Why did God command capital punishment?

Why did God command His people to kill sinners? For example, why did God command Moses and the COI (children of Israel) to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death? Some say it wasn't God's ideal will. Others add that the unholy, immature state of His people made it necessary for Him to command capital punishment. Still others say it was temporary until they were ready for God to show them a better way. Finally, others say God risked being misunderstood as being in favor of capital punishment.

1. If it wasn't God's ideal will, was it wrong of Him to command His people to execute capital punishment? Or, was it the best thing for Him to do under the circumstances?

2. If it was the unholy, immature state of His people that forced God to temporarily command capital punishment did He compromise in order to accommodate their defects and imperfections? If so, was it wrong of Him to compromise?

3. Why did God command capital punishment if He was afraid others would misunderstand it as Him being in favor of it? Since God commanded it, why would anyone think He was opposed to it?

4. Did God consider it an act of sin when His people obeyed His command to execute capital punishment? Did He expect them to obey His command?

5. If His people had refused His command to execute capital punishment would He have considered it an act of rebellion? Or, was He hoping they would refuse and explain that it is because it is not in harmony with His ideal will?

6. What was God's ideal way to deal with people who violated His law? For example, in the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, how would God have preferred to deal with them but couldn't because circumstances forced Him to command capital punishment?

I believe God commanded capital punishment because it symbolizes the final judgment, that is, it symbolizes the fact God will execute the wicked in the lake of fire.

It's like the counsel for divorce, given because of the hardness of their hearts. God's ideal will is seen in Jesus Christ. When we've seen Him, we've seen the Father. If we wish to understand God's character, that's where we should go.



It's like the counsel regarding divorce. Or allowing polygamy. Or giving them a king. Or entering into the Old Covenant with them. God did many things because of the hardness of their hearts. Again, we should look to Jesus Christ to understand God's ideal will.



Same as why He allowed polygamy, divorce, etc.



God would have preferred that people lived by His ideal will, as revealed in Christ, but He meets people where they are.



Jesus Christ had not yet revealed God's character, so this should be taken into consideration.



Look at Jesus Christ. See how He dealt with the woman caught in adultery. That was a revelation of God's ideal will.



This doesn't make sense to me. What makes more sense to me is that God was reacting to the circumstances, and doing what made the most sense given the situation of the people and what was happening. That God commanded capital punishment as a model in miniature for the judgment doesn't make much sense.

To understand the judgment, we should study Calvary. Trying to understand God by looking at the OT, while leaving aside Christ, is like using a candle instead of the sun for illumination. We've been studying these subjects for several years now, and how much time have we spent considering Christ vs. how much time on the OT? Maybe 1% Christ and 99% OT? Not a good ratio for understanding the truth about God, IMO.

A certain type of people have suggested that nowhere in the Bible can you find it speaks against polygamy. I have countered, but maybe what they really mean to say is nowhere in the Bible is there a direct admonition against polygamy.

So, keeping with MM's concept if I can't find an explicit statement, then allowed, and I should be able to have multiple wives and God would be ok with that. Right?

Kland, do you believe God commanded His people to have more than one spouse? If so, please post the passages that say so. Thank you.

PS - It would be nice if you answered the questions posted above. Tom recommended this thread hoping you would articulate the truth as to why commanded His people to employ capital punishment.

Was it wrong of God to command His people to execute capital punishment? Wasn’t it Jesus who commanded it? If it wasn’t Jesus, who do you think commanded it?


Did God (Jesus) command His people to get divorced, to have more than one spouse, to have a king, or to obey the law in their own strength? Would He have viewed it as rebellion if they refused to do these things? Do you agree God (Jesus) commanded them to execute capital punishment? If so, why?


Did Jesus command divorce, polygamy, etc? Do you agree God (Jesus) commanded them to execute capital punishment? If so, why? And, why would anyone think He was opposed to it?


Did God consider it an act of sin when His people obeyed His command to execute capital punishment? Did He expect them to obey His command?


Why didn’t Jesus reveal God’s character? And, since Jesus had not yet revealed the character of God, would He have considered it an act of rebellion if His people had refused to obey His command to execute capital punishment?


Do you think Jesus wanted to tell Moses to simply forgive the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If so, why didn’t Jesus say so when Moses inquired of Him? Do you think the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer were like the woman caught in adultery in that they were set up and led into sin? Do you think they were sorry for their sin and wishing to be forgiven?


Jesus did not come the first time to execute the final judgment. Instead, He came to pay our sin debt of death. True, He spoke fairly often about the final judgment, and when He did, He always cited the OT to state the truth about it. Why do you think Jesus cited the OT when He taught the truth regarding the final judgment?

While here in the flesh Jesus forgave sinners and commanded them to go and sin no more else something worse would happen to them. But He didn’t forgive everybody. Instead, He simply told them it was going to be worse for them during the final judgment than it was for the antediluvians and the inhabitants of S&G. Why didn’t Jesus forgive everyone like He did the woman taken in adultery?

You wrote, “What makes more sense to me is that God was reacting to the circumstances, and doing what made the most sense given the situation of the people and what was happening.” Do you believe Jesus commanded His people to execute capital punishment? And, was it wrong of them to obey His command? Was it a sin to execute capital punishment?

Sorry, I must have missed where Tom thought I would articulate the truth on this thread.

But why do you ask for where He commanded? It says God killed Saul. You say since it also says Saul killed himself, that's ok. But, in those cases where you can't find a specific thing contrasting with what God said, you say it's not true. So, wouldn't it follow if you can't find a statement contrasting with polygamy, it's not true that God is against it?

However, God did say not to kill. So what should we make of that in light of your above comments?

As far the other, besides what Tom answered, what about the other post, #123169, explaining a reason? As in, ideally.

It's of the same character as the counsel in relation to divorce.



I think these were, in general, of a similar character.



I think these were, in general, of a similar nature. As to why one would think God would be opposed to any of things, one would need to know God's character.



I think to see God's ideal will, we should and must look to Jesus Christ. The Israelites were a stiff-necked and ignorant people. We see God's ideal will, including His view of capital punishment, in situations like this in His treatment of the woman caught in adultery.



He came to reveal God. This was the "whole purpose" of His mission.



It should be clear from this to see why Jesus came. Surely "whole purpose" must encompass the reason.



MM, this was the Scripture of the time.



On the cross He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" This reveals the heart of God.



You can't forgive someone who doesn't wish to be change, no matter how much it breaks your heart.



Here was my comment:



In my opinion, if you wish to understand God, the place to look is Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, during the time when His whole purpose was the revelation of God.

Regarding the people in the OT, I think God would have been delighted if they had the heart of Jesus Christ, and, on that basis, reacted how Jesus Christ did.

Perhaps you see nothing wrong with polygamy.

Here's another case. Was it God's ideal will for them to have a king?

Perhaps we should discuss one thing at a time. It’s difficult to discuss polygamy, divorce, kings, Saul committing suicide, and God commanding capital punishment all in the same breath. Since this thread is addressing capital punishment in particular it makes sense to me to discuss it first. I hope you don’t mind. Please feel free to start a separate thread to discuss your other concerns.

Regarding whether or not something is allowed or disallowed based on what is written or not written: As it relates to capital punishment, God very clearly commanded Moses, and others, to execute capital punishment. There is nothing unclear, uncertain, or ambiguous about it. For example, God plainly commanded Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to death. Do you agree?

Yes, God commands us not to kill. However, the meaning of kill is murder. In other words, God forbids us to murder. Commanding Moses, therefore, to stone sinners to death does not violate the law. Do you agree?

And, as far as God’s “ideal will” is concerned, yes, of course, God would rather not be forced into situations where law, love, and logic require Him to command capital punishment. It would be much better if everybody lived in harmony with God’s will. But they don’t, so God is forced to do things He would rather not have to do. Do you agree?


You didn’t answer my question. Do you believe God commanded His people to have more than one spouse? And, do you believe He commanded His people to have a king? I assume your answer to both questions is, No! If so, does that mean you also believe God did not command capital punishment? Or, do you believe He did? For example, do you believe God commanded Moses to stone sinners to death?

Do I have your permission to assume you believe it was Jesus who commanded His people to execute capital punishment? And, can I assume you believe there was nothing wrong with Him commanding it or with His people executing it?


Would you mind answering each of the questions? I have no idea what you believe. Thank you.


Do you think Jesus commanded His people to do things He is opposed to, things He thinks is sinful? Or, do I have your permission to assume, No, you do not believe Jesus commanded His people to do things that were wrong or sinful?


Yes, the COI were stiff-necked. And, in particular, the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer were, unlike the woman taken in adultery, rebellious and unrepentant. Now, with these facts in mind, do you believe Jesus would have command Moses to forgive them and tell them to go and sin no more if it weren’t for the fact the COI were stiff-necked?


Amen! But do you agree that He did not come the first time to execute judgment?


Amen! Do you think those scriptures clearly explain the final judgment?


Amen! But do you agree He didn’t forgive everybody He encountered during His ministry? And, do you think Jesus expected His Father to forgive everybody involved in His crucifixion, that is, to treat them as if they have never sinned?


Amen! But do you think the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer (in the time of Moses) were like the woman taken in adultery? In other words, do you think Jesus would have forgiven them if it weren’t for the fact the COI were stiff-necked?


You didn’t answer my questions. Here they are again. Do you believe Jesus commanded His people to execute capital punishment? And, was it wrong of them to obey His command? Was it a sin to execute capital punishment?

The Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer were not like the woman taken in adultery. They were rebellious and unrepentant. Do you agree? If so, how did Jesus treat this kind of sinner while He was here in the flesh? Did He forgive them and command them to go and sin no more? No, of course not! So, how did He treat them? He merely told them they were going to be resurrected, judged, sentenced to death, punished, and then they were going to perish in the lake of fire. Do you agree? If so, how does this insight help us understand why Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death?

No. You have my permission to go with what I wrote in the previous post. I said several times that I view the counsel in regards to capital punishment to be similar in character to that regarding polygamy and divorce, which is to say that it was not an expression of God's ideal will, which is best seen in Christ, but counsel driven by circumstances, principally the hardness of their heart.

If you wish to see God's character revealed on this question, consider the woman caught in adultery. There we have, by far, the clearest representation of God's view of the matter. We have the words and actions of Jesus Christ in the very situation you're asking about.





We've discussed polygamy at great length, dozens and dozens of pages. If you have "no idea" what I believe regarding this, my writing one more small thing in the light of dozens of pages won't help, I don't think.

I think what I wrote, that these are of a similar character, is clear. God permitted certain things because of the hardness of their hearts.

I've been pointing out that the place to go to understand these things is Jesus Christ. We keep just talking about the OT. We've done this for years. We discuss what Jesus Christ did in the NT very, very little. I don't think this is the way to go.



Again, we've discussed polygamy and divorce in detail, and I pointed out several times that I believe that God's counsel in regards to capital punishment was similar in character to that of polygamy, and divorce. Because of the hardness of their heart, God permitted things which were not His ideal will. His ideal will is seen in Jesus Christ.

IMO you're going at this completely backwards. *First* understand God's ideal will as revealed in Christ. *Then* go back to the OT and try to make sense out of it.



I think God gave them counsel which was similar in character to the counsel He gave them in regards to divorce and polygamy.



I think we see God's ideal will revealed in Jesus Christ. Again, I think we should start out by studying Christ, ascertain what God is like from that, and use Christ as our foundation. Even holy angels were confused about things until the revelation of Christ.



You're talking about the final judgment, right? You're asking me if the final judgment took place in the past, 2000 years ago? No, it didn't. It will occur in the future, after the second resurrection.



What else would Christ have cited besides the OT? I don't understand why you made that point. I think Christ had a clear understanding of what the OT was saying. It was clear to Him. It's not necessarily clear to others. I think it was misunderstood by pretty much all of His contemporaries, and badly misunderstood today as well. I don't think the problem is so much the OT itself, but a lack of understanding on the part of people reading it.



There's two aspects to forgiveness. One is what's in your heart, if you personally have forgiven them, or if you're holding something against them, waiting for them to do something first before you'll forgive them. Christ's prayer reveals His heart, and the heart of God. Christ is forgiveness personified. From this perspective, Christ forgave, and has forgiven, everyone.

The other perspective is that forgiveness must be accepted, and for this to happen, there must be a recognition of the need for forgiveness (aka repentance). From this perspective, Christ could only forgive those who repented and saw their need for it.

For example, let's say I did something which you misinterpreted, and were made at me for years. I haven't done anything wrong, but you have wronged me. But I don't hold anything against you, and forgive you for being angry at me.

This is one aspect.

For our relationship to be healed, you must recognize that I haven't done anything wrong, and that you were at fault, and ask my forgiveness. Since I've already forgiven you in my heart, my saying "Yes, I forgive you," is simply my communicating to you what I was already feeling before you asked me. But you can't experience my forgiveness unless you acknowledge your error and ask to be forgiven.

Regarding the second question, yes, of course. This is the way God treats people.



Yes, they were alike. The woman caught in adultery was NOT repentant at the point in time that Christ forgave her. The goodness of God leads to repentance. It was because of the way that Christ treated her that she became repentant.

Regarding the last questions, they look to me like they've been addressed above.

In saying “no” are you saying Jesus did not command His people to execute capital punishment? And, do you believe there was nothing wrong with Him commanding it or with His people executing it?


I’m sorry, Tom, but your answer is unclear to me. I cannot discern from it if you believe Jesus commanded His people to get divorced, to have more than one spouse, to have a king, or to obey the law in their own strength, or if He would have viewed it as rebellion if they refused to do these things? In saying He “permitted” it are you saying He didn’t command it?

However, in this thread we’re discussing capital punishment. So, the question is - Do you believe Jesus commanded His people to execute capital punishment? Or, do you think He merely permitted it? Please consider the following passage: “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.”


You didn’t answer the question. Did Jesus command or permit His people to do things that were wrong or sinful?


You didn’t answer the question. Do you think Jesus would have pardoned the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer and sent them on their way with instruction not to sin again if it weren’t for His stiff-necked people?


Yes, I was referring to the final judgment. Do you agree He didn’t come to execute the final judgment? By the way, do you think He came the first time to execute some other judgment?


So, yes, do you believe Jesus used the OT to explain the final judgment. Did Jesus have to add information not in the OT in order to explain the truth about it?


I hear you saying Jesus has forgiven everyone, but we must acknowledge and accept it before we are truly forgiven in the salvation sense. But then your answer to the second question seems to say, yes, God forgave everyone involved in crucifying Jesus and treats them “as if they never sinned”. Which means, of course, they will go to heaven with Jesus when He returns. Is this what you believe?


Do you believe the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer would have repented had Jesus commanded Moses to forgive them? And, do you think they will be in heaven because Jesus knows it was in their heart to repent?

I said:

Why do you think I didn't answer your question?

Please read what I wrote above.



I'm saying that God permitted it, that it wasn't His ideal will, and if wish to know God's ideal will, look to Christ.



I believe Christ's attitude towards capital punishment was made clear in His dealings of the woman caught in adultery.



God permitted certain things because of the hardness of people's hearts. Remember the story of the hunter father who was constrained to give certain counsel to his son which could have been misunderstood by someone listening in to their conversation? To get God's view of things, we should look to Christ. How He treated the woman caught in adultery, how He responded to the disciples when they suggested destroying the Samaritans with fire from heaven, gives us understanding of how God views these things.



I think He would have treated them the same way He taught the woman caught in adultery.



Regarding the first question, didn't I just answer this? ("No, it didn't.") Regarding the second:





What else would Christ have cited besides the OT? I don't understand why you made that point. I think Christ had a clear understanding of what the OT was saying. It was clear to Him. It's not necessarily clear to others. I think it was misunderstood by pretty much all of His contemporaries, and badly misunderstood today as well. I don't think the problem is so much the OT itself, but a lack of understanding on the part of people reading it.



Jesus had to explain what the OT meant, if that's what you're asking. Also Jesus imparted knowledge that hadn't been seen or known before.



No. I don't know how to respond beyond this, other than I have no clue as to how you could get that conclusion from what I wrote above.

Actually, in thinking about it, I can infer some things. It seems that you're question is assuming that one's character has nothing to do with whether or not one should go to heaven, but only God's feelings towards the person in terms of forgiveness. Is this correct? Otherwise your question makes no sense me.

Assuming this is the case, I disagree with this idea, but feel instead that our character is of vital importance in this matter.



One could say that their actions do not give their impression, but I don't see how one could go beyond that. I wouldn't have any way of knowing what was in their heart, would I? Man looks at the outward man, but God looks at the heart.

Kland, I'm not as smart as some people. Please be patient with me. Again, I cannot discern an answer to the following question from you've posted so far - Do you believe God commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? Consider the following passage, "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."

PS - A simple yer or no answer would be helpful.

I did read it, which is why asked the questions. And I’ve reread it, and I’m still unsure of your answer to the questions above. Is it possible for you to simply say, Yes, Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? And then you could go on to explain why you think He did so. Would you be willing to do this for me?


Thank you for verifying you believe Jesus permitted the COI to do the things you named above. However, it is still unclear to me if you believe Jesus commanded them to do such things, and if He would have considered it an act of rebellion if they refused to obey Him. Would you be willing to answer these questions for me? It would be greatly helpful.


Thank you for confirming your view of the woman taken in adultery. However, it doesn’t answer my question, namely, do you think Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? I haven’t read where you answered this question clearly enough for me conclude what you believe.


Yes, I remember the story of the humane hunter. But the same question applies – Did the father counsel his son to do something wrong or sinful? More particularly, though, I would like to know if you believe Jesus commanded Moses to do something wrong or sinful when He commanded him to stone sinners to death?


Thank you for answering my question. Now, for another question – Do you think the people who inquired of Jesus if the adulteress should be stoned to death were less stiff-necked than Moses when he inquired of Jesus if the sinners should be stoned to death?


Good, I’m glad we agree Jesus did not come to execute the final judgment or to execute any kind of punitive judgment. Which leads me to ask another question – What do you think we can learn about the execution of the final judgment from what Jesus did while He was here in the flesh? For example, in the OT Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted sinners to suffer punitive judgment and then die. Since He didn’t do anything like this while here in the flesh, what can we learn about the final judgment from what He did do?


Do you think Jesus had to impart knowledge not in the OT because the OT was unclear or confusing regarding the truth about the final judgment? By the way, where in the OT does God describe the final judgment? And, do you think it is clear enough to discern the truth about it?


Let me see if I understand what you believe. When Jesus told God to forgive everyone involved in killing Him you believe God did indeed forgive them, that God had already forgiven them, that they were born forgiven, that God is forgiving, therefore, He forgives everyone. However, God being forgiving is not the same thing as sinners being saved. It doesn’t mean they will go to heaven based on that alone. To go to heaven, they must have characters consistent with those deserving of a place in heaven.

If this is what you’re saying, what, then, do you think we can learn about the final judgment from the fact Jesus told God to forgive those who were killing Him? In judgment, as advocate, will Jesus plead with God to forgive the wicked? And, will He plead with God to save the wicked?


Does the SOP shed any light on the question of whether or not the Sabbath-breaker or the blasphemer will be in heaven? What about the following insights?


Based on the insights quoted above, do you think the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer will be in heaven? Do you think their characters indicated that they would be happy in heaven?

According to how you would understand the phrase, no, it's not possible. I've tried to explain how I understand it by saying it's similar in character to His counsel on the other items I mentioned. I think the reason for His actions was similar for capital punishment/polygamy/divorce. I think His ideal will was revealed in Christ.

You repeated your question, so I'm omitting that.

You repeated it again, so I'm omitting that too.

You repeated it yet again, so I'm omitting that too, except to point out that we've had long discussions regarding polygamy in regards to this very question.



I think the circumstances were different in that Jesus Christ was present in the flesh, with the explicit mission to reveal the Father to us.



I still don't understand why you asked this. Surely you know that the final judgment is yet future, whereas Jesus Christ came 2,000 years ago. So why are you asking if something you know is yet future happened 2,000 years ago.



MM, Jesus Christ was here in the flesh while with us, and wasn't acting in the capacity of protector/sustainer as He did at other times. This has been pointing out. I'm puzzled as to why you're bringing this up again. This has already been discussed.

Regarding what Christ did to help understand these things, the principle thing was the purpose of His mission, which was to reveal God. By understand a person's character, we gain insights into how the person thinks and acts.

Tom, do you agree the following passage says God (Jesus) commanded Moses and the COI to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death?

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.

Tom, please finish addressing 123226 (my previous post). Thank you.

I don't understand why these questions are being asked. I'm not following your thought here. What are you thinking?



Jesus prayed that God forgive His persecutors. I wouldn't characterize this as His telling God what to do.

I explained in detail what I meant in regards to forgiveness. There are two aspects, as I explained. One aspect involves the disposition of the offended party. The other involves the healing of a relationship, which involves the offending party recognizing being in error, and accepting the forgiveness offered by the offended party. Christ's prayer manifests God's disposition to forgive.



The disposition on God's part to forgive, and actually forgiving in the sense of not holding anything personally against others (God is agape) does not result in the offending party experiencing or receiving forgiveness because such requires that the offending party recognize and acknowledge wrongdoing, and accept the offered forgiveness. To go to heaven one must have the characteristics required to be happy in heaven.



You mean prayed that Jesus forgave them, right? You don't perceive your prayers as your telling God what to do, do you? I don't know why you're characterizing Jesus' prayer in this manner. One thing we can learn regarding the final judgment is how God feels towards the lost.



The character of the wicked has been fixed. How could God save them? Why would Jesus plead for something which is impossible?



Could be. I don't see why this would matter.



What about them?



I already addressed this. I said it's not my job to judge what's in the heart of another or sit on them in judgment, but their actions did not appear to indicate that they would be in heaven. Why are you bringing this up?

Not in the sense that you do. I've repeatedly stated what I believe.

I'm not asking you why you think Jesus commanded Moses to stone the sinner to death. I'm simply asking if you believe Jesus commanded it. I believe the Bible clearly says Jesus commanded Moses and the COI to stone the sinner to death. True, it doesn't explain why Jesus did so, but it is also true that's not what I'm asking you. Either you believe Jesus commanded it or you don't. Which is it?

Jesus used what the OT says about the final judgment to establish the truth about it. He didn’t add to or take away from the OT to tell the truth about it. The OT, therefore, clearly explains the truth about the final judgment. My question is – Where in the OT is it described? Which passages did Jesus use to tell the truth about it? Imitating Jesus’ example in this matter will help us arrive at the truth. Do you agree? Or, do you think we should ignore the passages Jesus used to tell the truth about it?


Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Do you hear Jesus merely acknowledging the fact that God is, by nature, a forgiving God? That’s it? You don’t think Jesus was pleading on their behalf for God to in reality forgive them for killing Him?


So, you don’t think this was what Jesus was pleading for?


What difference does God’s feelings make so far as the actual pardon of sinners is concerned? Do you think the sinners who killed Jesus were in reality pardoned? Do you think that’s what Jesus was pleading for?


Do you think Jesus’ prayer on the cross represents God’s attitude toward the wicked during final judgment? If so, do you think the wicked “know not what they do”?


You believe Jesus would have pardoned them like He did the adulteress were it not for the stiff-necked Jews. The fact He commanded Moses to kill them instead suggests they died in a saved state, that they will be in heaven. I suspect you are mistaken.


If you suspect they won’t be in heaven, why, then, do you believe Jesus would have treated them the way He did the adulteress? Do you think forgiving them would have led them to live holy and obedient lives thereafter and that they would have died in a saved state?

It's what I've been saying. I think God's counsel regarding capital punishment is of the same character as His counsel regarding polygamy and divorce. I think God's idea will in this matter is reveled in Christ. In particular, we see this in how Christ treated the woman caught in adultery.

I'll also repeat that I've suggested many times that if we wish to understand God's character, the way to do so is to build a foundation based on what we see in Christ first, and then come back to the OT. You've steadfastly rejected this idea. I don't think focusing on the OT first works. I think focusing on the revelation of Christ first works.

Is it your idea that Jesus Christ had no light not in the OT? That He was a sort of lesser light? If I'm understand you correctly here, I think you've got this upside down. The OT was written to testify of Christ. *He* is the light.

The OT was a dim reflection of the bright sun which is Christ.





I think Jesus was pleading for something which He was feeling, and that in doing so He was revealing the heart of God. I didn't say anything about Christ's "acknowledging" anything, but "revealing" something. I'd encourage you not to switch the words I'm using for other words which mean something different.

For example, I spoke of Christ's praying, and you changed this to Christ's "telling" God what to do. I spoke of Christ's "revealing" the heart of God, and you changed this to Christ's "merely acknowledging" something. I hope you can see the difference between what I said and your re-phrasing.



It represents God's attitude in that God is agape, and loves them, in spite of what they do, or have done. "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." "Why will you die?" "Oh Absalom, my son, Absalom. Would to God that I had died instead of thee. Oh my son, Absalom, my son." are others that express the heart of God.



I don't know what "this" is. I think Jesus' prayer was heart-felt, and reveals the heart of God.



It's the goodness of God that leads to repentance. Understanding God's feelings helps leads us to repentance, which makes it more likely that actual pardon will occur.



There's an SOP statement that comes to mind. I remember the gist of it, but not specifically enough to find it. She speaks of how the prayer of Christ took in the entire world, which is guilty of the death of Christ, but unless we individually repent, we will perish. It's the same idea I shared earlier about the two aspects of forgiveness. From God's side, He forgives us. But we need to acknowledge our wrong-doing and repent in order to appropriate that forgiveness as our own.



I addressed this above.



??? Where do you get this from? I didn't say anything like this.



I think you're completely confused here, in regards to what I said. I'll repeat my point. My point was simply that God's ideal will was revealed in Christ, and we see His attitude towards capital punishment in how He treated the woman caught in adultery. One other point I made was in response to your point that the sabbath-breakers were not repentant while the woman caught in adultery was. I pointed out that this was incorrect.

That's all I said. Your conclusions don't seem to bear any correspondence to with what I said.



Because Jesus doesn't treat us according to our goodness, but according to His. Nobody before being converted is on their way to heaven. God's goodness leads us to repentance. Either a person responds or he doesn't. God's goodness has to come first, before a person responds.



These questions seem highly speculative to me. What I'm suggesting is that we focus on Christ's revelation of the Father. The more I suggest this, the more questions come in regards to the OT.

The question is, is the Bible as clear as you suggest it is?

Answer: Does the Bible clearly say that God killed Saul?

kland,

If you and Tom wish to continue bringing up all of the side issues in order to avoid addressing the central ones, please continue to do so at your own spiritual risk. A lie repeated enough times will be sincerely believed as truth. Our own words have a tremendous impact upon our own beliefs. Therefore, it is wise to be careful of what we say until we have a solid basis for saying it.

The Bible says God killed Saul. The Bible also says the Philistines killed Saul. The Bible also tells how Saul fell upon his own sword. Which of these three statements is false? If one of them is false, you better start throwing away your Bible, because it is full of error. But if all three are true, then we have a starting point to find some grander truths in the midst of this apparent dichotomy.

Here is the grander truth, eloquently expressed by Mrs. White:


I would like to suggest here that the case of Saul is one of those special places in the Bible where this curtain of which Ellen White speaks is drawn aside, and we can see that although it appeared man was taking the situation into his own hands, God was really in control.

Of course, with regard to the MM's point, there is not even an apparent dichotomy--God has clearly given the orders for the capital punishment.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't understand why you feel you should or must make personal comments as opposed to sticking to the issues. It's ironic (and somewhat clever) that you would do so while expressing concern that the ones you are addressing are avoiding addressing the issues.

kland's point in bringing out that the Bible says that God killed Saul is that inspiration of presents God as doing that which He permits. Given that inspiration often does this, how do you know when inspiration says that God is doing something that He is actually doing it Himself as opposed to allowing it to happen?

This is a core issue.

Tom,

I am concerned for you. It is risky to pick and choose what to believe, and to only accept something from the Bible if it fits with one's own ideas.

The Bible is not lying to us. The Bible tells us God killed Saul. You are trying to change the Word of God into "God did not kill Saul, but only permitted him to be killed." That is not true. God ordained that Saul should die. God was in control of the situation. Had Saul not fallen upon his sword and hastened his own death, he had already been mortally wounded at the hands of God's agents, the Philistines. Had Saul not been thus wounded, he would not have been thus induced to take his own life. Because God's spirit had forsaken Saul, he was reduced to a desolate soul, ready to die.

Inspiration presents God as doing that which He has controlled. I think this differs from merely "permit" in that God was master of the outcome. Yes, God does permit things to happen. But He never permits things to go beyond His control.

A king may give you permission to open a store in his town. Does that now mean that your store is beyond his control? Hardly. Thus it is with God's permission. He permits things to happen, if and when they are in accordance with His will. Are bad things in accordance with His will? Yes, they are--as a lesson to the universe of the true character of sin, and because God does not force people to refrain from sin. Does God Himself do the bad things? Of course not. But it is in accordance with His will that His creatures should have the liberty to choose for themselves. Thus He also allows them to rebel against His law for a time. However, His patience with them will not last forever. There is an end to probationary time for sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The bigger question here is, "Is it bad to purge sinners out in order to restore peace and happiness?"

When God kills sinners, He does it for the right reasons.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Excellent advice for excellent starting points throughout the Bible!

Isn't that fantastic that the curtain is pulled aside to give us insight into the rest of the Bible! I believe Tom and I agree that God is in control. What makes you think we don't agree with that? Or do you infer by "being in control" that everything which happens, God approves of?

I believe you have failed to see that these "side issues" you accuse us of are really the same. My point was as to what is said to be clear is no different than other places where the curtain is pulled aside. Surely you, one who understands data abstraction, do not have to have a specific statement for every situation.

This keeps coming up because I don't believe you addressed it before.

If an act is wrong, does God doing that act make it right? Does the ends justifies the means? You seem to have just suggested it does. But if acts aren't wrong, what are the fruits of the Spirit?

Do you approve of the guy who tilled Tiller, the abortion doctor? His comments, that it needed to be done, it had to be done, suggests to me that he believes God told him to do it.

Does your question apply, was it bad to kill him to save many?

Because he specifically used a gun instead of specifically using a stone, does that make any difference?

I'm concerned for you too. It's risky to view that God will do the things you think He will, setting people on fire to make them suffer, (which the SOP - GC 535 - calls "torture" ) and such like.



This wasn't of God's doing, but Saul's (and Satan's). The SOP speaks to this point here:



The same principle described here applies to Saul.



This seems like a tautology. God is omnipotent, right? So what would be an example of God's permitting something to happen outside of His control?



Permissive will, yes. Not ideal will, unless we wish to be Calvinists. SDA's have never believed this.



This sounds like a description of God's permissive will. Given this is the case, I agree. I'd hasten to point out, however, that God's patience does not end in the sense that He becomes impatient. The end for the probationary time for sin has nothing to do with God's patience or impatience, but with the conditions being ripe for Christ to return:

Can we extend this? When God lies, He does it for the right reasons. When God steals, He does it for the right reasons. etc.

Also this way: It's OK for us to kill, as long as we do so for the right reasons. It's OK for us to set people on fire, as long as we do so for the right reasons.

I think this is precisely the point that's being disagreed with. I understood Arnold to suggest precisely this, i.e., that there would need to be a specific statement for every situation where something that happened which is attributed to God was not something that God did not directly cause. Arrg! How many negatives in that?

Let's try it again. Arnold suggested that if the Bible says that God did something, then God must have directly caused the given thing to happen, unless there's a specific exception mentioned. At least, this is what I understood his position to be.

So this is one possibility. Another possibility is that there can be some principle or principles at work, of which we have some explanation, and we can apply that explanation to other circumstances.

Yes. However, when does God lie? Show me where God lied, and I will show you why it was for the right reason.

Yes again. But when God steals, since it is right that He does so, we do not usually call it "stealing." God stole a rib from Adam to give it to Eve. God stole Laban's cattle to give them to Jacob. The Bible uses the word "take" instead of "steal" in these cases.

Yes again, with a caveat: what is the "right reason?" The right reason is when doing so follows God's commandment.

God is the Creator. It is His prerogative to give life and to take it away, not ours. He has infinite wisdom of which we know nothing. We do not have a right to take life without God's express command. God has commanded the taking of life on many occasions in the past, but God does not ask us to work in the same manner today. It does not follow, therefore, that just because David was doing God's bidding in killing Goliath, that we are to kill everyone who stands in our way today, without said bidding.

God's commandment was "Thou shalt not murder." Unfortunately, the KJV mistranslated that to "kill." As such, the Israelites would have broken the Ten Commandments every time they offered sacrifices, for the sacrificial offerings required the killing of an animal. God does not change, but times change. We no longer live in a time when such slaughter of animals is warranted or commanded by God. The same may well be true of capital punishment. However, just because we do not do something today which God commanded in the past, does not negate the truth of the past commandment.

To deny that God commanded capital punishment is to deny the sacredness of the Bible--for the Bible record is clear. Hence the reason this thread is not titled "Did God command capital punishment?," but rather "Why did God command capital punishment?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

kland,

Your question regarding wrong acts starts with the premise that they are wrong. Therefore, the question is unanswerable as worded. God does not do wrong. It is better to ask "Can the same act be right and wrong depending on circumstances?"

Some of those circumstances: Who does it? When? Where? How? With what attitude or tone of voice? With what spirit? For what reason?

Arnold already presented some good points along that line. Just as it would be wrong for a child to spank his older brother, whereas it would be appropriate for the parent to do so, so also a great distinction exists between God and ourselves. What may be wrong for us may not be wrong for Him.

It is wrong for an individual to murder an abortion doctor, whereas it may not be wrong for government to use capital punishment on a lawbreaker. In the case of the government, the case has gone through due process, with witnesses, and according to pre-established laws. The same system existed in the Bible with respect to stoning: at least two or three witnesses must testify against the lawbreaker, and then all of the people participated in the judgment. It was not in the hands of just one man.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You seem not to believe in good or evil as defined by the law. Your philosophy sounds like the end justifies the means. Nothing is intrinsically evil. All that matters is why something is done, not what is done.



We see this differently. I don't believe God ever acts contrary to His law, nor (which is to say the same thing) contrary to how Jesus Christ acted (or taught).



I hope, by God's grace, you're never put into a position of power. Heaven help those against whom you have power if you are.



Why does the Bible say that God killed Saul? You say it's because God ordained that this should happen. Let's ask the same question regarding the snakes that attacked the Israelites. The Bible says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites. Yet He didn't. He simply removed His protection. The snakes were always there. It's not like God forced the snakes to act contrary to their nature to attack the Israelites, or even that He wanted the Israelites to be attacked by snakes. The Bibles says that God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites because it commonly presents God as doing that which He permits.

Similarly it says, in the parables of the Murdered Son and the Wedding Garment, that God would destroy Jerusalem. Yet in GC 35 we read:



Whose work? God's? Was this something God "ordained"? No, it was Satan's work, and Satan worked to conceal his own work, and make it appear as if it were God's work.

Your explanations of things appear to make no allowance for the activities of an adversary who does evil things and seeks to misrepresent God as doing these things.

The end does not justify the means. However, the end of the Great Controversy will forever settle the question of right and wrong, and all will see that God has been vindicated in His justice and judgments. God does not act capriciously, but according to His pre-existent law. That law requires the death of sinners (see Romans 6:23). God will uphold that very law in giving the sinners their wages of death. He is just in doing so, not capricious. If there were no law, then it would be capricious.

I don't believe God ever acts contrary to His law either--where did you get that idea? However, I also do not believe, as you do (from another out-of-context quote) that Jesus did everything that God possibly can do. He revealed much, it is true. He revealed all that is necessary for our salvation. But He did not reveal all that pertains to Heaven, nor all that pertains to Hell. These are not necessary for our salvation. Yet there will be scenes in Hell that go beyond what any being in the Universe will have ever witnessed.

Jesus did not command any to be stoned during His 33 years of humanity on earth. However, He did thus command in centuries prior. You believe that He did not command those capital punishments, that He could not have done so, on the basis that He did not do so during His earthly life.

Jesus did not cause water to spring from a rock during His ministry either--do you believe He did not do this for Israel of old?


Speaking of personal comments. You've said this before, but it is without merit. There is nothing in my statements to cause you to view me in this way. There is nothing untrue nor incorrect in what I said.

Let me give an example: David killed Goliath. It was for the right reason. God had bidden him to do so.

However...

According to your belief, killing is ALWAYS wrong, and therefore David sinned in killing Goliath, and therefore, David should never have been put into power as he would have ruled with the wrong ideas, and therefore God did wrong in placing David upon the throne--or else Samuel sinned in anointing him to be the next king.

Hmmm....so much for that logic. You see, human logic will always fail. God's Word stands forever. God, through His servant Ellen White, has told us this:


I'm sorry you believe the Bible is doing Satan's work. I had hoped that you would be a better Bible student than this and see that you have made a mistake in interpreting, rather than to come to such conclusions as that the Bible is used by Satan to conceal his work.

It is true that my explanation will not make allowance for the Bible being used to conceal Satan's work and mislead us into thinking God did the things of Satan.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I guess I got my idea that some acts are wrong from the Bible.

Thank you for coming out and admitting it. I am rather taken aback and rather appalled, though.

Rather than you being concerned for us, I am very concerned about your salvation and the risk you put others at through your statements as such. Which view is more dangerous, the word I believe you had used?

Such statements cause me to also hope, by God's grace, you're never put into a position of power. In light of your statements, my previous analogies to Hitler cause me to think it would be very fearful if you were in power. Read your statement again: acts aren't wrong in and of themselves, but depending upon the circumstances and the attitudes of the one performing them......? Such views lead to, my attitudes and reasons are right and yours are wrong. Anyone in power with beliefs such as those have only led to terror of varying degrees whether it is stealing from stockholders or performing eugenics.

I just read something about the Donner-Reed party. According to what you just said, I would find it not hard to believe that you would kill and eat someone if situation was just right. But then, maybe not since you say killing, which is an act, can only be performed by the government. Isn't that confusing?


Show us where it specifically says that killing means murder, what murder means, and that animals were included in "Thou shalt not kill".

Since you say we no longer live in a time when such slaughter of animals is warranted or commanded by God, does that mean you don't eat meat, or that such killing is unwarranted?

Show us where it specifically says that Moses was the government. Is it someone in power? And speaking of such, is it your premise that it's ok for a governement to use capital punishment?


Wasn't there something about David not being able to build the temple due to this very fact?

Speaking of putting kings on the throne, did God do wrong in giving Israel a king?

Your idea needs some refinement. Where in the Bible did you get this idea? How about an illustration from Mrs. White?

So, Mrs. White here says that the act of "faith" can be either good or bad. Do you agree? If so, then how come this act can be either if all acts can be so neatly classified into just one category or the other as you seem to have believed?

Admitting what? You are obviously mistaking my words for something they aren't.
You are not comprehending what I am saying. What you are saying is foreign to me, and I do not understand from whence you speak.

Jesus cleansed the temple with a whip in His hands, and overturned tables of the moneychangers, scattering their money all over. He made a big scene. Yet there was no sin. If you did it, kland, would it be just as sinless as when Christ did this?

Jesus uttered scathing rebukes of the Pharisees. Would you be sinless today if you uttered scathing rebukes of the church leaders?

Jesus wrote people's sins publicly in the dust. Should you do the same?

Jesus likened a Samaritan woman to a dog. Should you do the same?

Are the acts themselves all "sanitized" by the fact that Jesus did them? or is there another reason for His acts being sinless whereas we would be sinful in doing the same things?

And am I now worse than Hitler for recognizing such a beautiful truth as that the motives, attitude, and spirit of Jesus are what made these acts sinless? When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, there were tears in His voice. He did it in the utmost of tender love. It is the manner in which the act was committed, and not just the act in and of itself, that is everything.

If Jesus had waited to heal a sick man until Sabbath morning, just so that He could flaunt the act of healing in front of the prejudiced scribes and Pharisees, would that have been wrong? The healing itself, of course, would be right--but the reason for doing it?

Here now is a Biblical example which illustrates well that motive makes a big difference:

Was it bad for Simon to want the Holy Ghost? In this case, yes. The reason was his motive. What did he think to do with the Holy Ghost? He thought it would be profitable to him financially. It was therefore "wickedness" for him to desire the Holy Ghost, because his "heart is not right in the sight of God."


kland, there is no place for this sort of statement. If you would be honest with yourself, you would recognize this.


The Hebrew word translated as "kill" in the KJV (and this is one place where many other versions are better than KJV) is "ratsach" which means to murder, to assassinate, to avenge, to slay, etc. See for yourself at this link. In fact, this is the only occurrence of this Hebrew word within the first three books of the Bible. All of the other "killing" that is mentioned in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus--which most certainly includes that of all the animal offerings--use other Hebrew words. It is worthy of note that "ratsach" is translated as some form of "kill" only four times in the KJV, two of those being the "Thou shalt not kill" of the Ten Commandments (once in Exodus, once in Deuteronomy). All of the other 43 times this word occurs in the Old Testament it is translated in some form of murder, murderer, manslayer, slayer, or slain.

Contrast that with the word "shachat," which is used for killing of sacrificial offerings.


kland, was it not clear that I was referring to animal sacrifices? Why do you feel the need to reinterpret what I have said? Of course I do not eat meat. But that is not the issue I am speaking of here.

This is enough for now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What's the difference between saying the end justifies the means, and what you said before, that when God kills or lies or whatever, He does so for the right reason?



Here's Romans 6:23:



Some versions translate this: "Sin pays its wages: death."

However one translates this, where do you get the idea that this is saying the law requires the death of the sinner? It doesn't say anything like this. It sounds a lot like what James wrote:



Or, from the SOP, that death "is the inevitable result of sin."

Even if there were no law, it would still be true that death is the inevitable result of sin. Sin is founded upon the principle of self first, which is a principle not capable of supporting life. It can only lead to misery and death, irrespective of the law. The purpose of the law is to make known to us our condition so we will seek a remedy. It doesn't create our condition, or change it, but points it out. Seeing our condition, we are led to Christ, who can provide the remedy we need, transforming us from living according to the "me first" principle, which leads to misery and death, to living to the "agape" principle, which leads to happiness and life.



From what you wrote. For example:





??? Of course Jesus didn't do everything that God possibly can do. I never said this.

This is weird. You say something, and I, based on what you said, conclude something, and you ask where I got the idea from. I don't say something, and not based on something I said, you conclude something and I ask where you got the idea from.



He revealed all that man needs to know or can know of God.





The argument you're presenting me as making doesn't make sense. Consider the premises and conclusions involved here. I would never make an argument like this.

The SOP statement quoted above says that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son. What man can know of God is obviously dealing with God's character, not His physical capabilities.



You're right. I should have phrased this in a less personal way, like "I hope, by God's grace, that those who hold a position like the one you are espousing are never put into a position of power. Heaven help those against whom such have power if they are." I apologize for that.



I asked, "It's OK for us to set people on fire, as long as we do so for the right reasons." and you said "yes, again" with a caveat which doesn't help much: "The right reason is when doing so follows God's commandment." History is filled with examples of people thinking God was commanding them to do atrocious things.

By your own words, you believe it is right to set people on fire, provided you do so because it's a command of God. You believe God makes these commands, and you believe it's right to do these things when God commands. I find this frightening. I'm sure I'm not the only one.



This sounds like you're simply having a conversation with yourself. "Hmmm ... so much for that logic" (after presenting ideas I never have) This is a means to carry on a discussion?

Why do you suppose that God told David that he couldn't build the temple?



Would you please explain your reasoning here? I quoted from the SOP, and bring out some points regarding that quote, and you conclude from this that I believe the Bible is doing Satan's work? What's your thinking here?

Also I don't even know that the phrase "the Bible is doing Satan's work" means. What work that the Bible does are you talking about?



I quoted what Ellen White said! What are you taking issue with? I didn't say this!





I don't understand what you said.

I'll repeat my point, which you didn't address.

According to the SOP, GC 35, Satan seeks to conceal his own work by misrepresenting it as something which God has done. I'm saying that I've seen no evidence in what you've posted that you make any allowance for this activity of the enemy.

There's a world of difference here. When God kills, He does so for completely different motives, purposes, and results. If I kill, perhaps it would be for selfish, sinful reasons. Not so with God, for He does so in holiness to cleanse the earth of the vile and to protect His people. In other words, the act is not really the same.

Jacob lied to get the birthright. God had promised him the birthright. It was supposed to be his. But lying to get it was wrong. Even if Esau had gotten the birthright, instead of Jacob who should have had it, Jacob should have been content. But he stepped out in selfishness to obtain that which might have been obtained in righteousness. The end was the same. The means were not the same. The end did not justify the means.

What I'm saying is that God's means are not our means. God's wisdom in dealing with sin is so far above our thoughts as to be incomprehensible to us. We look at God's acts, with our human wisdom, and are led by Satan to view them as wrong. But our view of them does not make them wrong.

Just because you see God as doing wrong if He kills, does not mean that God will cease doing that which He deems best in dealing with sin, nor does it make it wrong for God to kill.


I get the idea that this text is law. Perhaps you don't recognize God's law when you see it. This law says that sin's wages are death.


If the law did not require death for sinners, where did this sentence of death come from?

How about from this...

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17

When God spoke those words, were they not law? Do you recognize this as a commandment from God? It was this very commandment which brought sin into this world. It is this same commandment which brought death into the world as its penalty.


Inevitable because of what? Inevitable because of God's law, given to Adam and Eve. Inevitable means unavoidable. Can you avoid God's sentence of death for disobedience?


These two statements of yours are proven false within the first three chapters of Genesis. If sin brought death by itself, without God's law, then God would never have needed to bar the way to the Tree of Life which would have given immortal life to sinners.

Your view of God's law is dangerous. If this is the only purpose of God's law, then I suppose without sin there would be no need of it? If such is the case, can you tell me why the law existed in Heaven before sin began? If God's law was unnecessary back then (since no "remedy" was needed for a sin condition), then Satan was correct in saying God's law was unjust.

I agree with some of this, namely that seeing our condition we are led to Christ. However, I will point out that simply by living the agape principle, you will be unable to achieve immortal life. Many saints have come under the spell of death. There is more to it than this. If living the agape principle got you eternal life, then we have found a way to save ourselves by our works, haven't we?


Tom, you have overly shortened my statement to the point it becomes a misquote. If you read the original statement, you would see that I am saying God does not steal. There is a difference between stealing and taking. We may use the word "steal" but it does not mean it makes it so. To be the more clear, one can only steal when one does not own the object which he or she takes. Is there anything in this universe that God does not own?


True, you never worded it exactly that way. However, you have limited God's potential range of actions by what you have seen in Christ's life, based on that one statement in Mrs. White which is not taken in balance with other statements she makes. In other words, Mrs. White does not say what you hang your beliefs upon. (But we have had this discussion before.)


I explained this above.


This is from an out-of-context statement. Mrs. White does not teach this concept. But we have had this discussion before.


You have made the argument that all we can possibly know of God was revealed through the life of Jesus during His earthly ministry. By so saying, you have excluded the Old Testament where it does not overlap Christ's ministry. You would have us believe that God's character was not represented in those situations which differ from what Christ represented while on earth. However, again, your crutch for this belief is an out-of-context quote.


That works fine, perhaps, in this situation, but you do not believe the same to be true regarding the plagues of Egypt just a few chapters before the water from the rock. Did those plagues represent God's physical capabilities only? or does the story teach us something about God's character too?


It's sure a good thing God did not give you the special mission which He chose to give Abraham--that of sacrificing his own son. I suppose you would have found that "frightening." If you do not believe that God commanded Abraham to kill his son, why did Abraham believe it was God telling him this? And why does Mrs. White also believe that God was the one issuing the orders?


The point was that David would have been considered by you to be unsafe and unworthy of elevation to power. You have said that by my statement respecting God's commands, even if they are to kill, I would be a dangerous leader. Kland took it a step further and likened me to Hitler! But by so saying, both of you would accuse David in the same breath.


I believe there was more than one reason for this. In His statement to David, God pointed out that David had been a man of blood. That is reason enough, of course. But perhaps God also saw that by building the temple during Solomon's reign, more good would be achieved. It would be a means of strengthening Solomon in following after God, and thereby leading all of Israel to worship Him more fully.

It is worthy of note here that much of David's "blood guilt" was not on account of God's orders. By deceitfulness, he occasioned the deaths of the high priest and all the family of the priests--85 priests! By deceitfulness, he had sacked the villages of Israel's enemies, while under their protection. In pure crime, he had committed adultery and murder. In numbering the people, he occasioned the death of 70,000 of his own people. I suppose not having the privilege of building God's temple may have been a rebuke to David for these things, and thereby a lesson for us.


Perhaps you didn't realize what you were saying. You were putting two concepts together which should not be together. First, that God's Word sometimes speaks of God doing that which He allowed (Satan to do), and second, that by attributing these acts to God, Satan conceals his own work. When you put those two things together, Tom, you have a Bible that is doing some work for Satan!

See answer above.

And neither did Mrs. White say it. I suggest you reinterpret what she wrote and apply it to its proper object. What she is saying is that people (not the Bible) often are tempted to misrepresent God by attributing to Him the works of Satan--which is the way Satan conceals his own work. Mrs. White is NOT speaking of the Bible doing this, and does not deserve to be quoted in the same breath as speaking of the Bible's representation of God.


Tom, you did not make the statement, but you applied it. However, you misapplied it, for Mrs. White is not speaking of the Biblical representations here. When she says "are often represented" she is non-specifically referring to people. An example of this would be when people look at someone who just got cancer and say "Well, God must be punishing him for what he did."

Hopefully it is more clear now, given my answers above. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my prior post.


You are, however, asking me to make this allowance given certain Bible passages. I will not comment further on this point, considering I have answered this above.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This sounds like the ends justifies the means. Sounds exactly like that.



So you're saying that if God does something, and someone else does the same thing, they're not really doing the same thing. An changes depending upon who does it.



I agree that the end does not justify the means. Lying is bad, regardless of whether Jacob does it or God does it.



I agree with this too. God's means are revealed by His law. Also by the life and character of His Son.

"Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles (or "means") are not of this order."

This is an example of how God's means are different than ours. God doesn't use compelling power.

Here's another one: "The exercise of force is contrary to the principles (or "means") of God's government."



Or we're led by Satan to view God's character as like ours, and using the same means we would use.



Just because you see killing as OK, does not mean that it is. It could be that killing is contrary to God's law, as is the use of compelling power, which may be why we're told that it is only found under Satan's government.



So you're saying when the Bible says something, that's the same thing as the law says it? So when James says, "And sin, when it is finished brings forth death" this could be described as the law saying, "And sin, when it is finished, brings forth death"? And similarly for anything else that Scripture says?



I was talking about Romans 6:23. You said that is says that the law requires the death of sinners. I pointed out that it doesn't say that. If you wish to rebut this, you have to adduce something that is speaking of Romans 6:23.



You're saying that God brought sin into this world? Before responding to this, I'd like to verify that this is really what you meant.



It's inevitable because of what sin is by its nature. It is anti-God and anti-agape, which is anti-life.

The following explains this:





Here's my second statement:

"Sin is founded upon the principle of self first, which is a principle not capable of supporting life."

You're really claiming this is false? If the statement is false, then the following is true:

"Sin is founded upon the principle of self first, which is a principle capable of supporting life."

You really wish to assert this is true?



I didn't say this was it's only purpose. I don't understand why you do this. I said "the purpose," within a specific context, which was the context of our discussion. Don't abstract this into something I have no intention of saying, and which has nothing to do with the point being made.



Same comment. I didn't say this was the law's only purpose. I said the purpose of the law was to make clear our condition. Do you disagree?



Ok, then you should have agree with what I just said before this.



If we could get agape of ourselves, we could. Do you think that's possible?



If your point is that God does not steal, then you should have answered my question "no" not "yes." That is, I generalized your statement of God's killing for the right reason to God's stealing for the right reason, and you said "yes, again" and went on about how when God steals, He does so for the right reason, etc. If your point is that God does not steal, then you're in agreement with me on this point.



Of course I never worded it that way. This is a ridiculous idea.



It's not just one statement. For example, there's the entire article of Signs of the Times 1/20/90 which deals with this subject. For example, in that article she writes that the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God, in order that men might be set right with Him.

Regarding other statements she makes, I'm not aware of any which contradict the idea she expressed in 8T 286. She's not the only one who's expressed this idea, either. Others have seen it from Scripture.



No, this isn't the idea. The idea is that given that all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son, if we have the idea that the OT is revealing something different in relation to God than what Christ revealed, we have it wrong.



If we have the idea that the plagues have God acting differently than what Christ revealed of God, then we're not understanding them correctly. This is my point. We should start with Christ, build a foundation upon Christ, and then go from there. This is as opposed to constructing a "Christ plus something else" foundation.



I'm not understanding your train of thought. My point is that you believe that it's OK to set people on fire if you do so because God has so commanded. I'm saying this is frightening. Lots of people think God commands them to do things like butcher people and set them on fire. I don't see what this has to do with Abraham.



Lots of things happened in the OT which were not in accordance with God's ideal will. We see God's ideal revealed in Christ. This is why I've suggested we should build a foundation based on Christ.

Regarding you're being like Hitler, he's not saying you personally are like him, but that you're espousing principles such as Hitler did.



I don't see that you're making sense here. The GC quote says that Satan seeks to conceal his own work by blaming God for doing that which he (Satan) has done. It is also the case that Scripture often presents God as doing that which He permits. These are two true statements. Do you disagree? Apparently not, since you reiterated them. So what's the problem you see here?



I said Satan did something. I said Satan conceals his work by misrepresenting what he has done as something God did. Actually, Ellen White said this, and I repeated it.



Of course it's people. That's my point. Satan deceives people by causing them to think that God is responsible for doing things that he (Satan) has done. I'm saying I don't see any recognition of this principle in your posts.

That is, Satan is specifically trying to deceive people into thinking that God has used force and destroyed people when he (Satan) was doing this. He does so in an attempt to misrepresent His character.



Your point still isn't clear to me. I said, or rather Ellen White said, that Satan's work is often presented as something God did, and this is a means by which Satan conceals his work.



I'm saying I've *never* seen you make allowance for this, or even demonstrate any awareness that Satan is attempting to do this. Given that we are told specifically that Satan is attempting to misrepresent God's character in a specific way, we should at least allow for the possibility that he may be having some success in what he's trying to do.

I think there is somewhere in the Bible that says, Thou shalt not kill/murder. I believe killing is an act and that "thou shalt not" is saying it is wrong.
FYI:

First, we were talking about acts willfully committed by a person, not the biological action of the mind. Why are you even trying to make a comparison of the two?

Second, she is talking about the action of the mind, as you have underlined. Why did you say, act of faith?

Third, the act of the mind in storing information is not good or bad, but the act of believing the Word of God is said to be good or bad.

Fourth, I did not make any statement about whether or not some acts can be neither wrong or right. I was talking about some acts being wrong. Why did you say I stated differently?


I think there are some very serious communication issues here, and that, not just with me.

Thank you, kland, for helping to bring us back into the more central focus of this topic.

As you have correctly stated, the Bible says "Thou shalt not murder." This command is stated twice--once in Exodus, and once in Deuteronomy--as an express command of God.

The Bible also has the following express commands from God:

And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:16)

Deuteronomy
13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
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. (Deuteronomy 13:9)

---------------------------

Several points can be noted from these scriptures.

1. There is a time to kill (or, at least there was).
2. God commanded capital punishment as a means of keeping the people pure, lest they be led astray by the wicked among them.
3. The Hebrew word here is different from the word used in "Thou shalt not murder."

Thus, a distinction is made between improper and proper. Murder is never acceptable, but always sinful. Killing was acceptable as an act of war and as a means of maintaining the purity of the people by removing the wicked (capital punishment--but the focus was more on the preservation of the righteous). Killing in either of these senses was a duty, not a liberty. Soldiers had a duty to protect and serve their country. Citizens had a duty to uphold the laws of their theocracy. These ordinances were given by God in order to weed out the bad apples before they could spoil the barrel.

We do the same today. We put our worst criminals to death. If we did not, they would but be a menace to others and to themselves. Society is better off without them. Those who are especially recalcitrant, particularly to God's authority, are better off meeting an early demise than to have the greater opportunity to bring guilt upon themselves which must be met in the Judgment. Jesus also spoke along these lines when referring to some which would be better off having a millstone hung around their necks and being cast into the sea.

Murder is always killing. But killing is not always murder. Just like swans are always birds, but birds are not always swans. In this latter example, note that swans are unclean, but quail, chickens, and doves are clean. It behooves us, therefore, to keep a careful distinction between even similar things--for God also distinguishes them and puts great importance into the distinction (sacred versus common fire, as another example).

As for your rumination on the distinction between thoughts and acts, did not Jesus tell us that sinful thoughts carry a similar guilt to bodily acts? Jesus gave two separate examples of this: hatred -> murder; and lust -> adultery.

However, acts of faith are physical acts. Abraham put his son upon the altar, as opposed to merely consenting in his mind to such an act. This act on his part put him in the "hall of faith," and was counted unto him for righteousness.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If we wish to understand the commandments, we need to consider Christ. The commandments are spiritual in nature, and encompass more than might appear at first glance. Christ made this clear in the Sermon on the Mount.

An examination of Christ's life and teachings makes clear what His views were regarding violence, of which murder, or killing, is one form.

I didn't find where you said what murder is, what the difference is of killing and slaying.


So, you say there is a time to kill and a time not to kill.

I didn't find where you answered:
Show us where it specifically says that Moses was the government. Is it someone in power? And speaking of such, is it your premise that it's ok for a governement to use capital punishment?

How can you say it is wrong to kill the abortion doctor? Which is back to what you mean by "murder". Is it proper to keep someone from killing others? Would this be a circumstance where it is proper to act? What was the attitude of the guy, wasn't it to keep many from being killed? Wasn't that the right spirit and a good reason?

Or would you like to revise your following statement or clarify it some:



I don't recall where I was making a distinction between thoughts and acts.
Why do you say this stuff?

I think it's from this comment:





This is an interesting question! This happens to me a lot, to which I often respond by requesting that something I actually wrote be quoted, which some complain about my doing, but I don't know how else to handle this.

As to why this happens, I think it is because of misunderstanding what was said, for whatever reason (possibly reading carelessly, possibly due to lack of familiarity with the thinking involved) and coming to a conclusion as to what was said which the writer finds incomprehensible.

You personally don't think that was unclear do you?
I think this is a case of uncomprehending of what originally was said with further incomprehension of the questioning why it wasn't comprehended.
If you follow all of that.... , how about this one:
Expectations of the Bible to be specific in every situation flies the coup when specifics are specifically specified.

kland, This is why I was taking such pains to define the relationship between willful thoughts and acts. If you do not accept that a thought can be right or wrong, or that it would constitute an act, one which can be judged as right or wrong, then you will not see any difference between murder and killing.

The difference is made clear in the Bible: motive. What is your reason for killing? That makes all the difference. If one reads carefully regarding the system of "avenging" the death of a kinsman, the duty fell upon the nearest male kin to the one who was killed (note, even accidental deaths were grounds for avenging--thus murder is not required here). The one who executed the duty, however, was required to do so without hate.

Here is a Biblical representation of murder by motive:


Here are Biblical representations of murder by method:


And here are further instructions for the one upon whom the duty of avenger falls:

Isn't that cute?! This part: "...neither sought his harm...!" This commandment was to be carried out from a strict sense of duty alone, and not with emotion. If the avenger hated the one he was avenging, or if he planned the vengeance ahead of time (pre-meditated), then he himself became a murderer and would be worthy of death. Even though he carried out his duty faithfully, and did not hate the one he was killing, he was required to flee to a city of refuge and live there until the death of the high priest, or he himself could be avenged by the nearest of kin to the one he had killed. So, it was certainly a disagreeable duty in that sense. Few would voluntarily wish for a jail sentence.


This avengement system was actually God's way of maintaining a prison system. The avengers of blood were like the prison guards. It was the fear of them which would keep the killer from coming out. However, murderers, if proven to have been murder and not accidental manslaughter (or legitimate avengement), were to be delivered up by the elders of the city of refuge to the avenger, and put to death. So the prison system was only to keep the guiltless avengers or those who had accidentally killed someone.

God made it clear that the people were not to take pity on the murderer, but to carry out the capital punishment faithfully.

In other words, it was wrong to NOT cleanse the land of blood-guiltiness via capital punishment of the murderer.


I never said Moses was the government, so there is no need for me to try to find support for something I never said.

Regarding government's use of capital punishment, yes. It is right and proper according to the Bible. Just read the passages I quoted above. The government is in an impartial position more than a near kinsman would be. When the government carries out capital punishment, it is always at the mouth of at least two or three witnesses. The government does so without hatred, merely from a sense of duty in carrying out and upholding the law. The government takes time to hear both sides of the matter before reaching a judgment. It is just as fair, if not more so, as the system God had instituted.

Nevertheless, the real point is not the fairness. The real issue is that God has established governments and we are to respect them. Jesus supported this principle in speaking of rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. The Bible tells us we are to submit to those who have rule over us.

Are you judging motive here? Was the killer's motive entirely free from hatred? Was he the next of kin to someone whom the abortion doctor had murdered?

Even if the answers to both of those question are in the affirmative, it still does not make what he did correct. God has subjected us to the authority of government, which is to be respected. Jesus never went against the Roman government, even though the Jews wished very much that He would. The case of Mary Magdalene is a good example. The Jewish law had been trumped by the Roman law, and Jesus did not advocate stoning her when it would have been against the law.


I stand by those questions, and would like you to answer them.


Tom already pointed out where you made the distinction. The issue is an important one, which is why I focused on it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't want to get in the middle of your exchange with kland, GC, but I have a couple of questions to ask, just for the sake of clarification. kland has been asking you what the different is between murder and killing. I haven't seen that you answered this, except you said that the reason is important. Can you flesh this out please? What's the difference between murder and killing?

Second question is, we know that because of the hardness of their heart, Moses permitted divorce. Do you think it's possible that this other thing falls into this same category? If not, why not?

Ok, you seem to be saying the difference between murder and killing has something to do with the relationship between willful thoughts and acts.


Then you list:

Which seems to me you are saying that stoning someone is one thing that would be called "murder" regardless of motive.

But then you quote:

Which sounds like it is equating killing with murder.

So, before dealing with the rest, could you define the difference between murder and killing?

My impression is he (GC) would say that stoning someone was murder, if it was done with the wrong motive.

You are right. That is Biblical.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Kland, even in the courts of today we find the need to know "motive" for the case. If only the "act" was important, and not the "motive," are the courts wasting their time?

Suppose, for example, you were making repairs to the chimney on the roof of your house, and a gust of wind caused you to slip and grab for the chimney causing a loose brick which you had been repairing to drop and slide off the three-story home, striking the mailman on the head and killing him. Should you receive capital punishment?

If, on the other hand, you had been holding a grudge against the man, and waited in hiding atop your roof to drop the brick as he came--would that make a difference?

Even if you see no difference, kland, in these two scenarios, God does see a difference, and I am right glad that God is fair, in that he "is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," and has reflected this in the Word of God (see Hebrews 4:12).


In this portion, kland, frankly you are not arguing with me. You are arguing with the portions which you quoted, which are not my statements. I made no statements in the portions you are arguing with--those are pure quotes from the Bible. Therefore, if your argument is with the Bible, let the Bible answer your question. I recommend going to those passages and reading them in their full, original context. Especially for the first quoted portion, I think you need the context of the foregoing verses.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The answer to your first question is in post #123326. Yes, that happens to be the post right before your question.

The answer to your second question is no, I do not think this falls into the same category. Here is why. Divorce was not a commandment. Capital punishment was the law.

You could choose whether or not to seek a divorce, and there were regulations given for proper procedure and eligibility for such. But capital punishment was not of this class. It was commanded, not merely optional.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well, that post is what prompted my question.



That's not what my question was regarding. I was referring to the avenging law. The avenging law is not mandatory. It wasn't required that revenge be sought. If revenge was sought, there were certain rules to follow. I'm asking if God may not have given these rules to make the best of a bad situation, similarly to divorce.

Tom,

The avenging was also mandatory, but with a caveat--it was not to be executed as a premeditated, "lying in wait" act, nor through hatred. I suppose, on that technicality, it might require the avenger some time to compose himself before he could do his duty properly, without hate (forgive first?). Apart from this caveat, the duty itself was mandatory. Notice the wording here...

If the avenger did not chance to meet the murderer, I suppose from this commandment the duty was not required--for he was not supposed to plan it ahead, lie in wait, etc. However, if he met the murderer, he was required to perform this duty.

It seems to me that this was a requirement for one basic reason: to cause the murderer to be afraid and to seek refuge in one of the cities appointed as a city of refuge. Once in that city, it would be determined if his act was murder (requiring capital punishment) or if it was accidental manslaughter (requiring that he stay in the city until the death of the high priest). If the elders of the city determined it was murder, justice would be done, with the avenger of blood being first to participate. The guilt would be determined at the mouth of two or three witnesses.

If the murderer was not afraid, and was willing to meet his avenger boldly, then the avenger was duty bound to put sin away by executing justice himself, and no witnesses were required in this case. The murderer should have gone to the city of refuge.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, don't you think God's ideal will was revealed in Jesus Christ? What do you think God would prefer? That we forgive those who have done us wrong, or seek to kill them according to some rule? Don't you think God was meeting the Israelites where they were, and giving them rules to make their situation more tolerable?

Consider the rule "an eye for an eye." This was certainly better than "a life for an eye." But God's ideal will was revealed by Jesus Christ. Not "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth," but if someone strikes you on the cheek, turn your cheek.

Tom,

Your view of God's ideal will is not consistent with the truth. If there is such a thing as "ideal will" versus "will," then I propose to you that this "ideal will" is described in the following verse:



In other words, Tom, forgiveness is not God's "ideal will." Obedience is. In the case of the Lord's message expressed in the verse above, that obedience involved killing those whom God had commanded to be killed, including the king and the cattle which Saul disobediently saved.

In the case of the laws of capital punishment and avengement, to obey meant compliance with said laws.

God would rather that we obey, than that we come asking forgiveness for our disobedience. Of course God stands ready to forgive when we sincerely ask, but that is not His "ideal will."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Jesus Christ said, "I am the truth." I'm proposing that God's ideal will is that which He revealed. I don't see how this can possibly not be consistent with the truth, since Christ is the truth.



My understanding of this verse is that the Israelites were trying to buy God's favor by pursing rites without any desire for a change of heart (especially the king here, who was doing so as a camouflage to hide his own selfish desires). God was not fooled by such empty acts. I think it's similar to the following:



Here again God contrasts the giving of a sacrifice without one's heart being in it, as opposed to having one's heart aligned with God, which would result in being like Him in character, which would result in loving justice and mercy like God does, and being humble, like God is. Instead the sacrifices were being performed as a means of propitiating God's wrath. But this wasn't the problem. The problem was an unregenerate heart.



It's astounding to me that you would contrast forgiveness with obedience. This leaves me speechless.



GC, I didn't see that you addressed my questions. I'll repeat them for your convenience:




Please answer these questions.

I gave the following as an example:



I'm asking if Christ's suggestion does not show a better way.

Just in case the comparison between divorce and the rules for avenging were not clear, here is the point I was making. In regards to divorce, the practice was to put away their wives for whatever reason, without taking care of them. Women in that time were completely dependent upon men for their economic well-being, so God, taking pity on them, established rules to protect them. But it was never God's will that they divorce in the first place. God hates divorce.

Similarly, God gave rules for revenge. But God hates revenge as much as He hates divorce. God loves to forgive. This is His nature and character, as Jesus Christ revealed.

So just as God gave rules for divorce, to meet the Israelites where they were, and make a bad situation more tolerable, so God did a similar thing with regards to revenge.

If we wish to understand God's ideal will, whether it's in regards to divorce or forgiveness, we need to go to Jesus Christ.

Which was also what prompted my question as I unable to find the answer in it.

Could you please summarize in 3-4 sentences what the differences between murder and killing are? Otherwise, without being able to distinguish the differences, how can we discuss what is killing and what is murder?

I have already posted the distinction between murder and killing, and I quoted the Bible texts which make the case for each. If you did not grasp it from what I posted, perhaps you would be benefited in carefully studying the issue from the Biblical perspective.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is this the post you had in mind, where you explained the difference between killing and murder? Or was it a different one?

Tom,

I have spoken before about talking to those who believe in evolution. There was one I was talking to who was saying I was rejecting science since I didn't believe in evolution since evolution was a fact because it happens every day. I asked what their definition of evolution was since it seemed to be different than what was defined on some university web sites: All life descended from a common ancestor. They went on page after page talking about all kinds of stuff. However, they would never specifically define what evolution is. This being so that it can mean change of allele frequencies, it could mean change of color, it could mean selection of existing information, or it could mean man from molecules. It just depended upon the circumstances at the time as to what the best definition would be for their particular argument at the time. If you argue that man to molecules cannot be proven, they argue that moths are changing color all the time. If you argue that changing allele frequencies do not increase information, they argue that given enough time, allele frequencies will increase information.

When I questioned why they couldn't give me a concise definition of what evolution was, they launched into how evolution was much more complex and couldn't really be defined that way. Evolution, which randomly created all life, is so complex that it can't be defined?

I took that to mean that if they specifically defined what evolution is, like the universities did, then it could easily be refuted - at least in regards to not being subjected to the scientific method. If you have a moving definition, it is non refutable since it can be changed to fit the present position and needs of argument.

Do you think a refusal to concisely and specifically distinguish the difference between "murder" and "killing" and between "variableness" and "variety" is relevant to the evolutionist I was speaking to?

If a man killed somebody accidentally... the killer was required to flee to a city of refuge, wasn't he? (Deut 19)

But if that man chose not to abide in the city, his life would be forfeit [just as though he had deliberately murdered the man].

Do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? And, do you believe he obeyed Him?

1. Do you believe Jesus used the OT to explain the final judgment? If so, which scriptures did He use?

2. Do you believe Jesus added insights about the final judgment that are not recorded in the OT? If so, please name them.

3. Do you believe Jesus was hoping the Father would truly, actually pardon the sinners who crucified Him? If so, do you think they will be in heaven?

4. Do you believe the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer Moses stoned to death will be in heaven? If not, why not?

5. Do you believe Jesus would have pardoned the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer had He been here in person?

6. Do you believe Jesus misrepresented the Father in the OT? If not, do you believe commanding Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer was representative of the Father?

7. Do you believe Jesus misrepresented the Father when He told the Jews to stone the adulteress to death? If not, do you think stoning sinners to death is representative of the Father?

That reminds me of a discussion I had. I was arguing that Lucifer had sinned in heaven, and God offered him forgiveness for his sins, without Christ having had to die. This was an argument to show that Christ's death was not necessary in order to enable God to be legally able to pardon, since God was willing to pardon Lucifer without Christ's having to die. I wrote:



This person had been asking for me for a specific quote saying that Lucifer had sinned, not accepting as evidence that fact that God could hardly have offered him pardon for sin if he had not sinned. Also this person had been saying that the SOP was using the words "repentance" and "pardon" in a different sense. Well, another party actually found a quote saying that Lucifer had sinned, which led to this remark:



which caused my prophesy to come true.

kland,

AS A MODERATOR: This post is off topic. Please stick to the topic.

The irony is that this type of "changing the topic" is a tactic frequently used by those who wish to avoid a clear answer--which you are positing has been done here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

AS A MODERATOR: You also need to stick to the topic. Let us not stray to evolution, or pardon, or the origin of sin in this thread. This topic is for discussion of "Why did God command capital punishment?"

****************************** MM's questions of "Did God command Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker?" etc. come to mind.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

I already told you the post I had in mind. My refusal to answer a question a second or third time, when I had answered very clearly once already, now makes both you and kland try to posit that I am "avoiding a clear answer?" Sigh. As you wish. My answer was in the post I indicated. However, I also predicted that you would not be able to comprehend it on account of your misinterpretations regarding the difference between thoughts and acts and their relationship. If you cannot grasp the concept, it does not follow that I have not clearly explained. The Bible is clear. I was clear. Here is the quote from that post:



If I hate and I kill, it is murder. If I kill in obedience to the law and without hate, it is but killing. It is not murder.

Can I say it more clearly than that?

If you feel that hate is not an "act" and therefore not "disobedience," or not a problem--if you view it as merely an acceptable natural emotion and/or a not-yet-sin portion of "temptation," then you will never understand the difference between "murder" and "killing."

Courts of the world understand the difference to a case where there is "hate" and "premeditation" versus where there isn't--that's why they spend so much time to lay out the "motive" for the case. God also recognizes the same distinctions. Should this surprise us?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I haven't said anything about this. Any Scripture He would have quoted would have been the OT, of course. I'd have to think to answer this question, and don't see the point, so I'll save my brain cells for the time being. Why are you asking this?



Same answer.



He was expressing His personal desire that their sin against Him not be held against them. The SOP says the whole world was taken in by that prayer, but unless we each individually repent, we will perish.

I've explained this in detail already.



I've answered this.



I believe He would have treated them as He taught the woman caught in adultery. You need to be more precise in regards to what you're talking about in regards to pardon for me to answer your question. As I explained, there are two aspects to pardon. Which one are you talking about?



God was constrained in the OT, because of the hardness of hearts of the people. He was not able to reveal Himself as He could, and did, through Christ.



God sent His Son for the specific purpose of revealing Himself, because the world was dark in misapprehension of God's character. This is despite the fact that the OT existed. Unbelief and the traditions of man, caused misunderstandings. This wasn't a problem of Christ, but of the people.

If we wish to see Christ's unfettered representation of God, we have but to look to Jesus Christ Himself.

As I've repeatedly said, this methodology of trying to figure things out by looking chiefly, or only, at the OT is flawed, I believe. I believe the proper methodology would be to first form a theology of God's character, based on Christ's revelation while here in the flesh, and have that as a foundation before considering the OT accounts.

Tom,

Do you see any differences between the sins of the woman caught in adultery and that of the Sabbath-breaker who was stoned?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree Tom. Perhaps the divorce laws were not the ONLY laws given to the people because of the hardness of their hearts.

I also agree with this. For example, the law of tithing. That is given because of the hardness of our hearts.

God Himself has said He doesn't need our offerings (Ps. 50:8-23). Therefore, He doesn't need our tithes. Why does He ask us to pay tithe? So that our hearts will be softened and made less selfish as we learn to share and to recognize that God owns all of our substance, and not we ourselves.

However, we must be careful about judging God's laws. If we say "such and such law was given only for the hardness of their hearts," we appear to say that "I don't need to follow that law," perhaps since my heart is not so hard. Or, on the other hand, we imply that it was a bad law. A bad law would imply that God was wrong to make it or to give it.

I would propose two things: 1) our hearts are still hard; and 2) God's laws are all good.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I can basically accept your comments on tithe payments.
In fact the whole field of Divine worship is all for our good.
I do not believe that God is an attention-seeker --not for a moment -- but for our sakes He frequently says "look to Me".

None has ever payed God, the most we can do is return.
_______________

Our hearts are still hard. We still "return" tithes from "our" increase. Jesus, in addressing the issue of taxes, also recognized that we owe obedience to Caesar as well as to God, showing that both tithes and taxes were to be paid. In other words, we obey God when we obey government (as long as government does not conflict with an established law of God).

When we recognize the authority of government in things like taxes this is acceptable with God. This also includes things like capital punishment. Certainly, God Himself has established a system of capital punishment, and therefore, it is not new to today's governments. At the same time that God allowed other nations to have the rule over His people, He established that they were to be obedient to those governments. It was for their good, and for the hardness of their hearts.

The question of the thread is not whether or not God established capital punishment. The question is why. Tom's answer seems to be that God did so on account of the hardness of their hearts.

I disagree. I believe capital punishment had much more to do with God's mercy toward the righteous. In mercy, God removed the influence of the wicked from them, so that they would not also be led astray. (Note the contrast of this with the concept of removing them so that the righteous would be avenged, as if from hatred. The concept here is not "punish" but "cleanse." If hatred were involved, it was murder.)

Tom, by turning the focus toward an avenging God, ready to punish, tries to tell us that this is not in harmony with God's character, and that Jesus showed a better way later. However, I believe that Jesus had already showed the best way. God never gives His people anything but the best.

Ellen White tells us that when we reach the fair shores of Heaven, when we see the way in which God has led us throughout our lives, we would not choose to be led in any other way. I am a firm believer in that this is not only true of people in my day and age, but in every age, including that of the children of Israel, and including the laws which they were given by God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you intend to say that not only is making a comparison off topic, but merely asking if a comparison is relevant off topic too?

(Glad to see you are able to make a comparison with tithe returning)

Wouldn't you say it is good to make sure that people are clear on terms being used, especially AS A MODERATOR, none the less? Thank you for finally summarizing what you mean about murder and killing. Now, with a proper distinction, I may be able to answer your other questions.

That person being me also went on to explain that Lucifer was not guilty of sinning until he was convinced that pursuing his course further would be viewed as a sin by God. Until then his course was not considered a sin by God. Rosangela suggested he was ignorant of the fact his course was sinful until the moment he was convinced it would be indeed a sin to continue pursuing it at which point he was no longer ignorant.

However, as GC has pointed out, this is off topic.

I am reposting this post. Somehow it got overlooked.


Do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? And, do you believe he obeyed Him?

I would like to answer this question by saying the woman was led into sin by religious leaders for the sole purpose of entrapping Jesus. The Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, however, were guilty of willfully, deliberately, defiantly sinning against God out of anger and resentment. The woman was immediately repentant, whereas, the other two were stubborn and defiant til the moment they died. As such, I do not believe Jesus would have treated them any different had He been there in person. Do you see what I mean?

I get the impression from what you’ve written that you believe the words and works of Jesus in the OT are a lesser, inferior revelation of the character of God when compared to the words and works of Jesus in the NT.


The fact Jesus used the OT (without adding to or subtracting from) to explain the truth about the final judgment indicates the words and works of Jesus in the OT are perfectly suited to the task. You, on the other hand, seem to believe they are insufficient and inferior when compared to the words and works of Jesus in the NT.


Is your answer to the first question above yes?


Please summarize your answer here. Thank you.


Would He have pardoned them in the same sense He pardoned the woman?


Do you agree it was Jesus who commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? And, do you believe it is within the character of God to command Moses to stone sinners to death because of the hard-heartedness of the COI?


The question above concerns Jesus giving the go ahead to stone the woman to death. So, as you can see, it is dealing with the words and works of Jesus as revealed in the NT. It would help me understand your point of view if you would answer the question. Thank you.

No, that does seem clear now.


So now back to the questions you asked:

By implying it was wrong, you seem to be. But, referring to your last statement, should we do everything the government tells us to do or only if it doesn't conflict with God's laws? Which, if you say killing is ok with God, then we should follow the government's laws.

You never said to answer them as to what specific circumstance, so I will use the killer of the abortion doctor. (Not sure how all these questions are relevant, but will answer them just the same)

Who does it?

• Tiller Killer.

When?

• When he "had to do it".

Where?

• Near the killing office.

How?

• With a gun.

With what attitude?

• With a saving attitude.

With what spirit?

• A spirit of love. Not hate. Only hating the acts of killing the babies.

For what reason?

• Because he had to and it needed to be done for the good of society to remove the wickedness of the slaughter of innocents.

So, he did not hate, therefore, using your definition, he did not murder.

The question becomes whether he obeyed the law of the government. I think we both agree he did not.

However, excepting the issue of disobeying the government since we are not defining sin but defining murder and killing, would you say he did wrong killing the abortion doctor?

But before you answer that, let's consider it from the abortion doctor's perspective.



Who does it?

• Tiller.

When?

• As the non-planners not wanting a family came in.

Where?

• In his office.

How?

• With suction devices or knives or other instruments of distruction.

With what attitude?

• Performing a service.

With what spirit?

• A spirit of love. Not hate. Only helping non-planning mothers/kids not wanting to be burdened by a family.

For what reason?

• Because he had to and it needed to be done or those mothers would have to care for babies they didn't want.

So, he did not hate, therefore, using your definition, he did not murder.

The question becomes whether he obeyed the law of the government. I think we both agree he did obey the current laws.

So would you say the abortion doctor was doing wrong? He had no hate, he killed while following the laws of the government.



What law is God following if you say he kills us? And before you say this is off topic, showing it is wrong for God to kill us (that He doesn't) would show it wrong for us to do capital punishment. So the question becomes, why did He command it? Saying He did to create a better environment is no better than the killer of the abortionist.

It's what I've been saying. I think God's counsel regarding capital punishment is of the same character as His counsel regarding polygamy and divorce. I think God's idea will in this matter is reveled in Christ. In particular, we see this in how Christ treated the woman caught in adultery.

I'll also repeat that I've suggested many times that if we wish to understand God's character, the way to do so is to build a foundation based on what we see in Christ first, and then come back to the OT. You've steadfastly rejected this idea. I don't think focusing on the OT first works. I think focusing on the revelation of Christ first works.

The woman repented *after* Jesus treated her the way He did. It's the goodness of God that leads to repentance. God treats all "good," not just those who repent.

I would say that Christ is a greater, clearer revelation of God than that of any other source whatsoever.



I don't know what you're talking about here. What passages do you have in mind? I don't recall saying anything at all about this. What are you basing your opinion of my thoughts regarding this on? To the best of my knowledge, I haven't even thought about this, let along comment on it, so I can't imagine what you're basing your ideas regarding what I think about this on.



No, my answer is "it depends." It depends upon what you mean by your question. As I've explained, forgiveness involves different aspects. I actually think I gave a very full answer to this question. I went into detail regarding the different aspects of forgiveness, and gave examples. I don't know why you're still asking this. My answer was a detailed and complete answer. Why not refer to that, or ask me something about that?



As I stated before, I have no means of knowing this, baring some clear statement from inspiration. If I had to guess, I would guess not. Why do you think this is worth asking?



It depends. Which sense are you talking about? If you're talking about the sense of forgiveness being accepted by the offending party, then that would depend on them, right? So are you postulating that they respond as the woman did? If so, then yes. If not, then no. If you're talking about the other aspect, dealing with Christ's desire to pardon another, then yes, as Christ is not a respecter of persons, and gave His life for them as much as for the woman.



You asked the first question above. Regarding the second, I believe it's in harmony with God's character for Him to have acted as He did. Where we disagree is in regards to how God acted. I believe He acted in a similar fashion as He did in regards to the divorce question, or the polygamy question, or the "can we have a king" question, or many other matters where God acted differently than His ideal will due to the hard-heartedness of the people with whom He was dealing. I believe God's ideal will was revealed in Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, when He came for the specific purpose of revealing God.



Jesus didn't give the go ahead to stone the woman to death.



Since Jesus didn't give the go ahead to stone the woman to death, I'm not understanding your question. Regarding God's acting according to His character, I addressed that.

Basically I believe God is against violence. I believe God is non-violent. I believe compelling power is only to be found under Satan's government, and that the Lord's principles are not of this order. I believe the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. I believe God's will was clearly revealed in Christ. I believe discerning God's will from the OT is much more difficult, and most people (everyone before Christ, and everyone since who doesn't take into account Christ's life and teachings) get it wrong. I think even holy angels, who are of much greater intelligence and have no sin to cloud their thinking, were unclear in regards to things until Christ's revelation.

Tom, do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? And, do you believe he obeyed Him? I don't see where you answered these two questions. It would be helpful to know what you believe. Please answer these two questions with either yes or no. Thank you.

PS - I understand you believe we should view the words and works of Jesus in the OT in light of His words and works in the NT. I also understand you believe the same principles that led Jesus to permit divorce and polygamy explain why He commanded Moses to stone sinners to death. However, I also suspect you see a difference between Jesus permitting something and Jesus commanding something. Consequently, I suspect you do not believe Jesus commanded people to get divorced or to have more than one spouse. On the other hand, you have avoided saying whether or not you believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death. I get the impression you believe Jesus permitted it rather than commanded it. Is that correct?

Amen! God truly treats everyone good. In some cases, however, treating them good means destroying them. Ellen wrote:


Tom, do you believe the woman was as unrepentant and rebellious as were the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer when she sinned? Ellen wrote:


Do you believe the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer were led into sin? Ellen wrote:


Do you believe the woman was guilty of the same crimes and charges?

PS - Do you think Jesus commanding Moses to stone sinners to death guaranteed the sinners would not repent? What about King David? Jesus sentenced many people to death due to David's sins, and it motivated him to repent and to love and obey God. You seem to be saying sentencing sinners to death has the opposite effect of pardoning them. Is that what you believe? Do you believe everybody Jesus commanded Moses to kill died unrepentant and unsaved?

Tom, I disagree with this. God's instructions in relation to polygamy and divorce are permissions, while His instructions in relation to capital punishment are commands.
Take, for instance, God's command to Saul for him to destroy the amalekites and God's rejection of Saul for not obeying His command. In relation to the account of 1 Samuel 15, what your view implies is that Saul was right for not killing Agag and Samuel was wrong for killing him.

You didn’t address my observation. Do you believe Jesus revealed the Father in the OT through His words and works? If so, do you believe Jesus’ revelation of the Father in the OT was a lesser, inferior revelation when compared to His revelation of the Father in the NT?


All throughout this forum and threads you have asserted Jesus’ revelation of the Father in the NT trumps all other revelations. At least that’s the impression I get from what you’ve written. I don’t want to take the time to find one of the places where you’ve said as much, so please simply state your belief here. Do you believe Jesus’ revelation of the Father in the OT is as true and clear as His revelation of the Father in the NT? And, more to the point, do you believe His description of the final judgment in the OT is as clear as His description of it in the NT? Or, do you think He added details in the NT not found in the OT? If so, please name them here.


I’m talking about pardon in the sense of God actually pardoning their sins, that is, pardon is written next to their sins in the books above so they can be permanently blotted out later on. With this definition in mind do you believe Jesus wanted the Father to actually pardon the sins of those who were killing Him on the cross? If so, do you think they will be in heaven? I’m asking these questions because you seem to think Jesus’ prayer for pardon reflects what He would have preferred to do when Moses asked Him what to do with the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. In other words, you seem to be saying Jesus wanted pardon their sins and set them free but He was unable to do it due to the hardness of the hearts of the COI.


Why do you suspect they will not be in heaven? You seem to think Jesus wanted to pardon them and set them free. If so, why? If He was willing to pardon them and set them free, wouldn’t that suggest He felt they were worthy of pardon and salvation and a place in heaven? Otherwise, if they were rebellious and unrepentant why would He pardon them and set them free?


Above you said you guess they will not be in heaven. Why do you think so? Also, do you think Jesus knew in advance they were unrepentant and unpardonable and would not have responded appropriately to pardoning them and setting them free? Or, do you think He did not know for sure one way or another and that He was willing to try to see what they would do but couldn’t because of the hard-hearted COI? I’m asking these questions because I’m trying determine why you believe Jesus wanted to treat them in the same way He treated the woman. Do you believe Jesus would pardon (see definition above) every sinner and set them free? Or, do you think there are times when Jesus would not pardon certain sinners because they are unpardonable? If so, do you think He would have commanded Moses to stone them to death?


What is your answer to the first question above? Do you believe when the Bible says Jesus “commanded” Moses to kill sinners that it actually means He merely “permitted” it? Also, do you believe the COI were less hard-hearted when Jesus was here in the flesh and that it enabled Him to treat sinners differently than He did in the OT? If not, if you believe as many do that they were actually more hard-hearted, what do you think made the difference in how and why Jesus treated them differently? Also, what do you think Jesus meant when He said, “Ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. . . If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” Do you think Jesus treated them the same way He treated the woman led into adultery?


Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Her accusers thought they were perfect and upright. They felt qualified to stone her to death. Roman law alone prevented them. Ellen wrote, “The law specified that in punishment by stoning, the witnesses in the case should be the first to cast a stone. Now rising, and fixing His eyes upon the plotting elders, Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And stooping down, He continued writing on the ground. He had not set aside the law given through Moses, nor infringed upon the authority of Rome.” {DA 461.4}

The reason I’m asking the question is due to the fact you are insisting circumstances forced Jesus to treat sinners differently in the OT than He did in the NT. The truth is, however, He gave the rulers permission to stone the woman to death. True, He knew they wouldn’t, and He really didn’t want them to stone her to death, but the point is, He told them to do it. As such, not one of them was able to accuse Jesus of disregarding the laws of God. Now, what does the law say about this particular situation, that is, about the rulers leading a woman into sin for the sole purpose of entrapping a popular preacher so that they can condemn him to death? Would Jesus have commanded Moses to stone her death under such circumstances if such a case had been presented to Him in the OT?


Everything you said about God above is true. No one here that I know of disputes it. The question is, however, do you believe Jesus acted forcefully or violently when He commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? And, do you think the holy angels felt Jesus acted forcefully or violently when He commanded Moses to kill sinners? Please answer these questions with a yes or no. Thank you. Of course, please feel free to explain your answer after you answer yes or no.

I think God was working with the reality of the time, and was constrained to do the best with what He had to work with. You've been asking this question for years now. I've answered it many times. I've written and written and written on this. I presented the story of the father/hunter. I explained things in reference to that.

If you don't understand what I think after all this, I'm sorry about. There's other things we can talk about.

You mean by setting them on fire? Something like that? How is this treating someone well?



I don't think how she compared with others matters. She was obviously living in sin.



Why would this matter? I don't understand why you think any of your questions are relevant.

My point is that if we wish to understand God's views of force/violence/etc. we can look to Christ while here in the flesh, whose very purpose was the revelation of the Father. How did Christ treat people? What did He do and say? We have an example of the question you're asking about in the woman caught in adultery. What did He say? How did He treat her?



Why would this matter? Are you thinking if the circumstance were different, Jesus would have said to stone her?



How do you figure?



This is a serious question? If one were sentenced to die, the would be killed, and die. That's the effect of being sentenced to death. If one is pardoned, one is set free, right? So these are different effects. I don't know if "opposite" is the right word, but they're certainly different.

They're similar in character because they are not representations of God's ideal will, which was revealed by Christ while here in the flesh.

What do you mean? Sure I did. You said:



I addressed this by saying:

And thus does Tom, with a few strokes of his keyboard, declare that God's commands are not ideal--at least some of them.

May God open your eyes.

Green Cochoa.

1) Is Christ greater than Christ?
2) Was Christ not revealed at all during Old Testament times?
3) Can there be unequal revelations of Christ, by Christ Himself?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I've answered this many times. I've explained that God was constrained in the OT by the hardness of the hearts of the people He was dealing with. His actions were not correctly discerned by anyone but Christ. Christ understood what was happening in the OT, and said "The words I hear of my Father, I speak, and the works I see Him performing, I do." Where did He hear and see these things? From the OT.

I've said this many times.

So when Christ said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father." He was saying, "Let me be your picture of God." He was saying that as He lived is how *He* perceived God to be like, from His study of the OT.

So the correct understanding of the OT is given by Jesus Christ. As we study His life and teachings, we see God's true character.

However, if we look at the OT and see things depicting God to be different than the portrayal of Christ, we're not getting things right.

I've pointed this out, and pointed out that even holy angels didn't understand everything until the revelation of Christ.

So the problem is not with God, but with us, and our misunderstanding of the OT. The problem is with us.

In order to help us, because He had pity on us, and loves us, and wants us to understand the truth, God sent His Son in order to reveal Himself to us.



Notice the first sentence:





Inspiration teaches us that Christ is the greatest representation. For example:



or





I've said it is superior to all others. Not "trumps," which has a different connotation. Regarding the questions, I've addressed this above.



Obviously a person would have to individual repent, as the SOP puts it, for this to happen. Christ couldn't have been praying for God to do this, since God can't repent for someone else.



I said I don't know.



God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Christ gave His life for them. Why would you ask a question like this? Of course God wants to pardon people and set them free. You don't have any doubts about this, do you?



No. None of us are worthy.



Do you mean in the sense of having pardon written against their name? If you mean this, obviously this couldn't happen unless they repented. If you mean in the sense of what's in His heart, He forgives because He is love.



I said I didn't know. I said if I had to guess, that's how I'd guess. I said this based on their actions.



I don't think this entered into things.



I don't think this has anything to do with anything.



If this is what you're trying to determine, I can tell you it has nothing to do with the questions you're asking. God loved them, and gave His Son to die for them, and this is why He wanted to pardon them.



Provided this is what they wanted, yes.



If you mean if people can so harden their heart that they can no longer respond to the offer of pardon, yes, I believe this is possible.



If so, what? Actually, I don't think this question matters. I think you're whole conception of things is different than mine, so that whatever answer I give will be interpreted differently by you than what I intend.



Anyway, I think, again, that if it is your desire to understand God's character, the best way to approach this is to follow Ellen White's advice:





When Jesus Christ came in the flesh, His express purpose was to reveal the Father. Everything Christ did was for that purpose. He was God in human flesh. He was a living explanation of what God would be like if He were a human being. It was not possible when leading the COI, and not a human being, for Christ to do what He did as a human being.



I think he means if we don't see our need for Him, we'll be lost.



I think this is an apples and oranges question.



MM, you do realize that Christ wasn't a human being in the OT, don't you? Do you not think this matters?



You've said one right thing here, and a couple of wrong things. The right thing is that Christ responded very carefully, in such a way that He could not be accused of disregarding the law. The wrong things is that He was not giving the rulers permission to stone the woman, nor was He telling them to do so.



I really don't understand why you want to center your studies on the OT. I don't think this is the right approach. I think what EGW suggested is the right approach.



There are quite a few who believed that God will set people on fire to cause them to "suffer torture" (GC 535), and that God routinely did violent things throughout the Bible, especially in the OT.



I can't answer these questions yes or no, as you have certain assumptions built into them that I disagree with. I can say, however, that I believe that the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government, that compelling power is found only Satan's government, that the Lord's principles are not of this order, and not only did God not act violently here (I'm using "violently" in an ordinary sense, not as you use it, which allows for violent actions), but He never did, never has, and never will.

Do I have your permission to conclude, yes, you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners? And, can I conclude, yes, you believe Moses obeyed Jesus?

PS - I understand you believe circumstances forced Jesus to do things He wished He didn't have to do. So, my question is - Do you think He "permitted" Moses to kill sinners or do you think He "commanded" Moses to do it? And, do you think Moses would have been guilty of sinning if he refused to kill them?

Tom, in your long post above you didn't answer my questions directly. I have no idea what you believe in relation to my questions. You insist we study the words and works of Jesus in the NT in order to understand His words and works in the OT. You insist we interpret everything He said and did in the OT in light of everything He said and did in the NT. In the NT Jesus told the rulers to cast stones at the woman. In the OT Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death. In the NT Jesus was unable to pardon the sins of certain sinners. In the OT Jesus was unable to pardon the sins of certain sinners. In the OT Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted sinners to be killed. In the NT Jesus told the COI that He was going to withdrew His protection and permit them to be killed.

So, as you can, Jesus treated people in the OT and in the NT in exactly the same way.

I believe God's ideal will was revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, and that the counsel in relation to capital punishment was similar to the counsel related to divorce, polygamy, having a king, the Old Covenant, attacking their enemies with armed weapons, an "eye for an eye", the cities of refuge, and many other dealings with them. God did the best that was possible under the circumstances, but His ideal will was revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh.



I don't think it was God's ideal will that the sinners be killed. I think His ideal will was revealed by Jesus Christ.



The following comes to mind:



So how Moses should be judged would be dependent upon the light he had.



The best way to understand God's character is to study the life of Christ, as EGW outlined. After having an understanding of God's character, we are in a better position to understand other portions of Scripture. This is what I've been saying.



What I've said is that Jesus Christ demonstrated by His life and teachings how *He* understood the OT, and our understanding of the OT should be in harmony with His.



If this is what you think, I think you've woefully misunderstood what He said.



I haven't argued that God's character changed in any way, but that it has been misunderstood. I've said the best way to understand God's character is according to the advice EGW gave, to spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating upon the life of Christ.

Tom, please answer the following questions: Do I have your permission to conclude, yes, you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners? And, can I conclude, yes, you believe Moses obeyed Jesus?

PS - Do you believe Jesus did not tell the rulers to stone the woman?

MM, I've answered the question the best I can. You have certain presuppositions, so I can't answer "yes" or "no" without buying into those. So I've written out an explanation which accounts for how I see things.

Regarding the PS, Jesus did not condemn the woman, and answered the question in such a way that she would not be stoned. He was clever in the way He answered the question, so that he foiled their attempts to trap him. If you look at Jesus' intent, which is the important issue here (the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter), it's clear that He did not want her to be killed.

Let's not lose focus of the real issue here. This is the real issue. What was Jesus' will? Was it that the woman be killed? No, it wasn't. Was it that she be pardoned? Yes, it was.

Regarding your question, yes, Jesus was in effect telling them not to stone her. If would be as if He said, "Let he who is 1,000,000 years or older stone her" which is a set with no members. Also He was talking about a binary action where not doing something was equivalent to doing the reverse of the action (I'm bringing this up because sometimes not doing something is very different in effect than doing the reverse).

I agree Jesus did not intend for the rulers to kill her. However, the fact is, He told rulers who thought they were sinless to do it. In so doing He did not contradict the law. However, mercy is in keeping with the law. As such, Jesus did not disregard the law when He forgave her. Which came first, though, repentance or pardon? I believe Jesus forgave her because she was repentant. I do not, however, believe the Sabbath-breaker or the blasphemer were repentant. Therefore, Jesus commanded Moses to kill them. True, Jesus wished they were repentant so He could forgive them, but alas, they were unworthy and deserving of death. I believe Jesus would have treated the woman the same way had she been as unrepentant and rebellious as they were. You seem to think Jesus would have forgiven them the same as He forgave the woman had it not been for the hard-hearted Jews. I disagree. By the way, please apply my definition of pardon here.

Concerning whether or not you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners, well, the truth is you are a logical and godly person, so, it is reasonable to me to conclude you believe what the Bible says, which is, "The Lord commanded Moses . . . to stone him with stones". True, we disagree as to why Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners, but the fact is too clear to misunderstand, namely, Jesus did indeed command Moses to kill sinners. It is also painfully clear that Moses would have incurred the wrath of God had he disobeyed Jesus and refused to kill them.

Another question is - Did Jesus ever command someone to kill a sinner when in reality they were like the woman and deserving of forgiveness? I don't think so. What do you believe?

PS - Just in case you're distracted by my use of the word "deserving" please consider what the Bible says about it:

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Acts 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,

Colossians 1:10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

1 Thessalonians 2:12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

2 Thessalonians 1:5 [Which is] a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

2 Thessalonians 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of [this] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of [his] goodness, and the work of faith with power:

Revelation 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

You have indicated that Jesus would have wanted to kill someone but didn't have a good chance to. The above inspired passage seems like an opportune time for Jesus to do some killing. His disciples thought so, too. What happened?

When Jesus told the disciples that they did not know what manner of spirit they were, do you think He was really in a way complimenting them but telling them they should not try to be like God? But then, why didn't He call fire down on them as Elijah did?

kland,

Are you supposing that the disciples and Elijah were birds of a feather in terms of their "spirit"?

Speaking of birds and feathers...

I'm not able to create life, as God does, but I can raise animals under my tender care, and love them in a similar way to what God does with us. Now, let us suppose that I have a number of chickens and the bird flu enters in among them. Many birds get sick, very sick. I love them as my pets, having watched over them from the time when they were small. I might go into the chicken yard to save as many chickens as possible by killing the sick ones, mightn't I? Jesus also came to earth to save as many as possible. Even the ones which must die are loved. The love does not remove the disagreeable, painful, and ugly responsibility of purging the bad to save the good. Those which remain are rightly called the "remnant," and this terminology is found in the Bible.

God loves all. But not all are safe to preserve. Sometimes "destruction" is really "salvation."

Capital punishment was a blessing to God's people in similar fashion to God's curse of the ground being a blessing. It's all in how you choose to look at it. These things were given for the benefit and salvation of the righteous.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Please apologize for making this slanderous comment. Thank you.

GC, I appreciate the points you made above. Well done. Thank you.

Would this be as you would say?:
I'm just quoting the Bible, you aren't arguing with it are you?



I'm not sure you should be one making analogies.


I never heard your response to your questions I answered regarding the abortion doctor and his killer. According to the answers, did either "murder"? Do you approve of either or both?

You are correct. Let me reword it:

You have indicated that Jesus would have wanted someone else to kill someone but didn't have a good chance to.

Which really does fits better since the disciples were asking to call down fire from heaven. Thank you for pointing out my error.

Now, can you fill that in and answer the question?

As I recall, Christ actually said, "Let he of you which is without sin cast the first stone." As I pointed out, this is a set with no members, which means that Christ told nobody to stone her.

Do you not understand this?



She wasn't repentant. Not until after Christ spoke to her. It was His goodness that led her to repentance. Nobody repents without Christ's making the first move. If He hadn't pardoned us first, we'd all be dead.



Your definition doesn't apply here. Of course Jesus couldn't have pardoned the woman in the sense of having pardon written against her name without her repenting first. When Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more" this isn't pardon according to your definition that's being spoken of.

Regarding the rest of it, I think you're missing the whole point of what Jesus was about. He said one of the most beautiful things ever, in saying "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." You're making this conditional upon the woman's goodness, but the whole point is that it was Jesus' goodness that led the woman to repentance, not the woman's goodness that led Jesus to not condemn her.



I appreciate your kind words, but we look at this incident very differently. I've mentioned the analogy of the father/hunter on a number of occasions. I see the incident like that.



The woman wasn't deserving of forgiveness. Christ acted the way He did towards her out of the goodness of His own heart, not out of any goodness on her part.



I believe that compelling power is found only under Satan's government. I believe Christ responded correctly when He told the disciples, "You know not of what spirit you are," when they suggested He destroy the Samaritans by setting them on fire.

God is not the destroyer. Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer.

kland,

If in your mind I'm not qualified to use an analogy in my post, why do you think I am qualified to respond to your analogy?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Why don't you answer his question? He's asked several times now.

I have answered his question already, but apparently he feels he has a good analogy that will undermine something of my belief, and so he has pushed it forward again. When I give a countering analogy, he tells me that I am not qualified to do so. If he will not respond to my analogy even once, I see no reason to continue responding to his analogy, which I already have answered at least once.

Tom, you are the one most famous on this forum for stating that you have already said such and so, and therefore avoid answering the present question. I should think it rather odd for you to become upset when I respond as you would. I should rather think you would be praising me for my wisdom. (Don't they say imitation is a form of flattery?)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You haven't been here very long. You asserting, wrongly, that I am "most famous" on this forum for stating that I have already said so and so, when I'm the one who most faithfully responds to other's posts. By far. The only one who comes even close to me in this regards is MM.

The only person I can recall saying I've already responded to a post to is MM, and that's only after he's asked the same question many dozens of times. I've been having these conversations with MM for years. He asks the same questions over and over again, dozens of times, and I answer them. Eventually I tire, and refer to posts I've already made, or quote someone else more eloquent than me, like Ty.

But this is light years away from your behavior, and as one who has something like 10 or 15% the posts I have, you're hardly qualified to comment on what I'm "most famous" for.

It would be nice if you could be famous for avoiding personal comments. You've already been corrected on this by a disinterested party. As a Moderator you should know better.

Your answer, Tom, seems like a good one.



I've answered the question the best I can. You have certain presuppositions, so I can't answer "yes" or "no" without buying into those.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You're welcome. The truth is comforting, when seen in the correct light. When seen at the wrong angle, even truth can seem harmful or be construed as falsehood.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I recall the last analogy you used "fell apart" when you eventually realized it contradicted your beliefs, your previous ones did not go well, and so realize analogies are not your strong point. Therefore, I try to remember and don't use them with you.

Why did you think the abortion doctor was an analogy? It is the real deal. If you don't believe me, search for it in the news. It's been frequently in the news in the states.

The reason you give for not answering has "fallen apart". Now that you realize it's not an analogy, can you answer the questions? Otherwise, according to what I understand you to have said previously, we can only conclude that you see nothing wrong with what the killer did nor the abortion doctor did. Unless you can shed more light on your beliefs.

Thank you for the apology. By question I assume you mean the one I asked. I don't see where you asked a question. Here's the question - "Did Jesus ever command someone to kill a sinner when in reality they were like the woman and deserving of forgiveness?"

My answer remains unchanged - "I don't think so." King David is a case in point. According to the law he deserved to die. Instead, Jesus forgave him. True, others died as punishment for his sins. The reverse is also true, that is, every time Jesus commanded someone to kill a sinner it was because they were unlike the woman and undeserving of forgiveness. Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I understand your point. However, do you understand my question? Do you agree Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”? I’m not asking you to explain what you think He meant; I’m simply asking if you believe He said those words? Or, do you suspect He was misquoted? Also, do you think the rulers thought themselves sinless and worthy to cast the first stone at the woman? If so, what do you think motivated them to abandon their plan and sneak away?


True, it is the goodness of God that leads some sinners to repent and to love and obey Him. And it is also true that Jesus made pardon available; however, I disagree with those who say He in reality pardoned us (wrote “pardon” next to all of our sins) before we repented and asked Him to. My point is Jesus forgave the woman after she repented.


Yes, what Jesus said to the woman was beautiful, but not more beautiful than what Jesus said to King David when he sinned. Jesus was just as loving and beautiful in the OT as He was in the NT. Also, in a different sense, what Jesus commanded Moses to do (kill sinners) was beautiful. “Infinite justice” is a beautiful trait of God’s character. By the way, you didn’t respond to the rest of my post above. I would appreciate it if you would respond to it. Thank you.


Yes, I see similarities; however, teaching a wayward son how to kill animals in a humane manner (something you believe is not a sin) is more dissimilar than similar to Jesus commanding Moses to kill sinners (something you believe is a sin). Do you see what I mean?


You didn’t answer my question. Also, by the way, I agree there is nothing we can do to deserve pardon and salvation. However, when we comply with the conditions of pardon and salvation I believe the Bible makes it clear we are “worthy”. I take it you disagree? If so, how do you interpret the “worthy” passages I posted earlier?


Amen! Jesus chose not to destroy the Samaritans. In the OT there were times when Jesus chose not to destroy sinners and cities. Jesus is the same Lord and Savior in the OT that He is in the NT. However, there were times when circumstances forced Jesus to destroy sinners and cities. For example, Abraham pleaded with Jesus not to destroy S&G. In the end, though, Jesus chose to destroy S&G. He had no other choice. The same thing is true when circumstances forced Jesus to command Moses to kill sinners. My point above is Jesus never commanded someone to kill sinners when they met the conditions for pardon and salvation. The reverse is also true, that is, Jesus only commanded people to kill sinners when they were “worthy”. As it is written, “Thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.” Rev 16:6. Do you see what I mean?

There is no perfect analogy. Even Jesus' analogies were imperfect, if you wish to be critical. The Rich Man and Lazarus -- hell is eternal and burning as we speak; The Good Samaritan -- lacks mention of other classes and races of people; etc. Don't waste words over the definitions of "analogy" and "parable" or even "story." Jesus told the story of the Samaritan as if it were but an example, an analogy, when it had actually happened. We call it a "parable," perhaps because Jesus made an analogy from it, even though it was a true story.

As for any analogy of mine having "fallen apart," what are you talking about? Some analogies may fail to speak to every point, as the Rich Man and Lazarus, but this does not mean the analogy has "fallen apart," does it?


You are making an analogy from the story. You presented it as an analogy, in the same fashion as Jesus' presentation of the Samaritan. This is why I call it, rightly, an analogy. It might be a true story. I have not said it could not be. The truthfulness of it is not in question.

No, the reason has not "fallen apart." Unless you read my prior posts and understand what I have already said on this topic, I suppose you can choose to deny my true position by saying, as you do here, "we can only conclude that...." You will not be able to conclude that if you read my past answer to you on this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In what way could I present a real life situation so that it's not an analogy but a real life situation?

I responded by referring to Luke and asked:
So yes, Jesus didn't command someone to kill anyone, but why didn't He as this was a good reason for non-repenting and non-deserving sinners.

I'm saying Jesus didn't command anyone to kill anyone because it's not due to their worthiness of death or deserving of death, but because killing people is not His nature the same as it is not God's nature. Do you believe the 10 commandments are a reflection God's nature?

You're asking me if I think Jesus Christ said the words recorded in John 8? Why are you asking this?



Why would you think I think this?



Obviously not, right?



Why would you think I think something which is obviously false?



Actually it leads everybody to repentance.





Who says this? I no of no one who says this.



Or before, depending upon what aspect of forgiveness you are referring to. In the ordinary sense of the word, He forgave her before she repented. He said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." This was before she repented. His goodness led her to repentance.



1.Jesus didn't exist as a human being until many years after David.

2.Jesus Christ, as a human being, revealed God's character such as had never been done before. Even angels marveled at the revelation. Until Jesus Christ's life, and death, God had not been understood in His fullness.

3.Nobody really understood the OT God until Jesus Christ came. Then He clearly revealed Him.

4.Your view of the OT God is very different from what Jesus Christ the human being revealed, it seems clear to me. This is a sort of schizophrenic view. Nice in the New, but not to nice in the Old, and not so nice again in the future.

5.The SOP suggests we spend a thoughtful hour each day meditating on the life of Christ. Why do you suppose she suggested this?



I think this is confusion.



It's an analogy. I'm not sure you've ever understood it. It's the best explanation I've seen. This is why I've not really seen much point in going on in this discussion. It's evidently something you're not able to perceive as I do. I've made suggestions that I think would be helpful, such as studying the life of Christ, and forming a theology of God's character based on that first, and then going back later on to the OT. You seem to have no interest in this, but I don't see how rehashing the same OT things over and over again is going to help, especially when you seem unable to understand what I'm trying to say.

I'm not blaming you for this. It could be that I'm just not able to find a way to communicate to you clearly enough at this time. Until that time, assuming I'm able to do so, why not give my suggestion a try?



Sure I did. Your question contained the premise that the woman was deserving of forgiveness. I answered your question by pointing out that she wasn't.



You said you agree that there is nothing we can do to deserve pardon and salvation, but that we can be "worthy." (in quotes). I'm not sure what "worthy" (in quotes) means.

I'd say we are not worthy, but Christ is worthy, and we be grace my receive from His goodness, mercy and love, as unworthy sinners.



I'd have to look.

I did a search on "worthy" on this page and the previous one, and couldn't find anything.

Ok, I went back a bit further and found them:



Here's one to consider:



I would interpret this as saying that God allowed them to have a privilege, and they were thankful for that privilege.

Here's another:



This looks to be saying that being counted worthy of [this] calling means allowing God to fulfill the good pleasure of His goodness, which I would take to mean revealing His character. So we are worthy of His calling if we allow Him to reveal His character in us.

Is this enough?

Was this ever answered? If so, what post?

I don't think the Samaritans were guilty of sinning against God in the same way S&G were guilty of sinning against God. Instead, I believe they were in a similar state as the Amorties when Jesus told Abraham she would not be "utterly destroyed" "until the fourth generation" "for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full". In the same way and for the same reasons Jesus did not give the disciples permission to call down fire upon the Samaritans.

In the case of S&G, however, it was Abraham who pleaded with Jesus not to "utterly destroy" her. But, as you know, Jesus was forced to destroy every man, woman, and child.

Did Jesus violate the law when He rained down fire upon S&G and killed everyone? No, of course not. What sayest the Lord? "God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. . . . Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice. {LDE 241.2}

So would you say that if the Samaritan's cup was full, He would have given them permission?

I guess it depends upon what the law says.


But, it seems to me that you intend the quote to mean that He did violate the law as He has a right to which man has no right to. What do you say the law says? Assuming the law means the Ten commandments, do you believe the Ten commandments represent His character? Would this mean He has a right to violate His character?

Do you believe Adam was guilty of breaking every part of the Ten commandments?

The Samaritans had been around for how many generations? Fifty? More? Long past the 3 or 4 of the Amorites. Don't see how you're seeing an analogy here.

Also when Elijah called heaven down from heaven, wasn't that against Jews? How would that fit in to what you're saying?

What really happened is so simple, it's hard to see how it's missed. Jesus had no secret agenda. The disciples wanted to have fire called down from heaven to destroy. Jesus said they didn't know of what spirit they were. Why? Because the Son of Man did not come to destroy but to save. This is God's character. God is the restorer. Satan is the destroyer.

You didn’t answer my questions.


You mean because they slipped away when Jesus wrote their sins in the sand? If so, I meant when Jesus first told them to cast the first stone, which He did before He wrote their sins in the sand. Also, do you think they sneaked away because they felt unworthy to cast the first stone? Or, do you think they sneaked away because they feared Jesus would expose their sins to the people?


I wonder if it would be more productive if you simply answered my questions?


Are you sure? It sounds like you’re saying the fact God is good and treats everyone well results in everyone repenting (as you know, repentance means dying to self and living for Jesus). I believe everyone who repents does so due to the fact God is good and treats them well. But the fact is not everyone repents in spite of the fact God is good and treats everyone well.

“The sinner may resist this love, may refuse to be drawn to Christ; but if he does not resist he will be drawn to Jesus; a knowledge of the plan of salvation will lead him to the foot of the cross in repentance for his sins, which have caused the sufferings of God's dear Son. (SC 29)


There are people who believe Jesus pardoned everyone on the cross. I believe He earned the legal right on the cross to pardon the penitent.


Do you think I had your definition of forgiveness in mind or mine when I wrote what I did above? Jesus does not write “pardon” next to our sins until after we repent. Do you agree? If so, then it seems clear you agree with what I’m saying about the woman.


1. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
2. True, but it doesn’t mean Jesus misrepresented the Father in the OT.
3. I disagree. “It is the voice of Christ that speaks through patriarchs and prophets, from the days of Adam even to the closing scenes of time. The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New. {DA 799.2}
4. You are dead wrong about my view of Jesus. “Jesus was just as loving and beautiful in the OT as He was in the NT.”
5. I agree. It’s just that I believe it includes all of Jesus’ life. You seem to limit it to His post-incarnation life.


Yes, you do. However, it’s the truth. Do you feel Jesus is being less kind and loving when circumstances force Him to withdraw His protection and permit sinners to suffer and die?


We are doing the very thing you’ve suggested, namely, studying Jesus in the OT in light of Jesus in the NT. As we do so it is evident Jesus is the same in both Testaments. I do not see Him behaving any different. He is consistently the same loving, just, and good Friend and Savior. He always has been and always will be.

Yes, your humane hunter analogy does a good job of establishing the fact Jesus runs the risk of being misunderstood as being an angry, vengeful Deity every time He commands someone to kill sinners. It also does a good job of explaining the fact circumstances force Jesus to do things He’d rather not have to do. Nevertheless, “infinite justice” compels Him to do what is right and best for the universe.

Punishment is a necessary evil. Simply allowing sinners to kill themselves or to kill one another does not satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice. Sinners must be tried in a court of law and sentenced according to their guilt and sinfulness. Yes, I know, you believe Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting sinners to reap the natural, inevitable results of sinning is punishment.


If she wasn’t worthy (by worthy I mean someone who complies with the conditions of pardon and salvation), why, then, did Jesus forgive her (write pardon next to her sin))? Or, do you believe Jesus wrote pardon next to her sin in spite of the fact she was not, as you say, worthy (by not worthy I mean someone who refuses to repent and chooses to rebel).


Do you agree the Bible says we are to “walk worthy”, that we are “counted worthy” of pardon and salvation “for {we} are worthy”?


It sounds like you agree with me that if we meet the conditions and “walk worthy” of pardon and salvation that Jesus “counts us worthy”. Or, did I misunderstand you? Do you believe no matter what we do Jesus always counts us unworthy of pardon and salvation? Do you agree with those who say our “righteousness and true holiness” is tainted with the stain of sin and selfishness, and that therefore no matter what we do Jesus counts us unworthy?

No. Jesus didn't come the first time to destroy sinners. He came to demonstrate how converted born again believers can live in harmony with the will of God for them. He didn't come to demonstrate what He will do with unsaved sinners during the final judgment. Do you agree?


I had in mind the 10Cs.


As judge and executioner Jesus is required to act in harmony with the just and loving demands of law and justice. Law and justice does not demand that we judge and execute sinners. Instead, law and justice demands that Jesus judge and execute sinners during the final judgment. Ellen wrote:

While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some He must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor. {PP 628.1}

God's judgments will be visited upon those who are seeking to oppress and destroy His people. His long forbearance with the wicked emboldens men in transgression, but their punishment is nonetheless certain and terrible because it is long delayed. "The Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim, He shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that He may do His work, His strange work; and bring to pass His act, His strange act." Isaiah 28:21. To our merciful God the act of punishment is a strange act. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Ezekiel 33:11. The Lord is "merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, . . . forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." Yet He will "by no means clear the guilty." The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked." Exodus 34:6, 7; Nahum 1:3. By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law. The severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor may be judged by the Lord's reluctance to execute justice. The nation with which He bears long, and which He will not smite until it has filled up the measure of its iniquity in God's account, will finally drink the cup of wrath unmixed with mercy. {GC 627.2}

One reminder alone remains: Our Redeemer will ever bear the marks of His crucifixion. Upon His wounded head, upon His side, His hands and feet, are the only traces of the cruel work that sin has wrought. Says the prophet, beholding Christ in His glory: "He had bright beams coming out of His side: and there was the hiding of His power." Habakkuk 3:4, margin. That pierced side whence flowed the crimson stream that reconciled man to God--there is the Saviour's glory, there "the hiding of His power." "Mighty to save," through the sacrifice of redemption, He was therefore strong to execute justice upon them that despised God's mercy. And the tokens of His humiliation are His highest honor; through the eternal ages the wounds of Calvary will show forth His praise and declare His power. {GC 674.2}


Yes. Why do you ask?

When do you think they filled up their cup of iniquity?


I assume you're referring to when Elijah prayed and God answered by sending down fire to consume the sacrifice. At this point, their cup of iniquity was not filled. God was still working with the COI to fulfill His purpose.


Yes, there are times when God permits evil angels to destroy sinners. There are even times when God permits evil angels to afflict His chosen servants. However, there are times when Jesus commands holy men and holy angels to punish and destroy sinners. And, there are even times when Jesus Himself employs the forces of nature to punish and destroy sinners. Ellen wrote:


Do you believe evil angels killed the first born? Do you believe the "destroying angel" symbolizes Satan? Ellen wrote:

Why do you think they did? I don't know Samaritan history.



Then why would you think the Samaritans iniquity was filled?



This is getting off the point. The point is that desiring fire to come from heaven to destroy others is not the Spirit of Christ.



No He doesn't. Satan is the destroyer. God is the restorer. Here's a nice quote which explains the principle:



This brings out many of the points I've mentioned.

1.With sin came sickness and suffering, for we reap that which we sow.
2.Satan afterward caused man to charge upon God the suffering which is but the sure result of the transgression of physical law.
3.God is thus falsely accused, and his character misrepresented.
4.God is charged with doing that which Satan himself has done.
5.God would have his people expose this falsehood of the enemy. (I'm trying to do this. It's hard work! The resistance is amazing. One would think people would be open to good news like this, but they're not; they prefer a destructive God).

Now this is talking about the gospel of health, but the same principles apply to sin and spiritual health. Satan is the destroyer, and he blames God for his own work, thus misrepresenting God's character.

Regarding your quote, it's nice that you quoted the underlined sentence in context.



What do we learn from this?

1.The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent.
2.The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn.
3.Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one.
4.Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble.

So who's doing the destroying here? What do the holy angels do? Isn't it obvious that they restrain?

Regarding if Satan is the destroying angel, yes. That's his name, in fact (Apolyon).

God destroys be permitting Satan to do his destructive work. Consider Job, where God spoke of being moved to destroy Job. But what really happened?

Once the underlying principles are understood, as laid out above, this is very easy to understand. God's not schizophrenic. He doesn't sometimes restore and sometimes destroy. It's not sometimes not according to His Spirit to call fire down from heaven to destroy, and other times it is. For example, consider the statement "The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government." That doesn't mean sometimes, but always. Or "Compelling power if only found in Satan's government." That doesn't mean "Compelling power is found in both Satan's government and God's government."

I meant to say the Samaritans, like the Amorites, had not yet filled up their cup of iniquity. That’s the comparison. I don’t think it matters how long they went without filling up their cup.


Same answer as above.


True, when Jesus was here in the flesh it was not His purpose to punish and destroy unredeemable sinners. Even from your point of view, it was not Jesus’ purpose while here in the flesh to withdraw His protection and permit unredeemable sinners to suffer and die according to their sinfulness. Citing the story above as proof that Jesus never punished and destroyed sinners in the past or that He will not punish or destroy them during the final judgment misses the mark.


It sounds like, yes, you believe the “destroying angel” and the “angel of the LORD” is in reality an evil angel. I find it hard to accept in light of the following passage:

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.
21:16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders [of Israel, who were] clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.

And it sounds like you believe “the same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits” means holy angels will stop restraining evil angels and permit them to pour out the seven last plagues. If so, in what sense is it the “same destructive power”?

In other words, if, as you seem to be saying, exercising “destructive power” means ceasing restraining death and destruction, it stands to reason evil angels will also cease restraining death and destruction when they exercise the “same destructive power”. If so, who or what, then, will actually pour out the seven last plagues?

You wrote, “God destroys be permitting Satan to do his destructive work.” Do you mean God destroys by permitting Satan to cause death and destruction? If so, who or what do you think will cause death and destruction during the final judgment?

But this doesn't have anything to do with anything. The disciples suggested that Jesus call fire from heaven to destroy the Samaritans. Jesus didn't say, "This would be OK, if their cup will filled, but it's not, so it's not time yet." Instead He rebuked them. He said they didn't know of what spirit they were.

It wasn't a problem with timing but of spirit. Their spirit was wrong. Why? Because they wanted Jesus to call fire from heaven to destroy. Jesus explained this is the wrong spirit. Why? Because:





Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This is never His purpose. His purpose is always to heal, to save, to bless, to do good. Those who reject His love destroy themselves.



No it doesn't. It shows what is a right spirit and what is a wrong spirit. The spirit that would call fire from heaven to destroy is wrong.



These are two different angels. Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer. The angels of God guard against the destroyer. The holy angels at times permit Satan and his angels to destroy.



The evil angels exercise the same destructive power.



Huh? The bad angels destroy. The good angels prevent destruction.



That's explained in GC 614:





The prevailing power of God's government is truth and love. The death and destruction during the final judgment will result from this prevailing power.

You wrote, “God destroys be permitting Satan to do his destructive work.” Do you mean God destroys by permitting Satan to cause death and destruction? If so, who or what do you think will cause death and destruction during the final judgment?

When Elisha twice called down fire to kill the band of fifty would you say he was guilty of having a “wrong spirit”? When Jesus employed fire to kill Nadab and Abihu would you say he was guilty of having a “wrong spirit”? When Abraham tried to talk Jesus out of killing the inhabitants of S&G do you think Jesus was guilty of having a “wrong spirit” when He rained down fire and killed them? At the end of time, when Jesus rains down fire from above and raises up fire from below to kill the wicked do you think He will be guilty of having a “wrong spirit”?

Were the disciples guilty of having a “wrong spirit” when they wanted to call down fire to kill the Samaritans? Yes, of course. How do we know? Jesus said so! The question is – Did Jesus accuse anyone of having a “wrong spirit” in the cases I mentioned above? No, of course not. How do we know? Because Jesus didn’t say so! Instead, He was responsible for the outcome.


In the OT Jesus withdrew His protection and allowed sinners to be punished and destroyed. When He withdrew His protection, did He know it would result in them being punished and destroyed? Yes, of course. Does this mean He is a destroyer? No, of course not. Was it His purpose “to heal, to save, to bless, to do good” (your words) when He withdrew His protection? No, of course not. Instead, it was His purpose to punish them. Were there unredeemable sinners alive when Jesus was here in the flesh? Yes, of course. Did He withdraw His protection and allow them to be punished and destroyed? No, of course not. Why not? Because it wasn’t His purpose while here in the flesh.


See response above.


I’m surprised you believe the “destroying angel” and the “angel of the Lord” are two different angels. I’m also surprised you believe the “angel of death” and the “destroying angel” is an evil angel. Ellen wrote:


If, as you say, the “destroying angel” is in reality an evil angel, wouldn’t that make the relationship between Jesus and Satan boss and hit man? What if Satan chose not to kill someone? What then? For example, what if Satan had chosen not to kill Pharaoh’s first-born son? Or, what if Satan had chosen not kill any of the first-born in Egypt? What then?

And, why do you think Satan so faithfully obeys Jesus in killing sinners, especially when doing so results in sinners loving and obeying God?


In what sense, then, is destroying sinners the “same destructive power exercised by holy angels”? If holy angels exercise “destructive power” by “preventing destruction”, why do you think evil angels exercise the “same destructive power” to cause destruction? What is the nature and essence of this “destructive power”?


She says Satan will control the “fierce winds of human passion” when probation closes. Do you think Satan will use humans to cause the devastation portrayed by the plagues? I don’t. I think it means Satan will inspire humans to war among themselves while holy angels obey Jesus and pour out the plagues.


What does God do now to prevent evil angels from suffering and dying as a result of the fact God is truth and love? Why doesn’t love and truth cause them to suffer and die now? And, what will God do differently that will result in them suffering and dying?

How did Jesus respond to the disciples when they wanted to do so? There's the answer to your question.



This has a false premise.



This has a false premise, in regards to Jesus, but Abraham's spirit was good.



This also has a false premise.



We don't need that Jesus said so to know that they had a wrong spirit. Anyone understanding the issue would know this without Jesus' having said so. That Jesus said so helps those who don't understand the issue to understand it.



No, MM. Destroying someone else is the wrong spirit. It always has been. This wasn't understood in the OT. God had to work with the people as they were, which makes it very difficult to figure things out from the OT. This is why I've been suggesting that one should form a foundation of God's character based on Jesus' ministry.

Consider:

1.Satan deceived man by misrepresenting God's character, investing God with his own characteristics.

2.Jesus Christ became a human being to reveal God's true character.

3.This was the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission.

4.All that man can know was revealed by the life and character of His Son.

This is good advice that I'm giving you. Consider Jesus Christ. Mediate upon His life, as Ellen White has suggested, to understand God's true character. Set aside the OT for the time being, and come back to it later after having formed a theology of God's character based on Christ's revelation.

There was a reason that it was necessary for Christ to come to reveal God's character. If it could have been understood simply from the OT, Christ wouldn't have had to reveal it.



I disagree. I don't think His purpose changed.

Here's an analogy. Say you have a child who is hooked on drugs. You do everything you can to help, but nothing works. Finally you decide to let the child go, judging this is the best alternative, knowing that you can't control the actions of an adult forever. You can't kidnap an adult, force them to do your will. You let the child go, but has your purpose changed? No, it hasn't. Your purpose is still to heal. You don't let the child go so it can be destroyed.



I disagree with you in terms of what you think Christ's purpose was. It was never His purpose to destroy, but always to heal, to save.



No. The first chapter of "The Great Controversy" explains that Satan, the great deceiver, conceals his own work by blaming it on God. It is Satan's purpose to misrepresent God's character. God has no desire to kill or destroy. Satan is not God's "hit man" because God has no desire than anyone be killed.



Satan couldn't resist the opportunity to make God look bad, and God knew that.



No! This is not an order of Jesus. Jesus explain that those who thought this way "knew now of what spirit" they were. This is not the Spirit of Christ.



The result Satan was aiming for was that people would view God with fear and hate, investing Him with his own characteristics. Seeing people destroyed has never resulted in people loving God. Just think about this a little bit, MM. If you had a loved one, say one of the first born was you brother, and you thought God killed him, what would your response be? It would be to hate and fear God, not to love Him.



If you read the preceding paragraph, you can see that the holy angels are restraining. Christ ceases His work as intercessor, and the Spirit of God, resisted and rejected, finally withdraws, telling the holy angels to "release," which allows Satan and his angels to do their destructive work.



She also talks about Satan's using the forces of nature to destroy. She uses Job as an example, pointing to how quickly earthquakes and other natural disasters came once Satan was permitted to do his will.



He doesn't permit them to reap the full result of their sin (DA 764).



God will reveal the truth in the judgment. GC last chapter describes this.

Tom, you have yet to address the question that serves as title for this thread. Saying we need to study Jesus in the NT doesn't explain, for example, why He commanded Moses to kill sinners. Nor do your analogies include the fact Jesus withdrew His protection on certain occasions and permitted nature or evil men or evil angels to punish and kill sinners. For example, you mentioned a father letting go and leaving his drug-addicted son to pursue a self-destroying lifestyle. Your analogy leaves out the part where Jesus withdrew His protection and permitted nature or evil men or evil angels to punish and kill sinners. Unless, of course, you believe the father possessed the power to prevent his son from suffering the ill-effects of drug use while living under his care and roof.

I answered it many times. Probably over a dozen at least.



You're assuming something about what the account means. This is where I think in your error, in your understand of what happened. So I suggested things which I think would help to have a proper understanding. That's reasonable, isn't it?



No it doesn't. The point was that there comes a time when a free moral agent has made a choice, and that agent must be left to receive the results of his choice.



He could have kept him in by force, right?

But, didn't you just say that "In the same way and for the same reasons Jesus did not give the disciples permission to call down fire upon the Samaritans"? Meaning, to me, that if their iniquity was full, he would have given His disciples permission. So why the bit about the "first time"? And what about Abraham's time, was that the "first time", prior time, or....
Do you hear what I'm asking: first it's ok, then not ok, then ok?

What was the disciples "spirit"? For example, if I want to call fire from heaven down on someone, how can I make sure I have the "right" spirit?

Let me see if I understand your view correctly. You believe the reason why Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners is because the cup of Israel's iniquity was full and He gave them up to serve sin. Is that your answer to the title question?

No. You're train of thought is impossible to follow. How does this question follow from:



I don't even know how to address your question. Where did this question come from?

I was addressing why Jesus didn't call down fire on the Samaritans. Yes, the "spirit" of the disciples was wrong. And, yes, there were times when Jesus thought the time was right for destruction, and times when thought the time was not right.

Tom, do you believe the reason why Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners is because the cup of Israel's iniquity was full and He gave them up to serve sin. Is that your answer to the title question?

PS - Never mind our dialog between this post and 123753. Things got too dissected.

No and no.



Ok.

Ok, so what was the disciples spirit? What was wrong with it? Why wasn't it the right time for Jesus (or He to permit His disciples) to call fire down on them? Jesus came to demonstrate His character, right? So it seems to me, that if there was a "right time" and He didn't kill them, He would be deceptive, no?

If I want to call fire from heaven down on someone, how can I make sure I have the "right" spirit?

Kland, our views are polar opposites. I don't see how we can carry on a discussion. The disciples' spirit was wrong in that they wanted to call down fire for wicked, unholy, selfish reasons. When Jesus ignored Abraham's pleadings and rained down fire on the men, women, and children of S&G His reasons were right and righteous. And, the right time for you to pray to Jesus to rain down fire on the wicked is described in Revelation 14:14-20. Until then rest assured Jesus will not command you to kill sinners like He did Moses and many others.

Thank you for answering my questions. Do you think the main reason Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners was because sin-hardened Jews expected it? If so, was it wrong or sinful for Jesus to command killing sinners? And, was it wrong or sinful for Moses to obey Jesus' command to kill sinners? I know I've asked these questions before, but I do not remember your answers.

MM,

We may have a communication problem, because I don't see how my questions are polar opposite from what you've said. You said that the disciples did not have the right spirit. Logic requires that the disciples could have had the right spirit. Therefore, I asked what was that spirit they had, how could they get the right spirit. This is a practical question, it has to do with capital punishment, so I think this is a highly relevant question.

You are asking Tom about Moses killing sinners. There are other examples where there was not a direct command from Jesus to kill people. Ignoring for the moment why they were told to, relate the past with the disciples wanting to call fire down on the Samaritans. Why was that different than in times past? The disciples must not have thought it was any different. You said they did not have the right spirit. In what way could they get the right spirit like those of times past?

How can you dismiss it by saying it was for "wicked, unholy, selfish reasons", how do you know that? I did not gather that from the Luke story. I saw the disciples wanting to do it for righteous reasons and expected it fit in fully with what Jesus wanted. Why did Jesus not command the disciples to call down fire on the Samaritans just like Moses? If you say it was not the right time, seem my previous post for that question.

Kland, the difference between Jesus commanding people like Moses to kill sinners and James and John asking Jesus for permission to call down fire on the Samaritans has to do with who initiated it. James and John, not Jesus, initiated calling down fire on the Samaritans. They were annoyed and indignant because they felt Jesus wasn't receiving the honor and respect He deserved. Ellen wrote:

"James and John, Christ's messengers, were greatly annoyed at the insult shown to their Lord. They were filled with indignation because He had been so rudely treated by the Samaritans whom He was honoring by His presence. They had recently been with Him on the mount of transfiguration, and had seen Him glorified by God, and honored by Moses and Elijah. This manifest dishonor on the part of the Samaritans, should not, they thought, be passed over without marked punishment. {DA 487.1}

Jesus never commanded people like Moses to kill sinners because they failed to invite someone to stay the night.

No to all questions. None of this reflects my thinking.

Well, I'm a little confused.

You said before:

Would you like to reword that statement?

Because if not, logic still requires an answer to the question of how could they be in the right spirit in wanting to call down fire?

In the first of John 9, Jesus said to shake off the dust against those who don't receive them. In Chapter 10, He said if no son of peace were in a house it would return to them. Where do you think the disciples got the idea of calling down fire on the Samaritans? Some versions have 9:54 saying "just as Elijah did". I don't think they thought to call down fire on them because they wouldn't let them spend the night. The context means more than that.

Who initiated Elijah calling down fire?

Could there be the slightest possibility we are not correctly understanding "what manner of spirit you are of" in verse 55?

Is that how you'd like to leave it? Or, would you like to summarize what you believe as to why Jesus commanded people like Moses to kill sinners? Again, I suspect you feel as though you've clearly answered this question beyond question or misunderstanding, however, the truth is I was thoroughly and completely surprised you didn't answer the first question above with a resounding, YES!!! I correctly assumed you'd answer the other two questions with, No.

Kland, Jesus told James and John, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." I believe this means Jesus felt their spirit, their motive, their attitude, their reasons for wanting to call down fire on the Samaritans was wrong. Do you agree?

You asked, "Logic still requires an answer to the question of how could they be in the right spirit in wanting to call down fire?" The answer is, They couldn't. The time was not right for Jesus to destroy the Samaritans.

Nevertheless, I believe there were times when Jesus felt it was right to rain down fire on sinners. For example, Jesus felt the time was right to incinerate every man, woman, and child in S&G. He also felt the time was right to incinerate Nadab and Abihu. He also felt the time was right to incinerate the 250 sympathizers who lamented the destruction and death of Korah and company. I assume you disagree?

Did Elijah initiate calling down fire upon the Samaritan soldiers? Ellen wrote: "Twice Ahaziah sent a company of soldiers to intimidate the prophet, and twice the wrath of God fell upon them in judgment. {PK 208.3} What thinkest thou? Who initiated it?

Oh absolutely, I didn't think there was any question to that. The question is you said it was a wrong spirit and so what would be the right spirit. Do you wish to reword your statement?

If it was all just a timing issue, don't you think Jesus was a little harsh with His disciples? I mean, if Jesus was going to burn them anyway, why wouldn't He tell his disciples that their cup was not full instead of saying they didn't know what spirit they were of. What spirit were they of, poor timing?


Well, it's kind of hard to agree or disagree when I don't believe Jesus in the past, then, in the present, nor in the future is going to set people on fire.


What did the disciples believe?

No. I believe it is accurate to say "Jesus felt their spirit, their motive, their attitude, their reasons for wanting to call down fire on the Samaritans was wrong." There are times, however, when having the right spirit based on the right reasons reflects the will of God. The right spirit, as you know, is a sorrowful spirit. Jesus does not delight in destroying sinners.


No, Jesus wasn't too harsh. Their reasons for wanting to call down fire are never right even if the time was right.


What do you think happened that the sinners named above were burned alive and died?


They probably believed, like Ellen, that Jesus initiated it. But their reasons for wanting to call down fire were wholly unlike Jesus' reasons for wanting Elijah to do it. Motive matters.

I've already written so much in regards to this, I don't see how repeating something at this stage would help any. What I write is forgotten, and what I suggest is completely ignored.

This says the wrath of God came upon them. You interpret this as meaning that "Jesus initiated it." You have preset ideas as to what phrases mean, so when you come across a certain phrase, you interpret it to mean something you already think, even though the phrase itself says nothing of the sort.

The wrath of God is not His getting angry and smiting people, but His reluctant withdraw, allowing people to experience the result of their choice:





















In the above texts, the following may be noted:

1)The text mentions God’s anger, wrath or fury
2)This is explained as God’s hiding His face, delivering up those who have rejected Him, or withdrawing.
3)Bad things happen when God withdraws.

Hey, come on, give me a break, two out of three ain't bad, right! Was I totally and utterly wrong for thinking you believe Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners on account of sin-hardened Jews? Or, is there a smidgen of truth to it?

Let's, as you have implored us, study this insight in light of Jesus while He was here in the flesh. When did Jesus, while here in the flesh, withdraw His protection and permit evil to befall sinners? Yes, He said would He do so after He returned to Heaven (referring to the destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD), but what about while He was here in the flesh?

Ok, let's study what Jesus Christ lived and taught in regards to violence. How did Christ respond when His disciples wanted to use violence to protect Him? How did He respond when His disciples wanted to use violence to punish? How did Christ Himself respond to those who would violently treat Him?

With regards to your question, in the flesh Christ said, in regards to Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13:34)

Here Christ speaks of the protection He longed to offer Jerusalem, but they would not.

I've repeatedly said I think the capital punishment is similar in character to polygamy, wanting a king, divorce, etc. I've also present the father/hunter as an analogy as to what I think was happening. I've also said repeatedly, if we wish to know God's ideal will, we have but to look to Christ. How did Christ feel about violence?

Now that you've affirmed Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, withdraw His protection and permit evil to befall sinners, how does it help us understand why Jesus did it so many times in the OT?

1. Why did Jesus permit polygamy, having a king, getting divorced, etc?
2. Was it because of the hardness of their hearts?
3. If so, did Jesus command capital punishment because of the hardness of their hearts?
4. And, is permitting something and commanding something equivalent (referring to when Jesus does it)?
5. Finally, was Moses guilty of violence when he obeyed Jesus' command to kill sinners?

Ok, I was talking about your statement about being of the wrong spirit....


Let's assume you have answered it here by saying it was impossible for them to have the right spirit....


God withdrew His protection and the powers that be happened. Should that surprise you?


...But, by saying "motive matters", that seems to suggest that they could have the right motive. That is what I am keep on asking and have yet to receive an answer. Maybe I'm not asking it clearly, but am trying. How could the disciples have the right spirit? If as it appears to me you are hinting at, that it was impossible to have the right spirit, does that make sense that Jesus would tell them they didn't have the right spirit rather than telling them that wasn't for them to do?

I'm sorry, I must have missed where Tom said that. Something fresh in my mind is Luke 8, Luke 9, Luke 10. Now, I don't know exactly if some evil befelled them, but it does seem to indicate/imply/or otherwise conveys the meaning whether correctly or incorrectly (to me) that He withdrew.

I don't understand your point.


The time and circumstances were not right for Jesus to rain down fire, so, yes, it was not possible to have the right spirit.


Who or what is the "powers that be"?


Jesus implied their spirit was wrong. The reasons they wanted to burn them alive were all wrong. Jesus had the right spirit about it. If the disciples had understood the time and circumstances as Jesus did it wouldn't have occurred to them to ask permission to call down fire. Elijah, however, was in harmony with the will of Jesus when he called down fire on the two bands of fifty.

Is it your belief that Tom feels the passages below portray Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting evil to befall sinners in the same way He did in the OT?

Luke 8:37 Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.

Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.

Luke 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.





















































































Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village.

So, not possible....but....

Again, do you see a contradiction here? First you say not possible to have a right spirit (which, by the way is contradictory in itself), then you say they could have and Elijah did have the right spirit. And it, seems to me, is even more contradictory that first you say that right spirit involves the timing and circumstances, then it has to do with motive and harmony with the will of God, but then again you say timing and circumstances.

I hope you are able to see some contradictions within your own statements. Is it possible you are having a hard time defining what "wrong" spirit is? Could it be possible that the "wrong" spirit is wanting to kill anyone in the first place rather than something about when, how, by what means, or how they were feeling at the time they did it?

Why is that important?

I don't think Tom commented on these passages.
I listed the passages as showing withdrawal.

Do you see anything in the passages as Jesus forcing Himself upon anyone or threatening them if they reject Him? Interesting to note that in chapter 10, it even references Sodom and Gomorrah. If the kingdom is nigh, then they leave, would it follow that the kingdom is no longer nigh? Do you think it is a fair comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah?

Because of the hardness of their hearts.



Yes.



Capital punishment existed because of the hardness of their hearts.



No.



What does "guilty of violence" mean?

I should repeat that I don't think there's any fruit in this. I keep saying this, but it just goes on and on and on, like the Energizer bunny.

If we're interested in understanding God's character, we should look to Jesus Christ, not Moses. Jesus Christ was the revelation of God. All that man can know of God was revealed by His life and character. We should be studying this revelation, which was given with the express purpose of revealing the Father.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement regarding this point. I think you don't believe that Christ's revelation was superior or necessary. That's my impression.

But what?


There's no contradiction in the statements. You are merely misunderstanding them. The right spirit is possible when the timing and circumstances are right for burning sinners alive. However, it is also possible to have the wrong spirit when the timing and circumstances are right for burning sinners alive. Motives make the difference. If the reasons for calling down fire are in harmony with the will of God then the motives are right and the spirit is right. But if the reasons for calling down fire are not in harmony with the will of God then the motives are wrong and the spirit is wrong. Elijah is a perfect example of being in harmony with the will of God, of having the right motives and the right spirit. The disciples are a perfect example of not being in harmony with the will of God and having the wrong motives and the wrong spirit.


You said the sinners I named above were burned alive when "the powers that be happened". You, therefore, alluded to the origin and source of the fire that killed them. It must have been important enough for you to mention it. Jesus, by the way, is "the head of all principality and power" (Col 2:10). Are you saying Jesus "happened" and those sinners were burned alive? If so, then I agree. If not, who or what do you believe is the "powers that be" that "happened" and resulted in those sinners being burned alive?

Tom has commented at length on Luke 9:56. I'm surprised you haven't noticed. Please go back and read what he wrote and then let me know if you think he believes it represents Jesus withdrawing His protection, like He did in the OT, and permitting sinners to suffer and die. Thank you.

In Luke 10:11 Jesus told the disciples to shake the very dust off their feet as a rebuke and reprimand if the townsfolk rejected them. Does this sound like something you envision Jesus doing?

To address your question, do you think the arrival of the disciples in town was equivalent to the "kingdom of God" being "nigh" and that their departure was equivalent to the withdrawal of the "kingdom of God"?

Also, more to the point, do you think their withdrawal resulted in sinners being burned alive? If not, do you see any similarities we can compare with the many times in the OT Jesus was forced to withdraw His protection and permit the death and destruction of men, women, and children?

Now that you've affirmed Jesus did not, while here in the flesh, withdraw His protection and permit evil to befall sinners, how does it help us understand why Jesus did it so many times in the OT?

Leading up to this point our dialog consisted of the following:


At first you said, no, it was not because of the hardness of their hearts that Jesus commanded Moses to kill sinners. But now it sounds like you're saying, yes, it was because of the hardness of their hearts. Which is what I thought you were saying all along.

Also, in what sense do you think Jesus commanding something is different than permitting something? Is He more or less responsible, culpable for the outcome?


In the past you've indicated executing capital punishment is arbitrary and violent. Did I misunderstand you? If not, do you think Moses was executing an arbitrary, violent form of punishment when he obeyed Jesus and killed sinners?

And, I have been trying to following your advice and counsel to study Jesus in the NT in order to understand why, in the OT, He included capital punishment in the law and why He commanded people like Moses to kill sinners.

Also, no, I do not think Jesus' revelation of God's character in the OT is inferior or that His revelation in the NT is superior. I believe Jesus clearly revealed God's character in both testaments. "The Saviour is revealed in the Old Testament as clearly as in the New." {DA 799.2}

This is from a post addressed to kland. I'm not wanting to get too involved, as I enjoy reading the discussion between you two, but will just interject that I'm a bit surprised by this question. What you're asking about is certainly not something which entered my mind when I commented on the passage in Luke.

???



???

I don't understand how you're reading what I wrote, MM.

Here's what I suggest. For a given amount of time, just forget about the Old Testament. Do what Ellen White suggested, spending a thoughtful hour each day on the life of Christ, especially the latter scenes. Remember that the whole purpose of Christ's ministry was the revelation of God.

Like those in Christ's day, we all have wrong conceptions as to God's character and the principles of His government. By considering Christ afresh, we can obtain a new perspective, the new wineskin that Christ spoke of.

Consider the teachings of Christ afresh, as if they were new to you, paying special attention to what Christ is trying to communicate. How were the attitudes of the Pharisees, and even Christ's disciples, wrong? What principles did He point out to them in regards to God's character and His government?

It's so easy for us to read into Christ's teachings our own ideas as opposed to allowing His teachings to challenge our paradigm, and give us new wineskins.

Probably a FOTAP response. That is, you phrase things in a way that forces me to say "no" no matter what you ask, because I disagree with the assumptions involved in your questions.



If you take what I say in my own words, that's probably an easier way to understand what I'm saying.



The story of the father/hunter should have made that clear.



Yes (as the story makes clear).



Yes, I think so. I don't think I've ever made this comment in regards to capital punishment. I'm quite sure I haven't.



Please refer to my post just before this one.



I think that's a problem. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ is a revelation of God which didn't exist before, especially Christ crucified.



The context of this is Jesus' Bible Study to the disciples on the road to Emaus.



It's clear this is pointing forward to Christ. The Savior, as One who would come, was clearly revealed in the Old Testament. But Christ had a work to do, which was prophesied, and which was necessary.

From what you write, it sounds almost as if you think there was no need for Christ to come to do that which was the whole purpose of His ministry, which was to reveal God. If God had already been clearly and fully revealed, why did Christ need to come to do this?

I suppose I am not understanding your statements. I am trying to understand what you are saying but am having a hard time as it seems to me to be contradictory. However, your above statement seems to suggest that there are two things going on which may have been why I'm having a hard time understanding.

Right spirit:
Timing and circumstances must be right.
Reasons in harmony with the will of God.
(Not sure what you defined motives but sounds equivalent to Right Spirit)

But it still is confusing when you say the "disciples are a perfect example of not being in harmony with the will of God and having the wrong motives and the wrong spirit."

I see an example of recursion in that statement. Do you?
Probably not since you said it. I'm still trying to understand what a right or wrong spirit is. Maybe you could help by saying what is being out of harmony with the will of God.

So far, all I have understood from you saying is that the disciples asked to call fire down when it was not the right time. It sounds harsh to me for Jesus to give them such rebuke for a technical issue of timing. So, it must be they were out of harmony with the will of God. Seems like we're back to the original question just worded differently. How were they out of harmony, how could they be in harmony with the will of God to call fire down on the Samaritans?

I may have misunderstood Kland when he expressed shock when I commented you affirmed Jesus never withdrew His protection, while here in the flesh, and permitted sinners to suffer and die. He listed Luke 8-10 as examples of Jesus withdrawing and I assumed he did so to disprove my observation. I encouraged him to go back and read what you wrote assuming he would discover what I observed.

I appreciate the suggestion. You may be delighted to learn that I do indeed spend a minimum of an hour a day on the life and death of Jesus. I often take long walks with the dog and listen to the Bible, and books like DA, MB, COL, SC, etc on an Ipod. "Faith cometh by hearing."

And it occurs to me over and over again that not once did Jesus withdraw His protection, while here in the flesh, and permit sinners to suffer and die. Therefore, it makes me stop and ponder - Why does Tom believe we can understand why Jesus commanded people like Moses in the OT to kill sinners by limiting our study to the life and death of Jesus in the NT?

Again, here’s the dialog:


Regarding the first question, were you objecting to the “main reason” concept? If so, what do you think was the “main reason” Jesus commanded people like Moses to kill sinners? If not on account of their hardened hearts, what else do you think was the main reason? Please feel free to use the NT as the basis of your explanation. Thank you.


Here’s what you said, “Capital punishment existed because of the hardness of their hearts.” Is this the same thing as saying, yes, Jesus commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners because the Jews were hard-hearted and expected it?


The father taught his son how to hunt in a humane manner. How does this aspect of the analogy demonstrate the difference between Jesus commanding godly people like Moses to kill sinners and Jesus withdrawing His protection and permitting the forces of nature or evil angels or evil men to kill sinners?


To be clear, are you saying the humane hunter analogy makes it clear Jesus is culpable for the death of sinners He commanded godly people like Moses to kill?


Do you believe executing capital punishment is arbitrary and violent? For example, do you think godly people like Moses were executing an arbitrary, violent form of punishment when they obeyed Jesus and killed sinners?


Do you agree Jesus came the first time to bear the sins of the world and to taste death for everyone, to satisfy the just and loving demands of law and justice, to make pardon and salvation possible for penitent sinners, and that in doing so He revealed the character of God? And, do you agree Jesus will come the second time to resurrect and translate the redeemed, and that in doing so He will reveal the character of God? Finally, do you agree Jesus will come the third time to resurrect unsaved sinners, to execute justice and judgment, to restore paradise, and that in doing so He will reveal the character of God?

If you agree with all of the above, then we are in agreement Jesus did not come the first time to execute justice and judgment. Accordingly, we should also be in agreement Jesus did not come the first time to demonstrate how and why He executed justice and judgment in the OT. Therefore, we cannot study the life and death of Jesus in the NT in order to understand why He commanded godly people like Moses to kill sinners. Do you see what I mean?