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


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

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


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

But, Sister White is clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



You wrote:



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



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

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



I agree with this.



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



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

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

Hi MM,

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

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

scott

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

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



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

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

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

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

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

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

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

This scripture bears repeating:

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

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

Hi GC,

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

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

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

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

scott

Hi GC,



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

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

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

scott

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

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

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

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



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



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



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



How do you explain God acting so differently than Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ said we should love our enemies, but you see God as killing them instead.

How do you see the destruction of Jerusalem? Did God use the Romans to execute judgment upon them because they had filled their cup with iniquities?



Not just me!







It depends upon how one interprets Scripture. According to Scripture, Jesus was the perfect manifestation of God's character. According to EGW, the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. If we accept these principles, it's not difficult to see how God's judgment operates. There are tons of examples of this principle in Scripture. I've already asked you about one, the destruction of Jerusalem. Another example would be when God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites to destroy them. What happened here?



Yes. Satan.