Hi GC,

So what is the veil that is taken away in Christ?

scott

You are contending that whatever God asks or does is moral, but if I were to ask or do the same thing it would be immoral. Therefore you are saying that God does not hold Himself to the same standard as you and I. He, in a sense, is above the law.

How could this be if the law is a transcript of His character? How could God tell me not to murder and then murder at will claiming that when He premeditates murder because of anger and jealousy it isn't murder, yet He defines murder in His law?

scott

Now you are becoming the literalist! Focusing on an individual word again. Most people, I recognize, interpret that veil to mean the "Old Covenant," which is a poorly disguised way of treating their view to the entire Old Testament. I do not espouse such an interpretation, I'll make that clear right now. Again, this goes deep...but the New Covenant is THE SAME COVENANT as the Old Covenant. As I said, this should be a topic unto itself, but if it helps us all to understand why Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (because He is God), then I hope we can take this to heart, and realize that the "Old Testament" (note that Jesus never referred to the scriptures using such a term) is in tune with the "New." They are one and the same--God's Word.

Back to the main thought...the "veil" is just a term Paul is using to express the idea that the people have been blinded to the full truth of the scriptures. Paul might have chosen the term "blinders" instead, except that I think Paul wanted to use a stronger term. Blinders only narrow one's field of vision. A veil more completely obscures the eyesight.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Ok. Let's get one thing straight. "Kill," in the Ten Commandments, is a mistranslation. I invite you to study into that and do the footwork yourself. Suffice it to say, it is NOT the same Hebrew word elsewhere in the Old Testament translated as "kill." It should have been translated as "murder." There is a stark difference between "murder" and "kill." God prohibited murder. God never prohibited killing, as long as it wasn't murder. Murder is a more narrow classification of "kill," and is confined to 1) people, and 2) a premeditated, unjustified act. I'm sure that you would agree, for example, that it was not "murder" to kill a lamb for the sacrifice. However, the commandment has most often been translated as "Thou shalt not kill." Such a translation makes people begin to equate the terms "murder" and "kill," when in fact, they are not the same.

God does not murder. He kills. When God acts, it is always justified.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think blinders would have been a great word, but specifically couldn't we say that the veil Paul is talking about is a misunderstanding of the Old Covenant when one doesn't see Christ in the symbols?

Oh . . . by the way . . . the word testament is the Latin word for covenant. When you say "New Covenant" you are saying "New Testament". Verbally there is no distinction. Same word in two languages.

scott

I agree 100% that God doesn't murder and I agree that the word used in the Exodus 20 is "murder" not "killing". There is nothing immoral about swatting a fly.

You made a point that murder has been defined, in the scripture, as "confined to 1) people, and 2) a premeditated, unjustified act". I agree, by definition, that murder can only apply to people. But you might want to separate "premeditated" and "unjustified" into two categories. I disagree that murder has to be premeditated. One can murder by simply getting angry and, in an act of passion, hit someone hard enough to kill them without any premeditation at all.

Also "unjustified" doesn't fit because according to your definition I can kill anyone as long as there is justification. An example would be for the United States military to decide that there are too many illegal immigrants so they start gunning them down as soon as they cross the boarder.

So I reject your definition of murder on two of the three qualities you mention. I would say that murder has more to do with motive. There are several legal considerations of murder. A few are self defense, manslaughter, and pre-meditated murder. The only difference between them is motive.

The bible mentions some of the motives defining murder as anger, jealousy, revenge, wrath, acts of violence, and selfish motives. And several of these motives are given to God as justification for killing . . . people. God wanting a certain land for Israel so He commissions them to kill whole nations every man woman and child. Anger, jealousy, and even revenge are contributed to God’s motives by the Bible writers.

Basically you put me in a position that I have to reject the motives that the Bible writers apply to God’s killing people or I have to accept the motive given and declare that God is above His law and can act any way He wants because He is the biggest and strongest and who are we to argue with God.

scott

Here’s how I explain it – God described His will regarding this matter in the Law of Moses. Jesus said, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”


Tom, Scott did not address this question. Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? Either God expected Moses to obey Him or He did not, right? So, did God expect Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death or not? Was God testing Moses, and did Moses fail the test?


In what way do you believe polygamy, as it exists in the Law of Moses, illustrates God’s will?


So, are you saying God permitted polygamy under specific circumstances because (1) the Jews were ignorant? If so, then, (2) what were they ignorant of? And (3) why were they ignorant of it?


Does this mean you agree it was not a sin (a violation of the Law of God) for a Jew to have more than one wife at a time in accordance with the Law of Moses?


How can you agree with what she wrote above and yet also believe there is tension (contradiction, discrepancy) between what Jesus commanded Moses to write and what Jesus said while He was here in the flesh? Do you really think Jesus contradicted the Law of Moses? Do you think grace and truth undermines the Law of Moses?

I think John’s comment about law and grace and truth means – Moses merely gave us the law and the truth, but only Jesus can make it effectual in our life. There is no contradiction. Here’s how it is explained in the SOP:

DA 308
When the law was proclaimed from Sinai, God made known to men the holiness of His character, that by contrast they might see the sinfulness of their own. The law was given to convict them of sin, and reveal their need of a Saviour. It would do this as its principles were applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. This work it is still to do. In the life of Christ the principles of the law are made plain; and as the Holy Spirit of God touches the heart, as the light of Christ reveals to men their need of His cleansing blood and His justifying righteousness, the law is still an agent in bringing us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Ps. 19:7. {DA 308.2}


Tom, aren’t you treading on dangerous ground? Is it safe to say things that undermine the laws of God? Insisting that the Law of Moses contains certain ordinances and judgments that apply only to people who are in darkness and are ignorant of God’s “ideal” will for them is tricky business at best, right? Who am I to decide what applies to me and what does not?

I agree things are different under a Theocracy versus under the Church. Certain aspects, like the death penalty, can no longer be acted upon if the ruling government forbids it. But this doesn’t mean they were never God’s ideal will. Do you see what I mean? Jesus never taught us to disregard the laws of Moses as if they were faulty and did not represent God’s ideal will for the children of Israel.

Hello Scott, actually I do not believe God is a dictator or that His government is a dictatorship. I’m sorry you have that impression. I will try to be more careful not to say things that lead you to this unfortunate conclusion. God is the highest authority in the universe. His will and way is law. It is written, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.”

God’s will and way is not arbitrary. It is based on His holy, just, and good character. He commands FMAs (free moral agents) to obey His law because He designed them to live in harmony with it. It is the only way to experience peace and true happiness. He loves us too much to settle for less than best; thus, He insists we do what is best and right – obey His law. The consequences for not obeying His law are 1) We experience unrest and unhappiness as we suffer the penalty for breaking the law, which is punishment and death in duration and in proportion to our sinfulness.

The human race would not have survived the punishment and deaths of our First Parents were it not for the fact God implemented the plan of salvation after they sinned. By the grace of God we are granted probation to learn how to love and obey Him. But because we are allowed to sin and repent over and over again, we end up accumulating a serious amount of sin, which is more fuel for the fires of hell (if we do not choose to live for Jesus). Of course, in Christ we are free from sin, free from death.

"[If God is a dictator] then why does God desire to change our hearts and minds? Why not just command and kill all those who don't obey?" Even if God were a dictator why wouldn't He want to motivate us to obey Him? Dictators do what they do to motivate their subjects to obey the laws of the land, to prevent them from rebelling, so that the rulers can live a life of selfish ease. In the case of God, though, His reasons for motivating us to obey His law are unselfish. He wants what is right and best for us. He loves us. But if we refuse to comply with the conditions of salvation, then we must suffer the consequences as described above.

Hebrews
10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


Why wasn’t the law and love of God sufficient to motivate the angels not to rebel against God in the first place?

Did Moses misunderstand God's character when he obeyed His command to stone to death the Sabbath-breaker?

Numbers
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

You realize Jesus wasn't speaking literally here, don't you? Assuming you do, I'm not understanding why you would explain a statement of Jesus Christ's which is not literal to explain one from the law of Moses which is literal.

Also, I still don't know the answer to my question, which is why God would want a woman's hand to be cut off, or how you could think God would want such a thing.



I just liked the approach Scott is taking (better than what I would have said), and he's already talking about this.

By the way, I did address the question. I addressed it by saying I'm deferring to Scott.



I didn't say this either, did I? You're really good at this!



Quoting from Roy Gane again:



Regarding what the Jews were ignorant of, one thing, particularly germane here, is regarding how women should be treated.



Ellen White wrote:



A violation of the law is sin, right?



Because she's saying the same thing I am. The law of Moses was an accommodation for a backward and stiffnecked people. God was counseling them regarding the 10 commandments as best He could, given their ignorance and hardened hearts. However, Jesus Christ was not constrained by either ignorance nor a hardened heart. His revelation was perfect.

That there is tension, as you put it, is clear by the fact that Jesus said repeatedly on the Sermon on the Mount "you have heard" (quote from Law of Moses) "but I say unto you" (an explanation from Jesus). Why do you think Jesus did this?



No, not contradicted. He explained more clearly the principles of which the Law of Moses was given to explain. The Law of Moses was one explanation, Jesus Christ's was another. Jesus Christ's was better.



I don't know what you're asking here. Undermining wasn't an issue in John's statement. It doesn't have anything to do with undermining.



No, not the law and truth, just the law. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.



Contradiction of what?

John said that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ showed us what God is really like (see vs. 18, just a couple of verses later).



It depends. If God is as you think He is, then I'm on dangerous ground. If God is as I think He is, then I'm not.



Not the moral law. The law of Moses is no longer binding, so I don't see how I could undermine it.



The law of Moses is no longer binding. It was nailed to the cross. That should help you decide.



What I said was that Jesus Christ was a better revelation of God's ideal will than the law of Moses.

Do you think if the law permitted it that stoning Sabbath-breakers would be a good idea? Do you think it would be a good idea to cut off women's hands?