Of course not. From "The Desire of Ages" we read:



This brings out that there was a work that needed to be done, to make known God's true character. Now Malachi had already existed at this point in time, but was evidently not sufficient to do the job that Christ had to do. Or, to put it another way, there really was a job that Christ had to do. It was necessary that Christ reveal God's character. Why was this necessary? Because God's character wasn't known.

In fact, the SOP tells us that the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was "the revelation of God." So if God had already been sufficiently revealed, why did Christ need to do this?



I wrote:



Ellen White wrote hundreds of pages on the life of Christ. She said:



It wouldn't surprise me if she followed her own advice. After having a firm grasp of God's character based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, we are better situated to studying the more difficult questions we come across in Scripture. Otherwise, I fear we will be in danger of substituting our ideas for the revelation of Christ.

A big problem we all have is that we view God's character according to the filter of our own. This is a Catch 22. How do we get around this? I can only think of one way, and that's Christ.



I agree that God acts in justice, but disagree that God acts violently.



There's a flaw in this reasoning here in that Eli is not God. In particular, God protects us from a thousand dangers, all of them unseen. In order to punish, or bring about justice, it is sufficient for God to withdraw His protection from one of these unseen dangers. This doesn't apply to Eli.

The principle I've been suggesting is the one laid out by GC 35-37, which speaks of God's being caused to withdraw His protection. I've not understood why you've brought up Eli in this context.



Yes, and He does so according to the principles laid out in GC 35-37.



It's not just the devil. There are a thousand dangers from which God protects us, all of them unseen. Not just one.



I believe the wrath of God is that laid out in GC 35-37.

You seem to have the idea that in order for God to punish, or execute justice, or to exercise His wrath, He Himself must act violently. I don't know where this idea comes from. In the GC passage I've been quoting from, we're told:



If there is no more decisive testimony than this, why aren't the principles laid out here sufficient?

One other point. We're told:



From this we see that Satan seeks to conceal his own work by representing his work as punishment visited upon his victims by a direct decree of God. It seems to me this point is not being given the weight it should be.

Tom,

If I'm understanding what you have said, you are saying that you do not believe that God killed Aaron's sons--but that some hidden danger did this--and yet you believe that Eli should have punished his sons with death. What unseen danger do you suppose Eli could have caused his sons to find? Or do you think that God asked of Eli something that God Himself would never do?

I agree with you that God does not act violently. However, I do not class God's execution of the death penalty as "violence." God acts in "justice." His "wrath" is righteous.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As I pointed out, Eli is not God, so the option of his withdrawing his protection from the thousand different dangers he was protecting others from doesn't make sense. This whole line of study makes no sense to me. I don't understand why this focus on Eli rather than Christ. I think if one really wishes to understand God, one must study Christ. That has to be the bedrock, the foundation, of our understanding of God, if we wish to have any hope of getting it right.

Regarding agreeing that God does not act violently, it seems to me it's only possible to claim to believe this by redefining the word to not include what would be violent acts if any other being did them other than God. So the word "violent" because basically a meaningless word, and the claim a meaningless claim. God isn't actually *doing* anything any different than a violent person does. A different label is simply being applied.

Also the idea seems to be being expressed that God must act violently in order to be acting in "justice" or to exhibit "wrath." But the description in GC 35-37 displays God's acting in justice, and displays His wrath. These pages bring out that God can bring out justice and pour out His wrath by permitting those who reject Him to experience the result of their choice. There are many, many examples of this in Scripture. Here are a few:



Here we see God's wrath in action. What does God do? he "forsakes" them, and "hides His face from them" with the result that "they shall be devoured" and "many evils and troubles shall befall them," which they recognize as being because "God is not among us."



Again God's anger, or wrath, is spoken of in terms of His hiding His face.



Because of sin, God's wrath followed, described as His giving them up to trouble.



Here we see the same thing. Sin provoked God's wrath, causing Him to remove them from His sight. God rejected them, and afflicted them by delivering them.



Again God's wrath is associated with His hiding His face.



The same principle.



God gave the Israelites up to the Babylonians, which was an expression of His wrath.

So it is evident that God's wrath does not require Him to by His own hand to violent things. There are many examples from inspiration of God's justice being executed, His wrath being expressed, by means of His protection being caused to be withdrawn, just as GC 35-37 describes.

Where we differ is that I believe the principles expressed in GC 35-37 cover all cases. There is no reason to say things like "God acts in 'justice'" or "His wrath is righteous" as if this were equivalent to His causing excruciating pain or death by His own hand when we have so many examples of Him acting in justice and expressing righteous wrath without His doing these things.

There's no question that there are many times that God acts the way I've lined out. Again, our difference involves whether there are other times where God exercises His wrath or acts in justice according to different principles. But even if He did, this would still not negate that fact that there are many times where God does act in the way I've been saying, in the way explained by GC 35-37. Therefore my expressing God's actions in the terms laid out in GC 35-37 should not be, and cannot rightly be, taken as a denial that God acts in justice or that His wrath is not righteous.

A final point is that GC 35 says:



It seems to me that the import of this statement is not being considered.

the wrath of God

Until the generation that had received instruction from Joshua became extinct, idolatry made little headway; but the parents
had prepared the way for the apostasy of their children. The disregard of the Lord's restrictions on the part of those who came in possession of Canaan sowed seed of evil that continued to bring forth bitter fruit for many generations. The simple habits of the Hebrews had secured them physical health; but association with the heathen led to the indulgence of appetite and passion, which gradually lessened physical strength and enfeebled the mental and moral powers. By their sins the Israelites were separated from God; His strength was removed from them, and they could no longer prevail against their enemies. Thus they were brought into subjection to the very nations that through God they might have subdued. {PP 544.4}

"They forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt," "and guided them in the wilderness like a flock." "They provoked Him to anger with their high places, and moved Him to jealousy with their graven images." Therefore the Lord "forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which He placed among them; and delivered His strength into captivity, and His glory into the enemy's hand." Judges 2:12; Psalm 78:52, 58, 60, 61. Yet He did not utterly forsake His people. There was ever a remnant who were true to Jehovah; and from time to time the Lord raised up faithful and valiant men to put down idolatry and to deliver the Israelites from their enemies. But when the deliverer was dead, and the people were released from his authority, they would gradually return to their idols. And thus the story of backsliding and chastisement, of confession and deliverance, was repeated again and again. {PP 545.1}

The king of Mesopotamia, the king of Moab, and after them the Philistines, and the Canaanites of Hazor, led by Sisera, in turn became the oppressors of Israel. Othniel, Shamgar, and Ehud, Deborah and Barak, were raised up as deliverers of their people. But again "the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord delivered them into the hand of Midian." Heretofore the hand of the oppressor had fallen but lightly on the tribes dwelling east of the Jordan, but in the present calamities they were the first sufferers. {PP 545.2}

The Amalekites on the south of Canaan, as well as the Midianites on its eastern border, and in the deserts beyond, were still the unrelenting enemies of Israel. The latter nation had been nearly destroyed by the Israelites in the days of Moses, but they had since increased greatly, and had become numerous and powerful. They had thirsted for revenge; and now that the protecting hand of God was withdrawn from Israel, the opportunity had come. Not alone the tribes east of Jordan, but the whole land suffered from their ravages. The wild, fierce inhabitants of the desert, "as locusts for multitude" (Judges 6:5, R.V.), came swarming into the land, with their flocks and herds. Like a devouring plague they spread over the country, from the river Jordan to the Philistine plain. They came as soon as the harvests began to ripen, and remained until the last fruits of the earth had been gathered. They stripped the fields of their increase and robbed and maltreated the inhabitants and then returned to the deserts. Thus the Israelites dwelling in the open country were forced to abandon their homes, and to congregate in walled towns, to seek refuge in fortresses, or even to find shelter in caves and rocky fastnesses among the mountains. For seven years this oppression continued, and then, as the people in their distress gave heed to the Lord's reproof, and confessed their sins, God again raised up a helper for them. {PP 545.3}

Tom,

I think I am finally beginning to understand your position. However, since your position is unbiblical, I will not be able to accept it. The Bible is clear enough on this point for me. I will summarize here the points, and then provide some support for them afterward.

You have said that God never acts in violence. You answered my question regarding the deaths of the sons of Aaron in the sanctuary by saying "It's not just the devil. There are a thousand dangers from which God protects us, all of them unseen. Not just one."

However, do you believe God is a "danger" from which we must be protected? If so, what is the difference between God protecting us from Himself and God withdrawing that protection by choosing to act Himself to cause death?

To accept your view would mean one must necessarily be brought to accept one or more of the following points, all of which are rather disagreeable:

1) The Old Testament is invalid or less valid than the New Testament.
2) Mrs. White did not focus on the right topics when writing on the Old Testament and drawing lessons from them for us today (she should have been learning from the life of Christ instead).
3) God is a danger (He must protect us from Himself).
4) God asks of people that which He Himself would not do.
5) The Bible does not quite mean what it says (e.g. when the Bible says God did something destructive, it was never really God who did it).

You have constantly answered that we should not be studying the events of the Old Testament to get to know God, but rather the events of Christ's life. Jesus, however, whom you claim to have all the brightest and best knowledge from, taught concerning the Old Testament scriptures that "they are they which testify of Me." (John 5:39) Jesus also, speaking of the Old Testament scriptures, said "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4). Moreover, Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, and that not one jot or tittle would pass from it until Heaven and Earth should pass away.

Malachi 4:4 tells us expressly to remember the law of Moses. Malachi 3:6 testifies that God does not change. God was the same for the children of Israel as He is today. The prophet Malachi told us this, and I believe it.

Mrs. White shows clearly which "danger" it was that killed Nadab and Abihu. If this was an "act of violence," then you will have to either accept that God has acted violently, or else you may choose to reject the veracity of some of these statements. As some of the quotes are longer, I will mark the key points.



So Mrs. White tells us plainly that God slew Nadab and Abihu.

Tom, why do you wish so much to continue believing that which is not fully supportable? Your view has appeal. It is unpleasant to think of God acting in strict judgment this way Himself. One might like to avoid thinking about death too. But death remains a fact just the same.

Tom, I agree with you that in many cases God withdraws His protection and allows other forces to act. However, God does at times proactively purge sin Himself. I am grateful to have a God that is not too timid to deal with the rottenness of sin Himself. He not only gave His own life to rescue us, but is also willing to separate the wheat from the tares, and to destroy the latter forever.

You see, Tom, you have tried to persuade me that even though the Bible says God did it, He was only responsible for withdrawing His protection and allowing some non-God danger to do the actual punishing. You have said this was on account of the way the people back then viewed God, and that things were attributed to Him which were not really because of Him. However, will you now tell me the same of Ellen White? Did she also claim God did this when it was really Satan?

One step leads to another in the reasoning. If we take it to its fullest conclusion, we are not where we might wish to be.

I appreciated this statement from Mrs. White concerning Nadab and Abihu: "A fire blazed out from the holy of holies and consumed them." To me, this means that the wrath of God, the destruction which this represented, and even the lessons to be learned from it are all sacred and holy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In your opinion, it's unbiblical. In my opinion, your position is unbiblical. Do you think pointing this out is useful?



It's clear enough for me too. "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."



No. This is what I've been understand your position to be. That is, that God will cause excruciating pain and kill if one doesn't do what He says. But God will protect us from Himself if we do what He says. I've been arguing against this position.



I have argued that we need to be protected from the dangers caused by sin/Satan (which can involve many things, including indirect things, like natural disasters not necessarily caused directly by Satan, for example), not from Himself.



To be clear, you've not stated my view yet in this post.



Or it's been misunderstood, being interpreted to present God in a way contrary to what Jesus Christ presented. That's another possibility.



No, this is a wrong conclusion. She doesn't always speak of the same thing. There are many lessons to be learned from the Old Testament, not just one. The fact that she speaks about some other principle in a given event does not mean she's contradicting what she wrote in GC 35-37, or other places, or suggesting that these principles don't apply.



I've not said this nor implied it.



Eli was compared to God, and asked if he did certain hypothetical things which it would be impossible for him to do, not having God's character. To conclude 4) from this is not a valid conclusion.



This is facile. For example, the Bible says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, but the SOP makes it clear the serpents were there all the time, and God withdrew His protection. Should we conclude, "The Bible does not quite mean what it says"?



What I said was that before tackling the episodes where God looks to have acted violently in the OT, we should first have a firm grasp on His character, based on having studied Christ.



That's right. He also said, "But you will not come to me that you might have life." The OT Scriptures testified of Christ, that we would know who He was, and listen to what He had to say, and come to Him to receive life.



Jesus also said that its impossible to receive new wine in old wine skins. The Jews had very violent interpretations of the Kingdom of God. But Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God was not how they perceived it to be.

Jesus said what He heard His Father say, He spoke, and what He saw Him do, He did. Where did Jesus see and hear the Father do these things? In the OT! So Jesus spoke and acted out what He understood the God of the OT to be like. Thus "when you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."

Now we may have an interpretation of God's acts in the OT which is not in harmony with what Jesus said and acted out. Indeed, this would seem to be inevitable, given our old wine skins. So Jesus invites us to receive new wine skins from Him, to view God as He does.



I believe it as well. God doesn't change, but He can be misunderstood, and, according to the SOP, He has been misunderstood and is misunderstood. Christ's work, and our work, is to sweep away the cobwebs, to reveal the true character of God. EGW emphasizes this on many occasions. If God weren't misunderstood, there wouldn't be anything for us to in this regard.



I ask you the same question. Not only is it not fully supportable, but it presents a view of God which is out of harmony with what Jesus Christ lived and taught.

We're expressing opinions here, of course, and I really don't see the point. Clearly you think what you think is correct, and what I think is incorrect, while I perceive the reverse. I don't see what is gained by pointing this out.



I agree my view has appeal, and that your view involves thinking unpleasant things of God.



If you mean by taking things into His own hand, and doing things to cause excruciating pain and violent deaths, I disagree.



I am sorry you perceive that God is constrained to use what I believe are methods of the enemy to deal with the problem the enemy created. I believe that evil is overcome by good, such goodness as Jesus Christ displayed in the flesh. I'm also sorry that you believe that if God only used the methods outlined in GC 35-37 that this would make Him "timid."



I agree with this. I believe DA 107, 108 explains this principle well. For example, it says that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked, bringing out that it's not an arbitrary act of God that slays the wicked, but their own actions which have unfit themselves from receiving light from God which gives life to others of His creatures. In this section she also says that God is a consuming fire which must consume sin, and that if a person refuses to let go of sin, the person will be destroyed. So the problem is sin, not an arbitrary (or imposed) action God takes against a certain group of people. God is love, but this love is death to the wicked. The SOP makes this same point in DA 764 as well ("The glory of Him who is love will destroy them.")



Such as when the Bible says God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, or that God would destroy Jerusalem (A.D. 70). That is, the Bible says "God did it" in these incidents.



And still view God, and still erroneously attribute to God things that were not really because of Him. Every time a disaster like Katrina or the tsunami of several years ago happens, people do this.



You mean does the principle apply that God presents Himself as doing that which He permits to Ellen White as well as to Scripture?



Or perhaps it will lead us to a position closer to the truth.



What is it you think happened?

i have not read any post of toms that says this, nor would even lead me to that conclusion. i cant see where anyone else would see that either.

i have read him to say that we should study the ot in the light of Christs character.



From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was "the image of God," the image of His greatness and majesty, "the outshining of His glory." It was to manifest this glory that He came to our world. {DA 19.1}

By coming to dwell with us, Jesus was to reveal God both to men and to angels. He was the Word of God,--God's thought made audible. In His prayer for His disciples He says, "I have declared unto them Thy name,"--"merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,"--"that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them." But not alone for His earthborn children was this revelation given. Our little world is the lesson book of the universe. God's wonderful purpose of grace, the mystery of redeeming love, is the theme into which "angels desire to look," and it will be their study throughout endless ages. Both the redeemed and the unfallen beings will find in the cross of Christ their science and their song. It will be seen that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which "seeketh not her own" has its source in the heart of God; and that in the meek and lowly One is manifested the character of Him who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto. {DA 19.2}

Teresa,

Tom appears to prefer to focus elsewhere, as if the Old Testament is inferior. When Mrs. White herself wrote about Eli, and wrote about Nadab and Abihu, I believe she was directed by God to do so. Tom, however, prefers to study the life of Christ, which is to be found in the New Testament. That is fine, but while he may wish to reduce his focus to a few decades' of the spiritual timeline, there are others of us who recognize that God has been here all along, leading and guiding, and teaching His people. I believe there is salvation to be found if I had the Old Testament only. There are things it reveals that are not in the New Testament...and beautiful things too.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If you're suggesting I believe the OT is an inferior revelation of God's character than Christ, I agree with this. Christ is the express image of the Father. When we see Christ, we've seen the Father. He came to reveal the Father, because the world was in the dark about Him.



The "however" is out of place here, as it implies that I don't believe Ellen White was direct by God to write about Eli, Nadab and Abihu, which is a spurious suggestion.



Certainly it's possible to be saved simply by having the OT, as it's possible to be saved simply by having nature. But it's more difficult than if one has the clear revelation of the Father that Christ provided.

I want to be clear that I'm understanding you correctly. You don't believe that Christ was the clearest revelation of the Father? Better than the OT?

Tom,

Need I remind you that "this whole line of study" you referred to above came from two primary sources: 1) The Old Testament, and 2) Ellen White? You stated in that quote that you would rather study Christ.

I would rather study the whole truth.

I would, however, like to see this discussion of whether or not God punishes, causes pain, causes plagues, does violent acts, does forceful things, etc. etc. come to an end. I am sure that you can see we are at an impasse. I do not wish to force you to my side. God will reveal all truth to both of us given sufficient time. For now, as these topics have continually swirled about and permeated virtually every topic here, and it is clear that resolution cannot come when each of us is already convinced in our own mind, I feel that we should lay these things to rest, and agree to discuss other topics without so much expenditure of time here. There are many topics which might interest everyone and for which we might better agree.

Can I say "You win!" the debate so that we can move on?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.