Regarding the moneychangers, they were driven out by the force of truth against their conscience. The description in the Desire of Ages makes this clear. Jesus didn't use any physical force to drive them out. Jesus never used force. Force is contrary to the principles of God's govenment. It is used only in Satan's government. Force is the last resort of all false religion.

Regarding punishment, the quote I provided explains that in the final plagues God punishes sin by withdrawing His protection from those who have rejected Him. She makes the same point in the chapter on the destruction of Jerusalem.

What do you think this means?

Matthew 22:1-14 [1] Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: [2] "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. [3] He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. [4] "Then he sent some more servants and said, `Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.' [5] "But they paid no attention and went off -- one to his field, another to his business. [6] The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. [7] The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

This is actually the parable I had in mind:

quote:

---

Mark 12:1-12 "He then began to speak to them in parables: A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.

---

How do you understand this? (especially the part in bold) Would you agree that this is dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem? (The parable I actually cited also works, and you have correctly identified that with the destruction of Jerusalam, so we can come back to that if necessary. But this one is even more to the point)

The parable, as a prophecy, was fulfilled when the Roman army killed the Jews in AD 70. In this case, they were the means God employed to kill the Jews. God did not kill them Himself. Instead, He hired, as it were, "hit men" to do the work for Him.

I would appreciate it you would eventually address the issues and questions raised in my last post.

MM: The parable, as a prophecy, was fulfilled when the Roman army killed the Jews in AD 70. In this case, they were the means God employed to kill the Jews. God did not kill them Himself. Instead, He hired, as it were, "hit men" to do the work for Him.

Tom: Ok, I agree with you that the parable appears to state that God will kill the Jews. In the parable, the owner of the vineyard represents God, and the parable states that the owner of the vineyard would kill those who murdered His Son.

In the destruction of Jerusslem, what happened? Did God kill the Jews? You appear to be saying that God used the Romans to kill the Jews. If that's what you think, how did God do that? Did He put the idea into their heads that they should kill the Jews? Was it God's will that the Jews be killed? Was God active or passive in the destruction of Jerusalem? Are the principles of the destruction of Jerusalem the same as those involved in the last plagues? Are they the same as those involved in the destruction of the wicked at the end of time? Are they any different than the principles involved in other acts where the wicked are destroyed?

MM: I would appreciate it you would eventually address the issues and questions raised in my last post.

Tom: I'm sorry, but I don't know what these are. I looked back, but it wasn't clear to me what you wanted me to answer. Please reask (unless it's about the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah).

MM: Are you suggesting God has never punished unsaved sinners for their sins?

quote:

---

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control....The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.(GC 35, 36)

---

Yes, God punishes sin. The above explains how.

MM: Are you saying sin always punishes them, and that God never punishes them in addition to them suffering the natural consequences of their sins?

Tom: See the above. The general principle is that God wants to save from the result of sin, which will result in the destruction of the wicked. If God's Spirit is persistenly rejected, then ruin will follow. This pattern is seen many times in Scripture.

If God can kill and lie with impunity, then what's the difference between God and Satan?

MM: What about the rich man who lived lavishly all his life? Did sin punish him before he died? There are lots of sinners who never reap what they sow until after the second resurrection, right? I would appreciate an answer for each of these questions.

Tom: Yes. Sin finds its inevitable results in the judgment, not necessarily in this life. Job is a classic example of this, and no better example could be given than Jesus Christ, who did no wrong, yet suffered more than anyone ever has. David commented on the prosperity of the wicked, and said he was perplexed until he went to the sanctuary. In this life there is much injustice, both in terms of the wicked prospering and in the righteous suffering. In the next world, justice will prevail.

MM: Also, you said, “The moneychangers were driven out because sin cannot abide in God's presense.” If sin cannot abide in the presence of God, why, then, did Jesus have to resort to such “unusual tactics”? Divinity flashed through humanity and it terrified them so much so that they fled for their lives. Why did He also crack a whip and turn over tables? Wasn’t the presence of divinity enough to get the job done?

Tom: It would have been enough, yes. One might ask why Christ died on a cross. Wouldn't Gethsemanee have been enough? The answer is the God allowed Christ to suffer on the cross that it might be clearer to us what was happening. He could have just as well have died in Gethsemanee due to our sin without the cross, and indeed He would have if it weren't for God intervening. Similarly simply divinity flashing through humanity would have been enough, but to make things more clear, the scene transpired as it did. Certainly Christ's indignation was much more clear by His acting in the manner that He did than if He had acted differently. Especially for those like us who weren't there.

Old Tom: (quoting EGW)By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will.

MM: Do you believe God will permit Satan to punish the unsaved at the end of time? While Satan is himself suffering punishment in the lake of fire, is he also punishing the rest of the unsaved?

Tom: I believe the death of the wicked will take place as outlines in DA 764, which I'll quote at the end.

Old Tom: If God can kill and lie with impunity, then what's the difference between God and Satan?

MM: God is holy, and Satan is unholy. Just to name a few.

Tom: Holiness is defined by God's law. But if God is acting contrary to His law, then He is not being holy, is He? So my question remains, if God can lie and kill with impunity, has is He any different than Satan, or any other unrighteous being? If God acts contrary to His law, His is acting in an unrightoues manner.

Old Tom: Yes. Sin finds its inevitable results in the judgment, not necessarily in this life.

Mm: But I got the impression from you earlier that God’s way of punishing sinners is simply to withdraw His protection, to allow the natural results of sinning to run its course, and/or to permit Satan to punish them according God’s guidelines? How can these things be true if in fact some sinners never do suffer the natural consequences of sinning until after the second resurrection? Can nature still run its course after the fact, after the sinner has been dead for over 1000 years?

Tom: Sometimes Satan chooses to prosper the wicked, as Claudia's quote explains.

MM: Since the natural consequences of sinning are naturally unpleasant, and since not all sinners automatically reap what they sow the moment they sow it, does that mean God uses supernatural power to overrule the natural results of sinning, to prevent them from reaping what they sow?

Tom: Yes, He does this for all of us. We have all sinned; we should all be dead. It is by the grace of God that any of us are alive. To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life. (DA Chapter 72 "In Rememberance of Me")

MM: If so, why?

Tom: So we can live.

MM: Wouldn’t that cause them to believe a lie about the cause and effect relationship between sinning and punishment? Wouldn’t it mislead them into thinking there is nothing wrong with sinning?

Tom: This is a problem God has to face. If He does nothing, then we'd all be destroyed. If He acts too much, then sin is not seen to have the effects that it has. When sin does has results, such as the Tsunami which hit at the end of last year, God gets blamed. God seems to get the short end of the stick no matter what He does. His blessings, providences, mercy, compassion, patience and graciousness are taken as signs of weakness and as carte blanche for sinning, and when He withdraws His protection and allows Satan to do his will, God gets blamed for it with many, even among those who bear His name, thinking He is responsible for the acts which Satan performs.

MM: For those who do suffer the natural consequences of their sins in this lifetime why is it necessary for God to resurrect them at the end of time?

Tom: Say a person smokes and gets lung cancer. This person is experiencing the consequences of sin. However, this has nothing to do with the judgment. Your question as to why God resurrects the wicked is an interesting one. It's hard to treat it adequtately in a couple of sentences. It would make for a good topic. Briefly God resurrects the wicked for reasons which are in harmony with His character, which is for the blessing of His children, just as everything He does is.

MM: The results of sinning that they suffered before they died would suffice to convince us in heaven, during the pre-second resurrection judgment, that they received what they deserved. What more can we learn from their sins and experience by watching them suffer and die a second time in the lake of fire? If the wages of sin is death, why resurrect them?

Tom: The death of which sin is the wages is not a death which can be experienced in this lifetime (excluding Christ). Your whole question presupposes that the purpose of resurrecting the wicked is so that onlookers can see they get what they deserve. This is a rather callous way of looking at things, IMO. Remember some of these wicked are our loved ones, including friends/children/spouses/parents, etc. All of them are God's chlidren, and He will suffer incredibly when they meet their final death.

Old MM:I will be happy to answer your paragraph of questions after you are finished addressing these. Your answers will me help answer your questions.

Tom: Ok. I'm interested in your response.