Exactly how do you understand Saul died?

Here's what the Bible says:



I understand that to mean that even if Saul had not fallen upon his sword, he would have died. He just took the easy way out, for fear of being abused. The text is not clear as to how injured he was by the arrow, but it is quite probable that had it not been immediately life threatening, he would have died of infection within a few days. This, of course, is assuming he could yet escape from the Philistines.

Who killed Uriah?



So the answer here, technically, is both. David orchestrated Uriah's death. The Ammonites did the actual deed. Had they not finished Uriah, David would have found another way to accomplish his purpose.

The same is true of Saul's case. God arranged for his death. Saul did the actual deed.

The difference here, and this is a huge difference, is one of intent. I do not use these examples to speak of motives. I use them to speak of definitions on responsibility. God held David responsible for Uriah's death, even though David himself had not used a sword on Uriah.

A king may tell an executioner to slay the prisoner. Do we hold the executioner responsible for the death, or the king? The king, of course.

The same is true with Saul. The King had ordered the king's death. "And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." (1 Samuel 15:26, KJV)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

ellen white seems to understand the text in question to mean that the Lord no longer protected saul.

"and abandoned to destruction":
(bold color for ready visibility, only)

Teresa,

Of course God no longer protected Saul. There would be no point in protecting someone you were killing, would there?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm repeating what I heard you say.

You believe that God was responsible for Saul's death, in the same way David was responsible for Uriah's death. Basically God murdered Saul. We don't use the word "murder" in the case of God, because He's God, but the mechanism is identical, and if it were anyone else, we would call it murder.

Maybe not. I think perhaps this is why you were speaking of the big difference of intent. So because God's intent was different, it wasn't murder, but a justifiable killing. Perhaps this would be a more accurate way of representing your thought.

Ok, so the mechanism is the same between David and God, in that both orchestrated the killing of another. They were both responsible for the death of the victim, even though who committed the actual deed was someone else.

This mechanism is very different from what I perceive. What I perceive is that God says to the wicked, "I have no pleasure in your death. Why will you die?" I perceive that it is sin that causes our problems, and God does all that He can to rescue us from the terrible consequences of our choices.

This principle is outlined in "The Great Controversy" chapter one. That's the best place I know of which discusses it. If it weren't for this chapter, we'd probably view the destruction of Jerusalem very differently (and, in spite of it, some still view God as using the Romans as His instrument to bring suffering upon the Jews and kill them in retribution).

Here is an excerpt from the chapter:



1.The Jews had forged their own fetters.
2.They had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance.
3.In all the woes that followed them, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown.
4.They destroyed themselves.
5.Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God; this is how the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.
6.By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them.
7.Satan was permitted to exercise control over them.
8.The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control.
9.We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy.
10.It is the restraining power of God that protects mankind.
11.when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, His restraint against the power of Satan is removed.
12.God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression.
13.God leaves those who reject His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown.
14.Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest.
15.The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner.
16.The Spirit of God, withdrawn, leaves the sinner without protection from the evil one.

Ok, these are the background principles. No here comes a really interesting thing:



The destruction of Jerusalem is a warning TO ALL. It's not simply an isolated event, the principles of which have little interest to us, except an understanding a specific event in the remote past that doesn't concern us. The principles involved apply *to all* who would trifle with the pleadings of mercy.



Some complain that the mechanism suggested, that is, that God has used and will continue to use the same methods outlined in GC 35-37, are not sufficiently "tough." The don't express the divine outrage sufficiently, or for some other reason are not a sufficient way to deal with sin. But the SOP brings out that "Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin" than what happened to Jerusalem, nor a more decisive testimony to "the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty."

This means that if we want to really understand how God hates sin, and how He deals with those who practice it, which is to say how He punishes them, the most decisive testimony -- the best example of this -- is the destruction of Jerusalem.



This is dealing with the plagues, which ties into the theme of this thread. Those who trample upon God's law in the time of the end, and reject His mercy, will suffer according to the principles outlined in the destruction of Jerusalem.

There's a great deal of light here! We can learn a lot by simply going through this passage point by point, to get at all the principles involved. In so doing, we can understand God's hatred of sin, and how He punishes those who practice it. Not just in Jerusalem, or the plagues at the end of time, but in any situation. Although the specific details vary from case to case, the general principles, outlined above, remain the same.

One last point.



I think this principle is vastly underestimated, or vastly unnoticed. That is, Satan has been *far* more successful at this than we have even an inkling of. God's character has been so successfully maligned, that we don't have the slightest idea that the character of Satan is represented in His place. This is an indictment on all of us (I'm not targeting, for example, those who don't believe a certain view I hold; I'm as guilty of this as anyone).

As long as we don't really understand who God is, Christ will not be able to come. Why not?



Be beholding we become changed. As long as we are beholding an image which is off, how can we perfectly reproduce Christ's character? This seems impossible to me.

One of the elements of the 1888 message was eye salve. Eye salve allows us to see our condition as it truly is. Not rich and increased with goods, but naked, destitute, and miserable, desperately in need of eyesight. The SOP tells us that the 1888 message laid the glory of man in the dust. I think that's a major reason it was resisted and rejected. Seeing the truth about God inevitably results in our seeing the truth about ourselves, which we have a natural aversion to. Our natural reaction to any error pointed out, no matter how carefully, is to accuse others and justify our own actions.

Yes, there is clearly a difference in intent here. David's intent was selfish. God's intent was unselfish, unless you wish to construe it that God wanting a pure Israelite nation with a righteous leader is selfish.

The Hebrew words used with David versus with God bearing the responsibility are also different. In David's case, the word can be synonymous with destroy, smite, wound, defeat, stripes, punish, murderer, etc. In God's case, the word means "put to death" and is never related to murder in any of its translations. It is translated as die [232], died [153], dead [134], surely put to death [56], put to death [44], slew [40], surely die [40]...etc.

God is not a murderer. But He does fill the role of executioner when necessary.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I believe the following explains how God fills this role:

Tom,

That does explain how God fills His role. But it explains it for a specific context (in this case, time frame). Have you looked carefully at the full context of that statement? Was Mrs. White addressing the final plagues, or the damnation of hell?

Here are statements that lead me to believe that there are additional contexts which one must necessarily include when studying this topic.


Would God require of His servants something that He Himself did not exemplify? If Eli was supposed to have executed justice against sinners, will God also refrain from this? As I understand, despite Eli's piety, for this one sin in being too permissive and gentle toward others, he will not be in Heaven. Does that not seem a little harsh? The Bible and Mrs. White both say Eli was a good man. Why should he be lost?


God is forced to execute justice?


For those who do not accept Christ's sacrifice and pardon, the death penalty must be met at the cost of their own lives. That penalty has not yet been meted out. But it will come soon enough.

Personally, I see little difference between "executing the death penalty" and the role of executioner. I will admit that Mrs. White does not use the term executioner in these statements. But I see no difference in the meaning. She uses the exact word "executioner" mostly in speaking of the martyrs, and it is quite possible that she chooses to avoid the term here because of the negative impression which it gives. It implies to many minds a dark side. But leaving motives out of the picture again, the act and responsibility for it are the same.

God's motives are pure. He executes justice and judgment in righteousness. While filling the role of executioner of the death penalty, He does not in the slightest take any enjoyment from it. He does it, as Mrs. White says, because He is forced to.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom,

To represent God as being too loving to punish sinners with His own hands is to undermine His authority. I do not think you even half realize the thoughts God may have toward your representation of Him. There are many who hold similar views to yourself. But Ellen White gives the following message which I think you and several others whom you have influenced here in this forum might do well to ponder.



The wrath of God is closely tied to the Law of God. The law is a law of love. Therefore, one might even say that God's wrath is a "loving wrath." It is not mean-spirited as our sinful wrath is. God's wrath is righteous. But it will bring forth the most solemn judgments--there will be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

1.I've never said God was "too loving" to do something.
2.I've never said God does not punish sinners.

Where you and I differ is not to the *fact* of whether or not God punishes sinners, but as to the *mechanism*.

The following had a profound impact on my understanding of this:



I think we way underestimate the dangers God protects us from, so we mistakenly think it's necessary for Him to "smite" someone from His own hand, when all He needs to do is withdraw His protection from one of these unseen dangers.



Would the same not apply to you?

I agree with your comment, in spite of believing my view is closer to reality than yours. I repent continuously in regards to my shortcomings to represent God's character as it truly is. I know He's far, far better than I've presented Him.



Where? I'd like to meet them!



I'll comment on a portion of this:



In post #118761 I quoted the following:



This points out that what Jerusalem experienced is what those who trample upon God's law will experience. The principles I laid out in this post will apply, as Ellen White points out.



Indeed it is. The law is a hedge to protect us from the dangers of breaking it.



Those who trample the law will experience the results of so doing, according to the principles laid out in GC 35-37.



Nor is it based on the principles of force, as ours is. The principle of force is not to be found in God's government.



The foundation of God's government is goodness, mercy and love. The judgments of God involve these principles, as does everything God does, as opposed to the principles of force or violence.



Agreed. And these judgments will come in perfect harmony with the revelation of God given by Jesus Christ, in harmony with the principles laid out in GC 35-37.



As commented in GC 35-37.

She was discussing the destruction of Jerusalem. That's the context. And she said:



Aren't the plagues what those who trample upon God's law receive?



Again, from the GC passage (i.e. "Great Controversy") I've cited from:



Do you agree with each of the following points?

The destruction of Jerusalem

1.demonstrates God's punishing sin.
2.was a judgment.
3.is prophetic of the judgments and punishments of others who trample His law.



She says the following of Samuel.



Do you think Samuel won't be in heaven either?

Regarding Eli, my understanding was the Eli was a righteous man. If he was a righteous man, he'll be in heaven. Regarding your statement that



I spend a bit of time researching this, and couldn't discover anything suggesting this. I'll admit that I haven't specifically researched the question of Eli's being righteous or not, but my impression has been that Eli was a righteous man. I came across the following:



This seems like the response of a righteous man. Again, this isn't a point I've researched. If you can present an argument that Eli won't be in heaven, I'd be happy to listen to it.



I don't know what you're asking.



This is actually from GC 541-543, page 541 I think, and I've quoted this many times. Of special interest is that God executes justice upon the wicked for their own good. That's very profound, and interesting.

Also of note is that the principles of kindness, mercy and love are present in judgment (this isn't clear from FILB, with the ellipses, but it's clear from the GC passage this comes from). This is a principle reason I reject many of the ideas I hear regarding God and the judgment. I believe God's actions will be in complete harmony with what Jesus Christ revealed of God in His humanity.



Those who choose to separate from God, the source of life, cut themselves off from life (DA 764).



Nor do I. The death penalty will be executed as explained in DA 764.



The difference in meaning, IMO, is between what she said in DA 764, and what many people think will happen. She speaks of how had Satan been *left* to reap the full results of his sin, he would have perished. She says that Satan and those who join him in rebellion place themselves so out of harmony with God that His presence it to them a consuming fire. She says the light of glory of God, which is the revelation of His character, gives life to the righteous, but will slay the wicked.

It's not that God is different towards one group of people, killing some and blessing others. It's that the wicked themselves have destroyed themselves, wrecking their character, so that they cannot stand to be around God, or those who love His principles (The GC passage above, 541-543, brings this out).



DA 764 explains God's actions in the destruction of the wicked very clearly. He allows them to "receive the result of their choice."



And His methods too! He's just like Jesus Christ.



Yes, and He does so without using force or violence.



Yes. He says, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." He asks the wicked, "Why will you die." As DA 764 brings out, the inevitable result of sin is death. God would much rather the wicked chose to live than to die.