That’s how they say it best fit in context. I prefer ‘angels of calamity”. Indeed in reading through the Theological Wordbook OT explanation, I perceive/deduce that the terms involves at its root some sort/form of “adversity.” Here are some translational usages in the NASB of related forms of this root.

#07451a - 228X - bad(23), bad*(2), badly(1), deadly(1), defamed*(1), defames*(1), defect*(1), destroying(1), displease*(1), displeased(1), displeasing(1), distressing(1), evil(124), evil man(3), evil men(4), evil things(4), evildoer(1), evildoers*(1), evils(1), great(1), grievous(4), harm*(1), harmful(3), man(1), miserable(1), misfortune*(1), sad(4), selfish*(1), serious(1), severe(2), sore(2), threats*(1), treacherous(1), trouble*(1), troubled(1), ugly(6), unpleasant(1), what is evil(2), what was evil(5), which is evil(3), wicked(15), wicked women(1), wild(5), worst(1), wretched(1).

#07451b - 117X = adversity(7), calamity(4), disaster(2), evil(94), harm(2), harmful(1), hurt(1), ruin(3), surely(1), trouble(2), unpleasant(1), wickedly(1), wickedness(1).

#07455 - 19X = evil(10), rottenness(4), sad(1), sadness(1), ugliness(1), wickedness(2).

Though the common translation is (simply) evil, it is evident that it has various nuances. So “destroying angels” or “angels of calamity/adversity” is evidently what the context, including the Bible and SOP account of who was doing this Plague destruction necessitate that translation/understanding. (Cf. Exod 23:23; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:12, 15; 2 Chr 32:21). This may be a band of angels who ‘excel in destruction’ (= God’s “Special Force” for destruction; vs. ‘angels that excel in strength’ Psa 103:20; TA 70.3; 262.1; HP 188.6; CC 336.5; RH, September 30, 1873 par. 7, etc. Not all angels necessarily have this capability.)



That’s “Word Biblical Commentary” (WBC)

Translation: “He sent his burning anger against them: fury and indignation and distress; a band of angels* of calamity,”

*Note: lit., “a sending of messengers/angels” (construct of משלחת), a word that refers to “sending out/ discharge” (Eccl 8:8); thus it means “detachment/deputation/band.” Exod 12:23.

Comment: The death of the Egyptian firstborn in v 51 is the climax of the dramatic description of the sending of a band of angels to prepare the way for the anger of God )vv 45–50(. This passage has similarities to the account of the Destroyer (המשחית) who is not allowed to enter houses with blood on the lintel and doorposts in Exod 12:23 (Exod 12:13; 2 Sam 24:16; 2 Kgs 19:35; Ezek 9:1–7; Heb 11:28).



Not necessarily though I don’t see such an explicit use this “send” notion at all in the Bible. However I presume that this is involved in some actions, as seen with the lying Spirits permissively ‘sent/given’ (by God) to Ahab. (1 Kgs 22:22, 23)

(Another $1,000,000 for you commenting on this.) You are the one who is thinking that it was bogus. You should have rather focused on actually answering the question where it still needed to be. This is quite typical of you, you get all flustered and “distracted” by the peripherals and do not address the pointed substance, particularly when you don’t have an answer for this substantive.



(Again, retracing the history of this discussion abruptly ends to be just a matter of clicking a link at Post #133985 due to your past wrong post reply linking.)

I didn’t miss anything, I pointedly made that statement in regards to your general reference to the DA chapter. Having discussed as a whole before, I did not see how what was said was in contextual harmony with your original point namely:



I relatedly understood this to be in reference to your view. That is why I could not/cannot see how the angels would have need a revelation of God’s character through Jesus Christ. I see that their questioned all revolved on whether or not Satan’s “No Law” alternate way should be allowed to exist. As I said, I see that the question with the last 6 Commandments was fully demonstrated by the Flood; the first 3 through OT Israel and the Fourth will be when these years since the Cross end. So I see that their issue was not with misrepresentations of God by Satan but pointedly with the validity of His view. In other words, these angels who had remained loyal to God always believed that God was just a He said He was, however they just found Satan suggested way itself to have some plausibility. At the Cross I see that they suddenly saw that Satan was actually mainly acting out of murderous hatred and jealousy for Christ, something that Satan had carefully concealed from them, and for that reason alone they chose to no longer interact with him. However the GC issues he had brought up still remained, not more than ever focusing on the Fourth Commandment, and so it still remains. Indeed the real answer lies with humans. I.e., can (now) people live a truly righteous life while disregarding God’s Sabbath, which actually includes much more than just observing the correct day in the correct way.

So I wanted/want you to specify where exactly in that DA chapter you were seeing the support for your ‘misrepresentations’ view. And I also did/do not see it in your ST quote. It is merely saying, as I understand it, that what transpired at the cross is efficacious enough to keep angels from ever going the way of Satan. The depth of Satan evil was indeed manifest at the Cross and it shocked the angels. (Can’t wait to see that video.)



Your response was “plausible but false” because only one of your claimed supporting sources was precisely referenced. You should have specifically documented both, especially in/by your follow up reply here.

I am just addressing the defective parts of your sum, as they come, to point out exactly why your ending conclusion is false. I can easily do this at the end of a post but you’ll have more trouble retracing what I am referring to. And unlike I didn’t come into this discussion with a systematic view. I just let each text say what it says for itself and contribute as the do to the theology in general. Your approach is to selectively take some thoughts expressed by EGW and then view the Bible through what you think it means. I work from collective concrete Biblical examples and individual texts (and their (if) non-contradicting SOP statements) towards a theology, your work from a selective and isolative particularly SOP quote and if it harmonizes with your view then you use it as a template to literally (exegetically) reword the Biblical text. The Biblie is my “canon” i.e., rule of faith and doctrine, not EGW. However sincere she was, she was not inerrant and infallible in regards to, nor had complete understanding of, the Bible.



It is “creedal”, and I am indeed against this sort of approach, in the sense, and for the reasons, that: (1) these are paramountly SOP statements which need to be verified by the Bible and (2) they impose an artificial limitation on what exegesis can reveal. You have the fundamental view and need to “fix” what is said in the Bible, I on the other hand have the view that there is nothing to fix in the Bible, but just to exegetically bring out and build a theology from those building blocks.



That’s not an accurate understanding on your part. Satan is never given full unrestricted control of a judgement in a judgement, or part of a judgement, intend for, or involving, mercy.



By looking at how things transpire and/or what the stated object-lesson objective is.



When people who are deserving capital judgement are incomprehensibly spared. For if God declares death to all the rebellious ones, if whenthe judgement comes some are spared, as with Jerusalem, then surely it is not Satan overpowering God, but God allowing it. Similary (and my approach necesitates that I work from what is exegetically revealed in cocnrete examples) in the last plagues, not all, though all deserving, are made universally subject to them. I see in the Bible/SOP that out of e.g, 100 large scale judgements, God was somehow involved in 98 of them. Hence they were judgements, that at least in some part involved God control. In fact the only two exceptions I see are Jerusalem and the Last Plagues, however only for the utter end part of those judgements. So I see that God is involved in all judgements in the Bible. In regards to individual, as the revelation in 14MR 1-3 was pointedly for, I see that EGW was shown what occurs when God no longer has mercy, thus an utter end judgement, as prior to that it can be seen that God was mercifully striviing for the person to repent even if threatening judgement.

In short/summary you can illustratively compare all of this to a police pulling out his gun in order to subdue a life threatening criminal (= mercy part of a judgements) and when that person refuses and continues to tangibly threaten life, the office has no other choice left but to use deadly force (= no more mercy part).

So all of God’s judgements are evidently at first all merciful but when the person being judged persists in continuing in rebellion, then the judgement shifts to its no more mercy phase.



It all depends on if God has a present and organic way of doing that phase of judgement, including Satan’s willingness to do the judgement. If He does not, as with the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt’s plague, then He acts to do it. In thoses case He directly and/or indirectly did so, i.e., through His angels, as the Bible (and the SOP) say/reveal. Satan was not used for those judgements.



I don’t see the cross as a judgement, per se. It was a process to atone for sin through the “sacrifice” of a blameless person. Jesus just was paying a penalty not being judged. Those who refuse this payment will have their sins remain and thus be judged for them. Nonetheless, as expounded on in this blog post, I see in e.g, Isa 53 that it was God who was exacting the various penalties for sin upon the ransoming Christ.

(When you make a reference to a post other than the current one you are responding to, do state that other post’s reference number so it can be easily relocated)

No I did not. He would have had ultimate say in what was to be created as e.g., with Ahab’s lying Spirit episode. So Satan would have been His employed agency and thus this would ultimately be a work of God.

However, upon further revision of the word translated here as “evil” as I now understand it as “adversity/calamity/ruin|destruction”, I pun intended, no longer see anything “evil” in it. And so I see that God can and does create such actions, indeed as pertinently seen in His judgement actions.



My relatable view here was that God would not use something that was inherently of Satan, however God acts of judgement and what is necessary to do it are different from the gratuitous “Sickness, suffering and death” that Satan does and takes pleasure in doing in non-judgement situations.



No. As I had suggested by reinforcing Saul’s (life long) psychological troubles and also not offering an appeasing alternative.



It is not His will that the sinner dies, but God still puts them to death when circumstances justly necessitates it. (Cf. Ee.g., Exod 23:23)



Really??? That is only your ‘only conclusion’ as you do not include full/proper exegesis in/for your view. Case in point, have you never read the pertinently related Law in Lev 20:6, 27; cf. 1 Sam 28:9? And who in Israel would volunteer/dare execute this Capital Punishment on the King, the one selected and anointed by God Himself, through His prophet, unlike most later kings. Even David fully understood this. God indeed would have to somehow see that this is done Himself.

Given how you don’t give weight to even the words of Jesus if they do not harmonize with your view, it is surely not surprising that you could think that God would not be justified in enforcing His own laws, as if He is expecting people to do something that He knows is wrong.



Great!!! Now it can be known through such Biblical corroboration what agency God had used to effectuate this killing, as the Bible had been exegetically indicating.



From what is stated in 1 Sam 16:14, 15, I see that God acted to sent this consequence for Saul rebellious attitude. Evidently all to set up the transition to David, (vss. 16ff) allowing David to come to the palace and gain valuable experience while he was waiting in the wings. (Cf. PP 643.1) That evil spirit also made it more likely for an earlier self-inflicted or caused death by Saul, thus a quicker transition to the anointed David.



As the Bible specifies that the agency God used was Satan, then, as in most other case of suicide, then he was indeed guilty of this act. Yet if a good angel had been responsible for this acts, the SOP would have an incorrect understanding here. So what she reveals in indeed in full harmony with the agency notion in the Bible.



Quite possible, if necessary.



No. I take issue with what you are understanding by this “permitting.” I actually see that EGW is not contradicting the Bible in those instances as God can actively do what he has decided to permit, if the judgement action requires that assistance. No need there to view EGW as being in error vs. what the Bible says. It is only you who does not understand and thus cannot reconcile those two notion. Both are involved in certain actions, as the effectuating need is.



I don’t see this at all involved in Job. Indeed even Job’s 1:21 statement does not seem to be descriptive of what (he thought) was happening but only proverbial/philosophical: I.e., ‘God can do whatever He wants for all things are his anyway’. Indeed with this view, Job is expressing that He would not even care if God Himself was doing this to him.



No. Exegesis does. By you not giving the Bible (even through the Gospel and also Jesus) and (its) exegesis its proper place and weight you clearly have a, non-pejoratively speaking, mind-set. Which is, the Bible in general is not an accurate documentation of God and His will, even when “prophetic” utterances are made.



Not principles, but proper exegesis which bring out building block points from all pertinent verses on an issue and thus self-construct the Theology to be drawn. That is also how I arrived at my “God and the Future” Theological understanding. So it is proper exegesis that is guiding my view and since I cannot unbiasedly say what a not yet studied text will exegetically reveal, I do not approach it with, and impose upon it, a set of principles, but let it speak for itself and take that puzzle piece” and insert it my Theological puzzle, wherever it fits allowing it to complete the part of the picture that it was intended to do. You on the other hand first cut your puzzle pieces into a preferred shape and build a puzzle this way. As you leave out many piece, and cut parts of the pieces you have selected out, it is not surprising that your puzzle is full of various holes, with large missing portions and thus does not reveal a ‘Biblically recognizable’ picture of God. Only your preferred picture is being shown.

The key/operative words are “proper” and “truly”. A person can always prefer to be dishonest in the face of exegetical facts or due/proper methodology. Given your claimed Seminary education, that is what I see in your “exegetical”, if any, treatment of the Bible.



Because that is what proper exegesis and proper exegetical methodology demands.



I have already answer that question, many times. See and deal with my responses. You evidently just don’t want to accept it, as it diffuses your view and so try to reset the question here returning back to Level 1. My explanations are still the same.



Already answered and addressed in my prior and latest responses.



That’s your view. I see, as the Bible says, that He acted to heightened the natural danger for reasons of timely and striking judgement. He effectively had to overridingly takeover control of “nature” (i.e., the natural tendencies and behavior of the serpents) to fittingly execute a large-scale and immediate judgement.



I already addressed this. Not everything she wrote was directly inspired. E.g., her approval of eating oysters long after the Health Message revelation was contrary to what the Bible actually taught. As shown in a prior referred to post, her altering of the ascension of Christ account for DA for what she had previously written in SP is another example. Among many other.



Indeed this is not what will happen. So since error and Bible contradiction occur in EGW’s writings, which she even corrected in other/later writings, when she became aware of them then that is proof in itself that not everything EGW said was under direct inspiration. Paul also understood this (1 Cor 7:6 for “counsels” given in vs. 1-5) even while writing what others considered part of “Scripture” (2 Pet 3:16). Indeed this was not necessarily “prophecy” (2 Pet 1:20).

And if you actually believe this yourself, you would not be denying Biblical exegesis its weight as if those writer had not written things as God had impressed their thought with. Or worst even claiming that God Himself could not accurately reveal this, however preposterous that actually claim is.



Many do not follow the Advanced Syntax Studies in Waltke and O’Connor’s books. Hte y prefer to hold on to the prior views that they have been teaching. I personally have repeatedly come across this with some scholars starting at Andrews and with the Seminary while doing my research and writing work on the 70 Weeks. So as always I believe what is demonstrated to be true and not what someone merely thinks is true.



I do not even think that they Calvinist view here was founded, or is based on, a deep exegesis of the text, but merely a Theological view. My view is purely exegetical. Though in the end it is correct in seeing that God was acting to harden Pharaoh heart in those instances.



That still involves God doing something. Indeed all of those instances, which only started, and interspersely occurred during the latter part of the Plague and onward, show that Pharaoh was about to capitulate, but God stepped into harden His heart so that this Plague judgement could continue to the end.

And God surely did use something within Pharaoh to do this, e.g., his pride, so that He would not tip off Pharaoh to what was really occurring. As I understand it, Pharaoh could have acted to resist this hardening influence, especially if he perceived that Moses’ God was deliberately influencing to refuse and that to cause further loss to Egypt. So only by making this seem as Pharaoh’s own/great idea and feeling a peace with it could this hardening be successful.



While that is a great end result, it is not a paramount one. The Bible is to determined if EGW was correct in expressing a view.



Statements which are merely her understanding of a Bible issue/episode/teaching/subject but not actually from a direct revelation of God. That bold part is what is a “statement from commission or command” (1 Cor 7:6). I.e., ‘God revealed this to me”



Indeed.



Can’t “recognize” something that is not the actual, nor evident, case. It is clear that even if the Spirit moved her to write on a topic, he did not dictate the very words to her. And she had to do much studying in the Bible and other Biblical works for her work. And as e.g., seen with her rendering of John 20:17, the Holy Spirit also did not always tell of the exact translation/understanding of a Biblical text. Apparently this only later done for this text.



I don’t see any self-contradiction in either my theological understanding or my supplied illustration (not actually an “example” as it is fictitious). Had the teenager taken public transportation then the father would not be involved in effectuating what he had permitted. But by Himself driving the child to that event, indeed as public transportation was not timeliness-wise, not adequate/“fitting” here, then the father came to do the actions needed to effectuate what he had permitted.



They were in danger by the snakes. There was just a need to heighten that danger for properly/adequately/fittingly effectuating that judgement.



You are referring to the fiery serpents as this ‘just said natural disaster’, right? If not what exactly? If so, God both permitted (SOP contribution) and acted to do (Bible contribution) that judgement. Satan was not involved for Theological reason, namely given the sole lesson teaching and redemptive purposes of God here. God never intended to take that judgement beyond an merciful stage, though it could have if circumstances necessitated it, i.e., if Israel continued this episode of murmuring (Num 21:4, 5). (And this is all quite remarkable as God was also dealing with a generation that condemned to (somehow) die in the wilderness. However, as previously pointed out by Moses, a mass slaughter was not in God’s best interest.)



So then, I if I get your nuancing correctly, you would see that by God being “involved” he can “cause” something to occurred. And this is relating to being involved in the action, either by doing it Himself or permitting a agent to do it under His orders/directive and/or restrictions/control.



Why won’t you accept what I say about your view as my actual understanding of your view. If you want to make sure it is agreeable to you then correct it yourself when necessary. And I won’t divorce myself for the realities and (exegetical) facts that are implicated in your view, hence I present my understanding of your views in their attached wider implications. If you don’t see that this should or correctly apply then explain why, i.e., why those factual elements don’t affect your view.



I see that I have been. You just don’t want to accept my stance on this issue.



Who said I did?? I didn’t say: “I didn’t see how...” But “I don’t see how...” I.e., This is a present, and forward-looking, observation.



And my answer had been that I don’t presently or futurely see “how that would change anything but just reset this discussion thus forcing me to have to remake the same arguments again.” I have already made arguments against your view and what I think your view is and/or fully entails. Deal with those arguments which indeed are making me see no value in your and in that logical way, I’ll then actually see or better see what your view is.

You obviously are convinced that you can make you claims in a vacuum. So e.g., If Bible writer made exegetically vacuous statements with even direct revelations from God, then that does not involve the making errors. Think you claims through before making them. I am not going to, literally dumb myself down, as clearly required, for your view. Defend the integrity of your view yourself in the face of those debunking implications.



No matter how many times you ask this, or how surfacely “nicely” you do, it won’t fool me to go against what I see as an illogical and wasteful request. Keep making your own assertions/statements and I’ll, when applicable, keep saying why I do not see them as valid. I have not idea what you fully think, especially given your tentative approach to make your view fully known, as with the case with the irrelevance of exegesis. So I am surely not going to wsate my time in a trial and error mind-reading and guessing odyssey.



My “so” is for the fact that I do not see this suggested/requested approach as being worthwhile, therefore I won’t indeed begin to do so.

You apparently have a “your wish is to be my command” belief here, and so you just can’t accept that I am saying that: ‘this is just not going to happen.’



What is impossible to understand here?? What I say in my responses is understanding of what your view is. Deal with those statements. Substantively it is actually just what you are requesting. Which is why I see my restating then as mere repetitions because I just say the exact same things about your view.



If you had been responding to all of my point as I made them you would not have to now “hunt” for anything as they would have been right in front of you, in that then current post. So you are a victim of your own ignoring and oblivious way of discussing things. That’s not to be my problem and responsibility now.



If you were dealing with exegetical facts you would see that there’s nothing to change on my part from what you have posited. I do change when I am presented with valid conclusions and exegetical facts.



Then engage all that I have posted. Stating them here would be merely reduplicating my already expended efforts. You should have taken measures to keep up.



I just don’t work that way. I follow the exegetical trail of all pertinent passages to a subject.



My thought process is an exegetical one and not a set of pre-defined (SOP) rules/principles being imposed upon the Biblical text. Deal with that actual approach of mine. I don’t have to adopt your approach, especially as I do not see it as valid. And since I don’t go by this creedal principles approach then indeed engage my approach. I know I have to in regards to you.

Do list the references and if you have done so before point me to that specific post. I don’t recall this.



Not for me I am just reading and accepting the Bible as it exegetically reads. I see you view as externally insisting that this should not be done, even having to render exegesis as null and void.



That’s doesn’t prove anything as it does not necessarily mean that she is Biblically accurate. That may just be the limitations of what she understood. The Bible’s testimony completes the picture.



I was only musingly speculating as to who the “agency” of God was in this killing of Saul. EGW statement only disagreed with those musings but not with fact that an agent was used. So she confirms the exegetical testimony of the Bible.



That’s just part of it. As already detailed there is much, much more than just time issue. You are limiting yourself to that. I see that the Justice of God is also at issue, all stemming from the issue of why can’t sinners be allowed to perpetually live eternally.



You’re welcome. Wish I could likewise ‘thank you’ for having addressed/answered my standing objections to your points in/for your view.



That is echoing the thoughts/counsel copiously made in the Bibles such as in passages like Job 28:28; Psa 11:10; Pro 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Isa 11:2; 33:6. ‘Those who allow themselves to ‘take God seriously’ in even those averted potential natural disasters and thus use this to set off on a path to get to know and understand this God. Thus these won’t just blow this off a natural aversion, but would allow themselves to see the gracious hand of God in this and pursue a knowledge and wisdom of Him.

As it can be seen with the 7 Last Plagues (see Rev 16:5-7; cf. 15:4 & 16:9b), “Plagues” are an execution of “deserved” (=Rev 16:6b) acts of judgement by God and surely, not merely acts to make people ‘sick, suffer and/or die’. Thus it can be exegetically understood that the same had been done in Egypt’s Plague as that event actually serves as the Biblical background and basis for the 7 Last Plagues.

Tom, please respond to 133773 and 774. Thank you.


Tautology defined means “needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word.” Isn’t it obvious we need to avoid taking anything for granted, that stating the obvious is often needed? We can’t be too careful can we? When impenitent sinners cross the line they forfeit Jesus’ protection and He gives evil angels permission to cause death and destruction within the limits He Himself establishes and enforces. The resulting death and destruction does not violate Jesus’ will. You seem to think it does. I disagree.


I don’t see how the passage you quoted above address my concern and question. It sounded as though you said Jesus works to prevent evil angels from causing death and destruction. Now it sounds like you’re saying, no, Jesus doesn’t always do that, sometimes He lets it happen. Please explain.


We are discussing the death and destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Do you think evil men and evil angels exercised self-control so as not to exceed the limits Jesus imposed on them? Or, did Jesus have to work to ensure they didn’t exceed His limits?


You and I both believe Jesus never fully withdraws His protection. He establishes and enforces limits, perimeters within which He permits evil men and evil angels to work. In the case of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD the limits Jesus imposed prohibited them from causing more death and destruction than what we read about. It’s unlikely they caused less death and destruction than what Jesus was willing to permit. The point is it was Jesus, not evil men or evil angels, who determined how much death and destruction counted as just and righteous punishment.


Yes, bad things happen when Jesus withdraws His protection. However, you seem to think it’s up to evil men and evil angels to determine the extent of punishment. I disagree. It is entirely up to Jesus to determine the perimeters within which evil men and evil angels work to cause death and destruction. It is also entirely up to Jesus to ensure they do not exceed His limits.


The two go hand-in-hand, that is, impenitent sinners forfeit His protection and Jesus works to ensure the resulting punishment does not exceed the limits He Himself establishes. At what point does Jesus withdraw His protection? What criteria does He use to determine the limits of punishment? How much is too much? And, are evil men and evil angels free to withhold causing death and destruction? Again, I’m referring to Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD.


Amen. Jesus does not destroy; He restores. The death and destruction of Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD is an example of this truth. There was nothing arbitrary or random about the death and destruction they suffered. It was an act of punishment. Jesus visited vengeance and retribution upon them. He executed justice and vindicated the kingdom and character of God. He didn’t merely withdraw His protection and allow things to run its natural course as if sin metes out justice in defense of the honor and glory of God. "In the retribution inflicted upon the ungrateful husbandmen was portrayed the doom of those who should put Christ to death." {DA 596.3} Ellen wrote:


The execution of justice and judgment is an act of punishment Jesus metes out in vengeance and retribution. “While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law.” “By terrible things in righteousness He will vindicate the authority of His downtrodden law.”


You, on the other hand, seem to think Jesus accomplishes all these things by simply withdrawing His protection and allowing sin to run its course. Such an idea credits sin with vindicating the law and kingdom and character of God.

You mean as a contrast to the accounts where Jesus *didn't* actually do what the Bible said He did?!

If not, it's difficult to understand what you mean here. If this is indeed your intent, I don't think this is well put. I think always Jesus did what the Bible says He did, and that often He is said to have done that which He permits is a better way of putting this.

Perhaps what you mean is sometimes God does these things directly (by permission), whereas other times it's directly (God does them Himself, or by means of angels). If this is what you mean, how would you distinguish between these two incidents? (direct ones and indirect ones).

Tom, I was thinking and praying about these things this morning and the following came to mind. When time and circumstances force Jesus to withdraw His protection and permit His enemies to cause death and destruction (within the limits He Himself establishes and and works to ensure is not exceeded) it raises questions:

1. Is it a form of "justice and judgment" when Jesus implements the withdraw and permit principle of punishment?

2. Were the enemies of God guilty of evildoing when they meted out the punishment Jesus was willing to permit?

3. Was Moses guilty of evildoing when he meted out the punishment Jesus was willing to command?