You didn't answer my question. Why not? Do you think divorce and capital punishment are one and the same thing?


Why aren't you addressing the question? Does it say anywhere in the Bible or the SOP that the laws Jesus gave commanding capital punishment were temporary or transitional?

Yes, I think Jesus compromised to accommodate divorce. And yes, I think the father compromised to accommodate his son's desire to hunt and kill game. Do you agree?

However, I do not think Jesus compromised or conceded to accommodate unenlightened, bloodthirsty Jews when He commanded laws requiring capital punishment. Do you agree?

PS - Please take it upon yourself to elaborate on your answers. That is, don't make me ask obvious follow up questions. Thank you.

I think the same principle is involved, so the divorce examples serves to address your question.



I don't see why I should, or, more accurately, why you would think I should. That's why I'm asking you why you're asking me.



Are you asking if we should today be stoning people who don't do the things listed in the Torah?

I wouldn't express it this way. I would simply say that Jesus accommodated them because of the hardness of their hearts.



I wouldn't put it this way, no.



We've discussed this at length already. I think our difference of opinion is much more deeply seated than addressing these types of questions, already discussed at great length, can get at. It has to do with our picture of God, and how we should obtain that picture. I'm saying that Jesus Christ during His earthly mission, should be that picture.

We are discussing this on another thread. No need to do it here. Although this thread is more to the point than the other thread and by all rights should be discussed here instead.

Here's what I posted on the other thread:

Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" He also said, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

I agree with you, Tom, that we can learn a lot about God and His ways and means through the NT picture of Jesus. However, Jesus Himself said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

One thing is clear to me, on several occasions Jesus burned His enemies alive in the OT but in the NT He rebuked James and John for wanting to do the same thing. The question is - Why did Jesus do it in the OT but not while He was here in the flesh?

So far you have avoided answering this question. In light of your suggestion (study the NT Jesus to understand the OT Jesus), citing the humane hunter story is not an adequate answer for the simple reason the NT Jesus, unlike the OT Jesus, never did anything contrary to His preferred will.

What is your point? Since the NT Jesus never did anything contrary to His preferred will (He never commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, He never withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature or the evil men or evil angels to kill sinners) how can we possibly learn why the OT Jesus did so so many times?

Ok, here's how I responded:



You understand this isn't literal, don't you, and really has nothing to do with our discussion?



This does, however.



"All that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son" is much stronger than what you wrote.



Yes, but these "many things" weren't in regards to the revelation of God's character. He wasn't saying there were things about God which He hadn't revealed. The following makes this point clear:





I think you're going about this backwards.



No, this is backwards. The question, "What is God like?" That really needs to be settled first, because our conception of God's character is so vital in regards to how we interpret scripture. This is the very problem James and John had. They didn't understand God's character, which led them to wrong conclusions regarding His will. They "knew not what spirit" they were of, because they didn't know God's character.



Not at all. I haven't avoided it, but have pointed out that it's not the right question to ask, and I've pointed out why.



I'll repeat my point. If we don't understand God's character, we won't interpret Scripture correctly, because a correct understanding of God's character is vital to rightly interpreting Scripture.



Perhaps what you're wanting to learn isn't right to begin with, and a different understanding of God's character could make this clear.

I've given an example of this. Scripture says that God sent lying spirits to Ahab, but you understand that God doesn't lie, so you reject the interpretation of this text that would have God lying. Similarly, I understand that violence and the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government and His character, so I reject the interpretation of texts which lead to the conclusions that God's kingdom is one of violence, or that God uses violence to achieve His goals.

Tom, you still haven't explained why the OT Jesus commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, and why He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature and evil men and evil angels to kill sinners.

Yes, I agree with you, the NT Jesus never did these things while here in the flesh. But therein lies the problem with your suggestion that we study the NT Jesus in order to understand why the OT Jesus commanded His chosen people to kill sinners, and why He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature and evil men and evil angels to kill sinners.

You firmly believe Jesus is non-violent and would never do the violent things the OT records Him doing. What then? Do you assume someone or something else did them? If so, who or what did them? For example, who or what caused the fire to come down from heaven in response to Elijah's prayer and burned alive the two bands of fifty?

It doesn't say God lied. It says God sent a lying spirit who lied to Ahab. The same thing is true of 2 Thes 2:10-12. God will send them a strong delusion (which I believe will be Satan personating the return of Jesus).

That's what I said.



If God literally sent a lying spirit to Ahab, He would be lying, because He would be lying through an agent in this case. But knowing that God does not lie, one can easily infer that God permitted the lying spirit to go to Ahab and lie. Similarly for the strong delusion, what actually happens is a permissive action on God's part.