Scott and Tom,

Both of you are backing yourselves into a corner where there is no door of escape, by trying to interpret scripture according to your own opinions, and being unwilling to concede them.

My question to you is, should I forbear to respond to you in this thread, hoping that, for the sake of your eternal salvation, it would be better to not give you opportunity to strengthen yourselves in these views?

Read the following carefully, and consider your own salvation. This statement warns me and all of us equally.

Closely connected with Christ's warning in regard to the sin against the Holy Spirit is a warning against idle and evil words. The words are an indication of that which is in the heart. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." But the words are more than an indication of character; they have power to react on the character. Men are influenced by their own words. Often under a momentary impulse, prompted by Satan, they give utterance to jealousy or evil surmising, expressing that which they do not really believe; but the expression reacts on the thoughts. They are deceived by their words, and come to believe that true which was spoken at Satan's instigation. Having once expressed an opinion or decision, they are often too proud to retract it, and try to prove themselves in the right, until they come to believe that they are. It is dangerous to utter a word of doubt, dangerous to question and criticize divine light. The habit of careless and irreverent criticism reacts upon the character, in fostering irreverence and unbelief. Many a man indulging this habit has gone on unconscious of danger, until he was ready to criticize and reject the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." {DA 323.1}

By trying to prove yourselves in the right, you are entrenching yourselves deeper into your error. At this point, it is only a matter of your attitude and conscience as to whether or not you will allow yourselves to see and admit what you have been doing.

In light of this, I do not especially desire a response from you to this post--let it be on your own conscience if you do. But for others who may read here, I will point out just a few things which are important here. [see next post]

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

1) God's law does not change. It is a representation of His character. He says "I am the LORD, I change not" (Malachi 3:6).

2) God does not lie. "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19)

3) God's definitions are not man's definitions. (This is illustrated below.)

Jesus said "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13:34).

Jesus also elevated the importance of this commandment by saying, "...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these" (Mark 12:31, KJV).

Perhaps few would argue that this was NOT one of the two most important commandments in all of scripture.

But was it really a "new" commandment? Did Jesus lie?

"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:18).

It was not a "new" commandment at all. It was one of those infamous "Laws of Moses!"

What Scott and Tom have been moving to reject, to weaken, and to belittle, Jesus Himself elevated to put at the highest level of importance. We are never safe to reject the Laws of God. We are never safe to replace them with our own opinions or ideas.

Now, for those who are still thinking about the contradiction between Jesus giving a "new" commandment and it not being "new," note that Jesus did not mean "new" the same way you were probably thinking. God's definitions are often not what we would naturally assume. We must study carefully. In this case, Jesus was speaking to people who should have known the law. They should have known the commandment He was giving was not new. Then what did He mean by saying it was "new"? Jesus meant "again" or "anew." His hearers surely understood this. God does not lie, and Jesus was not lying. It is our own faulty interpretation that can make it appear so.

If we reject the Law of Moses, we reject the Law of God. Jesus gave us the two greatest commandments 1) Love God, and 2) Love your neighbor. BOTH of these commandments were given in the law of Moses. Do we dare, then, to throw out this law? Do we dare to say it is an "inferior" law, when Jesus said it was the "greatest?"

By the way, the terms "new covenant" and "new testament" are also just a reiteration of the original. "New" means "again" or "anew."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hi GC,

I can’t speak for Tom, but it probably isn’t a good idea for you to forbear our conversation. Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? I think this is what you are experiencing. When our theology is challenged with indisputable facts (Jesus’ words) then it kind of blows the pumpkin. We are left with three choices. One to hide in the sand and ignore what is being said. Another is to attack those speaking. And the third is to consider the evidence and allow the dissonance to reshape our thinking.

If you notice most of what I’ve said I’ve backed up with what Jesus said or did. None of these things fit into your theology because your theology isn’t based on Jesus as having all authority.

scott

How is what you are accusing Scott and I of any different than what you are doing, GC? It seems like your opinion is that if someone interprets Scripture in a way that agrees with your opinion, then that's great, but if they disagree with you then they are interpreting Scripture according to their own opinions.



I think it would be good if you conceded your own opinions.

Seriously, I don't believe any of us has all truth. We all have errors in our thinking. The point of a forum is for us to share our opinions with one another and learn from the experience.

Scott,

Lest you remain confused, I am not the least troubled with trying to fit anything new into my theology, other than with how to express the truth in such a way as increase its reception.

The truth is far above your opinions or mine. However, I have carefully thought through and studied on some of the points in our discussion, and am presently not experiencing any such "cognitive dissonance" as you might suppose. I have presented merely the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of scripture to back up the views which I have touched on here. Nevertheless, I remain open to seeing new truths, if such are supported in scripture.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Moral law. Correct.



You must have some point here. Of course God does not lie.



What I've been saying is that Jesus Christ revealed God more fully than the law of Moses. I haven't been saying we are safe in rejecting the laws of God.



"Definitions" is not the proper term here. Spiritual truth is what you're talking about. That is, that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and that we need the Holy Spirit to understand the things of God.

When God communicates with us, He does so in our language, such as it is, with the word meanings it has, or else we wouldn't be able to understand Him.



Are you saying we should stone Sabbath-breakers and cut off women's hands? I'm asking you this because that's what I've been bringing up in regards to Jesus' being a better revelation of God's character than the law of Moses.

TE: 1. 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.

MM: God commanded it in the Law of Moses. I assume you agree with this. Why He commanded it is not explained. So I don’t know. I certainly don’t think He compromised to accommodate sin-hardened Jews. Why do you think He commanded it?

---

TE: Regarding 2, I'll wait for Scott.

MM: I hope he doesn’t put it off, too.

2. So, did God expect Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death or not? Was God testing Moses? And, did Moses fail the test? What thinkest thou? PS - Ignoring this question is not going to make it go away.

---

TE: 3. I'm having a hard time comprehending why you're having so much difficulty understanding this. Perhaps you could explain the difficulty. It says, "it is contrary to His will." Why isn't this clear?

MM: Unlawful polygamy is contrary to His will. The “single instance” aspect of the quote cannot be forced to contradict the Law of Moses, which does not “permit” polygamy, as you have postulated. It is clear in the Law of Moses that polygamy was not merely “permitted”, as if to say God reluctantly allowed it because the Jews were so hardhearted.

---

TE: Regarding 4, I asked you a question. Rather than just ask me 3 new questions, it would be nice if you would answer my question. In response to your questions, they would be the same as I've been saying, the same answer as 3, the same quote.

MM: Yes, sin is the transgression of the law. Does that answer your question? But when the law includes polygamy, it is not a sin. Right? In other words, it would be wrong to insist polygamy is a sin when it is included in the law. If you insist polygamy is a sin, then you are in essence saying God commanded sinning I the Law of Moses.

4. You wrote, "A violation of the law is sin, right?" So, does this mean you believe it was a sin for a Jew to have more than one wife at a time in accordance with the Law of Moses? Did God permit sinning in the Law of Moses?

---

TE: 5 and 6. Jesus said: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt 5) Where is this truth found in the Pentateuch?
MM: I’ve already quoted it. Here it is again:

MB 55
Through Moses the Lord had said, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart. . . . Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Leviticus 19:17, 18. The truths which Christ presented were the same that had been taught by the prophets, but they had become obscured through hardness of heart and love of sin. {MB 55.2}

She goes on to say that "Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” is in harmony with “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” There is no contradiction between the two. The spirit and intent of the Law of Moses included everything Jesus taught. He made more clear what was already inherent in the Law of Moses.

MB 70
These words were but a reiteration of the teaching of the Old Testament. It is true that the rule, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Leviticus 24:20), was a provision in the laws given through Moses; but it was a civil statute. None were justified in avenging themselves, for they had the words of the Lord: "Say not thou, I will recompense evil." "Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me." "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth." "If he that hateth thee be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink." Proverbs 20:22; 24:29, 17; 25:21, 22, R.V., margin. {MB 70.2}

MB 72
The law, as given through Moses, enjoined a very tender regard for the poor. When a poor man gave his garment as a pledge, or as security for a debt, the creditor was not permitted to enter the dwelling to obtain it; he must wait in the street for the pledge to be brought to him. And whatever the circumstances the pledge must be returned to its owner at nightfall. Deuteronomy 24:10-13…{MB 72.1}

Jesus added, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." The same lesson had been taught through Moses: "Thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth." Deuteronomy 15:7, 8. {MB 72.2}

So, as you can see, Jesus did not come to do away with the principles of the Law of Moses. They are just as binding today as they were back in the days of Moses. You asked, “Regarding the law of Moses, do you think we should still be cutting off women's hands and stoning people for Sabbath-breaking?”

Just because we are no longer under a Theocracy it doesn’t mean the punishments outlined in the Law of Moses are no longer viable. It’s just that under the Church Dispensation they are deferred. Nor does it mean they were never God’s will for the COI. Here’s how it is explained:

DA 460, 461
He was soon interrupted. A group of Pharisees and scribes approached Him, dragging with them a terror-stricken woman, whom with hard, eager voices they accused of having violated the seventh commandment. Having pushed her into the presence of Jesus, they said to Him, with a hypocritical show of respect, "Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?" … {DA 460.4}

With all their professions of reverence for the law, these rabbis, in bringing the charge against the woman, were disregarding its provisions. It was the husband's duty to take action against her, and the guilty parties were to be punished equally. The action of the accusers was wholly unauthorized. Jesus, however, met them on their own ground. 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. {DA 461.3}

He had not set aside the law given through Moses, nor infringed upon the authority of Rome. The accusers had been defeated. Now, their robe of pretended holiness torn from them, they stood, guilty and condemned, in the presence of Infinite Purity. They trembled lest the hidden iniquity of their lives should be laid open to the multitude; and one by one, with bowed heads and downcast eyes, they stole away, leaving their victim with the pitying Saviour. {DA 461.4}

You don't know. That's your answer. Ok. I've told you what I think. I think it was an accommodation to a backward and stiffnecked people, and the fact that He would countenance such a heinous acts gives some idea to just how backward and stiffnecked they were. Can you imagine Jesus Christ saying such a thing to His disciples? If someone gets involved in a fight between you and another, if that someone is a woman, cut her hand off?

---



He already answered it, MM. You should have read it before your response here.



You're making her statement to mean nothing at all. She might as well have said nothing. She said it was contrary to God's will and a violation of his law. She said in every case. She *specifically* disallowed any exception.

You're free to disagree with her if you wish, but she could not have been any more clear in what she said.



Even the Jews themselves don't agree with you here. You might find some Mormans that do. Roy Gane's explanation, which I've quoted several times now, is to the point. The law in Moses in general is not reflecting God's ideal will, especially in the treatment of women. Given the terrible way they were regarded and treated, He gave counsel to make the best of their lot.



Ok, then polygamy is sin, which answers your question to me.



It's your contention that God commanded polygamy, not mine, so I'm not saying this at all. I agree with EGW on this point.



You missed the point. The truth Jesus communicated was:
a.You have heard it said that A
b.But I say unto you B

So what I'm asking for is where in the Pentateuch it says "You have heard A said, but you should do B instead." where A is "eye for eye" and B is "turn the other cheek."



I'm asking if you think they are God's will now. Do you think God wants Sabbath-breakers to be stoned now? Do you think He wants women's hands cut off? Notice under the law that only women's are cut off, but not men's. How does this reflect God's ideal will? How does it reflect God's ideal will that (according to you) it was (is, I suppose, if the law of Moses is still in effect) OK for a man to have multiple wives, but not a woman to have multiple husbands? Why was it OK for a man to divorce a woman, but not a woman to divorce a man?

I wish to comment on this, as this is the same point I've been trying to make, expressed from a different angle.

Christ was the greatest teacher the world has ever known. It's true that He was presenting the same principles as we find in the law of Moses, but when we look at the law of Moses, we, because of our hardness of heart and love of sin, get things wrong. This goes along with Scott's point. So God, in His mercy, has given us a teacher so clear that it's much more difficult to get it wrong.

So the problem is not with the law of Moses, but with us. We can read the law of Moses, and come up with ideas like it's God's will to kill our enemies, stone Sabbath-breakers, have slaves, have multiple wives, and cut off women's hands. No one studying Christ's life and teachings would come up with ideas like this.

So how do we fix our dull understanding and hardness of heart? How can we be healed from our sin? By beholding God in Jesus Christ! He is the truth. What does that mean, that He is the truth? It means, if we wish to know what God is like, we have but to look at Christ.

Christ is everything man needs to know, or can know, about God. He is the fullness of God revealed bodily, which is to say, as a human being. We don't see a partial revelation of God when we look at Christ, which is to say what God is like some of the time, when He's gotten out on the right side of the bed, so to speak, but what God is like without qualification. The lovely, merciful, gracious, compassionate, gentle person we see in Jesus Christ is God Himself revealed in human flesh.

Now some read something like this and think this is being soft on sin, but in reality the opposite is true. The only way we can be healed from sin is by bathing in the grace of God. To know God is to love Him, and only by love can sin be uprooted from our hearts. Without understanding God, all we will succeed in doing is exchange more obvious sins for more subtle ones.

I answered that MM. Here is my answer: