MM, are you not reading what NJK is writing? How could you be in doubt in regards to this point? Specifically, what is it that NJK wrote which caused your confusion? Haven't you noticed that NJK and I have been disputing this issue?

EGW writes that Satan is the author of sin and all its results. Given that destruction is a result of sin (surely before sin there was no need for God to destroy, right?), then it follows that God is utilizing something of which Satan is the author.

Why would God do that? Why wouldn't He rather act according to the principles of His own government?

This is worthy of its own thread, but on what basis, given what she has written, do you distinguish between statements she has written to have greater or less force? In particular, where does she state that we should give her statements where she explicitly says, "I was shown" more weight than other statements where she doesn't?

I recall her saying that she never wrote for public consumption her private views. Do you disagree with this?

I think seeing sin and just punishment (and not an degree of violent/vindictive, wanton destruction) as being the same thing is completely false This is like saying that a judge justly sentencing someone to capital punishment (cf. Gn 9:5, 6) is acting just as criminally as that e.g, murderer. God judgement are not sin as they are all just. I think the follow SOP quotes fully support this Theological actuality.

I think the answer here can be succinctly seen in historical and analytical fact. Historically, EGW has had many times, to correct her previously expressed views, even where she was seemingly making I was shown statements. That is all well documented. Analytically, given this fact that EGW was not infallible in her understanding she may make a statement that is later, mainly through more indepth Biblical study, shown to be inaccurate. I.e, she did not have direct light on the matter but simply express things how she understood them at that time. This is distinct from statements where she says that she saw something in vision, and indeed as seen in her understanding of ‘God and the Future’ her direct revelation in EW 149.2 showed that the plan of salvation was established after the Fall of Man, yet she makes statements, based on how she read and understood Rev 13:8, that ‘it was not an afterthought, but established from eternity.’ (See back in this other thread post) Indeed as I am increasingly seeing with her understanding of who effectuates which of the seven last plagues, here direct revelations come to contradict some of her other non/not so-direct views. So when I notice such difference, also with the Bible, to which, her ‘I was shown’ statements have similar weight, I, again following her counsel, defer to the more Biblical revelations.

In this point case, I see that her statement her was emotionally influenced by her circumstances. Her no never statement seems a little to extreme since the Bible, as discussed thus far had left that possibility of utter destruction open. If, as she says, ‘nothing but the intercession of Moses could save Israel at that time’ then how could they ‘“never” have this chance to be utterly destroyed’?? Prophets are human too and do get emotionally caught up in things, speak more out of the heart and according to face, than out of spiritual/prayerful pondering. Ask, e.g., Samuel (1 Sam 16:6, 7) and Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17).



(Do you have the exact quote?) I actually do not see this as a “private view” but rather as a an honestly mistaken assumption. Just like Nathan view was not a private one, but just an honest mistake.

"Jesus is required, by law, to execute justice and judgment, to punish the wicked according to their words and works." In what way do you think Jesus revealed this integral part of God's character while He was here in the flesh?

I think these are good points to discuss, but you didn't address what I asked. So I'll try to make clear what I'm asking, and address the points you're making here.

The point I am addressing has specifically to do with destruction, and not punishment. What I am saying is that Satan is the author of sin and all its results (DA 471). One of the results of sin is destruction, so Satan is the author of destruction. Destruction is therefore a principle of Satan's government, not God's.

Before going on, you may disagree with this, and assert that destruction is a principle of God's government, that it wasn't invented by Satan, and we can discuss this. But for now I'm going under the assumption that you'll agree that destruction is the result of sin, and thus follows under Satan's domain.

So the question is, why would God, in dealing with sin, use an instrument invented by Satan?

Back to your points. You make the point that just punishment should not be equated with violent/vindictive, wanton destruction.

We disagree in regards to God's actions in regards to punishment. We both agree that God has the right to punish those who violate His law. Where we disagree is on the mechanism used.

You believe that God sometimes acts passively, and sometimes actively, in punishment, punishment here meaning things like Jerusalem being destroyed, with all that this incurred. I don't believe there's ever a need for God to actively cause destruction in order to punish, but that it's always sufficient for God to withdraw His protection to accomplish the job. The SOP writes that there are a thousand dangers from which God is constantly protecting us. These dangers include natural disasters, things that evil beings could do to us, health problems, all sorts of things.

So I think the mechanism is always one of God's "hiding His face" and allowing troubles to come upon those who have rejected Him, as described in Deuteronomy in several places. For example:



Because sin is chose, God withdraws, which results in trouble; this is God's wrath. This is how punishment occurs. There are many such statements, equating anger/wrath with hiding the face, withdrawal, and resulting in trouble.

There's no doubt this is a mechanism which is commonly used by God. I believe this mechanism is sufficient. I see no reason for God to use any other mechanism, nor any reason why He would.

In His key decision to veil the kingdom truth away from rebellious Jews, particularly the leaders, (Matt 13:10-17 = Isa 6:9-13) he came to anchor that future physical destruction. Same goes for his pronouncements of Judgements in Matt 23. Green-lighting this sentence and then taking key measures ‘so that all such Divine vengeance will be fulfilled’ (Luke 21:22 | Matt 24:1ff) is just as contributive as the actions of the Jews themselves whose actions sealed them on this path of judgement. It mirrors the Fig Tree punishment parable which became withered at Christ’s word. (DA ch. 64). In the same way, Jesus, at a point in His Ministry, decided that ‘no one should no longer eat from Israel’s fruitless tree.’ In using this veiling approach Christ was removing the deficiency overlooking (= covering) “grace” that He had priorly given to these rebellious people and leaders (cf. DA 583.2).

I think Jesus did this more out of righteous zeal for God’s work than by Law. E.g. in the parable of the fig tree, there was not “law” that required his cursing of it. In fact he had bent the law in the unfruitful tree parable to give that tree a little more time to be fruitful. (DA 584.2ff = Luke 13:6-9).

I also agree with you Jesus was demonstrating mercy and compassion, but perhaps not in the same way you seem to think. I believe Jesus was testing, proving Moses, giving him an opportunity to express and demonstrate his allegiance and faithfulness to Israel. The next 40 years were going to be terribly tedious putting up with Israel's complaining and conspiring to kill him. Giving him this opportunity, early on, to plead on their behalf would help him endure their ugliness and help him resist the temptation to blame God for hooking him up with Israel.


I don't understand how your response answers my question.


Regarding the “test” Ellen wrote:


As you can see, she supports what I said above about Jesus giving Moses an opportunity to express his love and allegiance and faithfulness to Israel. It was necessary for Moses to plead for Israel at this point in time, otherwise it would have been easy for him to abandon them. When tempted to abandon them he need only recall pleading for them, and it would serve to comfort and encourage him and to motivate him to manfully endure their complaining and conspiring ways.

However, my question remains - Would Moses have passed the test if he had “let” Jesus destroy Israel when Jesus said, “Let me alone . . . that I may consume them”?

And, would Jesus have destroyed Israel if Moses had “let” Him?


Would Jesus have destroyed Israel if Moses had not interceded? Does it sound like something Jesus would do, that is, destroy Israel within weeks of the Exodus and start over with Moses? Is there any evidence Jesus gives up and resorts to death and destruction so soon?

The idea that the only way Jesus causes death and destruction is by withdrawing His protection and permitting evil men and/or evil angels to cause death and destruction has not been proven or substantiated. At this point, it is merely a hypothesis. You seem to treat it as though it is an undeniable fact.


What do we know about Moses’ two children? “The sons of Moses were, Gershom, and Eliezer. Of the sons of Gershom, Shebuel was the chief. And the sons of Eliezer were, Rehabiah the chief. And Eliezer had none other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many.” That’s it.

However, the question remains – If the right and righteous thing to do was to destroy Israel and start over with Moses, why did Jesus refuse to destroy Israel?

Also, if Jesus had destroyed Israel, the tribe of Judah would have been wiped out, thus ending Jesus’ chances of fulfilling the prophecy concerning His being born of the tribe of Judah. Moses, as you know, was of the tribe of Levi.


Jesus said, “Let me alone . . . that I may consume them." It is clear Ellen believed these words were designed to “encourage” Moses to plead for Israel. In His dialog with Moses, therefore, what did Jesus say that leads you to believe He was serious about wanting to destroy Israel and starting over with Moses?


Thank you.

It is obvious Jesus often talked about executing justice and judgment in the future, however, my question pertains to while He was here in the flesh? That is, while here in the flesh did Jesus execute justice and judgment?

PS - The reason I ask is because at this point in this thread Tom is attempting to explain why Jesus, in the OT, commanded godly people to kill ungodly people in battle and why He commanded godly people to kill ungodly people though the execution of capital punishment. It is his firm belief we must interpret these two things in light of Jesus' earthly life and ministry. If Jesus did not command these two things while here in the flesh, we are forced to believe, says Tom, He did not command them in the OT.