Perhaps my question was poorly worded. I apologize for the confusion. I now understand you believe Jesus is free to choose between such options as preventing death and destruction or permitting it. He takes everything and everyone into consideration and then decides whether to prevent or permit death and destruction. The choice is His. Nothing happens by chance or fate. As sovereign Lord and King, Jesus is ultimately in control – not sin, not sinners, and not Satan.

When Jesus decided N&A and the two bands of fifty were worthy of death, who or what caused the fire that burned them alive?


Ellen wrote:


Quotes like the ones posted above make it clear to me Jesus and holy angels work to ensure evil angels do not exceed the limitations imposed upon them. For this reason, Satan is not free to do as he pleases. It is Jesus, not Satan, who ultimately establishes and enforces the degree of punishment meted out. It must irritate Satan to know he is not free to exercise his powers as he sees fit. Like a chained lion, try as he might, he cannot tear to shreds the prey just out of reach. “Already nations are angry, already Satan is working with signs and lying wonders, and this will increase until the end. God will use his enemies as instruments to punish those who have followed their own pernicious ways whereby the truth God has been misrepresented, misjudged, and dishonored.” {PC 136.3}


Is offering protection, while here in the flesh, from something that happened in 70 AD equivalent to Jesus allowing N&A and the two bands of fifty to be burned alive?

I enjoyed your math. Nicely done. However, the following quotes, omitted in your response above, make it clear Jesus will judge every sin everyone has ever committed.


So we’re not accused of using human logic to undermine Inspiration, please post inspired passages that refute what she clearly stated above. In particular, note the following insight – “As soon as the books of record are opened, and the eye of Jesus looks upon the wicked, they are conscious of every sin which they have ever committed.” It should be obvious that opening “the books of record” doesn’t take 57 years.

Does vital force enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death? Or, must God act to enable sinners to sin without immediately experiencing eternal death? Who or what is the origin of their source of life?

Also, who or what will act during final judgment to enable sinners to live long enough to suffer intense emotional and physical pain proportionate to their sinfulness? Ellen wrote:


Who or what is the origin of their source of life?

Please elaborate.


I don’t understand how your response answers the question above.


Why do you think so?


You wrote, “Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, wasn't forced to command godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment.” Is this your answer to the question above?

In response to your question, I believe the OT Jesus commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in obedience to divine laws requiring capital punishment, and the fact the NT Jesus did not do so makes it clear He did not demonstrate this attribute of God’s character while here in the flesh.


Do the scriptures above require interpretation? Ellen wrote, “The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed.” {GC 598.3} “If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says.” {5T 171.1} You seem to be saying, no, we cannot take the passages above at faced value because . . . . If so, why not?

You said, “The point is that everything that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ.” Do you realize that’s not what your favorite quote says? Here’s what it literally says – “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son.” Jesus Himself said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.”


When the Bible describes God causing death and destruction, why doesn’t it plainly say, in the immediate context, “God caused the death and destruction herein described by withdrawing His protection and giving His enemies permission to do it”? For example, when fire flashed out from the presence of God in the most holy place and burned N&A alive, why doesn’t it plainly say, in the immediate context, “God withdrew His protection and permitted His enemies to kill them”?

By the way, if this is indeed what happened, did God give His enemies access to the most holy place? And, where did they obtain the fire they used to burn N&A alive? While we’re at it, who were His enemies?


I agree. They are different. But, as you can see, the question above was aimed at determining why you think otherwise. It’s obvious now, though, that you agree with me.


Why, then, did Jesus clearly say, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak”? Ellen wrote:


She plainly says Jesus did not, could not, reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. You seem to disagree.

Chance and fate are two very different things. I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. Indeed, everything you wrote above after "I not understand you believe ..." should read "I not understand I believe ..." as you're just repeating things you believe, is what it looks to me.

What *I* believe is that God has created beings with free will, and these often, on earth, unfortunately, have chosen to act contrary to God's will, and *that's* why bad things happen. And similarly for the unfaithful angelic beings.



Satan and his followers are responsible in every way, including ultimately, for sin an all its results. God is entirely innocent. God is not in control of sinners.



I don't think it matters what the exact mechanism was. I believe the principles laid out in GC 35-37 were at work.



This seems like an odd response. I ask you what Job said, and you respond by saying, "Ellen wrote." Is "Ellen" a pseudonym of Job's?



As I've often said, if permitted, Satan would destroy all human beings, which would not leave a Great Controversy to be fought.



He is, to a great degree, which is evident in looking at our world. He has to be free to do as he pleases in order for there to be a Great Controversy. This agrees with your understanding, doesn't it?



This is like saying it is Jesus, not Satan, who metes out and enforces the degree of punishment meted out when someone ignores the law of gravity. Sin causes misery, suffering, and death because of its nature. These things are what happen when one separates from God. It doesn't require an extra, unrelated, special action on the part of God for misery, suffering, and death to occur, but merely acting contrary to God's principles, and separating from Him, is sufficient. This is what "me first" does.

"Me first" can not end up in anything other than misery, suffering, and death. These things are the fruit of Satan's government, of choosing his principles.



Satan is free to exercise his powers as he sees fit, to a great degree, or else there would be no Great Controversy.

It's imperative that we understand that *all* the bad, all the evil, there is in the world, is the result of Satan, and none of it due to God.

Satan gets irritated when his plans are thwarted, which is what happens when one chooses to follow God instead of him.



They are used as GC 35-37 explains.



The same principles are at work. Your question should be if offering protection in the one case is equivalent to offering protection in the other, as this would be apples to apples, and I would respond "yes" to such a question.

Not in the way you're apparently thinking, as the math makes clear.



I have no desire to refute anything EGW wrote, which I'm sure you know, so your question is completely out of place. To refute how you're apparently thinking, I explained the math to you.



It should be obvious that a person cannot be conscious instantly of 3,000,000 individual sins. That cannot be her intent. The human mind simply does not have that capability.

Have you ever had a near death experience where your life passed before your eyes? If so, that could serve as an approximation for what's going on here.

Remember the EGW statement that says that God is pleased when we use common sense? That should be considered in interpreting statements such as these. There's advice from the EGW estate explaining this as well, to avoid coming to extreme interpretation of her statements, making her say something which was not her intent.

To review a person's entire life is clearly something that would take time. Not an extraordinary amount of time, like 57 years, if each individual sin were considered, but certainly much more than an instant. Just consider how much time is taken in earthly courts to consider things which involve the judging of a person.

Why would this be the case?



Haven't I said as much? Many times?



Don't you know? It's God!



I don't think this is a good way of looking at things. Actually, very bad.



Didn't you already ask this?

As to what I think the right way of looking at this:



Note the overwhelming emphasis on the fate of the wicked being due to their own choice.

As the issues raised in this latest post may indeed be most foundational to our differences here, I’ll address them right away.



The principles indeed need to be valid. As stated your principles sound valid however the way in which you are applying them is destroying that achievable full validly



As in any science, an hypothesis needs to be tested to demonstrate that it is valid. I needed to see that done with your principles with my list of prominent events, indeed discussed in both the Bible and SOP, to see if that is, as you claim, the way to come to understand all other OT. For the reasons I have stated many times, I do not substantively see the destruction of Jerusalem, as it collectively prophesied and brought about starting especially from Christ’s predicitons and how it transpired to be the all in all example of what will truly/fully happen when/whenever, if ever before, the “passion of God” is fully manifested.



Quite sincerely Tom, because, mainly I have to ignore many explicit statements of direct and active acts of God in the Bible in order to view things as you do, I do not see your even SOP supposed/derived view (i.e., believing the SOP is 100% accurate here) as being valid.




Fine, but only in conceding part because I see too many additions to this SOP stated statement. I.e., excising and editing the OT, even SOP, of explicit statements



I understand this to be in term of principles in as you quoted:



By you saying that God’s acts of Justice if said to be His, (despite the Bible clearly saying that), is saying that God is violent, then I think you are falling for the converse of that deception. Which is that God does not intervene to effectuate justice. Which indeed why e.g., many waywards things in the Church are left unrebuked and unjudged. You also summarily, even obliviously, deny the “brute force” war that took place in Heaven based on that slant on that SOP counsel/statement.



You want this “everything” to be something tangibly substantive, whereas it is quite logically speaking of the greater principles at work. So since you don’t see Jesus marshalling an army to expand the territory of Israel, you somehow see that the OT must not have ever said this!?? However Jesus indeed demonstrate such part of the ministry of wrath/judgement principle of God. Indeed by defaulty opposing the Jewish leaders from the start, as shown in the parable of the fig tree, he played a part in, at least, keeping the Jewish nation on their path of destruction, if he also did not later stir up the Roman to come against the Jews. If I recall accurately, following the very early 66 aborted siege, in wasn’t until later 69 A.D. that the Romans returned. Perhaps God stirred them to return, so that they would not give up on the revolted Jews and just let them be. Indeed as Titus was then most reticent and regretful to use military force all the way through that conflict.



Based upon your requirements for your view, it certainly is not. Case in point, you also somehow outrightly ignore/deny OT, Divinely-mandated, acts of Capital Punishment. Well as I pointed out, Jesus could not do so, nor was he thus presented with more than one contrived and illegal opportunity to do so because the ROMAN LAW prevented Him to do so. Yet Jesus also did not abolish that Law of God in this regard in His response to that situation, as He easily could have. Thus the Roman Law would have “limited Christ's ability to reveal all that man needs to know or can know of God” in here, regards to Capital Punishment however Jesus non artificial point was that there was not a righteous witness to establish that case. Indeed He here heightened the Law to the Righteous Level that God always intended thus at the same time demonstrated the Character of God in this regards. That, by then hypocritically abused, law was also not abolished but elevated and made honorable. You instead, irrationally say and want me to believe that, based on this episode, the OT God then committed no Capital Punishment. It would be one thing to claim that from the NT time on, there should be not capital punishment, (though here your incident-requiring view would have to limit it to only cases of adultery), however it is a whole other incomprehensible thing to seek to rewrite God’s actions and commands towards this inflicted death end in the OT.



According to your concrete Gospel incidents-requirement view it should unless you are, as I observed just subjectively deciding what in the OT you yourself will allow Jesus to address and reveal. That’s what I call the “Gospel of Tom” and if anyone else who share such a view also do this then I say the same about them.



I exegetically don’t jump to that “known” conclusion from even John 1:18 which literally speaks of “showing the way” or relating in order to explain. So God’s Character was known, however it was just misunderstood. Thus Jesus in His Life and Teaching “showed the way” to how it really was thus “explaining it” through these variously “related” (= recounted) actions and words.



They are only reversibly true because Jesus perfectly imitated and emulated the Father the OT God which in many instances was Jesus Himself and at the very least, being the union of God, always reflected all of the Three members of the Godhead.



That is indeed more, and significantly so, accurate. Indeed it was because it was “wrongly known” (e.g,. John 8:38-41) being actually Satan’s character, that these Jews were in error.

And as I said in regards to EGW mention of ‘compelling force’ it is in regards to ‘break Satan’s deceptive power’ and not, not to enforce due and deserved judgements.



It was this that “could not be done by force” for ‘the exercise of (compelling) force is contrary to the principles of God's government. And not judgement force. Nor miracle working power. I see that God justly offsets judgements which can lead to an inceptive fear with miracles which also influences one to believe in God.



My point here is that Jesus perfectly imitated the OT God by showing that even Capital Punishment, when done, in full keeping with the Law, must be a righteous judgement. So in this area, Jesus was also like God the Father.



Well if you wanted to see it as involving any force then you should have said so then you should have insisted so. To me, perhaps to 19th century people (as with the word “mischief”) violence has a more malicious connotation than mere use of force.

And, does EGW herself ever say that ‘God is not violent’ to mean God does not use any force. Otherwise you would be imposing your understandings on hers. Indeed all I see her saying is He does not use ‘force to compel’ and that service to him. Force to comply with an undisputable requirement that He is making in an acts of judgement as the Plagues after years of slavery seems to also not be a use of force to compel. Indeed God was not seeking for Pharaoh to love or “serve” him but to comply with the command to Let Israel go from Egypt.



That is really a proof-text example. All that Jesus is simply saying that He/His Servants are not engaging in military effort (like the Zealots) to establish His kingdom because it is not “out of” this world. Not that any force, such as to execute capital punishment, is never acceptable. Indeed, as veiledly stated, because Jesus was not seeking to establish a typical kingdom as those of, and in the manner of, the world’s methods to do so, military campaigns to seek to get lands to establish it was not necessary. So Pilate had no tangible threat in that regards That kingdom was instead going to be done by conquering hearts instead.



I don’t think I can afford that extra effort. I also figure people will prefer to read their favorite version, vs. my default NASB, so I only cite the reference. Only when I see crucial exegetical improvements from the NASB do I quote the text with indicated improving edits.




Actually No. The context clearly says to me that the tow swords the disciples managed to find amongst themselves was enough.



Considering what God could have done to Egypt in even one plague, all of the limited and withdrawn plagues were relatively “light force”. God indeed could have completely blotted of the Egyptians and given everything left over to Israel, indeed the whole territory of Egypt also. Indeed the pointedness of the last plague deliberately demonstrated that God could kill only, even all Egyptians if He wanted to. (Cf. Exod 11:7)



I most manifestly, even evidently, see here how your view actually is defaultly faulting and impeaching the Character of God. That is why you prefer to ignore or vainly explain away such OT passages. God was not saying to Egypt that I will kill more if you don’t obey me here. As exegesis clearly shows, God actually “(forcefully) hardened” Pharoah’s heart so that that Plague also can be done, indeed by the 6th plague exegesis shows that God was acting to harden Pharaoh’s heart when necessary. Your theology won’t allow for that exegetically plain reading, however it clearly is stated, and thus implied that God wanted Pharaoh to resist up through the 10th Plagues. As I said before, the reverential question here is to (hopefully “prayerfully”) as “why”. I did, and here is the Biblical answer I was impressed with, in succinct bullet points. (See especially Exod 1 and PP 241ff for most Biblical allusions)

-When God had began establishing Israel, He had no land to given them yet as no kingdom was yet fully deserving of being judged for their sins.

-Israel therefore had to settle in a place where they could relatively be safe as they were greatly and rapidly increased by God. So God sent them to Egypt through an act which made them favored at first.

-Indeed when they increased, and became a natural threat where they could also join an invading army against Egypt, the Egyptians enslaved them. Other nations would probably have sought to kill them if they had not been in a land (which really could not happen as all lands belonged a nation, especially the Great Power of Egypt).

-(Slavery was also an object lesson for Israel for their future to impress them to be obedient in order to avoid losing their freedom and land.)

-then when Israel still could not be controlled and loyalty assured despite enslavement, Egypt began to kill the males of Israel by throwing them into the Nile. That went on for at least three months in “full force” (PP 242.2). As Aaron was 3 years older than Moses (Exod 7:7), and Aaron was alive, then it may have been going on for up to these 3 years of difference. I further do not see any indication when, even if it ever ended up Israel’s Exodus, despite Moses having been rescued through a seemingly unique, and God-inspired, idea. (Point it out to me if you know). Indeed the Egyptians original threat was only increasing and God had not yet actively intervene in it. So this killing may have been going own for over 80 years until Moses returned to deliver Israel. That would mean that millions of Israelite male children were so killed during this time.

-So the Ten plagues, indeed sustained by God to their full extent, when Pharaoh wanted to concede by the 6th plague, was done on one side to make Egypt freely give Israel much substance as reparations for the years of enslavement and the Tenth Plague, to justly venge the death of potentially/probably millions of Hebrew Male Children. (Deut 32:35; Psa 94:1; cf. Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30, 31)

-Also the first-born was a sort of god to Egyptians so it also defeated that, probably most revered figment of a god of their.

So God was acting justly in all of this and that is why He was hardening Pharaoh’s heart through those 10 plagues as forcefully necessary. So Pharaoh did not even really have to option to refuse this 10 phase just judgement that God wanted to do. And if God had wanted to compel Egypt, that 10th plague directly (if not only) involving human death, would have been done first, then 2nd born for the second plague, etc.

Again the way to understand the Character of God is to defaultly give him the benefit of the doubt and then reverentially/prayerfully ask why. And the answer is indeed in His OT words and revelation, with Jesus also confirming that God is a God of justice.



True in part, though I would actually challenge rendering “many” as “thousand” in the sense as I logically see it as “thousands of different kinds of dangers. For example I believe that the world is getting old and thus many disaster such as earthquakes occur, but I do not think that God is e.g., actively keeping the Oxygen molecules in air from combusting or the hydrogen in water from splitting and causing a global atomic explosion. I see all natural threats as being age related. Indeed in the first 6 of the 7 last plagues with bowls of wrath being poured out by God Angels to various aspects of the planet and life show to me that God has to actively perform/mix in/inject something to nature to cause “supernatural” catastrophe, i.e., greater than the “natural” disaster that this ageing planet naturally produces.



Sorry for the misunderstanding. Here is my statement edited, more clearly expressed and rearranged:

‘As you understand it, a passive destruction is ‘God removing His hand from an already formed/present danger (e.g., venomous serpents)’ and ‘leaving a person to follow the destructive path they always wanted to follow.’ However I do not see that Israel always wanted to be bitten by snakes in the desert and God was preventive this, their will, from occurring or being pursued. Indeed if He was preventing this, this would theologically wrongly imply that God is forcing people to do what is right, while here their will would be to be bitten by snakes.’

‘In other words in your even passive view, God is shown as having an “obey me or else” approach, and worst He, with the withheld snakes, does not warn of the dangers that would occur if Israel disobeyed.’ I don’t know if I’ve made it clear. It is just that I don’t see your passive view as removing any action from God, but really only making thing worst relationally and theologically. If it was instead a direct action such as if you want to continue smoking then you’ll naturally get cancer, then that something else, but Israel here did not want to be bitten by snakes, they simply did not want to obey God. So God is being shown as someone who says, if you obey me then I’ll protect you.

In fact, as I see it, in God sending rain on the just and unjust, is in many ways protecting everyone. Which is actually a natural act. Withholding rain on only the unjust would be supernatural. When God has to actively, supernaturally intervene for the accomplishment a course/mission that He has mandated (= crossing a wilderness with the serpents) then undoing this intervening act constitutes a direct act, indeed at the very least, the undoing of an active act. As I said a truly passive acts, what I see as a ‘Satan passive’ is Satan influencing a person to at least start, and then of themselves keep on smoking until they get cancer. Still I do not see very many Active acts of Satan in the GC to date. People chose their life courses and some knowingly chose to suffer and/or risk the consequences.



This is pointedly where I see the ‘(ultimately) blame it on the author of sin (=Satan)’ issue/statement as applying.



He actually can. But I rather see that He does not because of GC limitation and not for lessons inflicting reasons. I would see this as a form of using compelling force. Satan wanted God to let created being live apart from His laws and on their own choices, well that is what God has allowed including all of the natural consequences. Man now has to freely choose if they’ll want to have faith in God or not and God has been allowed/able to work with those who want to. Indeed also being a blessing, if those professed follower make it so, a rescue and blessing to the unfaithful. It all and always revolves around free choices.



(I presume = Egypt’s first born): Only when (delayed) justice is to be rendered.



(I presume = Sodom and Gomorrah, [though e.g., Num 16] same degree of relative opportunity*): Only when their sin has reached a certain life threatening level (e.g., developed epidemics and/or STD’s as such perverse acts may lead to.)

It is most telling to me that you manifestly see these acts of God as being totally baseless. It is no wonder that you prefer not to consider them. If you rightly had applied what your views should fully mean, you would look to Jesus who also spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah in deserving of judgement, and typifying, terms (Matt 10:15; 11:23, 24; Luke 17:28-30) and at the very least give God this Jesus-derived benefit of the doubt that that OT Judgement of God was a just and deserving one. Even people who lived and/or daily commune with Jesus and/or saw him understood this; (Jude 1:7; 2 Pet 2:6; Rom 9:29, respectively).

*Again the closer a people is allowed to get to God, in the fairest and also most just of ways, the swifter/non-delayed are deserved judgements.



Because of your, factually, patent and pervasive, effectively, substantively, precluding/preclusive approach, which involves your not letting God testify for Him in the OT, and worse defaulty impeaching and/or ignoring His acts of judgement, which are always out of, at least, Justice and Fairneess, you are wholly undermine your otherwise noble principles.

So again “As transparently demonstrated above, they Substantively (=Biblically) and Theologically, even Prophetically not “genuine”. The have proven to just be eisegetical suppositions.”

To prove me wrong you’ll at least have to, even if it is somewhat distinct in theme, show how your view arrives at a Substantively (=Biblically),Theologically, even Prophetically, and also logically sound holistic view of God Character in e.g., the acts that I have listed.



Effectively, so!

I asked you at the end if you didn't agree with any of the principles, and you said indeed, you don't. I'll repeat them here.



This is a direct quote from the SOP.



This is basic Christianity. I could probably find a quote from the SOP that says this. It's surprising to me that a Christian would deny this.



I don't know anyone who doesn't agree with this.



The first sentence is either a direct quote from the SOP, or very close to it. The other two follow from that. It should be evident that if it's the case that God really is protecting us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen (this is actually what she says), that it would follow that any degree of destruction that God should desire, should He desire such a thing, would follow from that.



A direct quote from the SOP.

Please state these principles in a way that you would consider genuine.



One doesn't need to investigate every incident to do so.



I disagree with this. I think what's necessary is to see God's character as revealed by Jesus Christ.



It's the incident that we have the most information regarding, not including the cross. The cross would be the best study, as it reveals God's character far better than any other incident.



That's because of your paradigm. Others with a different paradigm than you hold don't need to ignore these statements, but understand them differently than you do.

God is often presented as doing that which He permits in Scripture. For example, it says in Numbers that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but what actually happened is God removed His protection. It says in 1 Kings, that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but what actually happened is God permitted. It says in Job that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but this was said by one who didn't know of Satan's existence. When the curtain is pulled away, we see that it was an enemy who caused the things which happened to Job.



This principle has many applications!



It's a very simple statement. Is simply says that all that we can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ during His earthly mission. That's the context of the statement, and the context is very easy to understand. It doesn't need to be interpreted or edited or anything, but is easily understood simply as it reads.

Here's a similar statement from a different author:



It's interesting how similar this is to the SOP statement.



One can use force without being violent, such as force being necessary to lift a weight. But when force is used to achieve one's way, by threat, for example, then it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish this from violence. Also, if one considers an act, such as burning a person alive, it's difficult to see how this could be considered as other than a violent act.



"Force" is a term of physics, so can be a neutral term, but "violence" implies the intent to hurt someone or some thing, or to kill.



I don't know if she specifically says this, but she does say that the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government.



That's very poor logic. The absence of the use of a particular phrase doesn't prove anything, which I'm sure you're well aware of. Because Ellen White didn't use some specific phrase or sentence cannot possibly imply that I'm imposing my understand on hers, and it's difficult to see how you could assert such a thing, which is so obviously false.



If God says, "Do what I say, or I'll cause you to suffer unimaginable pain" or "Do what I say, or I'll kill your child," that's using 'force to compel.'



This isn't a very coherent sentence, but I think I understand what you're trying to say. Why are you saying such a thing? Surely threatening to kill someone's child if they don't do what the one threatening is insisting upon is an act of compulsion. There's no way this could not be the case.



And, as you understand things (please correct me if this isn't the case), God threatened to kill his son if he didn't. Again, this is an act of compulsion.



It's a profound statement about the nature of Christ's kingdom.



That's not all He's saying. It's more profound than that.



The conquering of hearts is a good comment. That's indeed what the kingdom of Christ entails, and it should be easy to see that violence, or force, has no part in such conquering.



I think you can. Other people do. If you list a series of texts, you wouldn't have to provide the text for each one, but at least one would be a kindness to your reader.



A person's always free to consider another version, but it's a kindness to the reader to not have to go looking to see what a text says.



This isn't the point. It would be the same thing if I quoted from the SOP, and you had to look up what it says. That's requiring extra work of you.



Clarke:



Gill:



Again quoted because of ease; these were the first ones I came across. I'm sure other commentaries make the same point.

That Christ had this meaning in mind is clear to me (I understood it this way before looking at any commentaries). To see this statement of Christ's as a recommendation for violence seems absurd to me.



This would always be the case. God could always be more awful or horrible if He wanted to be, since He's omnipotent, but to describe the plagues in Egypt as "light force" seems like calling the holocaust "a minor evil."

(More separately)