mankind was originally made in the image and likeness of God, we are born with both a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong. “God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” (Romans 12:2) For example, we know from birth that it is morally wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, et cetera. Nobody has to tell us such things are wrong. We just know it naturally, instinctively. That’s how God programmed us from birth.

“As through Christ every human being has life, so also through Him every soul receives some ray of divine light. Not only intellectual but spiritual power, a perception of right, a desire for goodness, exists in every heart.” (RC 106)

Even a cursory study of feral children, humans who were raised by animals, makes it obvious that we are born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong. Without ever having been told, feral children know it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, and murder. In fact, they feel guilty when they violate any one of the last six commandments. The reason they are able to feel guilty is due to the fact humans are born with a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong.

Although we are born with a conscious and instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments we are not, however, born with a mental or biblical knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the first four commandments. For example, we do not know from birth that it is morally wrong to worship false gods, to make idols, to take the Lord’s name in vain, or to violate the Sabbath day. Nor are we born with an understanding of certain doctrines like diet and dress reform.

Until we learn about such things through Bible study and prayer, we unwittingly disobey them, that is, we sin ignorantly. God does not, of course, hold us responsible until we are convicted of the truth. Consequently, it is possible for someone to experience rebirth before they understand the first four commandments. This applies to people, like indigenous natives, who have never heard of Jesus but who live in harmony with what they know naturally from birth. They are morally but not mentally converted.

“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” (Romans 2:13-16)

“Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God.” (DA 638)

We can also apply the principle of “morally but not mentally converted” to Christians who do not understand the truth about Sabbath keeping, or diet and dress reform, or any other doctrine which requires Bible study and prayer. In other words, a person can experience rebirth before they complete the process of converting to obeying and observing everything Jesus commanded.

Nowhere in the Bible is this taught? Then two questions:

1)Why did you agree that it is a sin?
2)If the laws of the land did not prohibit it, you are saying that polygamy is acceptable?

MM, you're just repeating your beliefs. I've been asking you to construct an argument.

An argument has premises, builds upon those premises, and the ends with a conclusion.

So, please, say what your premises are. Then construct an argument based on those premises to lead to your conclusion. In particular, I'm interested in why you think everything covered by by the last 6 commandments is known by instinct, and nothing of the first 4 commandments is, if this is indeed your position.

In particular, why would anyone know instinctively that it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage? That makes no sense to me.

Tom, you still haven't proven your point - that polygamy specifically violates the 7th commandment. I'm still waiting.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" prohibits unlawful sexual relations. It doesn't define monogamous marriages. Right?

Nowhere in the Bible is polygamy condemned or forbidden. Right?

"Why did you agree that it is a sin?" Because it says so in the SOP. Why do you believe it is a sin?

"If the laws of the land did not prohibit it, you are saying that polygamy is acceptable?" Nope. I believe being married to one person at a time is God's ideal plan.

But the law that requires a man to marry his brother's widow is confusing. How do you explain it?

Also confusing is the fact in the beginning God expected A&E's children to marry one another. Whereas nowadays it is wrong. How do you explain it?

Tom, I presented a well constructed explanation. You happen to feel it proves nothing. What more can I say? What do you think? Are we born totally devoid of instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments? Or, do we have a partial knowledge? What is your opinion?

Regarding knowledge of sexual relations outside of marriage it is clear to me that a monogamous relationship is natural. How people define "marriage" may differ, but in general couples expect to pair off for life. In the case of Isaac and Rebbecca they got married by having sex. Once two people decide to hook up the idea of having sex with someone else feels wrong. They know it instinctively.

No, MM, it's poorly reasoned, for the reason I pointed out. In a well-reasoned argument, you can't simply state what you're trying to prove. You can't say things like:



That's a no-no! Please try again, without stating your conclusion as a conclusion.

Here's a well constructed argument. We'll prove that, given certain assumptions, Jill likes chocolate.

Premise 1:All girls like chocolate.
Premise 2:Jill is a girl.

Conclusion: Jill likes chocolate.

Here's a poorly reasoned one:

Although Jill likes chocolate .....

This is poorly reasoned because it assumes the conclusion is true. You can't do that in a well reasoned argument.



We are born with a notion of right and wrong, but most of what we consider to be right and wrong, is learned. What we know of right and wrong includes both commandments from the first 4 commandments and the last 6, as Paul argues in Romans 1 (regarding the first 4 commandments, that all men know God, because He has revealed Himself to them; all men should be thankful to God.)



That's what you were taught. If you were brought up in a society that was not monogamous, it wouldn't be so clear to you.



How do your remarks address the question as to why someone would know by instinct that it's wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage? What reason is there to assume this is instinctual as opposed to being learned?

How do you differentiate between what is instinctual and what is learned?

What do we know instinctually about God? Can we observe God in nature and learn to obey the first four commandments without reading about them and Him in the Bible?

Couples instinctively crave a monogamous relationship. Polygamy is made necessary in certain circumstances.

There's no way to effectively do this, which I why (or one reason, a chief one) that I think your theory is lacking. You ascribe *all* of one's knowledge of the last 6 commandments to instinct alone. I think that's way off. It's off by whatever extent we actually learn things regarding the last 6 commandments, in terms of knowing that certain things are morally wrong. In your view, we never learn that anything is morally wrong (according to the last 6 commandments).

If one studies human behavior compared to other animals, one finds that our behavior is far more learned. For example, we are the only species that can swim, but not be instinct.



According to Paul in Romans, what can be known about God is evident in His handiwork. We have an obligation to be thankful to Him, for example.



How do you know this isn't something which is learned?

Surely you know this is not true? Or if you acctually think it is, some National Geographic TV or maybe Animal Planet would give your general knowledge a boost.

The "be" should have been "by" (I.e. "be instinct" is "by instinct"). That changes the meaning quite a bit!

I'm saying that we are the only species that teaches its members how to swim, as opposed to knowing how to do so by instinct.

Some other species can be taught to swim, but they are taught by humans! (so they don't count).

Tom, you didn't address my comments and questions. You simply disagreed with them. Read them again carefully and you'll see what I mean. Thank you.

I looked again, and I did answer your questions. Your assertion here doesn't even make sense. How do you disagree with a question?

One doesn't disagree with questions; one disagrees with assertions. For example, I disagree with your assertion that I disagreed with your questions.

Tom, what do we know instinctually about God from birth? Can we observe God in nature and learn to obey the first four commandments without reading about them and Him in the Bible?

I don't think this can be answered in a way like, "We know X instinctively about God." I think we have been born with the capacity to know and appreciate spiritual things. I think it was Augustine who said that we have a void that can only be filled by God, which thought I think is fine.



As I've been saying, according to Paul, what can be known of God is enough that one should be thankful to Him. When Paul spoke of the gentiles being "a law unto themselves," he did not include only the last 6 commandments. He didn't say any of the 10 commandments was known solely though instinct. I would say that we can only know we are doing wrong by the work of the Holy Spirit, for any of the 10.

Okay. But I disagree with the idea we can know enough about Jesus and the plan of salvation by simply observing nature. Nature does not teach people about the first four commandments. It doesn't say one single thing about who Jesus is, about idolatry, about taking Jesus' name in vain, and it certainly doesn't say anything about observing the seventh day of the week and communing with Jesus during the sacred Sabbath hours.

It is obvious, though, that people are born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments. No one can violate them without feeling strange and uncomfortable. They may not be able to pinpoint why a certain thought or behavior makes them feel bad, but they know it instinctively, they feel it in their heart and soul.

I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean without the Holy Spirit? With the Holy Spirit, it's certainly enough. Romans 1 makes that clear.



According to Romans 1, it does. At least, it teaches people about God, and His nature, enough that they know that God exists and that they should be thankful to Him. Ps. 19 talks about a knowledge of God is known throughout as well.



It doesn't say anything about who Jesus is? Boy, you're missing something here! Jesus is the Creator, and nature certainly testifies to that.



It is obvious, from Scripture, that people are born with *some* knowledge of what is right and wrong, as evidenced by both tables of the 10 commandments. Romans does not single out the second table. As far as I'm aware, this idea is unique to you.



Assuming they know what they are doing is wrong. But, of course, this applies to the first 4 equally.



This applies equally to any sin, whether it violates commandments from the first table, or the second.

Please cite a reference where an indigenous tribe studied nature and discovered the truth about God (not god}, the truth about idolatry, the truth about taking God's name in vain, and the truth about keeping the seventh-day holy from sunset to sunset.


Again, please cite a reference. Thank you. That is, a reference where a person who has never of heard of the Bible or Jesus and knows instinctively when he is breaking one of the first four commandments. For example, cite a reference that portrays him feeling bad or guilty because he broke the fourth commandment.

There's no need to.

You stated, "Nature doesn't say one single thing about who Jesus is, about idolatry, about taking Jesus' name in vain, and it certainly doesn't say anything about observing the seventh day of the week and communing with Jesus during the sacred Sabbath hours." To refute this statement, I only need to produce one counter-example of any of the things you asserted. I don't need to present multiple counter-examples.

For example, if you said, "None of the following states has the letter 'e' in it: Alaska, New Mexico, Hawaii, or Kansas." and I say, "New Mexico has an 'e' in it." this disproves your statement. I don't need to prove that Alaska, Hawaii, or Kansas do not have 'e's.

That nature testifies of a Creator is clear from Romans 1. The Christ is the Creator is clear from John 1. Since nature testifies of the Creator, and Christ is the Creator, your assertion is proven false.

Except that if you have a look at the different examples of creators that people have believed in not knowing Christ, you'd have hard work finding one that bears resemblance beyond the truism that creators create.

Tom, this thread has evolved. The questions have changed. Please disregard what I posted previously and address the following new and improved questions. Thank you.

Thomas, I agree. Most people who derive their beliefs about god from nature end up believing in gods that do not resemble the God of nature, Jesus Christ.

Tom, this thread has evolved. The questions have changed. Please disregard what I posted previously and address the following new and improved questions. Thank you.

Regarding post 97934, I quoted Romans 1.



This says that the heathen who choose not to honor God or thank Him are without excuse. They can only be held at fault if there is a reasonable expectation that, based on what they know of God as revealed through nature and the Holy Spirit, that they should honor Him and give Him thanks.

This is very clear from the text.

MM, surely you can see that not honoring God or giving Him thanks is a violation of the first table of the 10 commandments, can't you?

"They know everything that can be known about God, because God has shown it all to them."

Tom, how did God show them "everything" that can be known about God? I'm referring to indigenous tribes who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible.

Please cite a reference where an indigenous tribe studied nature and discovered "everything that can be known about God." In particular, the truth about God (not god}, the truth about idolatry, the truth about taking God's name in vain, and the truth about keeping the seventh-day holy from sunset to sunset.

Also, please cite a reference where a person, who has never of heard of the Bible or Jesus, knows instinctively when he is breaking one of the first four commandments, that portrays him feeling bad or guilty because he broke, in particular, the fourth commandment.

MM, this is Scripture. If you don't believe Scripture, what good would citing some study involving indigenous tribes do?

TE: They know everything that can be known about God, because God has shown it all to them.

MM: If your theory is Scriptural, then surely you can point to people who have experienced it. How does God show indigenous tribes, who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible, "everything" that can be known about God?

"If" it is Scriptural? How can it not be Scriptural? I just quoted Scripture:



I'm not interpreting anything here. I'm just repeating the text. Once again, if you don't believe Scripture, how could I possibly prove it to you by some study of indigenous tribes?

How do you know God created the universe? Can you point me to some study which proves this?

How do you know when a person dies that there is a resurrection? Is there a study to prove this?

How do I know that God has manifest Himself to everyone? Because He says so in His word. Why would I take the results of some study over this?

It could fail to be scriptual despite quotes from scripture if said quotes are extensively and carefully chosen by the proof-texting method.

That's true. However, the quotes look to be in the context of the first couple of chapters of Romans where Paul is making the case that all are without excuse. Here Paul argues that even those who have not been exposed to Scripture are without excuse.

Tom, the passage you posted does not reflect what you believe. It does not say indigenous tribes, who have never heard of the Bible or Jesus, learned everything there is to know about God, as if it includes learning about Jesus and the Sabbath. You overstate what Paul wrote.

MM, I just repeated what Paul wrote. I said nothing more. I said nothing about indigenous tribes or the Sabbath. I just quoted Scripture. Can you quote something directly that I wrote which you think is overstating what Paul wrote?

Tom, here's what you wrote - "They know everything that can be known about God, because God has shown it all to them." What do you mean by "everything"?

I didn't write that. Paul wrote that. I quoted Paul.

No, Tom, what do you mean by "everything", not what the CEV translators think.

Also, do you think Paul is talking about people who have never heard of the Bible or Jesus, who learned "everything" there is to know about God by observing nature?

What do I mean? You mean what does Paul mean. I have no idea why you're asking me this. It's like if you quote John 3:16 to me, which says, "For God so loved the world ..." and I asked you "What do you mean by God? Wouldn't you respond that it was John who said, "God" and not you?

Regarding whom Paul is speaking of, it seems clear that Paul has everybody in mind. Remember he is driving to the point that all are without excuse.

Back to your theory for a moment, is there any evidence that you can present to support your idea that one cannot break the last 6 commandments in any way in ignorance? Why do you make a distinction between the first table of commandments and the last? The only one that seems different to me is the Sabbath. Why would you think it's any easier to beak the first commandment ignorantly than the last?

Also, you say that polygamy is a sin, but not a violation of the seventh commandment, so evidently you have some other commandment in mind. Which? The fourth? The fifth? Which commandment, and why?

I would think anyone could see that polygamy has to do with marriage, and that the seventh commandment is the one designed to protect marriage.

And why this limmiting of the law to the ten commandments? There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of the authors of the bible had such a limmitation in mind. What is translated to us as law is a words that also means "instruction" and covers the first five books of the bible, not just one half chapter of it.

It depends on the context. Clearly, the 10 Commandments were special, as they were written by the finger of God.

E. J. Waggoner argued that the law in Galatians was the 10 Commandments. You can take a look at the argument here, if you're interested.

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/1888/waggonerbutler_twolaws3.html#GRACE

Tom, I'm not asking about Paul or the CEV translators. I'm asking about what you think it means. Paul merely conveyed a thought, which the CEV translators gave to us in English.

"They know everything that can be known about God, because God has shown it all to them."

Does the word "everything" mean everything? That is, did God show them everything that can be known about Him? Or, is there certain things about God that cannot be known in this lifetime?

Also, in Romans 1 it seems clear to me that Paul is talking about people who have knowledge about God that was not gained from only studying nature, knoweledge that was verbally handed down to them.

What evidence do I have to support my beliefs? Romans 2:13-15. And, common experiences. No one is born with an intinctively knowledge of the first four commandments. The Sabbath is a good example. Nothing in nature teaches us to observe the 7th day of the week as a sabbath. Neither do we know it instinctively. We must learn it from Bible study and prayer. The same it true about the the first four commandments.

But it is clear from common experiences that no one heas to tell us that lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. is wrong. We just know it naturally, instinctively. A study of feral children makes this point obvious. They were not raised under normal circumstances, they did not benefit from custom or culture, and yet they know it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, and murder.

I think the "everything" means everything that can be known about God that He reveals to them.



Is this clear to anybody besides you?



But Romans 2:13-15 doesn't say this. It says:



This says absolutely nothing about the last table being instinctive and the first table not. In fact, there's nothing whatsoever said about the first four vs. the last six at all. So there's no evidence for your idea from here, correct?



This Sabbath is the only example. One could say this about the whole 10 commandments though. That is, the Sabbath is the only commandment of the 10 which one has no knowledge of outside of Scripture.



No, it's not. Romans 1 clearly contradicts this. So does Psalm 19. I'm sure there are other Scriptures which do as well. Otherwise people who didn't have the Scriptures could not be condemned for not believing in God or thanking Him.



There's two problems with your assertion. One is that you say that none of the first four commandments are fundamentally different, in terms of knowing about them instinctively, when this applies only to the Sabbath. There are cultures with no Scriptures which keep the first three commandments.

Secondly is you say that there are no sins which break the last six commandments which are not known by instinct. Your "proof" demonstrates a lack of understanding of logic. If I make the assertion "All S are P," I cannot prove this by producing some S which is P.

For example, "All humans are women. My wife is a human. She is a woman. That proves my point." This is what you are arguing. That's not a valid argument, because the fact that some humans are women does not prove that all humans are. Similarly the fact that something about the last six commandments is known by instinct does not prove that everything about them is known by instinct.

To disprove your idea, all that is necessary is to do is produce a counter example. This I've done with polygamy. Your argument that polygamy is not a violation of the last table of the law is, to put it kindly, unconvincing.

Another example that comes to mind are two people living together without being married. There are people who believe that there is nothing wrong with this as long as they are monogamous.

There are types of lies, white lies, for example, which are not instinctively known to be wrong. In fact, there's a lot of disagreement as to what constitutes a lie. If someone asks you, "How are you" and you respond "fine" even though you're not feeling so well, is that a lie?

Jesus Christ, in the sermon on the mount, explained that the law embraces far more than what His hearers were thinking. A thought or a glance can break it. If all that Jesus preached about the law were known by instinct, one would hardly expect His assertions to have caused any commotion. Indeed, one would wonder why there would be any need for Christ to preach about the law at all (at least, the last six commandments), since all that could be known about them was already known by instinct.

TE: There are cultures with no Scriptures which keep the first three commandments.

MM: Quotes, please.

I'll see if I can find something in the next day or two.

While you're looking for quotes it would be nice if you could find one that verifies people who have never heard of the Bible or Jesus learned to keep the Sabbath by observing nature.

There's no reason to, is there?

There is if you hope to substantiate the assertion people who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible can learn "everything" there is to know about God by observing the things of nature. The question is - Does "everything" include the first four commandments? If not, why not? What evidence do you have that "everything" excludes the fourth commandment?

There's no evidence in favor of this assertion, is there? Why would anyone think that one would know about the Sabbath without special revelation from God?

From the context of the text, "everything" pertains to those things which can be known about God from nature. This includes the fact that God exists, and that one should be thankful to God.

"Everything" cannot include understanding the truth about God as defined in the first three commandments. There is nothing in nature that identifies the God of the Bible as the only one worthy of worship. One might suspect there is a god, but it would not occur to him that that God is Jesus or the Father. They must be told the truth. It is not known instinctively.

Latent within every sinner is a craving for God's companionship, but they cannot articulate who God is until they learn about Him in the Bible. Unless otherwise instructed, indigenous tribes, observing nature, naturally end up worshiping false gods and making idols to represent their false gods. Nevertheless, even among the most remote tribes a knowledge of certain biblical things exists. There are vestiges of the creation story, the fall of man, the universal flood, etc. But these truths are so distorted that they do not, unaided, lead to the one true God.

SC 10
God has bound our hearts to Him by unnumbered tokens in heaven and in earth. Through the things of nature, and the deepest and tenderest earthly ties that human hearts can know, He has sought to reveal Himself to us. Yet these but imperfectly represent His love. Though all these evidences have been given, the enemy of good blinded the minds of men, so that they looked upon God with fear; they thought of Him as severe and unforgiving. Satan led men to conceive of God as a being whose chief attribute is stern justice,--one who is a severe judge, a harsh, exacting creditor. He pictured the Creator as a being who is watching with jealous eye to discern the errors and mistakes of men, that He may visit judgments upon them. It was to remove this dark shadow, by revealing to the world the infinite love of God, that Jesus came to live among men. {SC 10.3}

This passage is talking people who know the truth about God but who have turned their backs on Him to serve sin and unrighteousness. It is not talking about people who have never learned Bible truths. The following list proves the point. No one can learn all the truths Paul listed by simply observing nature. Yes, most of them are known instinctively, but not all of them.

1. They hold the truth unrighteousness. Verse 18.

2. God hath showed it unto them. Verse 19.

3. They are without excuse. Verse 20.

4. They knew God. Verse 21.

5. They changed the truth of God into a lie. Verse 25.

6. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. Verse 28.

7. They know the judgments of God. Verse 32.

8. They know that committing such sins will result in punishment and death. Verse 32.

Sure it can. From nature one can learn that there is a Creator who should be worshiped, and thanked.



Enough is known about God to be saved.



They do what the law requires, even not having a knowledge beyond that which comes by nature and the Holy Spirit. The law encompasses both tables of the law.




They are not unaided. They have the Holy Spirit. Nature + Holy Spirit = enough to be saved (see DA quote)

Regarding Romans 1, Paul is making the point, in the first few chapters of Romans, that all are without excuse. This includes those who do not have access to Scripture. They are without excuse as well.



This says the truth which can be known of God is known because God has manifested it from the things He made. This is from nature. Not Scripture. Nothing in the passage says, or implies, these people know Scripture.

If what you were suggesting were true, then all those ignorant of Scripture would have an excuse for not obeying God, the exact opposite of what Paul is arguing. In this case, we shouldn't send missionaries to them, since they would be saved (not being without excuse, how could God condemn them?)

Tom, I haven't been arguing against being saved. I am saying that not everything about God's law can be learned by simply observing nature. You agree with me that Sabbath-keeping cannot be learned from nature. Do you also agree with me that the truth about the triune, Godhead cannot be learned from nature? What in nature forbids making idols to represent God? What in nature forbids worshiping the idols we are inspired to make?

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Again, what in nature teaches us that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Where in nature is the truth about the Godhead taught?

Tom, I agree there will be people in heaven who never learned about Jesus through Bible study and prayer. They will be lost or saved based on whether or not they lived in harmony with their convictions and conscience, with what they believed to be morally right and wrong. You cited Romans 1 to prove your point. However, that is not the type of people Paul was talking about. The following list is proof:

1. They hold the truth unrighteousness. Verse 18.

2. God hath showed it unto them. Verse 19.

3. They are without excuse. Verse 20.

4. They knew God. Verse 21.

5. They changed the truth of God into a lie. Verse 25.

6. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. Verse 28.

7. They know the judgments of God. Verse 32.

8. They know that committing such sins will result in punishment and death. Verse 32.

Bump for Tom.

I'm just saying what Paul said, which is that all are without excuse because of what God has revealed regarding to Himself to them by way of the things they made. This includes that God exists, and something of His character, which includes that we should be thankful to Him.

Tom, you agree with me that Sabbath-keeping cannot be learned from nature, right? If so, then that's one thing excluded in the "everything" Paul spoke about, right?

Paul also spoke of knowing about the Godhead. See verse below. Do you agree with me that the truth about the triune, Godhead cannot be learned from nature? Is this another thing that is excluded in Paul's "everything"?

Also, what in nature forbids making idols to represent God? And, what in nature forbids worshiping the idols we are inspired to make? Are these other aspects of the law that are excluded in Paul's "everything"?

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Romans 1:18-32 talks about people who knew the truth about God but turned their backs on Him and got caught up in all manner of sins when He gave them up. The wording Paul uses makes it clear he's not talking about people who never heard of Bible truths.

1. They hold the truth unrighteousness. Verse 18.

2. God hath showed it unto them. Verse 19.

3. They are without excuse. Verse 20.

4. They knew God. Verse 21.

5. They changed the truth of God into a lie. Verse 25.

6. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. Verse 28.

7. They know the judgments of God. Verse 32.

8. They know that committing such sins will result in punishment and death. Verse 32.

MountainMan and Tom, I have enjoyed reading this discussion between you. There are some rather poignant verses in the Bible which might augment this discussion. I see that the topic has wandered a bit, but you will pardon me for bringing it back to the original subject. I am curious how you would interpret these following passages of scripture. Each of these is God speaking, and referencing multiple wives!

"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." (Exodus 21:10)

"...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

So, my question is this: Would God give a commandment regarding how to deal with multiple wives if it were against the Ten Commandments to have them in the first place? Please do not overlook the location of this command either--mere verses past the declaration of the 10 Commandments, while God is still speaking. And would God have given David multiple wives, if it had been in direct opposition to those stone tablets?

Something to think about...

Blessings!

Green Cochoa, welcome. I've never seen a Green Cochoa before, so I looked it up online. Wow! What a beautiful bird. Have you seen it in the wild?

Regarding multiple wives, yes, it is interesting that God permitted it, even commanded it at times. Of course, it is not the ideal, but there was a place for it. Is polygamy a sin nowadays? Is Sister White right about it? And, does it represent an example of an unknown sin God winks at in born again believers today?

About the other aspects of this thread - what do you think? Are we born with an instinctive knowledge of what is morally right and wrong as defined by the last six commandments? And, can we learn "everything" about God by observing nature, or must we learn about the first four commandments by reading the Bible?

MountainMan,

Having spent some years in Asia, I believe firmly that all people born into this world are privileged to hear that still small voice of the Holy Spirit, speaking to them of what is right or wrong. Having said that, our "conscience," as we call it, is not equivalent to a Urim and Thummim where it will tell us "yes" or "no" to every potential situation. Our consciences, as Ellen White also mentions, must be educated through God's Word.

The Holy Spirit is limited to the most basic issues until we have received more light/education. I believe that without a knowledge of right and wrong, the Holy Spirit's voice would go unrecognized. Here in Asia, people do not believe in God. In Buddhism, there is no god, or there can be many gods, or you yourself are god, all depending on how you view it. But, everyone knows "instinctively" or "intuitively" that it is wrong to kill someone, wrong to steal, wrong to commit adultery, wrong to dishonor one's parents. I'm not sure it is quite so clear about the last commandment. Coveting is not always recognized as anything wrong in these cultures. It would only be wrong if you stole. Lying is also unclear. I've seen students who seemed to sincerely believe that cheating was only wrong if you were caught!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

The buddhism they teach about in school has at its goal the complete ceacation of coveting, even coveting life itself. Is this an oversimplification?

MM, here are some SOP statements regarding polygamy:







To get back to the original topic, I started it because you made the claim that polygamy is a sin, but not a violation of the seventh commandment. I've been asking you to explain this. What commandment does it break? The fourth? The third? Which?

Given that God never sanctioned polygamy even once, how could He have commanded it?

Given that polygamy is contrary to His will, I have the same question. How does God command one to do something contrary to His will?

This is a good question, but I think we need to realize that God is so gracious that He often permits things which are contrary to His will, and even gives counsel in regards to such things. For example, God was very clear that it was not His will that Israel have a king (He wanted to be their king), but they rejected His will. God allowed them to have a king, and gave them counsel in regards to it.

Similarly, as Malachi tells us, God hates divorce. But because of the hardness of their hearts, as Jesus explained it, it was permitted.

So we should be very careful not to read into the fact that because God permits something to occur, or even gives counsel in regards to it, that the issue which God is permitting or giving counsel to is His will.

It's a wonderful thing that God is so gracious that He even gives us counsel in regards to things He's rather we didn't do.

There appears to be some disagreement between what Greenie quoted from the bible and what Tom quoted above from Ellen. How are we to resolve this issue?

But neither of the examples given suggest merely permitting it, the quote from exodus could qualify as giving counsel, but you still have to deal with God telling David, "I gave you..." God only gives us good gifts, and I do not think you of all people will find examples of God giving anyone anything less than that.

I'm not sure I've understood your meaning here. For example, Buddhists, technically, are supposed to be vegetarian. In practice, they are not. In Thailand, even the monks eat meat. I recently heard a story of how a shocked onlooker watched the monks in India go into a store and buy beef. It is true that any kind of desire is supposed to be bad in Buddhism; however, Buddhists still have desires! No one can tell me, having lived among them, that they don't try to eat their favorite foods, or choose their favorite people as friends, or desire to marry a certain one, or have a good many other desires. What is theoretical, and what is natural, and what is practice are different things.

Now, to bring this back to topic here, I saw a statement in this discussion earlier that said we are only supposed to have "one wife at a time." I must say that this remark struck me as at once callous and ignorant. From my perspective, "serial polygamy" is a common practice in America, and in our church, but it is worse than what most serial polygamists (who think they are monogamists) call polygamy. I have seen polygamist families whose children from the separate wives all grow up together as siblings, and who all get along quite nicely. Even the wives seemed ok about living in adjacent houses. In America, however, this would be against the law, and the law would say that you must have only one "at a time." So, people just discard the old wife, and choose another model whenever they wish, and think that they are still within the bounds of the law of God. Foolishness!

So, yes, polygamy is a current and common practice among our people today.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

My post immediately before yours (post 7568) addresses this. In short, God permits things which are not necessarily His will, such as divorce, for example.



Ok, I see from your following post you saw mine. God's saying, "I gave you" in the same principle involved in regards to permission. We can have or do nothing except as God permits.

Scripture often ascribes to God that which He permits, often using active language in so doing. For example, Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, when what really happened is the snakes were there all along and God withdrew His protection.

Another example is Scripture tells us that God killed Saul, when Saul actually committed suicide.

Another example is Scripture tells us that God commanded David to number Israel, when really Satan enticed David to do this against God's will.

So the same idea applies. We should not conclude that because God permitted a certain thing, or gave counsel in regarding it (which may be represented as a command) that the thing involved is something God is in favor of. We see in Jesus Christ the full revelation of God. So, for example, while the Old Testament had commands in regards to divorce, it was by no means that case that God was in favor of divorce. Similar logic applies to polygamy. God's ideal, as Jesus explained, was always that a man would have one wife.

Green Cochoa, great observations. Thanx for sharing. Certain instinctive things become blurred, obscure, or even obliterated over time. We sear our conscience until we eventually forget what is morally right and wrong. This describes a lot of people. My experience is with North and South Americans. People lie so often that they come to view it as a virtue rather than a vice. But they didn't start off that way, right?

Tom, I agree polygamy is not God's ideal for men and women. The SOP makes it clear, but the Bible doesn't. The COI clamored for a king, and God gave in to their demands. Which commandment were they guilty of breaking? I would suggest the first three.

When God permitted or commanded polygamy, which commandment were they guilty of breaking? In some cases they weren't breaking any commandments, they were simply obeying the laws of Moses. In other cases, though, I suppose they were breaking the first three commandments. Kings often had multiple wives to increase their power and influence in the world.

"Given that God never sanctioned polygamy even once, how could He have commanded it?" That He did indeed command it is not the question, right?

"Given that polygamy is contrary to His will, I have the same question. How does God command one to do something contrary to His will?" How? Do you mean, Why? I don't know why or how? For reasons that made sense to Him He chose to wink at certain sins until He was ready to deal with it.

Tom, you agree with me that Sabbath-keeping cannot be learned from nature, right? If so, then that's one thing excluded in the "everything" Paul spoke about, right?

Paul also spoke of knowing about the Godhead. See verse below. Do you agree with me that the truth about the triune, Godhead cannot be learned from nature? Is this another thing that is excluded in Paul's "everything"?

Also, what in nature forbids making idols to represent God? And, what in nature forbids worshiping the idols we are inspired to make? Are these other aspects of the law that are excluded in Paul's "everything"?

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

---

Romans 1:18-32 talks about people who knew the truth about God but turned their backs on Him and got caught up in all manner of sins when He gave them up. The wording Paul uses makes it clear he's not talking about people who never heard of Bible truths. Do you agree?

1. They hold the truth unrighteousness. Verse 18.

2. God hath showed it unto them. Verse 19.

3. They are without excuse. Verse 20.

4. They knew God. Verse 21.

5. They changed the truth of God into a lie. Verse 25.

6. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge. Verse 28.

7. They know the judgments of God. Verse 32.

8. They know that committing such sins will result in punishment and death. Verse 32.

Yes it does. It is clear from Genesis, where it says that in the beginning God created Adam, gave him Eve as her wife, and the two became one flesh. This is the argument Jesus gave regarding marriage in speaking of divorce, and the same argument applies to polygamy (if anything, being even easier to see in this regard).



How could God have commanded polygamy in light of the fact that it is contrary to His will, and given that He never in a single instance sanctioned it? He couldn't have, in the sense that we think of the word "command."



Sin is defined as a violation of the moral law. The EGW quote states that polygamy was a violation of the law, and contrary to God's will, which is to say it was sin. There's no way the law of Moses would command something which is a violation to the 10 commandments. Even Jews today, without the benefit of Jesus' teaching, recognize that polygamy was permitted but not sanctioned, as the following demonstrates:





If by this you mean that God gave Moses laws regarding things that He permitted, but weren't His ideal, I agree completely, as this is what I've been saying. God did not sanction polygamy, or divorce (or many other things the OT speaks about, but of which God gave counsel), but He permitted it.



If polygamy is a sin, which EGW says it is, then it is *always* against one of the 10 commandments, not just in "other cases." Which commandment is it always contrary to?



Yes, but God condemned this practice.





No, I mean how, as in how could this be the case. Obviously, it couldn't be. God would never command us to do something contrary His will. That makes no sense. Yet this is what you are asserting.



That He chose to wink at it is not the issue. You are asserting that God commanded that things be done which were contrary to His will. That makes no sense.

No. The "everything" refers to all that is revealed by God through creation. It is not excluding certain things.



No, for the same reason as the previous response.



No, they are not. That one should not create idols seems to me something that one could infer from nature.



They know about God from the things He made. That's what Paul says.



No, because that's not what he says. He says they know the truth about God from the things He made. He says nothing about their knowing the truth because of what Scripture says. Why would you come to your conclusion? I see nothing which says they know the truth because of Scripture, but I do see where it says they know the truth because of creation.



How could Paul have been any more clear about this?



You skipped the important part, which you should have included in 2 of your list. I underlined it in the text cited.

Tom and MountainMan,

I think most people likely misinterpret Paul on that verse 20. The part you underlined, especially, is misunderstood, because it takes a good understanding of what Creation was about before one can comprehend exactly what it revealed. I would strongly suggest that you spend a few hours (and I mean hours) studying 2 Peter 3. The entire chapter of 2 Peter 3 is focused, if one will but look closely, on Creation Week, and upon exactly what it reveals to us. I invite you to scrutinize the text, and to notice that Peter speaks of "creation", and further references days 2, 3, and 7 of Creation Week. While he does not address the entirety of the Creation, this touches quite nearly half of it. As you contemplate verse eight, you will need to go back up and look for the context. The context is that of Creation Week. When you understand what Peter evidently understood, you will better understand why John spoke of "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

This is not an easy study. It will challenge you. But there is an incredible treasure hidden in Creation Week, and I believe it is this that Paul has alluded to in the text you have referenced above.

I won't do your homework for you on the Creation study at this time, but here's my two cents on the proper reading of Paul's statement. Notice the punctuation changes to the following:

For the invisible things of him (from the creation of the world), are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

And now consider that Paul is saying that WE, who read the creation account, learn of God's eternal power and Godhead through a proper understanding of the symbolism of His creations on each of those days.

In other words, I do NOT believe that Paul is necessarily referring to nature, but rather to the acts of creation week themselves. One can understand through a knowledge of those acts more about God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

How EGW interprets the passage in Romans 1 is how I see it as well. Nature testifies of God, and reveals One "infinite in power, great in goodness, mercy, and love."

Do you eat vegetables? It is clear from Genesis that vegetables were not included in the original diet. Vegetables were intended for the animals, but man was given fruits, nuts, and grains.

• And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Genesis 1:29, KJV)
• And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. (Genesis 1:30, KJV)

In other words, the animals could eat spinach, lettuce, cabbage and kale, but we were given the seed-containing fruits (and nuts).

Is it a sin, therefore, to eat vegetables? This is an important point, I feel, because whereas God gave Adam one wife, He gave no specific commandment that there should be one and only one. Here, however, we have God's specific statement that the fruits were given us for food, in addition to the fact that God created the fruit trees for us.

Oh--and on the matter of counting "one," don't forget what Paul writes in the Corinthians about harlots.

• What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. (1 Corinthians 6:16, KJV)

How many "ones" do you suppose she would have? (This is a good math principle for you, right?! One + One = ONE!)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

EGW is not disagreeing with Paul, nor with me. Neither is she saying quite what you have been trying to say.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

My point was nothing different than the following: "Nature testifies of God, and reveals One 'infinite in power, great in goodness, mercy, and love.'"

Well, I can agree with that much. Where I will differ is if we try to take it so far as to say that nature alone teaches such things as the Ten Commandments.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That hasn't been my point.

Here's some background. MM and I have been discussing things here for quite awhile, so it can happen that we say things that someone new might not understand because he and I have a history, and may be assuming some things not in evidence, so to speak (i.e., some things not stated in this thread).

(MM, if I misrepresent your viewpoint in the following synopsis in any way, please correct what I've written)

MM has a theory that no one can break any of the last 6 commandments ignorantly, ever. He believes that everybody knows everything that can be know about them by instinct. He believes the first 4 commandments must be learned, and we know nothing about them by instinct.

I think this is too simplistic in both directions. I believe that some of what the commandments teach, whether the first 4 or last 6 I make no distinction, is known by instinct (except the 4th, which seems clear must be taught). I believe we can break any of the commandments in ignorance.

My point in Rom. 1 was to give an example to disprove MM's assertion that nothing about God can be known apart from being taught by Scripture. What I understand Romans 1 to be saying is that, to use EGW's words (since we are in agreement on this point) "Nature testifies of God, and reveals One 'infinite in power, great in goodness, mercy, and love.'"

I understand Paul to be saying that no one is without excuse in regards to not recognizing God and giving Him thanks because of things He has shown them, things which are testified to by nature. I infer from this that if no one is without excuse, when they do not thank God, that this means that anyone is able to conclude that God should be recognized and thanked, and that some will in fact choose to do so and be saved, even though they have never read Scripture nor heard of Jesus Christ.

Thank you. That does clarify your positions for me, and now I think I understand the conversation better.

I also agree with nearly all of what you have just said. One small caveat: I think it will be necessary for you to accept that the one whom the scripture-less praise and/or thank may be called Buddha, or Lao-tse, or Confucious, or Allah, or Great Spirit, or a host of other names which are used by those who may be in ignorance of God's name. And, yes, I agree that some of these people, who have followed the truth as best they have known it, will be acceptable to God. But we missionaries are sent to fulfill Romans 10, which implies that we are not saved without hearing of the Word of God. I don't suppose even you would think it were quite safe to pray, for example, to Mary or to Fatima and to thank them in place of invoking the name of God. What a privilege we have in knowing the truth through the Scriptures!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

You bring up an interesting point, which I think is easy to address, and of crucial importance to understand for a missionary. The question is, if one can be saved without a missionary, why send one?

First of all, can one be saved without a missionary?



This is clear enough. Yes. One can be saved without a missionary. I understand Paul to be saying the same thing. So why the missionary then?

Two points. One is that although it is *possible* to be saved without the missionary, how likely is that to happen compared to the likelihood of one's being saved who has heard the Gospel, or who knows Jesus Christ? Surely the one who has heard the Gospel has a much, much better chance than one who has not.

Secondly, ignorance abounds in regards to God's character. The more we can teach the truth about our wonderful God, the more:

a.likely a person hearing the truth will be saved.
b.likely that person will tell others the good news he's heard.
c.better off the person will be in their spiritual life, irrespective of the question of being saved.

In regards to c, I have something like the following in mind:



This is the true picture of a follower of Christ. This will be the makeup of the 144,000. They will have a concern for God's honor, for Christ to receive His kingdom in glory, not so they can "go home in glory," but so that He can be crowned King of Kings and Lord of Lords, to receive the honor due Him for so great salvation He has given us at such great cost.

Our commission as Seventh-day Adventists is to prepare the world for the coming of Christ by means of a message God has given us in order to do so. This message cannot be delivered by nature alone.

So there is a great work for missionaries. I think what you are doing there is a tremendous thing.

Tom, you did a good job of representing the view I believe in. People can study nature, without a knowledge of the Bible, and get the feeling a higher power of some sort created it. But, and this is where you and I disagree, it will not occur to them that Jesus is that higher power or god. Besides, no one on earth is totally void of knowledge. Stories have been handed down from generation to generation dating back to Noah.

Also, the law of Moses speaks about polygamy. It also speaks bout stoning people to death. It also speaks about slavery. It speaks about things we no longer practice today. And yet the law of Moses was as binding as the 10Cs. Why do you say certain aspects of it violates the 10Cs?

By the way, I answered your question as to which commandments, under certain circumstances, I believe polygamy violates - the first three. I also gave the reasons why.

Good! I try to be accurate in presenting the views of others. I'm glad to hear you say this.




You said that. I said the reverse, that God wouldn't command that someone do something contrary to His will, something which violates the moral law.



The seventh commandment was given as a protection to marriage. Polygamy is a sin because it is contrary to God's ideal viz a viz marriage. God creates Adam, and gave him one wife. The two were to become one flesh. This is easy to see.

Why would you think that that polygamy does not violate the law protecting marriage, but, rather, takes God's name in vain? This seems to me to be a very odd way of looking at things. I'm curious, can you cite even one other person who see things in this way?

I happen to see things somewhat the way MountainMan does on the issue of polygamy. Whether we like it or not, there are certain "sins" in the Bible which are simply permitted and/or not expressly condemned as being sin. They are, in fact, at times commanded or governed by rules of moderation. Polygamy is one of these "gray areas." Other "sins" in a similar category include:

1) Eating meat/flesh foods
2) Killing people as an act of war, justice, or self-defense
3) Wearing jewelry
4) Drinking alcoholic beverages
5) Being "rich and increased with goods"

Most of these things were commanded at times in the Bible, in certain circumstances. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is followed by verses saying things like "But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death."

Since the Bible was not clear, cut and dried on these issues, they will provoke debates for as long as people do not reach higher plains in their spiritual walk and rise above them, and for as long as others try to promote their non-biblical views that such things were cut and dried, and clearly forbidden in scripture.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This isn't the issue of disagreement in this topic. The point MM made that I am disagreeing is that polygamy is a sin (meaning a violation of the 10 commandments) but not a violation of the 7th commandment.

That polygamy is a sin, we (MM and I) are in agreement.

Please note the topic question is, "Does polygamy violate the seventh commandment?"

The law of Moses commanded people to kill sinners. Does this violate the 10Cs? It also regulates slavery. Is this against God's will? And, it made polygamy necessary under certain circumstances. Does this break the law?


The triune Godhead is One, right? Does this fit your model of two equal one? Tom, don't forget that I agree with you that God established the ideal order of marriage when He gave Adam one wife. But keep in mind the 7th commandment prohibits premarital sex as well as condemns adultery, which is having sex with someone you are not married to. Having multiple spouses is not adultery because they are married.

In the same way incest was necessary in the beginning, so too there were times when polygamy was necessary. But there were times when kings married multiple wives for reasons that were not necessary. In such cases they were making gods and idols of them, 1st and 2nd commandments, thus misrepresenting God, the 3rd commandment.

1.God gave counsel in regards to things which were not in accordance to His will, such as divorce, polygamy, and other things. That He gave the counsel should not be construed as His sanctioning the thing He gives counsel regarding.

The idea that God would command someone to do something contrary to His will is nonsensical. By definition, if God commands that something be done, that's His will.

2.Your whole argument falls apart because you assume that the extra marriages are legitimate, but they are no more legitimate than a marriage which follows an illegitimate divorce. Jesus said that one who divorces his/her spouse without valid grounds is committing adultery if He remarries. The same logic applies to polygamy as applies to divorce.

3.I have not seen you comment on EGW's point that God did not sanction polygamy even once. Please comment on that.

Valid point. He told the children of Israel what meats they were allowed to eat. This does not mean He advocated a flesh diet. On the other hand, since Jesus ate fish, does this mean that it is not a sin to eat meat? Look at some of Ellen White's statements on meat, if you will, like this one:




By what definition? God commands things which are not His will at times. Dealing with sin means there are times when something has to be done that was not part of the original plan. Example: Commanding the quails be sent to the complaining Israelites who lusted for flesh. You will not convince me that it was His will to give them the quail--to the contrary, there is evidence that it was not, seeing as He destroyed many thousands for their perverted appetites when they ate the quail.


In my mind, the pain in the relationship always comes with the separation. It is the breaking of someone's heart that I believe is the primary sin in what we term "adultery." It's sort of like that famous poem says regarding the fence or the ambulance: it's not the falling that hurts them at all, but the shock at the bottom when they're stopping! So, to my view, it would be far better for a man to have two wives, than to have just one "at a time," which is exchanged for a different one. Both are forms of polygamy, except that one involves an illegitimate divorce--cruelly breaking the first one's heart in a mean show of rejection and favoritism.


I would ask this, did God sanction the eating of meat even once?

To sanction, and to permit, are two different things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

By what definition is a good question. The definition I had in mind was to order someone to do something. By so doing you are expressing your will. Someone doing something under your authority is as if you did it yourself.



From the SOP:



The Lord longs to give us that which is good for us, and does His best to protect us from the effects of sin. But we have free will, so He will not force us to do His will.

The people wanted flesh, so the Lord allowed them to have it, although what He had provided them for food was better for them. The same thing happens today. But when the people became ill and died, this was of their own doing.

It hardly seems fair to blame God for this. I speaking of your statement, "seeing as He destroyed many thousands for their perverted appetites when they ate the quail." God did not destroy the people because they did something contrary to His will, but the people destroyed themselves by their own actions in overindulging in the quails.

This is a common pattern. God longs to protect us from the effects of sin.



I agree with this.



This is the point I've been making.

With the exception of the killing in point two, which would be covered by Jesus mount sermon, can you make a biblical case for the other points being sin at all? Or is this a case of listing things which are not on sin lists in the bible but whom Ellen redefined as sin?

1) Eating meat/flesh foods
2) Killing people as an act of war, justice, or self-defense
3) Wearing jewelry
4) Drinking alcoholic beverages
5) Being "rich and increased with goods"

Skipping 2, as requested.

I don't think anyone suggests 5 is a sin. I don't know why that's on the list. Assuming this means simply having a lot of money. So I'll skip 5 as well.

Regarding the others, the explanation of these items which makes the most sense to me is that in the Day of Atonement, Israel was not to do these things. They were to keep their minds clear, so that they could follow by faith what the High Priest was doing.

So we, living in the antitypical Day of Atonement, are advised to keep our minds clear, so we can follow by faith what our heavenly high priest is doing.

Tom, do you think it was God's will to kill sinners the other 364 days of the year? For example, God told Moses to stone to death the man caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Was it God's will? Or, did Moses misunderstand God's answer?

Do the laws of Moses misrepresent God's will?

Where do you find prohibition of eating flesh foods, drinking alcoholic drink and wearing jewellery in connection to the day of Atonement? All I could find in the law books were a command on pain of death to afflict oneself and not work.

So, looking at it your way, eat flesh and drink alcoholic beverages and wear jewellery as long as we do not work and are not happy about it.

This is from the amazing facts website:



The problem was not with being happy, but with having a divided mind. Anything that would distract the mind would not be encouraged.

Yes, afflict. What does that word mean? How do you afflict yourself? Were the medievals walking in long lines flogging eachother on to something or what?

The garb of the high priest... That would have to do with Jesus. But perhaps the idea is that we should emulate our Lord and Master?
The camp preparations, I failed to find that teaching this morning. Do you know where that is found?The maritime forum can fall into that category, at the least for some people sometimes. And working to have bread on ones dinnertable may well be such a distraction. But without bread we starve to death so thats really not a feasible option either. And not working can easily be just as much of a distraction.

The CEV translated it as "sorrow for sin."

No, I don't know where the camp preparations is found. I just looked a little bit on the net for things. I found a couple of things, and posted one of them.

Regarding distractions, there are things we can control, and things we can't. For example, we need to make a living to feed/clothe/shelter our families, and there's certainly a right thing to do. However, we needn't so overwork ourselves that we have no time or energy for spiritual matters.

Regarding eating, I'm pretty sure the DOA was a day of fasting. Obviously we can't fast full time, or we'd wither away. So instead of not eating at all, we try to eat healthfully, in a way that the mind remains clear. A similar understanding would apply to other items; i.e., we do things to keep the mind clear.

Tom, do you think it was God's will to kill sinners the other 364 days of the year? For example, God told Moses to stone to death the man caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Was it God's will? Or, did Moses misunderstand God's answer?

Do the laws of Moses misrepresent God's will? Do they require anything that violates the will of God? For example, the requirement to stone to death sinners. Does this violate the will of God? And, what the laws that require polygamy? Do they violate the will of God?

I've been busy lately...still am. To clarify briefly, however, on why I include #5 in the list, let me say this one is a New Testament matter.

Jesus said it is harder for a rich man to enter Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Revelation speaks of "being rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." James chapter 5 goes so far as to say "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your misery that shall come upon you..." and continues to list the sins laid up to their account for the judgment. And, finally, Jesus gave express command to His disciples: "Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece." (Luke 9:3, KJV) One might also recall the counsel He gave to the rich young ruler.

Therefore, it may be reasonably concluded that a life of simplicity, and not of material gain, is the spiritual goal of Christ's followers. The sinfulness of wealth is implied, but not expressly stated, just as with that of meat-eating, killing, use of alcohol, polygamy, etc. These are each "sins" which are not specifically named as sins in the Bible. They are simply portrayed in their true light as being below the ideal for God's people.

Regarding the quail, David spoke of this.

"They soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel: But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul." (Psalms 106:13-15, KJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

MM, killing is not God's will. That should be clear by considering:

a.What God is like.
b.How Jesus lived.

God did not intend that the Israelites establish a community founded on violence. For example, He said that He would fight their battles for them. Had they allowed Him to do that, no Israelite would have died. But they chose to gather up swords and fight their own battles, which led to much suffering and death.

God had to work with the community as it existed, so it included Him giving counsel that was not according to His ideal will. For example, He gave counsel in regards to divorce and polygamy.

God's ideal will was expressed in Jesus Christ. From Him we learn the truth about polygamy, divorce, killing, whatever.

The things you list are not of the same order.

a.Killing is explicitly stated as being a sin.
b.Meat-eating is not even implied as being a sin.
c.You may be right regarding alcohol (implicit).
d.One could say polygamy is an implicit sin, since it doesn't say anywhere "Thou shalt not commit polygamy," but based on Jesus' teaching, it's pretty easy to connect the dots.
e.There is nothing wrong with being wealthy.

I certainly agree that the overriding goal of one's life should not be to become wealthy, but one can become wealthy in many ways. If one owns a business, the business can prosper. If one owns stocks, the stocks can multiply in value. One can inherit money. One can be promoted for being a good worker. Etc.

Daniel was rewarded for his service to God. He was the third in the kingdom. I'm sure he was very wealthy. Yet not one sin is recorded in regards to Daniel. It seems very difficult to make the argument that Daniel was somehow sinful because of his wealth. How would one argue this?

Similarly Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and many others were wealthy. They were wealthy because God blessed them.

I'm focusing on this one point because it is quite surprising to me to see it on a list with killing.

Ok, we've gotten off the topic question again (which is fine, I don't mind discussing whatever comes up, but I'm still interested in the topic question).

Given that polygamy is a sin, what commandment does it violate? That it is a sin can be established from the spirit of prophecy:



If one wishes to discuss the question, "Is polygamy a sin according to the Bible"? we can open a topic to discuss that. However, this topic assumes that polygamy is a sin, and is asking if, given it is a sin, does it violate the seventh commandment.

Hasn't this horse already recieved enough beating?

I will not argue on this last point, but the Bible says nowhere that Daniel was wealthy. You are imagining that. We have no way of either proving it, nor disproving it. It is, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion, and it is unsafe ground for proving your point.



Well, I've already presented scriptures which show wealth as being below the standard. You may accept or reject them on your own free will. However, on this point of killing, I think that for the record we should clarify this.

The Bible does not teach that it is wrong to kill. Such is not a Biblical concept. It is a Buddhist concept. Buddhists believe it is wrong to kill. I've watched my Buddhist friends just let the mosquito bite them, or maybe try to wave it away...but smash it? That would be unthinkable to them, for it is killing!

In the Ten Commandments, the King James Version (which I happen to use most and like best) has mistranslated the "killing" commandment. It should read "Thou shalt not murder." I simply cannot imagine anyone going very far astray on this point. Considering that God sometimes ordered killing, and blessed those, like David, who killed for His honor, this would seem like a huge contradiction for a God who says "I am the LORD, I change not!" You will not find any of the other Ten Commandments where God ever gave commandment that they be broken...but if you understand "Thou shalt not kill" in the light which it appears, then it would be the exception.

Based on my firm belief that God does not contradict Himself in this fashion, I would have to say of a certainty that the seventh commandment and "polygamy" are, in like manner, treating separate topics. The seventh commandment does not address polygamy, just as the sixth commandment does not address killing as required by justice, war, or self defense. (Remember, it was a law given by God from Mt. Sinai that a thief could be killed in self defense, without penalty--Ex. 22:2. Are they any others of the Ten Commandments which could be broken in any circumstance without penalty?)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Daniel was third in rank of the most powerful kingdom on earth. How could such an individual possibly not be wealthy?

He was certainly powerful. The same argument you made against wealth could be made against power, couldn't it?



You rejected Daniel, because the Bible didn't specifically say he was wealthy (although, again, I would wonder how the third in rank of the most powerful kingdom on earth could possibly not be very wealthy), but what of the others on the list? Was it not God who made Abraham and the others wealthy by blessing them? How was Abraham being "below the standard"?



When you were talking about killing, I thought you were talking about killing human beings.

You said that "The sinfulness of wealth is implied, but not expressly stated, just as with that of meat-eating, killing." How is the sinfulness of killing implied? What do you have in mind in saying this? It seems you were giving examples to show it's not a sin at all. So why did you write that the sinfulness of killing is implied?

To say, "Thou shalt not kill" is not the same as "Thou shalt not kill any man, woman, or child." It is a very broad, categorical statement which must, if taken to the extreme literal, include any form of killing--and it is exactly such a belief that the Buddhists adhere to, which is why I used the example I did.

As for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, two of the three had four wives each. This was a part of their "wealth," and gave them more "wealth" in the form of children as well. Isaac, you may recall, though the child of promise was not an only son, and had seven brothers. No mention is ever made, in the Bible, of any rebuke from God for their multiple wives, and God spoke directly with both Abraham and Jacob (face to face).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, are you saying it was God's will to fight His enemies for the COI? How would He have done it? Send hornets to sting them to death? Send hornets to drive them out of Canaan? Where does it say it wasn't God's will for the COI to destroy the Canaanites with the edge of the sword?

If God originally intended to simply use hornets to drive the Canaanites into other territories and not to sting them to death, why did He command the COI to utterly kill every Canaanite, every baby, every child, every man, every woman, every grandparent, and every great grandparent? Why didn't He simply command the COI to chase the Canaanites into other territories?

No. The 7th commandment prohibits adultery, it does not prohibit having more than one wife at a time. Adultery is a married person having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. In cases involving polygamy they are having sexual relations with their spouses.

Earlier on this thread I explained which commandments are broken in cases involving unlawful polygamy.

Why would God want to use the edge of the sword to gain the victory? That goes against all we know of God as revealed by Jesus Christ in His life and teachings. Jesus taught, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." Not even once did Jesus Christ advocate violence as a means of achieving God's will. He clearly taught the reverse.

How did the Israelites get their swords? From the Egyptians. God did not instruct them to do so. He said He would fight their battles for them.

We have several examples of how God fought for the Israelites when they trusted in Him. For example:

Tom, did God ever command the COI *not* to use swords against their enemies in battle? If so, please cite references. Please don't piece together several unrelated quotes and conclude with a personal observation. Just post a quote where God specifically forbade or commanded the COI not to use swords in battle because it is contrary to His will to for His people to kill their enemies. Thank you.

Now, in light of the following passages, who commanded the COI to utterly kill every Canaanite, every baby, every child, every man, every woman, every grandparent, and every great grandparent? Who commanded David to cut down his enemies with the sword? Who commanded the "angel of the Lord" to unsheathe his sword and kill 70,000 Israelites?

Exodus
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. 32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Deuteronomy
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

Numbers
22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

Joshua
11:12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, [and] he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded.

1 Samuel
15:33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

2 Samuel
23:10 He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the LORD wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil.

1 Chronicles
21:14 So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

We've already got a thread for this. Let's discuss this (killing) on that thread. Sorry if this was my bad.

This doesn't work, MM. The problem is that if your logic here were true, then clearly one who is divorced would not be committing adultery. Yet Jesus says that unless one has legitimate grounds for divorce, if one remarries, one commits adultery. He also said that if the divorced one remarries, that person is committing adultery. The problem is that just became man performs a marriage, does not mean that the two being married by man are married in God's site.

The same problem occurs with polygamy. Jesus taught that *one* man in joined to *one* woman. That was the whole point in referring back to Adam and Eve.



You said the first three, right? Why did you choose those?

Tom, my logic is right. You cannot marry someone who is already married. In the case you cited, it would be committing adultery to have sexual relations with someone who is married, who is not divorced. Again, nowhere is lawful polygamy condemned or forbidden. Under the Jewish Theocracy, there were specific circumstances that required a man to have more than one wife.

But there were circumstances when having more than one wife was a sin. Certain kings, for example, married more than one wife in order to form alliances with neighboring nations. The law of Moses, however, did not allow for this exception, therefore, it was unlawful and sinful.

Such marital alliances indicated they distrusted the promises of God to protect them. In essence, their wives were false gods and idols, which is akin to taking God's name in vain. Thus, polygamy in these cases, were a violation of the first three commandments.

Lawful polygamy?





I thought you agreed that polygamy was a sin. I've cited these before. Polygamy called a sin, a violation of the law of God, contrary to God's will, never sanctioned a single time. What do you mean "lawful polygamy"? How would this be different than "lawful adultery" or "lawful stealing"?

It's also akin to stealing (taking something not yours is stealing). Certainly covetousness is involved here as well.

Tom, how do you interpret it in the law of Moses where men are, under certain circumstances, required to have more than one wife?

Given that polygamy was contrary to God's will, which He never sanctioned, clearly it was something He permitted.

I'm glad you didn't name adultery, too.

The law of Moses didn't merely permit things, it commanded them.

It doesn't make sense that God would command that something contrary to His will, contrary to His law, a sin, something He never sanctioned a single time, be done. Therefore this idea must be rejected, if Ellen White's statement is to be accepted.

If God commanded polygamy be done, then He sanctioned it, by definition. In this case, Ellen White was wrong in her statement. It this what you're wanting to say?

If it's not, then God could not have been commanding polygamy be done, if Ellen White's statement is to be believed.

If you want to say that she's wrong, then your idea is possible.

It's not "akin" to adultery, actually being a violation of the 7th commandment, so that's a difference.

I'm asking you which commandment polygamy breaks, given that it does indeed break the law. You say it's "akin" to whatever, some of the first 3 commandments. But you state no logical reason for doing so, nor support your decision by any inspired text. You do so capriciously, because your theory demands it. (My reason for pointing out it was "akin" to covetousness is that covetousness is one on the second table, in which case your theory would fall, because then polygamy should be known to be a sin by instinct.)

But anyone can see that if polygamy breaks any commandment at all, it breaks the seventh commandment, in exactly the same way that remarrying after an illegitimate divorce does. There's no difference. The same exact principle applies, the one spelled out by Jesus Christ, that "in the beginning it was not so," and God gave one woman to be the wife of one man.

The fact that a man can get a legal marriage in a court does not make the marriage legitimate in God's sight. Legitimate marriage = one man/one woman, as Jesus explained. Beyond that is contrary to God's will, as I've demonstrated by the EGW quotes.

The same argument can be made from Scripture, btw, but it's less clear, and since you accept her writings as inspired, I just used her.

Tom, earlier in this thread the law of Moses was quoted where polygamy was commanded under certain circumstances. How do you explain this?

Bump for Tom.

I answered this. I said:



Did you address #99064?

Tom, I agree her comment must agree with the Bible. Here's what is written about the law of Moses:


It is clear God intended for the COI to obey the law of Moses. Therefore, her comment must apply to a specific context. Since it is plain that there were specific circumstances under which polygamy was "required", it stands to reason God never "sanctioned" polygamy under other circumstances.

I'm not following you. She wrote:



"Not ... in a single instance" means "not ever." Clearly God would not command something that was "contrary to His will."

You yourself agreed that polygamy is a sin. God wouldn't command us to sin, would He?

Tom, did you happen to notice the quotes I posted? What do they mean to you? We both agree polygamy is part of the law of Moses, right? Or, do you disagree it is part of the law of Moses?

---

TE: You yourself agreed that polygamy is a sin. God wouldn't command us to sin, would He?

MM: I also agreed there are certain circumstances where the law of Moses required polygamy. You believe God permitted polygamy, right? Well, is it a sin if God permits it?

It's clear what you quoted is in the law of Moses. It's not clear that Moses was commanding polygamy. A while back I quoted to you from a *Jewish* website that God had not sanctioned polygamy, so the ambiguity is present even among Jews.



You didn't answer my question, which is that God wouldn't command us to sin, would He?

Regarding your question, there are many, many accommodations for hard-hearted men in the Law of Moses. To mention just two, divorce was permitted for any reason at all. This was never God's will.

Secondly, there's a law which states that a woman's hand is to be cut off in certain circumstances if she gets involved in a fight. This is clearly something God permitted, as opposed to something which is an accordance with His will.

Polygamy is another example of something which is sin, but that God permitted. So, to answer your question, because God permits something does not mean it is not sin.

Sin is defined by the 10 commandments. Sin is the transgression of the law. We can also understand sin from the life of Jesus Christ.

TE: A while back I quoted to you from a *Jewish* website that God had not sanctioned polygamy, so the ambiguity is present even among Jews.

MM: I'm not comfortable with quoting modern day Jewish scholars to ascertain the truthfulness of what Moses wrote. Jewish scholars are famous for twisting the meaning of Moses to serve their silly, unbiblical customs. So, we agree polygamy was required, under specific circumstances, in the law of Moses, right? Or do you believe it was optional? If so, then please support your theory with inspired explanations. Thank you.

By the way, quoting the "not sanctioned" SOP passage doesn't specifically address the law of Moses where polygamy was required under certain circumstances. We already agree there were instances of polygamy in the Bible that were not permitted by God.

---

TE: You didn't answer my question, which is that God wouldn't command us to sin, would He?

MM: No, of course not.

---

TE: To mention just two, divorce was permitted for any reason at all.

MM: Not so. God spelled it out for them in the law of Moses. Divorce was not permitted for any reason.

---

TE: Secondly, there's a law which states that a woman's hand is to be cut off in certain circumstances if she gets involved in a fight. This is clearly something God permitted, as opposed to something which is an accordance with His will.

MM: No, it wasn't permitted, it was "commanded". For example, when Moses was uncertain what to do about the guy caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath, God commanded him to stone the guy to death. That was God's will.

---

TE: Polygamy is another example of something which is sin, but that God permitted. So, to answer your question, because God permits something does not mean it is not sin.

MM: Interesting. Not even a sin of ignorance? I mean, why would someone suspect they are sinning if they are obeying the law of Moses? Was Moses guilty of sinning when he obeyed God's command to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death?

Jewish scholars have no ax to grind in regards to polygamy. I cited them because they also see, in addition to Ellen White, that God did not sanction polygamy.



Have you been reading what I wrote? Rather than my repeating myself again, why don't you summarize what you think I've been saying in regards to this question. You've asked it several times, and I've answered it each time.



I've noticed in our discussions a certain difficulty in dealing with logical expression having to do with universal quantifies and existential quantifiers. You seem to confuse the two. You often try to prove a universal quantifier by citing an example showing the universal thing happens. But that's not a proof. A universal quantifier in the positive sense could be disproved by providing a counter example, but not proved unless one listed ever possible case.

Here we have an opposite error. Let's take a look at the statement:



What this means is the following:
1.Polygamy is contrary to God's will.
2.He did not sanction it in a single instance.

The second sentence means "not ever," "not even once." It does not mean "except in special circumstances." It cannot mean that, because it's a universal quantifier. If there were special circumstances, the statement would be false.

Also, of note, is the point that it was contrary to God's will. Now God may permit things contrary to His will, but He does not sanction such things, because "sanction" means to approve of, and it's nonsense to say that God approves of something contrary to His will, since things contrary to His will are things He does not approve of.



Polygamy is a sin, as you stated earlier. Therefore God did not command polygamy.



No, MM, it wasn't God's will that women's hands be cut off. It wasn't God's will that people be stone either. Obedience was God's will, not mutilation or death.



No, God's permitting something does not mean it is not a sin of ignorance (lots of negatives there; this is like a triple negative, and ignorance is a negative thing too).



Because they weren't obeying it. The Pharisees come to mind here.



Jesus said, "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone." Was Jesus sinning when He said this? Shouldn't He have obeyed the law of Moses, like the Pharisees thought?

What about the people who did obey the law of Moses? Were they guilty of sinning? For example, in the case of polygamy, were they guilty of sinning because they obeyed the law of Moses? Did God sanction the law of Moses? Or, did Moses misunderstand God and add things to the law that God did not sanction?


He did obey the law of Moses, right? He commanded them to stone her, which was in accordance with the law of Moses. So, what do you think? Was Moses guilty of sinning when he obeyed God's command to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death? Or, did Moses misunderstand God's instruction?

MM, it seems much more likely that you are misunderstanding things here, and that God did not command anyone to sin. You agreed that polygamy is a sin. If God commanded it, then He commanded sin. But you agreed that God would not command anyone to sin. Therefore He did not command anyone to be polygamous.



If Moses acted like Jesus did, He was not guilty of sin.

Then why is polygamy permitted in the law of Moses? Does God permit sinning?


What is your answer? Was Moses guilty of sinning when he obeyed God's command to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death?

God permitted divorce too. Actually, in their ignorance, God permitted many, many things. If we want to see what God's ideal will was, and is, we have but to look at Jesus Christ.



My answer is that if Moses acted as Jesus did, he would not be guilty of sin.

Does God permit sinning?


Did he act like Jesus when he obeyed God's command to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death?

I don't know what you're asking here. Please try asking it in another way. I pointed out that God permitted divorce. God also permitted polygamy. You recognize that polygamy is a sin. I'm not understanding how you still have a question here.



When did Moses do this? (stone a Sabbath-breaker to death)

Who is our example? Is it Moses, or Christ?





If you wish to understand the ways of God, look to Christ!

TE: I don't know what you're asking here. Please try asking it in another way. I pointed out that God permitted divorce. God also permitted polygamy. You recognize that polygamy is a sin. I'm not understanding how you still have a question here.

MM: Where does it say in the Bible, in the law of Moses, that God "permitted" polygamy or divorce? And, if it is indeed a sin to have more than one spouse at a time, or to get divorced, why, then, did God permit either one? God does not officially permit someone to sin, right? That is, He would make provision for sinning in the law of Moses, right? Obviously, then, it is not sinning in those cases, under those circumstances, where God instructed the COI how to legally get divorced and to how legally have more than one spouse.

---

TE: When did Moses do this? (stone a Sabbath-breaker to death)

MM: You honestly don't remember the story? Here it is:

Numbers
15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Are you suggesting this action misrepresents the character of God? Do you suspect Moses was deceived? Did God really command him to stone the guy to death? Or, did Moses misunderstand God?

I can give a specific reference for divorce, but not for polygamy. That polygamy was permitted we infer from the fact that it wasn't prohibited. Here's where the Bible says that divorce was permitted:





"Because of your hardness of heart."



"Officially"? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Jesus said divorce was permitted because their hardness of heart. God is gracious. He winks at times of ignorance.



It's not an accountable sin, if that's what you're asking.

Regarding the stoning story, yes, I think there's certainly a misunderstanding of God's character involved here; certainly on the part of the COI.

TE: "Officially"? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Jesus said divorce was permitted because their hardness of heart. God is gracious. He winks at times of ignorance.

MM: Ignorance? They weren't ignorant, were they? I mean, God spelled it out in detail who could get divorced and who could have more than one spouse, right? Indeed, they weren't ignorant; instead, they were obeying the expressed will of God as carefully articulated in the law of Moses. There were no sins for God to wink at. Unless you maintain that God officially permitted sinning in the law of Moses.

---

TE:Regarding the stoning story, yes, I think there's certainly a misunderstanding of God's character involved here; certainly on the part of the COI.

MM: So, when God commanded Moses to stone the guy to death, do you think God was testing Moses, and that he failed the test?

I don't understand you, MM. Jesus said:



So clearly divorce was being permitted, since it says "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives," the operative word being "permitted."

EGW comments:



What is it you are taking issue with?



No.

TE: So clearly divorce was being permitted, since it says "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives," the operative word being "permitted."

MM: Are you associating what God permitted in the law of Moses with "Christ came to correct these evils" (quoted above)? If not, then do you agree that what God permitted in the law of Moses is not a sin, that He didn't permit people to do things that are sinful, that people are not guilty of sinning if they obey the law of Moses?

---

TE:Regarding the stoning story, yes, I think there's certainly a misunderstanding of God's character involved here; certainly on the part of the COI.

MM: So, when God commanded Moses to stone the guy to death, do you think God was testing Moses, and that he failed the test?

TE: No.

MM: Well, then, what do you believe. I keep asking this same question because I keep hoping you will answer it plainly. Here is the question again:

When God commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death, was Moses acting like Jesus when he stoned the guy to death?

Divorce was permitted, but it was an evil. It, and polygamy, did not cease to be evil because they were permitted.

Regarding the stoning question, the same principle applies to this incident as to the other incidents you're asking about. It's no different. Because of the hardness of men's hearts, God permits certain things. To try to determine God's ideal will by studying the COI is hopeless. If you want to know God's will, look to Jesus Christ.

When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, the law of Moses commanded that such be stoned. See how Jesus Christ handled the situation. This is God's ideal will.

TE: Divorce was permitted, but it was an evil. It, and polygamy, did not cease to be evil because they were permitted.

GC: Nor did the eating of meat, nor killing, nor the use of wine cease to be evil because they were permitted. However, all three of these were not simply permitted--they were also commanded at times. As MountainMan has pointed out repeatedly through this discussion, polygamy was also commanded in certain circumstances. Genesis 38 has a fairly graphic portrayal of this type of polygamy. The ones whom God killed in this story were so punished because they wished only to enjoy the rewards of this polygamy without bearing the responsibilities of it.

I have sat out of this discussion for a time, and I marvel at the length of it without a conclusion. The fact is that the truth is progressive. What God allows due to our ignorance may change when we have become more fully aware of His requirements. Ellen White has written much that is not found in the Bible and which further defines the line between good and evil. Simply put, those lines were not always defined. This does not mean the line did not exist, but it does mean that God did not require us to abide by lines that were beyond our understanding.

It is my firm belief that what we look upon so harshly as sin today may not always have been counted as sin, even though it certainly always fell short of the glory of God. When Ellen White uses the word "sanctioned" in that passage which you have quoted, it is my belief that she meant to say that God never recommended, commended or advocated this. This does not mean, however, that it was not commanded. A captain in the army might never say that killing was a good thing, in spite of the fact that he commanded it of his troops. God never told David that killing was good, but He commanded and prospered him in his conquests of the heathen nations around him. In fact, God said that because he had been a man of blood, he was not permitted to build God's temple. Nonetheless, David had been obedient to God in killing Goliath and others.

Back to the crux of the issue: The Ten Commandments do not forbid polygamy. The seventh commandment forbids adultery. Adultery, by definition, means sexual relations with someone to whom you are NOT married. Marriage, then, legalizes this act--and there is no specification in the Ten Commandments regarding the number of times one may marry.

TE: When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, the law of Moses commanded that such be stoned. See how Jesus Christ handled the situation. This is God's ideal will.

GC: It was also God's ideal will that Moses obey Him as he was told. Had the stoning been forestalled or foregone with some kind words as Jesus did in the New Testament, Moses would have been sinning by breaking the express commandment of God. So, was Moses like Jesus? I would say yes. Jesus also obeyed His Father.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thanks for your contribution GC! You're brining up very good points to discuss.



MM and I have a gift for this. (Rosangela's no slouch either)



I agree completely.



I agree, with the caveat that I believe much of what EGW says actually can be found in Scripture, but many just don't see it there. However, there are certainly things she wrote which cannot be found in Scripture.



I agree completely with this as well. This is just common sense. However, sometimes people don't apply common sense to these situations, but there's no reason not to, and you've expressed the thought well here.



Lest you get a wrong idea, I've been speaking in logical terms, regarding a subject of interest. I don't have any special burden to speak against polygamy, nor would I view those who practice such any more negatively than any other sinner, including me, the chief of sinners.



To sanction something is to put your stamp of approval on something. I can see permitting something to be done without sanctioning it. It's difficult to see how a command, if by command one means a direct order, like in the military "You must be polygamous!" would not be sanctioning it.

In the EGW quote we see polygamy described as an evil, as contrary to God's will. How can God order someone to do something contrary to His will? That doesn't make sense to me. I can see God permitting someone to act out of harmony with His will, for the very reasons you pointed out. Especially in the OT, Jesus had not yet come, so there was much darkness and ignorance in relation to God's character. So I can readily see God's being gracious in His dealings with the COI and others, and permitting many things contrary to His will, but I don't see how God would insist that someone would be done contrary to His will. Say a person refused on moral grounds to do something which is immoral? Would God be displeased that someone refused to transgress His law, which is the very definition of morality? Or is the law changeable, and what is the moral thing varies from time to time? (e.g. based on what God is currently saying)



Is the legalization of the act something man does? Or something God does? Jesus said, "What God had put together, let no man tear asunder." Do the simply act of a human government pronouncing a couple to be married in fact constitute a relation that God has "put together"? If so, then are gays really married in the sight of God just because certain governments recognize these couples as being married?



We can't have God's ideal will being contrary to His ideal will. Unless you think His ideal will varies depending upon circumstances, like in situation ethics.



Why? Does this make sense? If Moses understood God's character as Jesus did, and revealed it in the same way that Jesus did, that would be sin? So sin does not depend upon what you actually think, say and do but on who you are?



There's a difference between Moses and Jesus. As John put is, the law came through Moses, but grace and truth have come to us through Jesus Christ. John also said, "No one has seen God at any time. His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like." (John 1:18).

This is not to denigrate Moses in any way, but he simply did not know God as well as Jesus Christ did. It's not that God's ideal will changes, or what constitutes obedience to the moral law changes, but, as you pointed out, the understand of what constitutes morality changes. God, being gracious, accommodates man in his ignorance and hardness of heart. But morality doesn't change. As you pointed out, the line doesn't change. Man's comprehension of the line changes.

Where does the line lie in reality? That's where Jesus Christ comes to the forefront. Not Moses or David or any other human being. We see the clear demonstration of the character of God in Jesus Christ. By Him morality is perfectly defined, and the ideal will of God is made known.

As we seem to be agreed on the majority of my last post, let me now answer the latter portion of your post where you had questions.


If you choose to define your lines by "His ideal will", then I am inclined by that definition to accept situational ethics. I cannot believe that it is God's ideal will to destroy people in hell. But it will happen. And it will be His will. This term "ideal will" is a rather odd concept. You are basically, in using this term, addressing God's meta-cognition. That's a lofty ambition, and not one that I'm inclined to attempt myself.


What you are saying Tom, if I have understood correctly, is that Moses should have treated the Sabbath-breaker as Jesus treated the prostitute caught in adultery. Is this correct? If this is your conclusion, then I must respectfully disagree. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and nothing short of the knife plunging toward Isaac's heart satisfied the Divine command. Should Abraham have reasoned that this was an un-Christlike act, and therefore abstained? Hardly! It was through his obedient act of faith that he entered Heaven's Hall of Fame. Moses, in like manner, was given a Divine command to stone the Sabbath-breaker. To disobey God is to sin. To argue against God is to place your own wisdom above His--which is foolish at best. God commanded Aaron not to grieve for his sons when God struck them dead--what kind of command was that? Yet we have no record of Aaron's disobedience on this point, and in spite of the seeming insensitivity of the command, faith is the better part of reason.


That you should quote John in this manner to put a difference between Moses and Jesus is interesting, considering that Ellen White has made clear that the law is an image of Christ's character: "To abrogate the law of God is as impossible as it would be for God to abolish Himself. The law of God's kingdom is a transcript of His character." Jesus is not different from the law. Moses, in presenting the law, was presenting Christ and His character. (And of course, Moses did not speak his own thoughts, but by God's direction.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, it is amazing to me that you believe the law of Moses permits people to do things that are evil and contrary to God''s will. That a person can be guilty of evildoing by obeying the law of Moses is amazing to me. It represents an oddity that God would risk being misunderstood by commanding Moses, when he inquired, to kill the Sabbath-breaker, instead of taking the opportunity to explain His ideal will.

In the following passage nothing is said about God permitting evildoing in the law of Moses. Indeed, it says, "He had not set aside the law given through Moses..." Why didn't Sister White take this opportunity to explain that the law of Moses permits evildoing, permits things contrary to the will of God?


As Green Cochoa said, the law of Moses is a revelation of God's character, as such it allows for mercy and justice - two important traits of character.

God has made it very clear that His will is that the wicked live, not that they be destroyed.



Why do you think that God's will is that the wicked be destroyed? God has demonstrated time and time again that this is not the case. Here's another example:



I'll cite just one more:



Well, I said one more, but I remember another:



So it's very clear to see that God does not will for the unrighteous to be destroyed.



It's not odd at all. It's simply a way to express what God wants vs. what He permits. For example, God permits anyone to choose to be lost, but His choice is that all be saved.



No, not correct. What I said is that from Jesus' treatment of the adulteress, we see God's ideal will in terms of how she should be treated. In other words, if God Himself were present during the incident, we see in the actions of Jesus Christ how He Himself would have acted. Now if Moses, or any other human being, would have acted in the same way that God Himself would have acted, it's really difficult to see how this could be characterized as "sin."




No, that wasn't my conclusion.



I think you're taking a dangerous course here. It is in Jesus Christ that we see what God is really like. You seem to be assuming that God can say anything at all, even things explicitly contrary to His law, or to His will, and we should simply do them, because it is God who is speaking. This way of thinking implies that God wishes that we obey simply on the basis of His authority, as opposed to our being convinced that His principles are correct.

Given that the at the end of time Satan will be impersonating Christ, if God (or Christ) is capable of commanding us to do things contrary to His law, how do you propose to know who is speaking, Satan or Christ?



The law of God is an expression of God's nature, which is "the service of love." How could God command us to do something contrary to His nature, contrary to "the service of love"?

God does not desire mindless obedience. He desires that we obey Him because we are convinced of His character, that He is good, and that His law is good.



A slavish obedience is one that obeys only because God speaks. This is not what God desires. He desires that He be loved and obeyed because He is worthy of love, because we have an intelligent appreciation of His character.

Anyway, I'm drawn back to my questions of how it could possibly be sin to act in the same way God Himself would act in a given circumstance, to obey His law?



I'm not the one advocating that we should act contrary to the law! I'm saying that it is Christ who perfectly demonstrated what keeping the law looks like. If we act the way Christ did, we will obey the law.

My point is simply that Christ is greater than Moses.



I simply state that if we wish to understand morality, which is to say obedience to the law, we should look first to Christ, not to Moses.

A second point is that morality is not situational, is defined by the 10 Commandments, is perfectly demonstrated in the life of Jesus Christ.

It's even more amazing to me that you think God would command people to do things that are evil and contrary to God's will!



That a person can be guilty of evildoing and acting contrary to God's will by obey a direct command of God is even more amazing to me!



Why didn't she take this opportunity to explain that the law of Moses commands evildoing, commands things contrary to the will of God?



The law of Moses is not the revelation of God's character that Christ is. As John points out, through Moses came the law, but through Jesus Christ came grace and truth.







If we wish to know truth, we must learn from the master teacher, through whom come "grace and truth."

Then why does God destroy them? Nadab and Abihu? Uzzah? Sodom? Hell? The Deluge? Are you saying that God acts in contradiction to His own will?


Because I cannot believe that God would DO something that was against His will. I have faith that with God, there are no contradictions, and that He does not lie.


Who sent the fire that destroyed those 100 men in Elijah's day?


Here is basically the crux of our disagreement: the definition of "will." The word "will" can mean more than one thing. I think we may in the end agree if we can but understand this word. "Will" can mean "want" or "desire." It can also mean "ordain" or "choose." You have been looking at the former, while I have been pointing out the occasions for the latter. None of us here would say that God WANTS to destroy people. But He does ordain it. He must. His law of love is too strong to permit the sinners to live forever to their own misery. His law of love is too strong to permit them to hurt others without consequence. His justice will protect the righteous from those who choose to be His enemies. His law of love has given them the choice, and He respects that choice, even though they should choose the way of death.


Alright, but did God merely "permit" the flood? hell? the death of Uzzah, Nadab, & Abihu? I think you must accept that God ordained these things. Nadab did not strike himself dead; God acted proactively to cause it.


God Himself would have acted as Moses did, for it was God Himself who told Moses to do it. Why do you not ask Moses about the time that "Moses" acted as "Christ" and "Christ" acted as you see "Moses" having acted? I refer to the time that God told Moses to stand aside so that He could destroy the Israelites. Moses saved them by his own pleadings on their behalf.


Then I have somehow failed to understand your logic. It seems illogical to me that Moses could have both stoned the Sabbath-breaker in obedience to God, and dispersed the crowd who would stone him as Christ did in the New Testament, since you seem to be saying that it is both un-Christlike to stone him and un-Christlike to disobey God's command.


If I believed that God would say "things explicitly contrary to His law," then I would not be believing in God. That is simply not an option, my friend! The fact that God DID say them, then, is final proof of the fact that He has expressed His will. If you are not convinced that His principles are correct, it is still far safer to obey Him simply on the basis of His authority, than to choose a different course because of your doubts about His wisdom. "Be not faithless, but believing."


This must be accomplished in the same way that Abraham did--by continual communication with God so that you recognize His voice. "My sheep hear my voice..." I think the story of Abraham is given to teach us this very lesson of implicit trust in God, and that we must be able to recognize His voice.


You are speaking truth here, but it only represents part of the picture. Of course God wants us to obey him because we love him. But in one of Jesus' parables, the concept of implicit obedience, whether we desired to obey or not, was also taught. The son who did what his father asked, even though he had first said he would not, was the one who had obeyed. I believe that if we ever exalt our own reasoning above a "thus saith the Lord," we are on shaky ground. If God gives a command, we are always safe to follow it without question--so long as we know His voice. God will never instruct us to do something expecting that we should reason it out in our own minds first, and possibly do something different than what He has asked.

Green Cochoa, I think you will discover in time that Tom's view of the wrath and vengeance of God is entirely different than anything you have heard before. Perhaps not. He does not believe God is proactive in punishing and destroying impenitent sinners. The examples you cited (Nadab and Abihu? Uzzah? Sodom? Hell? The Deluge?) are things that happened for reasons Tom believes quite differently than you or I.

In a nutshell, Tom believes when circumstances force God to withdraw His protection that Satan has permission to employ the forces of nature to kill sinners. He applies this principle to every example of death and destruction you read about in the Bible. He even interprets the following passage to reflect this idea:

GC 614
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}

He believes that the way holy angels cause death and destruction is by ceasing holding back the evil angels and giving them permission to do it. Of course it is true there are times when God and holy angels stand back and allow evil angels to employ various means and methods to cause death and destruction. But it is not true that this accounts for all the examples of death and destruction in the Bible.

Tom, lest this thread become derailed, let me say - We both agree that the law of Moses permits men to have more than one wife at the same time under certain circumstances.

The difference between us is that you believe people who act in accordance with the law of Moses are ignorantly guilty of sinning, ignorantly guilty of evildoing.

Also, please answer the question - Was Moses guilty of sinning, guilty of evildoing, when he obeyed God's command to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death? You have artfully avoided answering this question plainly. You have danced around it without actually answering the question. Please do so.

I'm skipping to this part, as I think it covers what you wrote previous to this.

In regards to what you wrote here, I agree, although I think there may be a bit of difference in what we mean by certain phrases. Specifically I'll comment on the following portion:



The first sentence I agree with completely. The second one I would say "permit" as opposed to "ordain." I cite the following:



Regarding the fourth:



I would put it this way: "His love is too strong to continue the existence of sinners forever when that could only mean continuing their misery." People do not have life in themselves. God must give people life for them to live. On top of that, sin leads to death. So for a person to live forever, God would have to continue giving them life, and also not permit them to suffer the results of their sin, which is death.



This seems quite a bit off topic. I'll just make the quick observation that Scripture often presents God as doing that which He permits. For example, Scripture says that "God kills Saul." That would appear to mean that God is acting "proactively." However, the true meaning is that God permitted it to happen.



God Himself would have acted as God Himself actually acted. The best proof of how God would act is how Jesus Christ acted. He is the light of God. It was His job to reveal God. So completely did He do so that He said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

Regarding the time that Moses pled for God's people, surely you agree that it was God's will that Moses do so. God did not really wish to destroy the Israelites. As noted before:



So Moses, in pleading for Israel, was not asking God to do something He wasn't already disposed to do.



I made no comment in regards to the behavior of Moses. I simply commented on the behavior of Christ. I said that if we wish to know God's ideal will, we should look to Christ.



We are told that polygamy is sin, and contrary to God's will. Since sin is defined as transgression of the law, if God commanded it, then He commanded something contrary to His will and contrary to His law. I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I understood you to be saying that God commanded polygamy.



If one is confused regarding the principles involved, how does one know who one is following? To know that it is God speaking and not Satan impersonating him, one needs to know God's character and His principles.



I don't see how one could possibly recognize God's voice without knowing His character or His principles.



That we obey God because we love Him wasn't the point I was making. That's involved, of course, but the point was that God desires that we obey Him because He is worthy of love, and because we have an intelligent appreciation of His character. Not on the basis of His authority, but on the basis of His character. His authority flows from His character. The only obedience acceptable to God is obedience that is 100% voluntary, obedience that flows from a heart utterly convinced of the rightness of God's ways.



A "thus saith the Lord" without understanding is exactly what a slavish obedience is. God does not desire a slavish obedience, but desires that we obey Him because we have an intelligent appreciation of His character. He wants us to do right not simply because He says so, but because we ourselves are convinced that it is right.



How is this different than slavish obedience? Either God expects us to use our reason in following Him or He doesn't. If He doesn't, then that is exactly what a slavish obedience is. A slave doesn't think, he just does what he's told. Jesus tells us:



A friend is someone who acts in the best interests of his friend because he loves his friend, understands him, and knows what he wants. Jesus has told us "all things" so that we could follow Him by engaging our reason. He has no desire that we should disengage our reason in following Him. Indeed, any voice that one hears that suggests that reason should be turned off must be highly suspect.

I don't believe every incident of death and destruction is due to evil angels. At least not directly. Indirectly Satan is responsible for all death and destruction since if it weren't for him, there wouldn't be any.



She hit the nail on the head with this one. We are so ignorant of God's protection of us, from "a thousand dangers" (Satan is just one) that we don't realize He's doing anything at all. So then when something bad happens, we assume it's God doing it, since we never realized His protecting hand from the "thousand dangers" to start with.



Permitted, but not sanctioned.



I never said this, right? Nor would I say this. So I would not state our difference as such.

To get back to the topic, I raised it because you agreed that polygamy was sin, but thought it was not sin against the seventh commandment, which I thought was rather a fantastic idea. It's very easy to see how, given it's a sin (which you agree to) that it would be in violation to the seventh commandment, because the seventh commandment was set up as a protection to marriage, and polygamy quite obviously has to do with marriage.

However, rather than recognize this, you believe that polygamy is a violation of the commandment to not have other God before you (any sin could be sin as this in some way), a violation against the commandment go have idols (ditto) and a violation against the commandment not to use God's name in vain (I can't guess what you're reasoning is here, assuming you have some reason for affirming this). I don't believe you've stated that polygamy is a violation of the fourth commandment.

We really have gotten off track. 17 pages, and I still don't know why you would think polygamy is a sin, but not a sin against any of the last 6 commandments, but just against the first 3.



When the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, and stated to him that the law of Moses required that such be stoned, how did Jesus act? They were trying to trick him, but forcing him to either reject the law of Moses or to have the woman killed. They knew from His character that He would not kill the woman, because they had seen his mercy and compassion. So they thought they had Him.

How did He answer the question? He instructed them that "he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone." He neither had the woman killed nor disrespected the law of Moses.

I have tried to walk in Jesus' steps here. I have been careful not to disrespect the law of Moses. You have attributed some things to me that I would consider disrespectful of the law of Moses, but they are not things I have said. I have tried to be careful not to speak against either Moses or his law. I have no desire to denigrate Moses, but to uplift Christ.

The point I've been making is that if we wish to know God, we need to look to Christ. How did Christ act? That's God's ideal will.

God in judging another takes into account the light and knowledge a person has. God has not given me the job of judging Moses, or anyone else for that matter. So I respectfully decline the invitation to do so. I'll continue affirming that if we wish to know God's ideal will, it's easy to do so. When we see Jesus, we've seen the Father.

That's good. Because really, the "Law of Moses" is a misnomer. It did not come from Moses. It was God's law, and should more appropriately be credited to Him.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, this is news to me. I didn’t realize you allowed for times when evil angels did not directly cause death and destruction. Of the hundreds of places in the Bible where it says God caused the death and destruction of sinners, which ones did God cause directly and which ones did God give evil angels permission to cause directly?


Tom, here is what you did say:


What did you mean when you wrote – “Divorce was permitted, but it was an evil. It, and polygamy, did not cease to be evil because they were permitted.” In what ways are divorce and polygamy, when practiced in accordance with the law of Moses, considered “evil”? Are you associating what God permitted in the law of Moses with "Christ came to correct these evils"?


Please keep in mind what I said about the differences between polygamy as it was practiced in accordance with the law of Moses and polygamy as it was practiced in contradiction to the law of Moses. When practiced in harmony with the law it was not a sin, but it was a sin when not. When kings had multiple wives for political reasons, they were in essence making idols of them, which misrepresents the name of God. Given the fact they were married, though, is clear evidence they were no more guilty of violating the 7th commandment than those who were practicing polygamy in accordance with the law of Moses.


Another nice dance, Tom. Which is frustrating since your entire argument rests on reinterpreting the Bible to suit your theory that "God destroys no one" (5T 120). So, refusing to comment on whether or not Moses was guilty of sinning, when he obeyed God’s command and stoned the Sabbath-breaker to death, makes me think you cannot defend your position in light of the facts of this case. In other words, you cannot support your theory in the face this case, so you are hiding behind an unreasonable unwillingness to answer the question.

I've said this many times, MM. I've quoted the "thousand dangers" passage to you as well.



This is the wrong thread for this discussion.



You're phrasing things awkwardly here. For example, when you ask "In what ways are divorce and polygamy, when practiced in accordance with the law of Moses ..." which assumes that divorce can be practiced in accordance with the law of Moses, as if God desired divorce! But God hates divorce:



God hates divorce (and violence).

Do you disagree that divorce is an evil? Do you disagree that God permitted it?



The evils Christ came to correct are delineated here.



From the SOP:



This is clear that there was never a time when God approved of polygamy.



This makes clear that polygamy is a violation of the law of God, a sin. Notice the reason is tied to "the family relation." Notice it is not limited to kings (if you look at the context, you can see she's not talking about kings).



Not a helpful comment.



My argument is based upon the principles I've been laying out.

1.Jesus Christ fully revealed God's character.
2.The law warns us of acts which are destructive.
3.There are two roads, the road of self, and the road of agape. God does all He can to get us on the agape road.
4.Force and violence are not principles of God's government.
5.Force is the last resort of all false religion.
6.Satan tries to fool us in regards to God's true character by blaming God for things he does.

Are these principles unscriptural?



It seems to me you're trying to put me in the same box the Pharisees were trying to put Christ into. Christ did not speak against the law of Moses, nor against Moses. But He didn't stone the woman either. In a similar vein, I am not speaking against either Moses or the law of Moses, but am explaining that Christ's actions demonstrate God's view of this matter.

My point is that God's ideal will is revealed by Jesus Christ. If we wish to know how God wants someone like the adulteress brought to Him to be treated, we have but to see how Christ treated her.

Honestly, I can't see how anyone could disagree with this. Christ was God in the flesh, and His mission was to reveal to us what God is like.

Whether one has committed sin depends upon the light which one has. God, in judging Moses, or any of us, takes these things into account.

Tom, you still haven’t explained what you meant by - “Divorce was permitted, but it was an evil. It, and polygamy, did not cease to be evil because they were permitted.” Are you associating what God permitted in the Law of Moses with "Christ came to correct these evils"? In other words, when God included divorce and polygamy in the Law of Moses was He permitting people to practice evil?

Also, where does it say God “permitted” polygamy, the “duty of an husband's brother to her”? For example, if God intended for us to understand it in terms of permission, rather than a command, why didn't He say so? Why did He say instead that a man "shall" perform "the duty" of a husband's brother unto his wife to raise up children on is behalf? The words "shall" and "duty" do not give the impression it was optional.

Deuteronomy
25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
25:6 And it shall be, [that] the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [which is] dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
25:7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and [if] he stand [to it], and say, I like not to take her;
25:9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
25:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Exodus
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
21:10 If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.


No, they are not unscriptural, but the way you apply them is. Yes, you are working hard not to speak against the Law of Moses or Moses himself, but you are not stating your position clearly. You are being intentionally vague and elusive, which is anything but helpful. Jesus plainly upheld the Law of Moses when He said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Which is exactly what the law required.

Since Jesus was not the one who caught them in the act of sinning the law did not give Him permission to cast the first stone. If Jesus had stoned her to death He would have been a law breaker. He would have been guilty of sinning. So, of course He didn’t stone her. But more than this, Jesus also knew the Pharisees had set her up, that she was more innocent than guilty in the matter. The Law of Moses permits mercy in such cases. Jesus demonstrated this aspect of the law. But there is nothing "evil" about capital punishment as commanded in the Law of Moses. It represents God's will.


What about the Law of Moses? Does it reveal God’s ideal will? Or, does it reflect His compromised will? What is the difference between the two? What were the circumstances that prevented God from expressing His ideal will in the Law of Moses? What forced Him to compromise?

Also, why did God command Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death? Why didn’t He express His ideal will when Moses inquired of Him what to do with the man who broke the Sabbath?

It was God's idea to stone the guy to death - not Moses'. You seem to be saying executing capital punishment is evil. And, yet, here we see God clearly commanding Moses to kill the guy. This doesn't coincide with your view of God, does it?

What's unclear about this? I meant:
1.Divorce was permitted.
2.Divorce is an evil.

That divorce was permitted is made clear by Jesus' comment:



That divorce is an evil is clear, isn't it?



I'm associating the evils with divorce and polygamy.



That the levirate marriage was speaking of something permitted. That God was not sanctioning polygamy by this custom is a point made even by some Jews, which is why I gave the web site I did as a reference. It is by no means clear, even without considering the SOP, that was was sanctioning polygamy, much less ordering it.

Now when we consider the SOP, there's no doubt at all.



This settles the issue. The interpretation you are suggesting cannot be. Why?

1.Polygamy was contrary to God's will.
2.God did not sanction it (much less order it) in a single instance.

It is worthwhile considering why polygamy was contrary to God's will. "He knew the happiness of man would be destroyed by it." Please note this has nothing to do with kings having multiple wives.



I'm not seeing this. I'm pointing to Jesus Christ, and pointing to how he acted. It seems to me this should settle the matter.

Regarding the law of Moses, it did not reveal God's will as fully as Jesus Christ did, which is the point I've been making all along. Nothing in the OT revealed God as fully as Christ did. That's why we should primarily look to Jesus Christ if we wish to understand God, and make sure any interpretations we make in regards to the law of Moses or elsewhere in the OT are in harmony with what we see in Christ.

Just remember:

GOD's Law, as given through Moses, IS a representation of His character.

GOD (not Moses) gave the death decrees, and the laws of capital punishment. Did I say "laws?" No, God's Word says this:



Here are some examples of the laws of capital punishment:



Interestingly, God commanded this system, and that of the "cities of refuge," which were the equivalent of "prisons."

God's own words commanded that form of polygamy which MountainMan has already outlined. When God gives laws for how to treat one's plural wives, it cannot be said that God is commanding men to do evil. Why do you think Paul in the New Testament makes a point of saying that elders in the church should be the "husbands of one wife?" It seems this would have been no issue if men never had more than one. God makes an issue of commanding that kings should not "multiply" wives unto themselves...but this begs the question, why did not God give this command to everyone?

Why, for example, did God command the Levites to marry virgins? Anyone else could marry a non-virgin, but Levites were special. Kings and elders are also special. The laws for kings were more strict. Proverbs tells us that it is not for kings or princes to drink wine, but let the dying ones drink, and those with "heavy hearts" so that they "remember [their] misery no more." Proverbs 31:4-7

Perhaps even more fascinatingly, I don't see any exclusion granted to the Levites in the law of receiving a deceased brother's wife. Shall we discuss this conundrum? Obviously, she would not be a virgin...but then we have this:



So, a Levite should NOT take a widow to wife. But what if his brother died leaving his sister-in-law childless? I guess he would be forced (permissible?) to be spat on and to have his shoe taken away, and to be called "the one that has his shoe loosed?" That doesn't sound very noble for a priest to be treated and respected this way.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

I think, Tom, that since you appreciate the writings of Mrs. White so well, you might enjoy reflecting on one of her statements which sheds light into her usage of the term "sanction," which you have touched on so well above.

Here is the statement:



Thoughts?

Here are some of mine: 1) Mrs. White may not have used the term "sanction" in the same way we do in today's English. 2) The same disparity exists here as that in our previous discussion related to the sanctioning of polygamy; namely, that of the use of flesh meat not being "sanctioned" by God.

Here is the same quandary of interpretation:

1) God does not "sanction" or "approve" the use of flesh meat.
1b) Ditto for polygamy
2) God gave commands requiring polygamy in certain cases.
2b) Ditto for eating flesh meat (e.g. Passover lamb)
3) God does not change.
3b) God's law does not change.

The interesting thing about the meat issue, is that God also gave the Children of Israel quail to eat. David writes about this historical event and says of it that God "gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul." (Psalm 106:15, KJV)



I won't speak for others here, but while I see polygamy as having been permitted by God in times past, I do NOT see God as having ever sanctioned it. The same is true of eating flesh meat, of drinking wine, of capital punishment (killing), of wearing jewelry, etc. Because polygamy was clearly permitted by God. Flesh foods were clearly permitted. Jesus himself both drank wine and ate fish (and I like to think the wine was the pure grape juice, but none of us has proof of this).

Again, while it may seem counterintuitive, I believe that a gift or a command does not necessarily constitute "sanction." It would seem that Ellen White's writings must also allow for this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I don't think she's using the word "sanction" in any unusual way. That is, the meaning of the word hasn't changed, and she is using it just like we would. Regarding the eating of meat, I think using this to compare with polygamy is problematic. For one thing, the reason EGW gives for meat-eating being a problem has to do with the health of animals having become worse, not an issue which has a counterpoint in regards to polygamy.



The quail is similar to God's granting their desire of a king. He would have preferred they ate of the food He was providing, just as He would have preferred to have been their king.



I agree.



I agree.

I think where a problem can come in is with the word "command." We naturally understand a command to be something akin to a military order, when a superior says, "Do this!" and the underling must do it. However, a command in Scripture may be more along the lines of what we would call a counsel. So while God did not wish for anyone to get a divorce, if they were intent on being divorced, then God, in mercy for women, for one thing, gave instructions on how divorces should be handled. The same logic can be applied to the things you included on your list.

So if we understand certain commands to be akin to counsels, then it is easy to see how God could "command" something without sanctioning it. However, if we interpret "command" in a militaristic sense, I don't see how we can see God as commanding but not sanctioning.

Tom, do you really not understand my question? I actually want to understand your point of view. As you know, once I understand it, I will be content and move on to the next point. Don’t be afraid to state your position clearly.

So, we both agree God permitted people, under specific conditions, to get divorced and to have more than one wife at a time. We both agree divorce and polygamy under conditions other than the ones God specified was not permitted, in fact, it was considered evil and sinful.

Now, my question to you is – In light of the quote you posted, what evils did Jesus come to correct? Are you applying this insight to the things God permitted in the Law of Moses? Or, are you applying it to the evil things the Jewish leaders permitted? Or, are you applying it to all of the above?


If polygamy was contrary to God’s will, and never sanctioned by Him, doesn’t it seem strange to you that He would make it a part of the additional laws He gave to Moses? How can we say God permitted it because of the hardness of Jewish hearts, when in reality no one was clamoring for it? In fact, the evidence makes it clear that anybody who refused to comply with the law regulating polygamy were dealt with in a humiliating manner, in accordance with God’s command. Here is it is again:

Deuteronomy
25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
25:6 And it shall be, [that] the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [which is] dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
25:7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and [if] he stand [to it], and say, I like not to take her;
25:9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
25:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Again, if God intended for us to understand it in terms of permission, rather than a command, why didn't He say so? Why did He say instead that a man "shall" perform "the duty" of a husband's brother unto his wife to raise up children on is behalf? The words "shall" and "duty" do not give the impression it was optional. Or, do you interpret these words in this context if a different way?

Tom, I agree Jesus is a fuller, more complete revelation of God’s character. But in so saying you seem to be implying God did not command Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death. Please answer the question plainly – Did God command Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death?

A couple of posts ago I wrote:

Apparently not!



Cool! I like it when that happens!



There is never a time when divorce is not evil or sinful. There may be an innocent party involved, so that this party is not doing anything wrong, but there's always at least one guilty party involved, and divorce is always an evil and sinful thing.



The quote is very clear, MM. It was the evil of divorce, given for trivial reasons, which Christ came to correct. He pointed out that divorce was granted by Moses because of the hardness of man's heart, but in the beginning God created Adam and Eve, one wife for the one man.



I'm applying it for exactly what the quote says:



The underlined portions speak to the evils which Christ came to correct.

Here it is described in the SOP:

PP 409
He was taken in the act and brought before Moses. It had already been declared that Sabbathbreaking should be punished with death, but it had not yet been revealed how the penalty was to be inflicted. The case was brought by Moses before the Lord, and the direction was given, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." Numbers 15:35. The sins of blasphemy and willful Sabbathbreaking received the same punishment, being equally an expression of contempt for the authority of God. {PP 409.1}

Regarding capital punishment and the phrases "as the LORD commanded" and "shall surely be put to death" the Law of Moses has the following to say. Of the 55 times that the phrase "as the LORD commanded" is use in the KJV, not once does it imply compliance was optional or open to discussion. Obedience was expected.

Exodus
7:6 And Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded them, so did they.

Exodus
16:34 As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.

Leviticus
16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Numbers
17:11 And Moses did [so]: as the LORD commanded him, so did he.

Numbers
31:31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Leviticus
20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Leviticus
20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.

Leviticus
24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Numbers
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Deuteronomy
13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
13:7 [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;
13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
13:11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

TE: There is never a time when divorce is not evil or sinful.

MM: Are you applying this insight to the things God permitted in the Law of Moses? Please state your position clearly. Thank you.

TE: The underlined portions speak to the evils which Christ came to correct.

MM: Are you applying this insight to the things God permitted in the Law of Moses? Please state your position clearly. Thank you.

No. I was applying my comment to divorce.



No, I was applying my comments to the points Christ made in the quote I cited, especially the portions I underlined.

Regarding the other post, we see in Jesus Christ how God treats people. This is His ideal will. If we wish to know what God is like, and how He treats people, and how He wishes we treat people, we can't go wrong by following the example of Jesus Christ.

Did God not "treat people" in Old Testament times? Did He wait to "treat people" until Jesus was manifest in the flesh?

Did Moses and other "Old Testament" people "go wrong" because they could not follow the example of Jesus Christ?

Did God somehow change dramatically from the Old Testament to the New?

These questions are all very important, because I see a growing trend to discount the first half of the Bible as being somehow "less inspired." I am interested in knowing your position on this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, it is impossible to study this topic with you so long as you continue to evade the topic. The facts are:

1. The Law of Moses permits divorce under specific conditions.

2. The Law of Moses permits polygamy under specific conditions.

3. It is not evil or a sin to get divorced in accordance with the Law of Moses.

4. It is not evil or a sin to have more than one wife at a time in accordance with the Law of Moses.

If you disagree with the facts, then it is up to you to prove it. So far you have not.

Please stop the accusations. I answered your questions directly. I had answered them previously in great detail.



Yes, and Jesus specified what these conditions were:





The SOP says that polygamy was not sanctioned even once by God (hence not by the law of Moses), and was "contrary to His will."



This isn't addressing my point. My point was that divorce was an evil. I pointed out that the innocent party needn't be doing anything wrong, but anytime there is divorce, an evil has occurred. God hates divorce. It's contrary to His will.



The words of Jesus, quoted above, make clear what God's will regarding marriage was. This can also be easily seen from Genesis.

I've presented the following from the SOP many times now:



You say I haven't proved this, but it's easily seen from this statement that polygamy is "contrary to God's will" and has not been sanctioned by Him "in a single instance" (this means it wasn't sanctioned in the law of Moses, since "not in a single instance" means "not ever").

Hence your assertion this was not proved is incorrect.

I've cited the following a number of times as well:



This defines polygamy as "a violation of the law of God," which is, of course, sin.

Sin is a violation of the moral law, which is to say, that which is contrary to God's will. That something is permitted in the law of Moses, or anyone else, does not make something which is sin not to be sin.

Do you agree polygamy was permitted in the Law of Moses?

MM, have you been reading the thread?

Yes. Why do you ask?


PS – I’m having trouble applying your thoughts on "permit versus sanctioned" as they relate to the Law of Moses in regard to polygamy. The man who refused to “perform the duty” toward his deceased brother's wife was shamefully branded – “The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” See Deut 25:5-10. She also "spit in his face".

You wrote, “There was never a time when God approved of polygamy. It is a violation of the law of God, a sin. It is an evil Jesus came to correct.” And yet you believe God permitted it in the Law of Moses. In my mind, you are implying, if not outright saying, God permitted sinning in the Law of Moses. This doesn’t make sense to me, Tom.

Because you asked me, "Do you agree polygamy was permitted in the Law of Moses?" If you've been reading what I said, you have no reason to ask this question.



As I've explained a number of times, God made accommodations to the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus refers to this in regards to divorce. To permit something means to allow for it to happen. To sanction something means to approve of it. God never approved of polygamy, in a single instance. This is what EGW means when she says, "God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance."

Sanction means "formal and explicit approval."



Actually Ellen White said that there was a never a time when God approved of polygamy. I just repeated what she said.

Jesus spoke of divorce being permitted because of the hardness of man's heart. Divorce is a sin, unless the person's partner had committed adultery. Do you disagree?

TE: As I've explained a number of times, God made accommodations to the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts.

MM: Are you saying God permitted them to sin because they were hardened by sinning? That's a weird way to help them cease sinning, isn't it?

---

TE: Actually Ellen White said that there was a never a time when God approved of polygamy. I just repeated what she said.

MM: Did she also say, as you do, that God permitted them to sin by giving them a law which permitted polygamy under specific circumstances?

---

TE: Divorce is a sin, unless the person's partner had committed adultery. Do you disagree?

MM: Yes, I agree. So divorce is not a sin under certain circumstances, right? And under those circumstances it is not permitted because of the hardness of the offended spouse's heart, right?

---

MM: The man who refused to “perform the duty” toward his deceased brother's wife was shamefully branded – “The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” See Deut 25:5-10. She also "spit in his face".

The Law of Moses concerning those circumstances where polygamy is "permitted" (if you please) is not worded in such a way that leads me to conclude as you have. How do you explain Deut 25:5-10?

Jesus said that Moses permitted them divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.



---



I didn't say this. You're question is extremely poorly phrased. I think you'd be better off quoting something I said, and ask me about that. Basically I just quoted her and said what she said. I don't recall doing anything other than that. If you think I did, please quote what I said. Please don't rephrase it as something you know I didn't say.
---



Good.



For at least one of the two individuals involved, divorce is the result of sin.



This is a poorly phrased question. You are speaking of a circumstance where divorce is permitted, and asking a question which has as a part of its premise "it is not permitted ..." What sense does that make?

Here's an analogy. In the state of California, on sunny days it is permitted to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet because of people's laziness. Question: Under these circumstances, it is not permitted because of people's laziness, right?

Hopefully you see the problem with asking a question like this.
---



Roy Gane wrote:



Please note especially the underlined portion. I think Gane is on the right track here. It looks to agree with the statements we've seen that polygamy is contrary to God's will, a sin, and never sanctioned by Him in a single instance.

Tom, by "permitting" polygamy in the Law of Moses did God permit sinning? Or, are there certain, specific circumstances under which polygamy is not a sin?

MM, I've repeatedly cited the SOP quotes which state that

a.God did not sanction (this means "approve") polygamy in a single instance (this means ever; i.e. God never, even once, approved of polyamy).

b.Polygamy is contrary to God's will.

c.Polyagmy became so common that it ceased to be regarding as a sin, but that didn't make it any less a violation of the law of God.

How can you read these things and not know the answer to your question? In particular, how is the statement that God did not sanction polygamy in a single instance not understood.

What is it you think constitutes a sin? How is it even possible that something which is contrary to God's will, contrary to His law, could sometimes be a sin and sometimes not?

Does this apply to other commandments as well? For example, the first commandment. Are there times when having some other god before God is not a sin?

Tom, your above (quoted) statement would be too clear to dodge if it were to be submitted in a court of law. It is quite clear that you are saying, without phrasing it thus, that:

ALL POLYGAMY IS SIN.

Particularly, point C stands out--for you have explicitly stated that polygamy is "a violation of the law of God." Few of us would ever misunderstand you to think that you are NOT equating polygamy with sin.

Now, here's the contradiction...you seem to misunderstand the question, and try to dodge the "bullet points" by throwing back at MM that, quote: "I didn't say this. You're question is extremely poorly phrased. I think you'd be better off quoting something I said, and ask me about that."

To be fair, perhaps you hadn't said exactly what MM had summarized, but the data was there for those who put a simple two and two together.

Now, let's assume for a moment, Tom, that you are correct in the following:

1) All polygamy is sin.
2) God never sanctioned polygamy (from EGW quote).
3) Divorce was "permitted" because of "the hardness of your hearts" (quoting Jesus).

I would like to ask you, as MM did, what is your interpretation of those "Levitical" laws regarding treatment of additional wives?

From your previous statements in this discussion to date, Tom, I, being an imperfect interpreter, would be forced to the conclusion that the only way you could logically hold to your expressed view, without contradicting yourself, would be for you to somehow undermine the "Mosaic" laws as not having been given by God Himself. For example, Exodus 21, where God is speaking from Mt. Sinai...must have been a work of fiction by Moses. Did Moses sin in writing these "fictional" laws?

God cannot be understood by our own finite wisdom and logic. Ellen White may very well be 100% accurate in her statements regarding God "sanctioning" polygamy. But, I tend to believe that God never exactly "sanctioned" meat-eating either. God was angry when He yielded to the request of the children of Israel for flesh in giving them quail to eat. Does it mean that, since God gave them the quail, we should all be eating quail? Does it mean that God sanctions the eating of quail? Of course not! The same is true here.

Polygamy may not be sanctioned, but it MAY be permitted and/or commanded. God commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites. Was Samuel lying when he told Saul "And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." (1 Samuel 15:18, KJV) Of course not. Then does God command all of us to do the same? Again, of course not. Did God "sanction" genocide? Of course not! But did He command it?

This distinction between "command" and "sanction" should be clear. To command is not always to sanction and to sanction is not always to command. The two are NOT synonymous.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

Angry how? Like we get angry? Ticked off? Became impatient?



I think divorce and polygamy would make a better comparison. It looks to me like your point is that while God did not sanction the eating of meat, he permitted it, as He did with polygamy. If this is your point, I agree with that.



I agree it could be permitted, but not commanded as the term is ordinarily understood. If you command someone to do something, then you become morally responsible for that command being executed. If polygamy is a violation of God's law and contrary to His will, then God would be moral responsible for the violation of His own law. I don't see the sense in that.



I would say no, not in the sense that we commonly understand the word "command." Again, if He did, He would be morally responsible for genocide. He would be sanctioning it.

It's the same as if you command your child to eat pork. You are morally responsible for the action your child undertakes. I don't see how in such an instance you could argue that you were not sanctioning your child's eating pork.



I agree they are not synonyms. Commanding someone to do something is stronger than merely sanctioning some action. You can sanction something without commanding it. To sanction is to formally approve of something. I don't see how you can command someone to do something, as we understand "command," without sanctioning it. For example, in the hypothetical case where you command you child to eat pork, how are you not sanctioning the eating of pork?

Regarding your questions about the law of Moses, I don't believe the law of Moses by any means represents God's ideal will. It was an accommodation made for a backward and stiffnecked people. God's ideal will was perfectly revealed by Jesus Christ.

For example, from Jesus Christ we learn that divorce was given as an accommodation due to the hardness of men's hearts. Surely no one would argue that the law of Moses demonstrates God's idea will in terms of how women should be treated. From Jesus Christ we learn that it is not "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" that is God's ideal will, but "turn your other cheek," "walk the second mile," and "love your enemy."

If I command someone under my control to do something immoral then I am responsible, but what if I command a free moral agent to do something immoral? Is it still my fault if they do it? Does it say anything about me if they do it or is it an indictment on the one who does it?

God seemingly told Israel to do a lot of thing, but in reality what they choose to do was indicative of the sin in their hearts. God told them to commit genocide, but they are the ones who willingly chose to do it, they are the ones responsible for doing it, and they are the ones with murder in their hearts.

We have the example of God telling Moses that He would kill Israel and make a nation from his seed. Moses refused and was called a man after God’s own heart. Had Moses agreed to God’s suggestion would he have reflected what was in God’s heart or his own?

scott

So, Scott, when GOD tells you to do something, you're going to just know that God didn't really mean for you to do it, since God doesn't mean what He says. You will know that you are supposed to use your own human judgment and wisdom in order to refuse the orders and deliberately disobey GOD. You will, in fact, be HONORING GOD BY DISOBEYING HIM.

Abraham should never have ascended Mount Moriah.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

Scott has committed the logical fallacy of starting with a false premise. The false premise he has used is this: "God may command us to do something immoral." I would invite anyone here to show me from Scripture even one instance of God doing this.

And Abraham is in God's Hall of Fame...

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

GC, how would it possible to show anything from Scripture where God commands one to do something immoral? Wouldn't you just automatically define anything recorded as a command as being OK?

Do the Scriptures record God as commanding:
a.genocide
b.cutting of a woman's hand as punishment for her getting involved in a fight between two men, one of them her husband
c.polygamy
d.taking any woman seen as attractive as one's own woman, after killing her husband

Are these moral acts?

Tom,

That's certainly a fair question. May I reply with a question?

What is "moral" about any of the following divine commands?

a. Commanding to stone a Sabbath-breaker
b. Killing an innocent lamb
c. Choosing a national punishment for one's personal sin (resulted in God slaying 70,000 in Israel)
d. Cursing the ground with thorns
e. Cursing women with labor pains in childbirth
f. Sending God Himself to a criminal's death!

Sin is a very drastic problem, requiring equally drastic measures of dealing with it. I don't believe in anything even close to what you have called "God's ideal will" applies to ANY of the methods of dealing with sin. Back to the fallacy of "false premise." Anything that claims to be "God's ideal will", and deals with treatment of sin and/or sinners, implies that sin must exist within the realm of "God's ideal will."

I am not God. I tremble to suggest what may or may not be His ideal will. But I choose to believe that "God's ideal will" NEVER held any place for sin. It was a perfect universe. Ideally, it would have always remained so.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, you wrote:



I mentioned 4 such instances, and you added even more. I'm a bit confused as to what your point is. Please explain.

Thanks.

Here is what it says in the SOP about the status of the Law of Moses:


She is clear:

1. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments.

2. These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.

None of the insights outlined herein support Tom's assertions that the Law of Moses does not illustrate God's will.

MM, just think a bit. Do you really think God wanted women's hands to be cut off?

You wrote:



It's amazing to me how often you misquote me! You're batting average must be something like 1 in a 100. I never said this. Please quote me. Please quote me. Please quote me.

I think that is a fair question.

My answer is that if God asked me to do something immoral I would absolutly tell Him NO! And I would use the authority of the law to back up my decision.

Simply put if God told me to kill you I would refuse. He would have to kill me instead!

scott

I always thought that morality was defined by the law? Does God position and power place Him outside the law or is the law a transcript of His character? Therefore when the law says "Thou shalt not murder it is a simply statement saying, "It isn't in God's character to murder! God doesn't murder!"

Hi GC,

I believe the false premise is yours. If God created you a free moral agent and tells you to jump off a cliff then the jumping is your fault, not His! Maybe He will suspend gravity or not, but that's up to Him.

Coming to God is not a voluntary revocation of our freedom, but a restoration of our freedom. The best way for God to show us the deepest sin in our hearts is to give us permission to act immorally and believe that we are carrying out God's will while all the time acting according to our own desire. The truth is a two edged sword that exposes the sin in our lives.

Don't you think that the safest place to live for eternity is with individuals who wouldn't sin against me even if God told them too?

scott

This is an interesting observation. Please flesh this out.

Yes, of course, otherwise He would not have included it in the Law of Moses. I have a question for you - Do you really think God intended for Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death? Or, was Moses too hardhearted and stiff-necked for God to command him to what He really wanted to do (i.e. let the guy off the hook)?


Here’s what you posted: “I don't believe the law of Moses by any means represents God's ideal will. It was an accommodation made for a backward and stiffnecked people. God's ideal will was perfectly revealed by Jesus Christ.” How did I misstate your position?

Green Cochoa already addressed the problem with your case. In addition to what he wrote, please consider the following points you have made:


In light of the case you have made, it seems rather obvious you believe God cannot, in good conscience, permit polygamy in the Law of Moses. It would mean, according to you, that God would be morally responsible for someone sinning if they acted in harmony with the Law of Moses as it pertains to polygamy. How can anyone conclude differently?

But, Sister White is clear:

1. “That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments.”

2. “These laws were to be recorded by Moses, and carefully treasured as the foundation of the national law, and, with the ten precepts which they were given to illustrate, the condition of the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.”

These insights make it clear that the Law of Moses represented the ideal will of God for Israel. Obedience to them was one of the conditions upon which God was willing to bless them and make of them a great nation.

Scott: Don't you think that the safest place to live for eternity is with individuals who wouldn't sin against me even if God told them too?

MM: God commanded the loyal angels to forcibly drive the evil angels out of heaven, to cast them down to earth. They obeyed God's command and "there was war in heaven".

God has also promised, "Affliction shall not rise up the second time." Thus, we know God will never ask us to war against someone in heaven or in the new earth.

You really think God wanted women's hands to be cut off? Forget about the fact that it's in the law of Moses. Please explain to me how you can think that God wanted women's hands to be cut off.



I'll defer to Scott on this, as I agree with his points, and he's dealing with this very subject.



You wrote:



What I wrote is very clear. I'm saying the law of Moses does not represent God's ideal will, and that Jesus Christ does. What you wrote makes it sound like I don't think the law of Moses illustrates God's will in any way. Can't you see the difference? If you can't, please just play it safe and quote me.



Permitting something is not the same as commanding it. I addressed my comments to God's commanding it. I also was careful to point out that I was speaking of commanding as we ordinarily understand the term to mean.

That God permits certain things in times of ignorance is in harmony with His character, and directly stated in Scripture, as well as there being countless examples of His so doing.



I agree with this.



Not at all! Jesus Christ represented the ideal will of God. She is clear about that, as is Scripture. John, for example, says that the law came through Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. What do you think he meant by that?



Obedience to the 10 commandments are the conditions of blessing, and that's not an arbitrary rule, but just a description of reality. As we live in harmony with the principles of God's character, principles of agape, blessings will follow. The law of Moses was an accommodation for a backward and stiffnecked people. It was the best directions God could give to these people, in the condition in which they found themselves. However, it's clear that these instructions are different than what Jesus revealed in the Sermon on the Mount. Why the difference? Because Jesus was neither backward nor stiffnecked. Jesus understood the love of God, and knew His ideal will, which He perfectly revealed.

How do you explain the difference between the law of Moses and Jesus' teaching? If the law of Moses was God's ideal will, then there should be no difference between it and what Jesus taught.

Hi MM,

You seem to be under the impression that God's government is a dictatorship. If that be the case then why does God desire to change our hearts and minds? Why not just command and kill all those who don't obey?

The reason sin doesn't rise again is because the hearts of the saved agree with God and the evidence of God's love and freedom make them worship Him crying, "Holy, Holy, Holy". They actually admire and adore His character and fully agree with the way He does things. This type of adoration doesn't come by force or command. That would be impossible!

scott

I recognize that we may be straying some from a direct conversation about polygamy, but I feel that we are getting deeper to the core of the issue, whereas polygamy is just a surface issue. Therefore, this discussion is getting the more interesting.

My point is that your interpretation of "moral" may be just your own opinion. Was it immoral of David to kill Goliath? In other words, I don't believe that any of the those was immoral. If God commands, we must obey, and to obey is the ONLY morally-correct choice we can make, for God does not lie, nor deceive.



When we do things FOR GOD'S HONOR, in obedience to His voice, we cannot go wrong, no matter what our fallible human reasoning may try to tell us. We can be thankful that Abraham did not spoil the lesson for future generations by reasoning that surely God did not mean what He said in telling him to kill his only son, the child of promise!

To answer an earlier question, yes, I believe God commanded genocide. To interpret any other way is rather difficult when the Bible expressly gives us this historical record. Again, the reason behind it is of paramount importance. God was merely using the children of Israel to execute judgment on those who had filled their cup with iniquities.

Tom, I understand that you believe God never destroys anyone. You believe that they are destroyed by the devil, or that they have self-destructed by their own sins. You feel that God merely "allows" this. Your view of God may change one day, but whether or not it does, I cannot accept this view--for it is unbiblical.

Do you know who was the very first being to kill?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

By so saying, you have also told us that you would never have passed the Abraham test. You would never have so much as begun a journey to kill your own son, even though you recognized God's voice as giving you that command.

Again, your view of God is flawed. You have elected to pass God's words and commands through a filter of your own reasoning to determine whether or not you can trust them. That is a very unsafe and unsound position to adhere to, and I wish I had eloquence enough to alert you to the danger, but I'm afraid I do not. Because anyone so confident as to trust his or her own reasoning above a "thus saith the Lord" will also be so strong-minded as to not be able to see light in another's presentation of the truth. I am not God, and even if I were, you would trust your own judgment above God's!!!

This scripture bears repeating:

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." James 1:13

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

Hi GC,

It seems like the only reason you can't accept Tom's view of God is two fold.

First it is because you have a fundamentalist view of the scriptures.

Second is that you don't accept Christ's authority over the scriptures. You have developed a picture of God through the prophets of the OT and then you try to add the revelation of God through Christ to your already developed view.

You might want to consider that in order to be fair to all the scriptures Jesus, in the NT, claims authority over the scriptures. And the very thing that Christ came to do was to reveal the character of the Father to those who memorized the scriptures, kept the Sabbath, and were very health conscience.

scott

Hi GC,



Had I Abraham’s view of God I probably would have done the same as he. The difference is that I’ve seen the Messiah who was sent to reveal God. The life and words of Christ are my moral standard. Abraham was raised in a time when it was common for the gods to require child sacrifice. Abraham didn’t wrestle with the moral implications of killing his son. His only problem was the fact that he loved his son and it was a hard thing to do to kill him. Abraham actually believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead or I doubt he would have done it anyway.

Anyway God didn’t want Abraham to kill his son. He wanted Abraham to experience what it was like to give up his son. Abraham was given a view into the heart and love of God. And the result was the end of human sacrifice for the children of Abraham. God changed Abraham’s paradigm from “I’ll appease God with the sacrifice of my Son” to “God will provide His Son to appease our need to experience His love”!

You talk as though we’ve never seen Christ and experienced God’s grace. Had Abraham known Christ the whole demonstration with Isaac wouldn’t have been necessary!

scott

On the contrary, had Abraham NOT known Christ, he would never have passed the test. Clearly, it was a test. The New Testament which you seem to prefer over the Old, says God does not tempt. Therefore, God was NOT tempting Abraham...do we agree on that point? Once again, your New Testament says: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?...Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

Abraham did not wrestle with the morality of it, because he had a strong faith in God, and a REAL relationship with Him. To know God is to love Him, and to love Him is to obey Him.

To NOT know God is to doubt Him, and to disobey Him.

It matters not to me how you choose to label me. You label me as a "fundamentalist." I'm not sure even what is meant by this term, except that you imply that you have a superior perspective or position. I don't personally hold to any particular view of scriptures which you are likely to be able to put a label upon. My interpretations of scriptures are based only upon the scriptures themselves, and not upon traditional interpretations of them. I would go so far, in fact, as to decry the use of the term "exegesis," for I have found that this term is frequently used to limit one's view to an understanding of God's Word to a very narrow scope. God is not so easily reined in, and His Word is rich beyond our finite imaginations. It can speak simply, at a child's level; and it can speak deep, fathomless mysteries, which scholars may study for eternity.

You have implied that God tested Abraham to cause Abraham to know Him. However, it appears to have been a test to see whether or not Abraham would obey Him.



Having passed this test, Abraham confirmed his place in God's Hall of Fame. Again, Mrs. White speaks of him:



What concerns me most about the views you and Tom are expressing here, is that someone who is not well-grounded in the truth might feel that God is not to be supremely trusted. That sometimes God tells us to do things which are not best for us, or are not a part of His "ideal will." Perhaps they might be led to reject the veracity of the Old Testament, for each of you have implied the New Testament is superior. To me, the Testaments BOTH reveal God to a lost and dying world. I do not accept your interpretation of Paul's writings to mean that the New Testament is in any way superior in this regard.

Light is truth. The Old Testament is a light. The New Testament is a light. The New Testament may have brighter light in some areas. But even a brighter light does not turn another light into darkness. Light shining upon light can only add to each other, and never subtract.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My interpretation of "moral" is that morality is defined by the law of God (10 commandments, the moral law). I'm pretty sure this is not just my own opinion.

Another interpretation of "moral" I would accept is that "moral" is how Christ lived. I'm also pretty sure this is not just my own opinion.

When I think of what is moral and what isn't, I think in these terms. What does the moral law say? What did Christ say? How did Christ live?



This was Scott's point. God commanded Moses to allow Him to destroy Israel and make him (Moses) the leader of a new nation. But Moses disobeyed. Was Moses being immoral? It seems by what you're saying here, Moses acted immorally in persuading God not to destroy Israel. Yet it seems clear to me that Moses acted in harmony with how Christ would have acted.



Sure we can go wrong. Catholics tortured and burned heretics for God's honor, and to save the souls of the one's they were torturing. They erred because they did not understand God's character nor His principles.



This isn't really what I was asking. I asked if the things I cited were moral acts.



How do you explain God acting so differently than Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ said we should love our enemies, but you see God as killing them instead.

How do you see the destruction of Jerusalem? Did God use the Romans to execute judgment upon them because they had filled their cup with iniquities?



Not just me!







It depends upon how one interprets Scripture. According to Scripture, Jesus was the perfect manifestation of God's character. According to EGW, the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. If we accept these principles, it's not difficult to see how God's judgment operates. There are tons of examples of this principle in Scripture. I've already asked you about one, the destruction of Jerusalem. Another example would be when God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites to destroy them. What happened here?



Yes. Satan.

GC, here's an explanation of what "fundamentalist" means:

Why do you think that I prefer the NT over the OT? Without the OT there is no objective prophetic evidence that Jesus is the Messiah. Without the OT Jesus would not have known His role to play in salvation.

I’m saying exactly what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3:12-16:



The NT is not inspiration to be added to the OT. It is a fulfillment of the OT, a new covenant, the message of the kingdom of God in the heart of the believer. The book of Hebrews makes this very clear showing Jesus as “better than” angels, Moses, Aaron, the earthly priesthood, the sacrifice, the author of a better covenant based on better promises.

My question is why do you see them as equal when the NT claims to be the fulfillment of the Old Covenant that couldn’t be fully understood until Christ? Do you not believe the NT?

scott

And MountainMan brought us Ellen White's statements regarding the law of Moses being given to further clarify those 10 principles. Yet, somehow, you have tried to say that this additional light, given by God Himself to Moses, was essentially outdated, or turned into darkness, by the coming of Jesus. But the way I understand the scriptures, this can by no means be!

Ellen White has given us counsel to beware of those who would thus try to turn light into darkness:


These are serious times we live in now. I do not trust my own judgment to be sufficient. I hold up the scriptures here, in their entirety, as the only safe standard of truth. As the song says... "Give me that 'old time religion'...it's good enough for me!" The only scripture that Jesus used, quoted, and told us to study, is still the majority of our Bibles today. It was, is, and always will be the truth and a revelation of God's character to us. Christ's example in hiding it in His heart is ours to follow.


Did God truly "command" Moses thus? I beg to differ. You change the Word of God to suit your own purposes. As you have said to MountainMan, so say I to you now: Quote the scripture! Quote the scripture! Quote the scripture!


You have here deliberately misrepresented my words. You ignored this portion of my statement, but it was important: "in obedience to His voice...." I do not accept that those you speak of here did so under Divine mandate.


Here is where you and I differ: I see God as being wiser than I. I see God as having the authority, the discretion, and the capacity to execute justice and judgment in whatever way He sees fit, without me judging God for the morality of His actions.

Having said that, I see great wisdom in God's acts of justice. The flood was commissioned by God to cleanse the earth of its wickedness. Any judgment against sinners in the times following have been for the same reason. One's focus here might be placed upon God's great mercy, love, and care for the innocent, the oppressed, and the righteous, in removing from them the menace of the wicked. If God does not listen to the cries of His children, how "moral" or righteous would that seem?



And who/what did Satan kill first?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

Thank you, Tom! I appreciate your helpfulness in clarifying that term.

Now, if I may clarify my own position, based upon that definition, I'm quite far from being a fundamentalist! On the contrary, I see depth in the symbols of the Bible that would make the average Daniel & Revelation Seminar appear mild. I oppose the classic "exegetical" view that only those two books should be interpreted symbolically. I have found much symbolism in Genesis, the Levitical ordinances, Psalms, all of the major prophets, most of the minor prophets, and in anything spoken by Jesus. I daresay there's hardly a book in the Bible without some symbolic value which would be missed if a strictly literal approach to scripture were taken.

Hmmm....was there some symbolic value to the polygamy?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually I said you had a fundamentalist view of the scriptures. That might or might not make you a fundamentalist depending on how far you take it.

No one likes to be labeled and I don’t mean to put you in a box. I’m sure you have your unique views that you consider your personal revelation. My observation is based on how you are unwilling to consider the scriptures as anything other than literal.

Did you know that the Jews down through history didn’t believe in a personal fallen angel that is at war with God? They believed, and still do believe, that every event that takes place is mandated by God and that all the evil that befalls man is God’s doing according to his direct and commanded dictate. All angels that we think of that cause evil for mankind are doing it at God’s command to test us.

This is the context that the OT was written in!

The very first thing that Jesus established when His ministry began was to be driven into the wilderness to face the Adversary. Jesus gave us the Great Controversy understanding of Satan and the war going on between good and evil.

scott

I simply do not believe your interpretation of that portion of Paul's writings which you have quoted. I interpret that differently, but it would be a lengthy discussion to explain it, for it enters the entire controversy of old versus new covenants. Many people misunderstand Paul. Of all the Bible authors, more questions and misunderstandings seem to come from his writings. I could point out to you that Paul was obviously not a perfectionist, and was somewhat careless in some of his writing. That said, I think it's a little unsound to focus inordinately on a particular word or phrase. With Paul, we must focus on the general thought or idea he is trying to express.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hi GC,

A fundamentalist doesn’t have a problem with symbols. They know Jesus wasn't a real lamb and that the High Priest represented Jesus.

A fundamentalist sees the bible as being funneled down directly from God, as being dictated by him, as not being affected by the human agent or possible even reflecting the human agents cultural and religious back ground. They believe that God is represented in every word and that every word is God's.

scott

Ok then!

Let's have at it. I have time!



Let's not focus on a word or a phrase, but on Paul's context. What is Paul saying to you!

scott

Scott,

You have again started with a false premise. That word "if" presupposes a possibility. I don't believe in the possibility you postulate. Therefore, there is no "if" when it comes to God asking me to do something immoral. It will not, and cannot happen!

The bolded sentence in that second paragraph is an eye-opener. Ouch! Read it again, and tell me that you really said that. God has NEVER given permission to act immorally! When God commands, we are always safe to obey. If obedience were ever unsafe, please tell me how you would be able to distinguish? The only way you could possibly answer this is to set your judgment above God's!

As for jumping off a cliff, if I knew it was God telling me to do this, I would do it. Obeying God is safer than the alternative. This reminds me of...



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

He's saying that people have not been open-minded enough to see the truths contained in the scriptures, including the books of Moses. He's saying that even after Jesus came to help them see more clearly, they still filter those timeless truths through the "veil" in front of their eyes. This prevents them from seeing the greater light that they might have recognized in those writings.

Paul's words are still true today.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hi GC,

So what is the veil that is taken away in Christ?

scott

You are contending that whatever God asks or does is moral, but if I were to ask or do the same thing it would be immoral. Therefore you are saying that God does not hold Himself to the same standard as you and I. He, in a sense, is above the law.

How could this be if the law is a transcript of His character? How could God tell me not to murder and then murder at will claiming that when He premeditates murder because of anger and jealousy it isn't murder, yet He defines murder in His law?

scott

Now you are becoming the literalist! Focusing on an individual word again. Most people, I recognize, interpret that veil to mean the "Old Covenant," which is a poorly disguised way of treating their view to the entire Old Testament. I do not espouse such an interpretation, I'll make that clear right now. Again, this goes deep...but the New Covenant is THE SAME COVENANT as the Old Covenant. As I said, this should be a topic unto itself, but if it helps us all to understand why Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (because He is God), then I hope we can take this to heart, and realize that the "Old Testament" (note that Jesus never referred to the scriptures using such a term) is in tune with the "New." They are one and the same--God's Word.

Back to the main thought...the "veil" is just a term Paul is using to express the idea that the people have been blinded to the full truth of the scriptures. Paul might have chosen the term "blinders" instead, except that I think Paul wanted to use a stronger term. Blinders only narrow one's field of vision. A veil more completely obscures the eyesight.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok. Let's get one thing straight. "Kill," in the Ten Commandments, is a mistranslation. I invite you to study into that and do the footwork yourself. Suffice it to say, it is NOT the same Hebrew word elsewhere in the Old Testament translated as "kill." It should have been translated as "murder." There is a stark difference between "murder" and "kill." God prohibited murder. God never prohibited killing, as long as it wasn't murder. Murder is a more narrow classification of "kill," and is confined to 1) people, and 2) a premeditated, unjustified act. I'm sure that you would agree, for example, that it was not "murder" to kill a lamb for the sacrifice. However, the commandment has most often been translated as "Thou shalt not kill." Such a translation makes people begin to equate the terms "murder" and "kill," when in fact, they are not the same.

God does not murder. He kills. When God acts, it is always justified.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think blinders would have been a great word, but specifically couldn't we say that the veil Paul is talking about is a misunderstanding of the Old Covenant when one doesn't see Christ in the symbols?

Oh . . . by the way . . . the word testament is the Latin word for covenant. When you say "New Covenant" you are saying "New Testament". Verbally there is no distinction. Same word in two languages.

scott

I agree 100% that God doesn't murder and I agree that the word used in the Exodus 20 is "murder" not "killing". There is nothing immoral about swatting a fly.

You made a point that murder has been defined, in the scripture, as "confined to 1) people, and 2) a premeditated, unjustified act". I agree, by definition, that murder can only apply to people. But you might want to separate "premeditated" and "unjustified" into two categories. I disagree that murder has to be premeditated. One can murder by simply getting angry and, in an act of passion, hit someone hard enough to kill them without any premeditation at all.

Also "unjustified" doesn't fit because according to your definition I can kill anyone as long as there is justification. An example would be for the United States military to decide that there are too many illegal immigrants so they start gunning them down as soon as they cross the boarder.

So I reject your definition of murder on two of the three qualities you mention. I would say that murder has more to do with motive. There are several legal considerations of murder. A few are self defense, manslaughter, and pre-meditated murder. The only difference between them is motive.

The bible mentions some of the motives defining murder as anger, jealousy, revenge, wrath, acts of violence, and selfish motives. And several of these motives are given to God as justification for killing . . . people. God wanting a certain land for Israel so He commissions them to kill whole nations every man woman and child. Anger, jealousy, and even revenge are contributed to God’s motives by the Bible writers.

Basically you put me in a position that I have to reject the motives that the Bible writers apply to God’s killing people or I have to accept the motive given and declare that God is above His law and can act any way He wants because He is the biggest and strongest and who are we to argue with God.

scott

Here’s how I explain it – God described His will regarding this matter in the Law of Moses. Jesus said, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”


Tom, Scott did not address this question. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? Either God expected Moses to obey Him or He did not, right? So, did God expect Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death or not? Was God testing Moses, and did Moses fail the test?


In what way do you believe polygamy, as it exists in the Law of Moses, illustrates God’s will?


So, are you saying God permitted polygamy under specific circumstances because (1) the Jews were ignorant? If so, then, (2) what were they ignorant of? And (3) why were they ignorant of it?


Does this mean you agree it was not a sin (a violation of the Law of God) for a Jew to have more than one wife at a time in accordance with the Law of Moses?


How can you agree with what she wrote above and yet also believe there is tension (contradiction, discrepancy) between what Jesus commanded Moses to write and what Jesus said while He was here in the flesh? Do you really think Jesus contradicted the Law of Moses? Do you think grace and truth undermines the Law of Moses?

I think John’s comment about law and grace and truth means – Moses merely gave us the law and the truth, but only Jesus can make it effectual in our life. There is no contradiction. Here’s how it is explained in the SOP:

DA 308
When the law was proclaimed from Sinai, God made known to men the holiness of His character, that by contrast they might see the sinfulness of their own. The law was given to convict them of sin, and reveal their need of a Saviour. It would do this as its principles were applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. This work it is still to do. In the life of Christ the principles of the law are made plain; and as the Holy Spirit of God touches the heart, as the light of Christ reveals to men their need of His cleansing blood and His justifying righteousness, the law is still an agent in bringing us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Ps. 19:7. {DA 308.2}


Tom, aren’t you treading on dangerous ground? Is it safe to say things that undermine the laws of God? Insisting that the Law of Moses contains certain ordinances and judgments that apply only to people who are in darkness and are ignorant of God’s “ideal” will for them is tricky business at best, right? Who am I to decide what applies to me and what does not?

I agree things are different under a Theocracy versus under the Church. Certain aspects, like the death penalty, can no longer be acted upon if the ruling government forbids it. But this doesn’t mean they were never God’s ideal will. Do you see what I mean? Jesus never taught us to disregard the laws of Moses as if they were faulty and did not represent God’s ideal will for the children of Israel.

Hello Scott, actually I do not believe God is a dictator or that His government is a dictatorship. I’m sorry you have that impression. I will try to be more careful not to say things that lead you to this unfortunate conclusion. God is the highest authority in the universe. His will and way is law. It is written, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.”

God’s will and way is not arbitrary. It is based on His holy, just, and good character. He commands FMAs (free moral agents) to obey His law because He designed them to live in harmony with it. It is the only way to experience peace and true happiness. He loves us too much to settle for less than best; thus, He insists we do what is best and right – obey His law. The consequences for not obeying His law are 1) We experience unrest and unhappiness as we suffer the penalty for breaking the law, which is punishment and death in duration and in proportion to our sinfulness.

The human race would not have survived the punishment and deaths of our First Parents were it not for the fact God implemented the plan of salvation after they sinned. By the grace of God we are granted probation to learn how to love and obey Him. But because we are allowed to sin and repent over and over again, we end up accumulating a serious amount of sin, which is more fuel for the fires of hell (if we do not choose to live for Jesus). Of course, in Christ we are free from sin, free from death.

"[If God is a dictator] then why does God desire to change our hearts and minds? Why not just command and kill all those who don't obey?" Even if God were a dictator why wouldn't He want to motivate us to obey Him? Dictators do what they do to motivate their subjects to obey the laws of the land, to prevent them from rebelling, so that the rulers can live a life of selfish ease. In the case of God, though, His reasons for motivating us to obey His law are unselfish. He wants what is right and best for us. He loves us. But if we refuse to comply with the conditions of salvation, then we must suffer the consequences as described above.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


Why wasn’t the law and love of God sufficient to motivate the angels not to rebel against God in the first place?

Did Moses misunderstand God's character when he obeyed His command to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker?

Numbers
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

You realize Jesus wasn't speaking literally here, don't you? Assuming you do, I'm not understanding why you would explain a statement of Jesus Christ's which is not literal to explain one from the law of Moses which is literal.

Also, I still don't know the answer to my question, which is why God would want a woman's hand to be cut off, or how you could think God would want such a thing.



I just liked the approach Scott is taking (better than what I would have said), and he's already talking about this.

By the way, I did address the question. I addressed it by saying I'm deferring to Scott.



I didn't say this either, did I? You're really good at this!



Quoting from Roy Gane again:



Regarding what the Jews were ignorant of, one thing, particularly germane here, is regarding how women should be treated.



Ellen White wrote:



A violation of the law is sin, right?



Because she's saying the same thing I am. The law of Moses was an accommodation for a backward and stiffnecked people. God was counseling them regarding the 10 commandments as best He could, given their ignorance and hardened hearts. However, Jesus Christ was not constrained by either ignorance nor a hardened heart. His revelation was perfect.

That there is tension, as you put it, is clear by the fact that Jesus said repeatedly on the Sermon on the Mount "you have heard" (quote from Law of Moses) "but I say unto you" (an explanation from Jesus). Why do you think Jesus did this?



No, not contradicted. He explained more clearly the principles of which the Law of Moses was given to explain. The Law of Moses was one explanation, Jesus Christ's was another. Jesus Christ's was better.



I don't know what you're asking here. Undermining wasn't an issue in John's statement. It doesn't have anything to do with undermining.



No, not the law and truth, just the law. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.



Contradiction of what?

John said that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ showed us what God is really like (see vs. 18, just a couple of verses later).



It depends. If God is as you think He is, then I'm on dangerous ground. If God is as I think He is, then I'm not.



Not the moral law. The law of Moses is no longer binding, so I don't see how I could undermine it.



The law of Moses is no longer binding. It was nailed to the cross. That should help you decide.



What I said was that Jesus Christ was a better revelation of God's ideal will than the law of Moses.

Do you think if the law permitted it that stoning Sabbath-breakers would be a good idea? Do you think it would be a good idea to cut off women's hands?

S: You are contending that whatever God asks or does is moral, but if I were to ask or do the same thing it would be immoral. Therefore you are saying that God does not hold Himself to the same standard as you and I. He, in a sense, is above the law. How could this be if the law is a transcript of His character? How could God tell me not to murder and then murder at will claiming that when He premeditates murder because of anger and jealousy it isn't murder, yet He defines murder in His law?

MM: Scott, there are plenty of things God can do that we cannot also do because we are not God. Recently I posted a quote from the SOP where she says it was okay for God to kill those who rebelled against Him but that it wouldn't have been okay for the Jewish leaders to have meted out the same punishment. But I cannot find that quote now. Nor can I recall the specific story she was commenting on.

GC, if Abraham had killed Isaac, would that have been immoral? I mean actually killed him, not just the preparations to do so. I'm guessing you would say yes, because of God's actions to prevent it. But if God had not taken action to prevent it, then there would have been nothing immoral about it (Please correct me if I'm guessing wrong regarding your thoughts here).

Assuming these guesses are correct, there is nothing inherent in the act itself, such as killing, which is moral or immoral. All that matters is what God says to do. So if God commanded us to kill someone walking down the street (not threatening anyone), I'm talking about now, today, we would be dishonoring him if we didn't kill that person. Have I understood you correctly?

You're probably thinking about the one about the flood.

Why are you asking this? I mean, how does your question fit in the flow here?

You've asked this question to me before. How did I answer it?

Of course Jesus was speaking literally. Almost everything that Jesus said has dual application: literal and spiritual/symbolic. I firmly believe it would be better to enter heaven physically blinded because I had cut out both of my sinful eyes, than to never get to heaven on account of them. Jesus is telling us here, in very straightforward manner, that the eternal is of greater importance than the temporal--even if it means our own bodies.


God may not want such a thing, but God knows what is best. You will never convince me that God wanted to give the children of Israel the quail either. Yet He yielded to them, and gave it. Did God want to afflict the Egyptians with the 10 plagues? But Pharaoh had hardened his heart, and God sent the plagues. We have no right to second-guess God. He is infinitely wiser than we are. Let Him be God, and let our own hearts be humble.

I don't recall seeing any record of a woman's hand actually being cut off. Perhaps they all feared the law, and obeyed. In any case, one or two cases would have been sufficient examples to the rest. God gave this law for a reason. Do you truly feel it was a worthless law? Do you truly believe you know better than God what laws He should make?


And perhaps how men should be treated too? Isn't that the purpose of the law we just discussed?


I sensed this coming. Most who disagree with the Law of Moses end up trying to claim it was abolished, and no longer applies. Unfortunately, this argument still does not work in your case, because you have conversely implied that at one time it was binding. So, if your case is true, during that time, was it a revelation of God's character to the people? Was it the truth?

Additionally, you have quoted Ellen White in making your case against polygamy, so I will now present a balancing statement from her pen which speaks of the "immutable" law. Immutable means unable to be changed--without exception. (I have bolded the relevant portion.)


Jesus said "Till heaven and earth pass...." Heaven and earth have not passed yet. That should help you decide.


Do you think you know better than God? Do you suppose you could have made better laws?

The law of God is as immutable as His character. It was an expression of His character. When we wish to become like Him in character, we begin by obeying His commands. "If ye love me, keep my commandments," Jesus said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It would have been sin for Abraham not to follow God's command. God knew what He would do...and what Abraham would do. God knew that Abraham would not complete the act because God would prevent it. But in his heart, Abraham fulfilled the Divine commission. Had he rebelled, and refused the orders, it would have been sin. It would have been sin for Abraham to mistrust God, or doubt that God knew what was best. Too often today, we question God. We have come to feel in our society that this is "higher reasoning." But it is NOT faith. God used Abraham to teach us a lesson in faith. And Abraham fulfilled the command perfectly.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No, He wasn't. It wouldn't make any sense for us to cut off our hand because our hand doesn't cause us to sin, our mind does.



You're eyes aren't sinful. Your mind is.



Not exactly, but that's close. Here's how EGW put it:



I think she nailed this one. This is exactly how I see it.



??? It's best to cut women's hands off? How does this explanation help? What is it better than? I suppose than not cutting them off. Why would that be? Why is a woman without a hand better than with the hand?



I completely agree with this.



Second guess, no; understand yes.



A slavish obedience seems to be precisely what you are envisioning. How is your view different than what a slavish obedience would be? A slave doesn't ask why, he just does. But God doesn't want us as slaves, but friends.



My point is that Jesus Christ reveals God's ideal will better than the law of Moses does. It's hard for me to believe anyone would believe that God's ideal will is that women's hands be cut off. Why would that be?



(I liked the way you built up "immutable". Bold before the word, then the word itself is LARGE and then back to just bold. Nicely done.)

Your quote is not talking about the law of Moses, but about the 10 commandments. Ellen White understood that the law of Moses was nailed to the cross.





This is speaking of the 10 commandments too. Not the law of Moses.



This is answering a question with a question, right? That doesn't really answer my question, does it?



The law of God, yes. The law of Moses, no. One is immutable. The other nailed to the cross. Two different laws are being referred to.

The law of Moses was not God's? Did Moses actually make up his own laws? I'm confused.

Since the majority of the difference between our viewpoints currently deals with these laws, I will refrain from answering the details we were discussing, and try to settle the fundamentals first. If we work from different definitions, it would be fruitless to try to understand each other on the details anyway.

A few points:

1) Jesus was nailed to the cross.

2) After Jesus was nailed to the cross, He became more precious to us.

3) After Jesus was nailed to the cross, the promised salvation became an actual reality. It was ratified and validated.

4) After being nailed to the cross, Jesus was not thus "abolished." Jesus was not destroyed. He lives today.

Upon what grounds, then, can you say that, contrary to these points, the law being nailed to the cross with Christ was "abolished?" For this, I need scripture.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok, since we're dealing with basic principles, let's go back a bit. Do you understand that there are two different laws involved, one of which was the 10 commandments which is immutable and eternal, the other one of which is not? If you don't believe the law of Moses was done away with, do you offer the sacrifices the law enjoins?

Col. 2:14 is the Scripture I (and EGW in the quote I cited) was speaking of. It speaks of a law being nailed to the cross.

In addition, there is much of Galatians and several chapters of Romans, and other writings of Paul, which explain why circumcision, which stood for the entire law of Moses, was no longer necessary. For example:

Tom, we are still not on the same page. The laws you have lumped together as "the Law of Moses" can be further subdivided. I divide these into these groups:

1) Ceremonial laws
2) Health laws
3) Civil laws

Or, to make it simpler, we could simply say:
1) Ceremonial laws
2) All other statutes

The only ones fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice, and therefore no longer needing to be followed, were the Ceremonial Laws.

While all of these laws may be popularly called "the Law of Moses," Ellen White makes clear from whence they came:



Let us seek to be wise.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Alright, for some additional clarity here:

I don't define "premeditated" in the same manner as does the US government. The government will also tell many people that they can get divorced, and can "legally" marry someone new. I don't define marriage the way the government does either. God's definitions are different.

"Premeditated," in my usage here, is as opposed to "accidental." If you choose to do it, then you made a decision before you acted. The killing, then, is not accidental. Biblically, this is murder. However, an accident, where no one had deliberately chosen to kill, was not considered murder. The Bible speaks of this as killing "unawares."

However, having thought about my use of the term "premeditated," perhaps a better choice might be "deliberate." That is what I meant.

As for "unjustified," the justification I speak of here, again, means Biblical justification. Again, I do not conform to the world's definitions here. This is a Bible discussion, using Bible terms, and as such, let us not waste time bringing the world into it when the Bible itself can be clear.

God defined the possible reasons for a legal (moral) killing. One was to execute justice on a murderer. It was the job of a kinsman of the one murdered to be the avenger. However, if they carried out their duty with hatred and hot emotion, God said they were themselves become murderers, and were to be killed by the same process. Their "revenge" could not be in a vengeful spirit. God claims vengeance as His own domain, not ours.

Another justified reason for killing would be as a witness to crime worthy of death penalty. The witnesses were to be the first to cast stones at the guilty one, following fair trial, and all the congregation would then join the witnesses in executing the judgment.

There were other reasons...but perhaps this is enough to clarify.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I didn't hear back on this one yet.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Regarding post #100278 you say



If this were true, wouldn't it follow that we should still be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath, and cutting off women's hands? (to just name 2 things).

You didn't answer the question I was asking. I am asking about the act itself. Would it have been an immoral act for Abraham to actually kill Isaac?

Regarding who Satan killed first: himself.

1. Cutting off a woman's hand or stoning the Sabbath-breaker to death was commanded by God. The Law of Moses represented God's will for the COI. He gave it to them to help them obey His law. It does not, as you seem to believe, reflect God compromising to accommodate sinful practices or hardhearted sinners. It does not make sense to me to say God commanded cutting off a woman's hand or stoning to death Sabbath-breakers because the COI were too sinful to grasp His ideal will. The idea that some people have that the COI could not respect and obey God if He was merciful and loving, instead of enforcing capital punishment, is absurd.

2. So, did God expect Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death or not? Was God testing Moses? And, did Moses fail the test? What thinkest thou? PS - Ignoring this question is not going to make it go away.

3. You wrote, "What you wrote makes it sound like I don't think the law of Moses illustrates God's will in any way." So, do you believe polygamy, as it exists in the Law of Moses, illustrates God’s will in some way?

4. You wrote, "A violation of the law is sin, right?" So, does this mean you believe it was a sin for a Jew to have more than one wife at a time in accordance with the Law of Moses? Did God permit sinning in the Law of Moses?

5. "Do you really think Jesus contradicted the Law of Moses?" In response to this question, you wrote, "No, not contradicted. He explained more clearly the principles of which the Law of Moses was given to explain. The Law of Moses was one explanation, Jesus Christ's was another. Jesus Christ's was better." Jesus didn't say anything that wasn't already written in the Pentateuch. “The truths which Christ presented were the same that had been taught by the prophets, but they had become obscured through hardness of heart and love of sin.” (MB 55) Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

6. You wrote, “The law of Moses is no longer binding. It was nailed to the cross.” But Jesus said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus taught the “same truths” Moses taught; He didn’t present something new or better or different or contradictory.

MB 55
Through Moses the Lord had said, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart. . . . Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Leviticus 19:17, 18. The truths which Christ presented were the same that had been taught by the prophets, but they had become obscured through hardness of heart and love of sin. {MB 55.2}

"... they had become obscured through hardness of heart and love of sin." You, on the other hand, seem to be saying the laws of Moses were given because of the hardness of their hearts. So, which is right?