I rather see it, as EGW states in PP 318.1 that this was going to be an act out of Justice by God, however He mercifully was seeking for an excuse not to “justly” do so. So He was hoping that Moses might be found, and that worthy, to avert the execution of that just judgement, and so proceeded to candidly test him. If Moses had any trace of selfishness in him, not only would Israel would have been destroyed because no intercessor would have been found for them, but maybe also Moses. However Moses sincerely prevail, indeed, as EGW states in PP 318.3 quibbling for anything in God’s pronouncement that he could use as an entrance to plead for an overturning of Judgement.

It also seems to me that despite that worthy intercession of Moses, God still had to option to execute the judgement and start over with Moses as He had said, but now He truly had two options to choose from, and out of mercy, opted for the merciful, and actually, though respectfully, well-put, plea (Exod 32:13, 14) of Moses.

So I see that God, though quite sadly, did intend to execute that judgement, but was also hoping for someone to worthily intercede for Israel. (cf. Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30, 31; Isa 59:16a) The same issues transpired in the redemption of man. So it seems that God, even in the face of due justice, still seeks as a final option for at least one worthy person to “stand in the gap.”

It must be also, clarifyingly added that the “threat” of a Flood is much greater than the, indeed “threat” of the future Second Coming destruction, because the Flood already occurred, and thus could be used as a reference point by most. The Second Coming, and other future “judgement threats/warnings” (e.g., Rev 14:9-11 cf. GC 627.3-628.2) on the other hand is still wholly in the realm of faith. As such it is not a compelling force or threat.

Perhaps the ‘Flood judgement’ would have been understood as a “threat” (if it had been allowed to be perceived as such - i.e., without the Rainbow Covenant Promise), due to its concrete, prior demonstration, while the Second Coming and other judgements are “lesserly” in the realm of “warnings” as they are not tangibly made to be known to be ‘clear and present.’ So God is not using any compellation in either past/present or future case.

The statement was quoted for you. If you'll read the statement in it's context, you'll see its specifically speaking of Jesus Christ's ministry here on earth.

Also, if you want a more detailed explanation, the Signs of the Times article "God Made Manifest in Christ" discusses the "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission in detail:

http://www.msc1888.org/egw/godmademanifestinchrist.htm



Consider the context, and the idea being presented from the perspective of the point she was wishing to make.

Here's the statement in context:



So it is clear that this is dealing with Jesus Christ during His earthly mission. By the way, to be clear, I never limited Christ's earthly mission to 3.5 years, nor do I think in these terms.

In case this it may be the subconscious, underlying case, as expressed to some degree by some in this discussion, I would warn against a popular “Evangelical”, knee-jerk, OT-disparaging view that the God of the OT was violent, spiteful, vengeful, made ‘character mistakes,’ was not loving, etc. but Jesus was somehow a different and “better” God, or at least, a better demonstration/example of God. Many tangible factors leading to that false and dichotomic conclusion are obliviously and/or indifferently, summarily taken out of popular “Evangelical” tenet. And that chiefly is, among other factors, that in the OT, God was dealing with a national Israel, that was facing an ever present, imminent physical threat from surrounding nations. However for God to be able to defend them, even, as it would mostly require, given Israel’s tangible, natural limitations: supernaturally, -especially open and high-handed sin could not be tolerated in their midst. And so it had to be completely and wholly eradicated whenever it manifested itself. Also God tangibly lived in their midst in the Most Holy Place; and Israel also had abundant demonstrations of God’s power through mighty miracles. So they, compared to NT Believers, were living much more by sight than by faith, and as such, God’s tolerance of waywardness and sin was relatively considerably lower.

Nonetheless, in the NT, the episode of Annanias and Sapphira shows, at least to me, that whenever the clear revelation of God is more tangibly made manifest, this same low tolerance for waywardness and rebellion will naturally and inevitably be revived. So I see this all as God being proportionately fair in His dealing with His professed people corresponding to the level of revelation, including its tangibleness that they have received. So in summary the closer God physically get’s to His People the higher will be the expected level of holiness.

Also, I do not see that, as Jesus also said in Matt 5:17-19, that He abolished any aspect of the OT Law given to God’s Israel, spiritually covering various aspects of Believers lives, except for the ceremonial laws which were types of Christ’s Atoning sacrifice. It seems to me that this is the common SDA argument when trying to show that dietary laws from the OT are still bindng today!

Also, in many ways, we still observe many, if not all of the various other types of OT Laws, particularly civil ones, however, we (i.e., Christian Believers) have “abdicated” the authority to establish these laws to democratic civil powers, (e.g., in Judeo-Christian societies) rather than go straight to what God had wisely and perfectly said. So it is not surprising that many of these OT Civil laws, if emulated in our civil societies are found in a watered down form.

So all this to say that, the God of the OT, which most tangibly was Jesus, is not in any way, including character wise, than the Revelation that was demonstrated by Jesus. And since Jesus did indeed do only what He saw the Father had done (i.e., in OT dealings) than they are not at all different. As I stated before, Jesus works of reform in the Law and social dealings was to elevate the level of righteousness when applying these laws and close the spiritual “loopholes” that the Israelites in His day, particularly the leaders had basely created.

As I also said, I see that Jesus, as it was appropriately necessary, also emulated the “ministration of judgement” (which includes “Divine wrath”) during His ministry. (Matt 23 readily comes to mind). The same principle held true here: ‘Abundant revelation first, as it was actually necessary for especially these educated and knowledgeable leaders, and then, if opposition and objection indifferently persists, then these judgements and wrath.’

There's more to it than what i quoted above. Listen:


Moses believed God wanted him to intercede on behalf of Israel. He knew God wasn't serious about wanting to destroy Israel.

I had read that wider SOP context. It was clear to me that Moses did not see that “God was not serious” but merely that God had deliberately left a way of averting His judgement. And the humble and unselfish Moses took advantage of that opportunity. EGW’s statements of: “discerned ground for hope”; “not to forbid but to encourage”, “if thus entreated, God would spare His people.” Otherwise, as shown in the other verse I referenced, if no one was found to intercede here, God would have carried out that judgement. (cf. e.g., Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30, 31). So God was indeed most serious here, but also merciful, indeed, of His own initiative (= Isa 59:16), working to orchestrate this chance for Israel to come to have this crucially needed, intercessor from amongst them, and that through an honest and candid act of Moses, hence the utilized veiledness here. Indeed, as “implied” by God, “nothing but. the prayers of Moses could save Israel.”

It further seems to me, as done by Jesus in Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13, God indeed did not prominently want to forgive Israel, but indeed bring about their destruction, (though not without an opportunity for mercy) hence the veiling of this way of escape for them, even likely to fail, given its playing upon the natural preferences of Man. As EGW puts its: “How few but would have gladly exchanged a lot of toil and burden and sacrifice, repaid with ingratitude and murmuring, for a position of ease and honor, when it was God Himself that offered the release.” God indeed could have used a much more open, straightforward and even commanding method as He would later do with Ezekiel, when He outrightly wanted to forgive the sins of Israel and Judah in order to effectuate their restoration (and thus carry out, without added delay, His GC redemptive plans). (Ezek 4:4-6 = 36:22-38; 33:21-23ff).

Notice also when this ‘entire destruction’ episode comes up again in Num 14:11, 12. God here does not himself provide such a pleading opening. Perhaps Moses should have known by now to do so. However, Moses could easily have used this as an excuse not to, as before, do so. So here also, God was leaning much more towards this deserving destruction judgement, (as a faithless people is really, completely useless to Him (as Moses knew firsthand (Exod 4:24-26 - PP 255, 256)), than towards forgiveness. Indeed as seen then, destruction did come, though mercifully limited and drawn out. (cf. PP 391.1)

War crimes. Could you explain how war is not a crime? Have there been any such wars?

The purpose of war is to kill people. Or to get our way and killing people is a casualty. But yet, we say it isn't right to target the main perpetrator of the war, but we will kill many of his people, and destroy much property. As is relevant most recently.


But you said he was the one who flooded the earth which would not happen other than the direct act on His part. That sounds responsible to me and more so than just allowing it to happen based upon man's choices. Neither does it answer why the eight had to suffer.

But God's character is addressed and you say God's character include killing.

Actually, I was pointing out it doesn't fit.

Could you give evidence that that's what He intended?

And what's this about righteous level? Do you say the past killings you speak of were not righteous, but now anyone without sin can kill? Why was it permitted in the past when the ones doing it had sin and revenge, spitefulness and injustice? Why can't in now be a "collective judgement"?

This is an odd comment. She didn't discuss the aspect of death being the inevitable result of sin until the last two pages. Why comment on this here?

The point I made was that the whole chapter deals with what was accomplished at the cross. As you note, it starts right at the beginning of the chapter.



Reading the whole chapter, one sees that for the angels there's more of an emphasis on Satan's character, whereas for man, there's more of an emphasis on God's character. This makes sense, given their respective abodes.



There was a need for the working out of the principles of both governments, as well as the character of both protagonists, to be revealed. The parable of the wheat and the tares is a good example of this. The revelation of each protagonist reveals the other.




They could see that there death involved, but the cause wasn't clear. We need to remember that Satan was blaming God for everything, and camouflaging what he was doing. It became clear to the angels who was responsible for what, but many non-angels still confuse the two protagonists, which is why the Great Controversy continues.



One doesn't choose to suffer the consequences of God's law or not. It's not an arbitrary law.



It wasn't arbitrary at all! The whole point here is that it wasn't arbitrary. It was a non-arbitrary decision based on evidence.

You left out the preceding statement, which helps to understand the part you were commenting on:



There was a war in heaven, which is a war of ideas. Satan was not "cast down" by force, but by evidence. Satan's influence was curtailed because his disguise was torn away. This is how he was "cast down."



It wasn't simply out of allegiance, but based on evidence. It was completely clear to them who was lying and who was telling the truth at that point.



That would be good logic if death being the inevitable result of sin was the only thing the Great Controversy entails.



The actual issue as compared to what? I suppose you mean as opposed to death being the inevitable result of sin, but these aren't two different things which are being contrasted, so your point here doesn't make sense.

The Great Controversy encompasses many things, all under the umbrella of who is telling the truth in regards to God's character and the principles of His government. That death is the inevitable result of sin is one aspect of the Great Controversy.



As pertains to the holy angels and unfallen worlds, these have been secured.



This is more of a parenthetical statement. Contrast how much time she spends on this as opposed to what happened to Christ on the cross viz a viz Satan's actions.



It would have been misunderstood as arbitrary because Jesus Christ had not died on the cross.



If it's self-combusing, then it's not something which is deserved. So there's no question of its being deserved.

The problem would not have been whether or not Satan deserved to die, but *why* he died. That's where the confusion would have been.



The angels were the ones who learned that sin resulted in death. Your confusing two different groups here; holy angels and wicked rebels. The wicked rebels were given time to develop their principles. The holy angels were the ones who needed to see that the inevitable result of sin is death. This was so when God permitted the wicked to reap the full result of their sin, their death would not be misunderstood.



Sin is not "material" at all, let alone "self-combustible material." Sin is in the mind. It involves thoughts, decisions and actions one undertakes.



This is because of what's happening in the mind. "Understanding," "Discerning God," are indications of this.



If they're destroyed by the glory of God (which is His character), they obviously cannot subsequently be destroyed by physically being cast into a lake of fire. Their destruction by the glory of Him who is love *is* their act of being destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire. Note she says, in the sentence immediately preceding, that the wicked develop characters so out of harmony with God's character that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.

Once we understand this is not a physical issue, but a spiritual one (i.e., involves the mind, acts/thoughts/decisions -- that's what sin is), then everything fits together.



What she was explaining when she said this is what they would not have understood.



Sir, there's not one mention of "deserved," nor any synonym, anywhere to be seen either in this paragraph or in any nearby one. This wasn't the issue being discussed.



She wrote, "the character of God is revealed to all created intelligences." This cannot happen until the final judgment, because the character of God is not revealed to all created intelligences until then.



Sin impacts the mind. It causes the sinner to believe things about God which is not true. This is why the sinner cannot bear to be in God's presence. What happens here wasn't seen or understood by onlooking holy angels or unfallen worlds until the cross. That's why all these comments are in the context of the chapter "It is Finished."



This isn't the issue. She explains that the wicked are given time to fully develop, and that they develop characters so out of harmony that the very presence of God is to them a consuming fire, that the glory of Him who is love will destroy them. This makes clear what causes their destruction. There's no mention of "critical mass" or any similar idea.

Also that God's action is passive is made clear by the statement that had God "left" Satan and his follower to "reap the full result of their sin" they would have perished.

kland, I’ll give you a partial benefit of the doubt here that you are being sincere, and not mischievously quibbling here, and that it is a sincere (though I believe, actually irrational) opposition to any killing that is preventing you to “see any light” here. However that other part of me that can comprehend this incomprehension here will only allow me to make, as succinct as possible, summary indicative answers. I.e., you can think the Theological/Spiritual/Logical/Legal/Rational underlying reasons through, if you actually want to.



Defensive self-defense of corresponding force in any form is not a crime. Thus the God-ordained wars of Israel in the Bible were not crimes, GC context and issues included.
And in secularly speaking, e.g, the Allies effort in WWII to rid the world of the Nazi Regime and its lesser evil Axis Allies was not a criminal act.



That is what is done by those who start an unjust war. And really, unless God Himself tells you to, attacking another country for no “clear and present” danger reason, and/or using excessive force is a crime, indeed as stated in International Conventions. So I am clearly not saying that all/any war is acceptable.



Especially in our technologically advanced day and age of various, smart/guided/precision ordnance, I am against using the claim of “collateral damage” as an excuse to killing non-combatants/civilian. The recent, relatively-just, UN intervention in Libya started of as such with ca. 65 civilian deaths on the first day from these the UN forces hands, however I have heard of news reports, (from, proudly, participating Canadian forces) that a destruction mission was aborted because of the risk of civilian casualties. (Pertinently to this discussion, it was Canada who came up with the concept of UN peace keeping mission (the “blue helmets”) during the Suez Canal Crisis to prevent the outbreak of war or instill and/or assure a cease fire so that peaceful resolutions can be (fairly) pursued instead.



That is what fallen/sinful man did before the Fall. Again: “What’s so hard to see here?!?”

The Fall also naturally complicated man’s work long before the fall. As EGW’s revelation shows, God indirectly allowed it to be further complicated in His action to bury all the dead bodies after the flood, which also buried mineral resource and much damaged the earths surface. It was not the Flood itself/per se that did this.



As I said, that was the lesser of two evils, and God has worked with His faithful people in the future to give them wisdom and even supernaturally intervene to lessen the effects of this damage on them, however only when they are faithful.



I did not say that, the Bible amply states that God ordained judicious killing, including in war. So the onus is on you to show how this act of justice is contrary to God’s character. Letting e.g., a serial killer roam about and go unpunished, as deserved and deterrently essential given the irreparability of a murder, is what is not an act of love for those who are living right.



Again, given the copious Biblical testimony involving God in judicious killing, you need to show how/why.



He did say: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”
(Cf. Deut 17:2-8ff) Also He could have instead easily said: “You have heard it said.... but I say (otherwise)”.
Also:



Jesus indeed raised the standard here of the Law of Deut 17:7 here to make, at least this first witness, to be clean of any sin himself. He thus closed this loophole where, manifestly unholy people where “hypocritically” accusing and condemning others of sins, possibly/probably, even the same ones. So He indeed ‘did not do away with the Law, but fulfilled it’, -‘magnifying it and making it honourable.’ (= Matt 5:17-20; Isa 42:21).



I did not make that blanket statement. Probably most of these past capital punishment executions were indeed righteous, i.e., the accusers and executors themselves were righteous. As I see it in the OT, when Israel was not righteous, such sins were not even condemned, nor adjudged, including at the highest levels. However by Christ day, and maybe only in that single “ensnaring” attempt case, the accusers were hypocritically not righteous. Indeed hypocrisy had become an entrenched loophole in Israel by Christ advent, which He copiously, variously addressed throughout His all-restoring ministry. So Jesus addressed that fact head on, and if applicable, set the standard for that Law on an even higher level, an amendment that He, the Lawgiver, can freely do.

Also “revenge” and partly “spitefulness” was likely to occur in cases of murder where the next of kin had the authority to seek out the murderer and kill him. However to ensure that this was not done injustly, the system of city of refuge was established by God so that if there really was any disculpating issue (i.e., ‘it was an accident’) that could be thoroughly investigated and judicially deliberated. However God clearly allowed this instant death provision from the next of kin to further deter the committance of murder, as sure and instant death of the murderer was assured. Again this is because a murder cannot begin to be adequately compensated.



You are really mixing up my statements here... however, as Jesus now elevated it, at the very least, the accuser/witness had to be righteous. If that witness or any other were not righteous, then the capital punishment could not be executed by anyone else, as there then would not have been a (worthy = credible) witness to establish the crime. Only when the case was “righteously established” could the collective judgement, expressing the will of an in turn righteous society be expressed.