Well said.

For example:
If the instructions were to drive 4 miles south of town, turn right and go to the tall building, then park in back, it is implied that one has access to a vehicle. Would that not be clear to anyone reading the instructions? At least in this day in this country.


Jesus said though one rise from the dead, they would not believe. Two people rose from the dead and they still did not believe. I seem to recall that Ellen White said something about if given a chance they would crucify Him again. Do you really think "clarity" had anything to do with preventing them from killing Him? Do you think that perhaps being clear about He claiming to be the Son of God caused them to kill Him? Some did not want to kill Him. Does killing or not killing Him imply clarity? What would it take for them to not kill Him?


Really?

I mean, really. Do you think, as they were leading Him to the hill, if he should say, "I am the Son of God and it is foretold I would die for your sins. The animal sacrifices which you do symbolize my death" they would say, "Oh, that is so clear. Please forgive us and we'll let you continue your ministry"? Or if you need it be, if Moses had specifically said that, would it have made a difference?

Do you really think that would prevent them from killing Him? Or would it just be a clear requirement for you? I really think you misunderstood why they killed Him as to why you presented that argument.

An absolutely amazing statement. As if clarity had anything to do with why Christ was rejected. kland has addressed this point elsewhere, so I won't add more than to say it seems you've missed the real issues involved in Christ's rejection, and in doing so have unintentionally, I'm sure, by implication cast aspersions upon God (i.e., making God responsible for their rejection of Christ, since God wasn't clear about it, and they wouldn't have rejected Christ if He had been).



A point you seem to be missing, MM, is that the language in the OT was not cryptic to them. It's cryptic to you, because you are not a Hebrew who lived over 3 thousand or years ago.



You're saying he spelled it out for them in plain terms orally, but not written? What inspired statement do you base this on?



To a Hebrew living over 3,000 years ago? What makes you think so? Specifically, why do you think the word "symbolize" would have meaning to them? I don't think that word even exists in Hebrew.

The point is – The Pentateuch does not clearly explain why Jesus had to die or that the animal sacrifices symbolize His death. That’s it! No ulterior motive to undermine the authority of God or the Bible. I am simply agreeing with you that both are “implied” in the Pentateuch and that neither are clearly stated or explained. Which I see as no problem, since we are not limited to the Pentateuch. We have the entire Bible and the entire SOP to guide us aright.

Yes, it is “clear” to you and me, but that’s because we have the benefit of the rest of the Bible and the SOP. Otherwise, it would not be as clear or explicit. We could easily believe as do many other Christians things which you and I both vehemently oppose (e.g. the moral influence theory). The Jews, of course, benefited from what Moses plainly told them, namely, that the Son of God would eventually die to atone for their sins and that the animal sacrifices symbolize His death, which, unfortunately, he did not record for our benefit.

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And Ellen observed, “Had they known that they were putting to torture One who had come to save the sinful race from eternal ruin, they would have been seized with remorse and horror.” {DA 744.3} So, yes, I think ignorance played a big part.


I think the Jews clamored for Jesus’ crucifixion because they truly believed He was a deceiver and a blasphemer, and they arrived at this conclusion based on a misunderstanding of the mission and message of the Messiah.

However, this isn’t what I had in mind when I wrote what you quoted above. Someone asked me to give an example of what I thought would qualify as a clear statement regarding the two aspects of this thread. Do you agree with me that the example I provided represents a clear statement? If so, do you know where in the Pentateuch wrote something as clear as this example?

I’ll repost what Ellen wrote about it:

Had they known that they were putting to torture One who had come to save the sinful race from eternal ruin, they would have been seized with remorse and horror. But their ignorance did not remove their guilt; for it was their privilege to know and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Some of them would yet see their sin, and repent, and be converted. Some by their impenitence would make it an impossibility for the prayer of Christ to be answered for them. Yet, just the same, God's purpose was reaching its fulfillment. Jesus was earning the right to become the advocate of men in the Father's presence. {DA 744.3}

In the past you have argued heartily that the Bible has hooks upon which we can hang our doubts if we so choose, that not everything is plainly spelled out so as to remove all room for doubt. Ellen concurs:

While God has given ample evidence for faith, He will never remove all excuse for unbelief. All who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them. And those who refuse to accept and obey God's word until every objection has been removed, and there is no longer an opportunity for doubt, will never come to the light. {GC 527.2}

Does this insight force us to conclude God is to blame because He has not clearly spelled everything out in the Bible? No, of course not! Certain aspects of the Bible are purposefully vague or cryptic. It forces us to dig deep and work hard to discover the truths that can set us free.


True, it would have been clearer to the Jews who were taught it by Moses in person. His unrecorded explanations were fresh in their minds. However, the passing of time has a way of distancing the obvious connection made by earlier generations who were there in person and who heard the explanations that were not recorded.


Ellen says so in different places throughout the SOP. Do you agree? She also saw in vision that God explained it to Adam and Enoch who in turn passed it on to their descendants.


Yes, even to Hebrews who learned from Moses! Are you suggesting they had no concept of the Son of God eventually coming to die for their sins? And, are you suggesting they had no concept of the animal sacrifices symbolizing the death of Jesus?

Do you have some inspired statement to support this idea? Are you saying God is behind this? God is purposefully vague or cryptic? In what circumstances? Is He so with fundamental doctrines? Like the Sabbath, or the stated of the dead, or the Gospel?



MM, do you not think it's possible that you're simply ignorant on this point? That you don't understand the ancient Hebrew culture, and that if you did you might find what Moses wrote to be clear? Is this possible?



No, of course not. She never said Moses' written messages regarding the death of Christ were unclear but his orally he was clear. This is a baseless claim.



No, I'm not suggesting this. I'm suggesting what I said, which is that what you wrote as something which would have been clear would not have been clear to them. You're thinking in Greek terms, not Hebrew.



No, I'm not suggesting this. I'm saying you're thinking in terms which are more Greek and Western than Hebrew. Your whole paradigm is different than theirs. What you think would have been clear is something which would have been clear to you, but not to them. What Moses wrote was clear to them, but you can't see this, because it's not clear to you, and you're not familiar with their culture or thinking. You're allowing your ignorance to define what you think they could clearly perceive.

Here's where we disagree. You think the Bible is not clear about why Christ had to die, but the SOP was. I think Ellen White would have strongly disagreed with you. Also, given you don't think Paul, Jesus, or John were clear, I don't see how you could possibly think Moses was. I don't even see why you would want to pursue the issue.

I agree with Mike on this point. One does not need any statement saying specifically that it is thus. Reading the Bible for oneself proves the statement.

However, there are a number of Jesus' statements to support this. One of them is the parable of the hidden treasure in the field. One is the oft-repeated statement "he that hath an ear, let him hear." This is usually stated following a hard saying. Even the disciples did not understand Jesus' parables, and frequently asked Him to explain them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't think the problem is so much that God purposefully made the Scripture vague or cryptic, but that spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Are you saying an omniscient and omnipotent God would do something unintentionally?

Of course it was intentional. The question should be, Why does He do this? It is for our benefit.

A popular English saying sums it up in a worldly sort of way: "No pain, no gain." If we did not have to dig for the buried treasure, we would not treasure it.

I agree, however, that spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.