I'm not wishing to distract or impede your conversation with kland, but I have a couple of questions/comments.

kland has my permission to fill you in on my explanation of Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, or anything else he wishes to comment on that I've explained. The difference in perception here is interesting. You feel that I've left you "in the dark," where kland feels I've been most patient in continually answering your question.

Regarding your comment on Saul, "He used His enemies to accomplish His will and purpose;" is it your understanding that God desired that Saul be killed?

Similarly in regards to the last paragraph, is it your understanding that all suffering that happens takes place because this is what God desires?

Did He have options? If He did, why did He chose to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If God went with the best option, what does that say about all the other options? Does it imply they were not as good? I doubt they would have been better, otherwise God would have went with one of them instead. From what I know about God, it is His nature and character to do the right and righteous thing. The fact He commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer is evidence it was the one and only right and righteous thing to do. It also implies if there were any other viable options they fell short of the glory of God. Does that makes sense to you?


I have three children and six grandchildren. Yeah, I know I am abundantly blessed. Thank you Jesus! And, yes, like you, I would prefer a better solution if one them committed a crime punishable by death. I imagine Ted Bundy's mother feels the same way. In the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, God obviously handled it in a godly way. He opted for the one and only best punishment. He is too wise and too good to err. Of course He wishes things would have played out differently, that is, that they wouldn't have committed crimes punishable by death, but it His was will and wish, given the circumstances, to do the one and only right thing - no matter how much it hurt Him. God did what was right and best for everyone concerned.


Teresaq, I take it you quoted Tom here to demonstrate what makes sense to you. But this insight, though it is good, does not explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. If you think it does, then please explain it to me. Thank you.

I'm glad I'm getting closer to understanding what you believe. But I must admit I’m still uncertain how you arrive at your conclusions. For example, in light of all the places in the Bible where it says God killed, or God commanded others to kill, in what way do they demonstrate that God:

1. Freely forgives
2. Turns the other cheek
3. Goes the extra mile
4. Never resorts to force or violence

Also, besides these incidents demonstrating that God eventually gives sinners over to their unbridled fierce passions and over to the unrestrained control of Satan, what are some other things that happened in consequence of sinners filling up their cup of woe and God giving them up?


Yeah, I see what you mean. Regarding my understanding of Ellen’s use of the word “pardon” in her graphic description of Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven, I would like to say she was describing a highly unusual, very abnormal situation. Nothing like that had ever happened before. There was no precedence to guide her. Never before had a high ranking, sinless angel, who knew God so well that there was nothing more God could to recommend His love more fully, deceived himself into believing lies about the character and kingdom of God. Who wouldn’t be at a loss for words?


You seem to be hinting that their perverted desires forced God, against His will and desire, to command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, that His only options were to 1) reject the COI altogether or to 2) stick it out and command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Why do you think these were His only two options? If so, how do you explain the fact they were uncertain what to do?

There is no evidence they were eager to kill them, or that they were looking for excuses or justification to kill them. Because of their conundrum, they came to Moses for guidance and understanding. Seems to me this would have been the perfect opportunity for God to demonstrate His ultimate will and desire, as you understand it, and yet He commanded them to stone the sinners to death – a slow and painful way to go, unless the first stone knocks you out and you die in your sleep. Could it be that God, given the circumstances, did indeed express His will and desire? Is there any reason to think otherwise?

Your view requires us to reject Jesus' demonstration of God's kingdom and character as revealed in His actions and interactions throughout the OT. "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." If we limit our understanding of God to Jesus' portrayal of God in the Synoptic Gospels then we are left to guess about a great deal of truth.

For example, nowhere in the NT do we see Jesus speaking an uninhabited planet into a world teeming with life and love. Nowhere do we see Him withdrawing His protection and permitting the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. Nowhere do we see Him commanding a faithful father to slay his son. Nowhere do we see Him thundering from Sinai proclaiming the ten commandments. Nowhere do we see Him commanding the people to stone a sinner to death. Nowhere do we see Him being silent for four hundred years.

No wonder at the end of His ministry Jesus said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." Now wonder He left it to the Holy Spirit to explain the things He was unable to demonstrate while He was here. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things." No wonder there are some things about God that we can never understand in this lifetime. "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" No wonder some things about God seem so horrible He is reduced to referring to them as His "strange acts".

Then take pity on this poor, old, clueless man, and state your position so clearly that even my 10 year old, above average, grandson can grasp it. I'm bouncing on the edge of my seat, Tom. Believing you are about to explain why our heavenly Father commanded Moses to kill those two guys has me all perked up and teased out.


Yes, given that Saul held in his hand the full cup of woe, it was God's will and desire that things play out the way they did. Think of all the other ways it could have played out had God not intervened. No, I'm not saying God was happy Saul filled up the cup of woe. God worked very hard to help Saul live a godly life, but he filled up the cup of woe instead. There was nothing else God could do to woo and win him back. He was left with the miserable task of managing Saul's death in the one and only right and righteous way.


Not even you boil "all suffering" down to the same thing. God must juggle millions of variables as circumstances force Him to manage the outcome of the sinful choices sinners make. Some people suffer because of the choices other people make. God must manage everything so that nothing plays out in a way that is not right and righteous. We are always placing God between a rock and a hard place.

In cases where sinners fill up the cup of woe, God employs many and varied ways to punish them. He tailors the punishment to fit the crime. There is nothing generic about what God does. Listen as Ellen describes it:

God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power. Those who have beheld these burning mountains have been struck with terror at the grandeur of the scene-- pouring forth fire, and flame, and a vast amount of melted ore, drying up rivers and causing them to disappear. They have been filled with awe as though they were beholding the infinite power of God. {3SG 80.2}

I haven't been arguing that the OT fully revealed God, but that Christ did. Christ revealed the things you've listed.



I just mentioned a whole list of things, like yesterday.

Regarding Ellen White's use of the word "pardon," I have no idea why you think she was at a loss of words, or why she used the word "pardon" to mean anything different than "pardon." Similarly for "author," "repentance," or "sin."

Other examples could be given. You do this routinely. And it isn't really my intent to criticize you for doing this, as everyone comes across passages which say just what they want, and others which don't, so everyone has the same challenge.

For example, you quote the paragraph in the GC about the same power being exercised by holy angels when God commands as by evil angels when God permits, and don't mention the paragraphs that force is not a principle of God's government, that God does not overcome rebellion by force, that all man can know about God was revealed by Christ, and so forth. On the other hand, I don't mention this one paragraph in GC, but bring out the points I wish to. I realize that this is a difficult paragraph for those who hold to the position I espouse. OTOH, you don't seem to recognize the difficulties you have to face. You seem to view your actions differently than mine. I don't see this. I've never claimed that a common word like "sin" or "pardon" or "author" doesn't mean what it normally means. I haven't sought to resolve difficulties in this way.

So you're hardly in the place to accuse those who disagree with you of ignoring the "obvious meaning" of words Ellen White uses.

Anyway, back to resolving difficulties. It should be clear that when there are things which seem to favor one view, and things which seem to favor another, it's necessary to do some reconciliation to make the difficult passages "fit" with the easy ones, depending on one's perspective. In the issues we have been discussing, it seems to me that the way I'm arguing is at least as viable, in terms of what the text is saying, as what you suggest. What decides the issue for me is what a given position says in regards to God's character. Does God come out looking like Jesus Christ if I choose to look at things this way instead of that?

Regarding Moses and the Sabbath-breaking, if you look at the SOP you will see lengthy explanations as to why God gave the counsel He did in this and like episodes, such as when the Levites killed those who worshiped the golden calf. The OT is a very violent book. There's no doubt that God, on the surface, appears to be violent and to use force to get His way. However, I don't believe this fits with what we know about God's character, and that we need to bring to bear certain principles of interpretation, such as that God is often presented as doing that which He permits, and that God is sometimes put in the position of the father of the hunter in the story presented, where He gives counsel which may be misinterpreted.

As you have pointed out, God's counsel was the best possible counsel given the situation. He was in a circumstance where He could either give the counsel He did, or allow Israel to fall apart, for reasons the SOP details. That circumstances constrained God to act in a certain way does not mean that God is violent, or uses force to get His way, any more than the counsel the father gave to his hunter son implies these things about him.

Why do you think God intervened? Also, when God makes a choice, why do you think there's necessarily only one right choice available? Why could there not at times be two or more equally good choices, and God simply chose any one of those?



I don't understand why you think God does these things. You perceive God as capable of being the way you present Him as being, which I see as impossible, for the reason that He would not be acting in accordance with how Jesus Christ revealed Him to be, how Scripture and Ellen White describe Him of being, or in accordance with love.



In the case of the destruction of Jerusalem, the description says that the Jews forged their own fetters, that they chose Satan as their leader, that they caused God to withdraw from them, and yet you *still* express what happened in terms of God's doing something to them to punish them. I don't see how she could possibly express something in a way that would have you see God as not being responsible for what fell upon them.

It seems to me that if, even in this circumstance, where she uses the strongest possible language that it was not God doing these things but Satan, that you *still* see God as punishing them and causing what happened to happen that there would be any circumstance where you wouldn't ascribe these things to God. So let me ask my question in a different way. Can you name a circumstance where suffering comes upon someone who rejects God that is not a result of God's actively willing that result to come upon them? By the phrase "actively willing," I'm distinguishing this from the idea that God "permits a desire He would prefer did not happen," which is what I believe God does when He punishes those who reject Him.

whether, "God would have preferred handling the situation differently", and "did He have options" isnt really in the same line of thought.

we forget that we understand God and the bible according to our fallen human nature. i know that is true for myself. we read both, unknowingly, according to that limited nature. i have read the old testament numerous times and got it pretty well down and it changed my view of God. but still, in reading an article by someone certain bible verses were pointed out that i had overlooked and not seen the significance of them. seeing the importance of those verses changed my thinking even more. no matter how much we know or how far we have come, there is still much we overlook.

i realize you already know that.

Very much agreed. I've read Waggoner's "The Everlasting Covenant," whose theme to quite a large extent could be summarized as, "The Gospel in the Books of Moses," where Waggoner would make some claim, that the verse said such and such, and I would think, "No way!," go and look, and sure enough, it says what Waggoner claimed.

True. Thank you for pointing it out. I'm not the sharpest the tool in the shed. At any rate, did you agree with the insight I shared above, namely, this one:

In the cases of the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, God obviously handled it in a godly way. He opted for the one and only best punishment. He is too wise and too good to err. Of course He wishes things would have played out differently, that is, that they wouldn't have committed crimes punishable by death, but it was His will and wish, given the circumstances, to do the one and only right thing - no matter how much it hurt Him. God did what was right and best for everyone concerned.


Right, hanging out with Jesus today is going to make me an entirely different person tomorrow, thus, I am going to see things in the Bible I didn't see before. I love it! Thank you Jesus!

But I'm still interested in learning what makes sense to you today as it relates to the following question - Why did God command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If you think you have already answered this question, then please restate it here so I don't have to spend time searching for it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.