I don't think God ever gets angry like you get angry.



Yes, quite familiar with it. There are only two examples I'm aware of in Jesus' experience that can even be misconstrued as Jesus Christ's being angry, as you're suggesting (i.e. like your anger) or using force or violence. The cleansing of the temple, and the cursing of the fig tree. Both incidents, properly understood, have Jesus Christ acting in perfect harmony with the principles already discussed.



This is describing the scene of the cleansing of the temple. Christ, with tears in His eyes, with pity exceeding that of a tender mother. Similarly when Christ uttered His scathing rebukes, there were tears in His eyes.

The wrath of God involves much sorrow. "How can I give you up?" is an expression of God's wrath. God hates sin, to be sure, because of the devastation it causes both to the ones sinned against, and the ones practicing it. But God has a tender love for all, including the ones practicing the things He hates.

If we would understand the wrath of God, we should bear in mind that it involves much sorrow. Indeed, as far as the people are concerned against whom His wrath is visited, it is only sorry. The anger is against sin.

There are many examples of God's exercising of wrath in Scripture being by way of His withdrawal. There are also many examples of God's being presented as doing that which He permits. In order to suggest that God at times violently, one must use the rather odd principle of interpretation that

1.When the Bible presents God as doing something violent, we should understand that God acts violently.
2.Unless there is somewhere else in inspiration which says He didn't.

So when it says that God killed Saul, we understand that God killed Saul. Except He didn't, because elsewhere it says He didn't. Likewise when it says God sent fiery serpents against the Israelites, we understand that He did this. Except He didn't, because elsewhere we're told He didn't. Likewise when it says God destroyed Jerusalem, we understand that He did this. Except He didn't, because elsewhere we're told He didn't.

This is one way one could go about interpreting Scripture, but not the only way. Another way would be to try to ascertain the principles involved, and then apply those principles to other situations, even if that particular incident is not explained. It seems to me God shouldn't have to explain each and every incident to us once the principle has been made clear.

Regarding Ezek. 38, it says, "And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man's sword shall be against his brother." In EGW comments, this verse is quoted and placed in a chapter entitled, "The wicked will slay each other." This is still the same principle brought out in the destruction of Jerusalem (ch. 1 of "The Great Controversy"). Destruction comes as God withdraws His protection from the evil one, who inspires bloodshed, and seeks to conceal his work as the work of God.

God is simply not violent. Violence is foreign to His character. His character is to turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, give the shirt off His back, to overcome evil with good, to love His enemies. These are not describing principles He sometimes uses, but the principles of His government, which He always uses.

The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. His principles are not of this order. Compelling power is only to be found under the government of the enemy. Love and truth are the prevailing power of God's government.

Tom, would you say - The light of the glory of God will slay the wicked?

Both the Bible and the SOP describe God being physically present. It is the radiant firelight of His presence that will cause the wicked to suffer and to die. You seem to be saying God will be absent.

". . . His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them."

"If you cling to self, refusing to yield your will to God, you are choosing death. To sin, wherever found, God is a consuming fire. If you choose sin, and refuse to separate from it, the presence of God, which consumes sin, must consume you."

"Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power."

"[Enoch] saw the righteous crowned with glory and honor while the wicked were separated from the presence of the Lord and consumed with fire."

"If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb."

I would say that the light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, will slay the wicked, which I would explain in terms of Jesus Christ being the revealer of God's character.

You're taking my comment out of context.

1. In what sense do you think the character of God will give life to the righteous? Are you referring to the resurrection? Otherwise, they are already alive, right?

2. What was the context of your comment?

MM, I hear you saying that Tom and I don't have a violent enough view of God.

Would you explain what your take on what Ellen White is saying from my referred Early Writings, The Third Message Closed? You might also comment on what the section title means to you relative to wrath and suffering.

kland,

On the contrary, no one here is advocating a violent God. That is not the point. However, to refuse the facts in the case, which are that sin will be strongly dealt with on God's part, is to refuse to accept that sin is bad enough to warrant such measures.

If I believe sin is not so bad, then I would never feel God is justified in destroying sinners. If, however, I have learned to hate sin as God hates it, I will see that God is but dealing justly with it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Kland, your first comment is absurd and does not deserve an answer. However, according to Tom the agony and anguish of the wicked will exceed being burned alive. Do you consider this "too violent"?

The EW quote you posted does not address the final judgment. It is dealing with the Second Advent. In addition to holy angels causing death and destruction (e.g. the plagues), the radiant brightness of Jesus will cause the wicked to suffer and to die.

Zechariah
14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

2 Thessalonians
2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

Revelation
15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
15:6 And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.
15:7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
15:8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.
16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

As further comment to my previous post, the arguments often presented here against sin being severely punished are essentially a form of Satan's first lie to us: "You will not surely die."

Only, in this case, it is the revised argument that--"The death you die won't be so bad!"

Do we really think this benefits the preaching of the Gospel? "Well, you can choose God, and avoid death...but if you don't choose life, the death will be a painless one anyhow...so buck up! Don't worry, be happy!"

Here is one missionary who won't be preaching this way.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.