The verb involved is ratsach, which means:

1) to murder, slay, kill
1a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1a1) premeditated
1a2) accidental
1a3) as avenger
1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be slain
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to murder, assassinate
1c2) murderer, assassin (participle) (subst)
1d) (Pual) to be killed

Jews generally insist that the verb should be translated as “to murder”.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=9881

One thing is certain: this verb is never used when God commands someone to be killed.

Tom, you said,

quote:

---

God does not act contrary to His law -- everybody agrees to that.

---

That’s precisely why the verb would be better translated as “to murder”:

“And he said to them, ‘Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor'" (Ex. 32:27).

“While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day.
And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.
They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him.
And the LORD said to Moses, 'The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.'
And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses” (Numb. 15:32-36)

How can God command or approve something contrary to His law?

R: Tom,

Sorry for the delay; I didn't have enough time to reply yesterday.

Tom: No problem.

R: 1- The point I’m trying to make about the intensity and duration of the punishment of the wicked is that it is determined by God’s estimation of sin, not by sin itself.

Tom: I would say it's determined by the sin, and God's estimation of the sin is simply recognition of the truth. That is, there's nothing "new" that God adds to the equation (other than His own presence).

R: If God wasn’t antipathetic to sin, sinners wouldn’t suffer, for sin is not grievous in their sight.

Tom: This is a big difference in the way we see things, and I think I may start a topic on this. I would say that sin causes misery, pain, suffering and death, and that's why God wants to save us from it. Sin causes us to separate ourselves from He who is life and love, which is why it is so bad. Sin is not grevious in the sight of sinners because they are not recognizing it as it truly is, because if God were to reveal the truth to them it would kill them. This is what will happen at the judgment.

R: They will suffer because they will experience the sense of God’s wrath against sin, of His hatred for sin.

Tom: Yes, but God's wrath is simply His giving sinners over to the result of their sin (e.g. (Deut 31:17, 18; Jer. 33:5; 2 Chron 29: 6, 8; 2 Kings 17:17-20; Ps. 27:9; Ps. 89:46; Ps. 143:7; Hosea 9:12; Lam. 2:5-7; Rom. 1:18-26).

There are two conflicting pictures of God's wrath. One pictures God as actively saving His children from the evil which would destroy them, and passively allowing them to experience the results of sin (which is God's wrath). The other pictures God as sometimes passively allowing them to experience the results of sin, and sometimes visiting upon them wrathful acts which are active. The last view makes God to appear schitzophrenic. He's often like Jesus, but sometimes not. There is the danger of being led to follow God from the motivation of fear, rather than by being convinced of His goodness.

R:
“God's wrath against sin and the punishment for sin must be exhausted. Manuscript 44, 1898, p. 3. {5MR 423.1}

Tom: Once the wicked have experienced the inevitable results of their sin, God's wrath against sin and the punishment for it will be exhausted.

R:
2- The suffering of the wicked is mainly caused not by coming face to face with God’s goodness, but by coming face to face with God’s wrath against sin.

Tom: There's no difference between these two things. God's wrath *is* His goodness. God can be nothing other than good. That which gives life to the righteous (God's goodness) slays the wicked. The same thing does both.

R:
That’s why I don’t view God at the last day treating the righteous and the wicked exactly in the same manner. The righteous will never personally experience the wrath of God, while the wicked will know it face to face.

Tom: Both experience God's goodness. They experience it differently, but God is the same. Note the following:

quote:

---

Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; (Isa. 33:14, 15)

---

God is a consuming fire (fire in Scripture often represents God's love, or goodness) and these "everlasting burnings" destroy the wicked, but give life to the righteous. The same thing which gives life to one group causes death for another (what EGW calls "the light of the glory of God").

R:
3- Nothing God does results from inclination.

Tom: Everything God does results from inclination.
"Inclination," in the context we are discussing, means "A characteristic disposition to do, prefer, or favor one thing rather than another." This fits everything that God does. He acts according to His character.

R:
God shows mercy because He is mercy. God shown love because He is love. God shows justice because He is justice. God shows wrath because He is holiness, truth, unselfishness, goodness - the opposite of sin. He will show His wrath against sin and this will kill the wicked; this is not a result of personal inclination.

Tom: DA 108 says it is "the light of the glory of God" which destroys the wicked. "Light" has to do with truth. "Glory" has to do with character (that is, God's glory is His character, or His goodness -- e.g. Deut. 33:18, 19 "18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; "). The truth about God's goodness gives life to the righteous, but slays the wicked. God is the same to all, but the effects are different.

R:
You think that God’s exterminating the wicked with fire is arbitrary, while exterminating them by His wrath is not, however, the wicked would suffer much less if they were exterminated just with fire.

Tom: What makes one arbitrary and the other not has to do with whether their is an organic connection or not. In other words, if the only reason the wicked die is because God kills them, then this is an arbitrary act of power, not the inevitable results of sin. On the other hand, if the reason the wicked die is because in the inevitable results of sin is death, then that is not arbitrary. Since God's wrath is nothing other than His goodness, it's difficult to conceive that as God's "exterminating" them with His goodness. Note the Spirit of Prophesy warns us not to view God as an executor, but makes the point that the wicked bring their fate upon themselves.

R:
4- Ellen White is clear that Adam lost God’s favor.

Tom: If one is talking about "favor" in terms of approval, then that's true. God did not approve of Adam's sin, because the result of sin is death, and God certainly did not desire Adam's death. However, in terms of God's disposition towards Adam, that never changed. Say you have a child, and the child disobeys you. You can say your child has lost favor with you, if by that you mean that you disapprove of its dead. However, it would be absurd to suggest that your disposition towards the child in terms of loving and caring for it had in any way changed, unless you were a wicked parent, and it would be infinitely more absurd to suggest such of God.

God so loved the world, that He gave His Son. This is as clear an expression of God's favor, or good will, or grace (however you want to call it) that there is.

R:
This couldn’t refer to God’s grace, since there was no grace before sin.

Tom: Grace is the outgrowth of God's graciousness. God has always been gracious and merciful. That didn't begin with the dawn of sin. It just hadn't been manifest for want of need.

R:
Grace is unmerited favor, and this is how God’s favor is called now, after sin.

Tom: God hasn't changed. If God is "unmerited favor" then He was just as much "unmerited favor" before sin as after.

R:
However, like pardon, salvation, and righteousness, grace is also provisional - extended to all, but effective to those who accept it.

Tom: Grace is both effective and provisional, as are pardon, salvation and righteousness. You have a solid grasp on the provisional part, but do not seem to be grasping the effective part, which I've been trying to bring out. Here's a quote from Steps to Christ which brings out the point:

quote:

---

"In the matchless gift of His Son, God has encircled the whole world with an atmosphere of grace as real as the air which circulates around the globe. All who chose to breathe this life-giving atmosphere will live and grow up to the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus." -- Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 68

---

Air is not simply "provisional" but is "effective" for all. So is grace. All are physically alive because of grace. All who choose may experience the full benefits of grace. Here's a Scripture which brings out the same concept of provisional/effective:

quote:

---

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Tim. 4:10)

---

Christ is the Savior of all men (in that they live physically by virture of His self-sacricing love) but especially of those who believe (there receive not only physical life from Christ, but eternal life as well, so He is a Savior in a double sense, not just one).

R:
“The grace of Christ and his righteousness are offered to men as a free gift.” {RH, December 24, 1908}

I still see no “corporate justification” involved here.

Tom: The grace of Christ is not only offered, but it is effective for all. It depends on the context. In the context of eternal life, those who reject it will not receive the benefits of it. In terms of physical life, as long as one is alive, one receives the grace of Christ. "To the death of Christ, we owe even this earthly life." This is "corporate justification."

R:
When Adam sinned, the wrath of God came upon him because of his sin; thus, he would have died immediately, for the wrath of God means death to the sinner.

Tom: The wrath of God *didn't* come upon Adam, because Adam did not die. As you point out, the wrath of God means death to the sinner, since to sin wherever it is found, God is a consuming fire. However Adam did not die, so the wrath of God did not come upon Adam.

R:
But Christ proposed to receive the wrath of God upon Himself, so that man could escape the death sentence by accepting Christ as His Redeemer. Thus, God’s wrath was restrained, the death sentence was delayed, so that man could have another trial, a lifetime of probation:

Tom: Was this an idea of Christ alone? That is, is the idea that you are presenting that God the Father was ready to wipe out Adam and Eve, but fortunately for mankind Christ perked up and said, "Wait a minute! I've got an idea! Don't kill them, kill Me instead!" Is this the idea?

R:
“The Son of God, undertaking to become the Redeemer of the race, placed Adam in a new relation to his Creator. He was still fallen; but a door of hope was opened to him. The wrath of God still hung over Adam, but the execution of the sentence of death was delayed, and the indignation of God was restrained, because Christ had entered upon the work of becoming man's Redeemer. Christ was to take the wrath of God, which in justice should fall upon man. He became a refuge for man, and, although man was indeed a criminal, deserving the wrath of God, yet he could, by faith in Christ, run into the refuge provided and be safe... God forbears, for a time, the full execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon man.” {Con 19, 20}

Tom: Is there any difference between God and Christ? (in terms of character).

R:
P. S. I’ve finally remembered the exact Portuguese word for unselfishness - it is “altruismo” [in English you have altruism]. As you said, not so good and simple as the English word.

Tom: Ok. Another possibility to try out. How about "desegoismo"? That would be a good word.

First of all, I think you have the wrong Bible reference as those verses do not exist.

I did find the text in 1 Kings 22:20-23 in which verse 22 refers to the lying spirit.

In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not restrain. The whole picture is a parable. Ahab had chosen to be guided by false prophets, and God simply permitted him to be guided by these prophets to his ruin.

The same is in the case where in one verse it says the Pharoah hardened his own heart, whereas elsewhere, the same Bible also says that God hardened the Pharoah's heart. In other words the Pharoah hardened his own heart and God allowed him to do so.

Here are the texts for this:

quote:

---

Exo 7:13 And He hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he did not listen to them, as Jehovah had said.

Exo 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

---

God was coerced by the unbelief of the Hebrews to allow them to kill/murder a demon possed tribe, because they ignored His way of securing their safety as detailed in Exodus 23:20-23 and Exodus 23:27-33. THIS was God's way, not theirs.

Since they refused His methods, and He could not abandon them, He very reluctantly instructed them how to behave like an army.

Tell me: Where in the Bible do the Hebrews get weapons from in the middle of the desert? They had weapons, and there was no way they took them from Egypt, so where did they get them? Was that God's way?

[ May 30, 2005, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Phil N. D'blanc ]

Daryl wisely said:

"In the Bible, God is frequently presented as doing that which He does not restrain. The whole picture is a parable. Ahab had chosen to be guided by false prophets, and God simply permitted him to be guided by these prophets to his ruin.

The same is in the case where in one verse it says the Pharoah hardened his own heart, whereas elsewhere, the same Bible also says that God hardened the Pharoah's heart. In other words the Pharoah hardened his own heart and God allowed him to do so."

This is one of the very principle that I have been trying to maintain!

The Bible says Saul fell on his sword and killed himself, then says later that "God slew him." There are many such examples that come to mind, and rarely do Bible students stick with this fundemental law when reading, and thus see god as doing things that He is allowing.

Happy sabbath to you all.

Ikan, please pay attention to this text:

“While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day.
And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.
They put him in custody, because it had not been made plain what should be done to him.
And the LORD said to Moses, 'The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.'
And all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses” (Numb. 15:32-36)

So they didn't know what to do, then God instructs them to violate His law?

1- Tom, when I said “If God wasn’t antipathetic to sin, sinners wouldn’t suffer, for sin is not grievous in their sight”, I was referring to the mental suffering of the last great day, the terrible anguish and agony sinners will experience. Sinners will feel this because they will be exposed to God’s wrath.
God’s wrath is God’s hatred for sin. His giving sinners over to the consequences of their sin is just one of the ways He manifests this wrath. And of course it is not the only way. As you said, sometimes He does so passively, and sometimes actively. I don’t think Jesus was schizophrenic when He drove out all who sold and bought in the temple with a whip of cords. Was He expressing His wrath here in a passive manner or in an active manner?

2- Another point is that God’s wrath and His goodness are not the same thing. Of course not. God’s mercy and goodness are His characteristics as a Father; God’s justice and His wrath toward evil are His characteristics as a Judge. At the last great day, in the same way as at the cross, God will divest Himself of His qualities as a Father, and will assume in relation to the wicked the character of a Judge:

“God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. He Himself assumes toward the Sin-Bearer the character of a judge, divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.” {FLB 104}

3- “Inclination” means “tendency”. God has no tendencies. God is what He is and does what must be done.

Isn’t “to exterminate” the same as “to destroy”?

An EXECUTIONER is someone whose main activity is to put people to death (like a hangman, for instance). He is used to this task. God definitely is not like that. Ellen White says:

“The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: ‘The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love. {ST, August 24, 1882}

4-

quote:

---

Grace is both effective and provisional, as are pardon, salvation and righteousness.

---

Sorry, Tom, but this to me is absurd. It is the same as saying that everyone is saved and everyone is righteous, which does not make any sense at all. In what sense are the wicked righteous?

quote:

---

The wrath of God *didn't* come upon Adam, because Adam did not die.

---

Tom, it *did* come upon Adam the moment he sinned, and hadn’t Christ proposed to become His Savior, God’s wrath wouldn’t have been restrained and it would have fallen upon him. Then he would have died.

“Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam.”-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.

quote:

---

Tom: Was this an idea of Christ alone? That is, is the idea that you are presenting that God the Father was ready to wipe out Adam and Eve, but fortunately for mankind Christ perked up and said, "Wait a minute! I've got an idea! Don't kill them, kill Me instead!" Is this the idea?

---

No, of course the idea is not that. When I say God, I mean the Godhead. The Godhead was offended by man’s sin, thus the wrath of the Godhead came upon man because of sin. Because God [the three persons] is just, He had to manifest His wrath against sin, which would kill man; but because He is merciful, he wished to forgive and spare man. This dilemma was resolved because one of the members of the Godhead proposed to receive in Himself the wrath against sin. Thus the Godhead could punish sin and be enabled to forgive.

Preface from Tom. I'm a computer programmer, and getting this post to "compile" involved a great deal of "debugging". In order to get this to go through, I had to chop off a piece of the end, so I'll try to get that through in another post. This was a lot of work! (I'm supposed to be resting from debugging!

R:
1- Tom, when I said “If God wasn’t antipathetic to sin, sinners wouldn’t suffer, for sin is not grievous in their sight”, I was referring to the mental suffering of the last great day, the terrible anguish and agony sinners will experience. Sinners will feel this because they will be exposed to God’s wrath.
God’s wrath is God’s hatred for sin.
His giving sinners over to the consequences of their sin is just one of the ways He manifests this wrath. And of course it is not the only way. As you said, sometimes He does so passively, and sometimes actively. I don’t think Jesus was schizophrenic when He drove out all who sold and bought in the temple with a whip of cords. Was He expressing His wrath here in a passive manner or in an active manner?

T: God hates sin because it kills us. He doesn't kill us because He hates sin.

God's wrath is His giving people over to the result of their sin. The many Bible verses I quote all illustrate this. The destruction of Jerusalem illustrates this. The pattern is:
1) God's mercy and grace are rejected.
2) By rejecting God's mercy and grace, the wicked form a character so out of harmony with God's character that His presence becomes to them a consuming fire.
3) God's glory, which is His goodness, His character (Ex. 33:18) destroys them.

Note that it is the same thing which gives life to the righteous which destroys the wicked.

In all the life of Christ, there are only two incidents which appear to be in harmony with the vengeful view of God. One is the cleansing of the temple, and the other is the cursing of the fig tree. Both of these are best understood as Christ's anger at sin and its destructive power. The temple was a place which God had designed for the healing by beholding His character. However, the moneychangers had so perverted the services that God's character could not be discerned. Christ cleansed the temple so the beauty of God's holiness could be beheld. Apart from beholding God's character, there is no safeguard from the destruction which sin brings.

Right after the cleansing of the temple, children were sitting on Christ's lap and the sick were presented to Him for healing. The Spirit of Prophesy makes clear that there was no violence involved in the eviction of the wicked. It was their own conscience and their discomfort in the presence of the infinite goodness of Christ which motivated them to leave. Just like the evil angels (Jude 6) who "kept not their habitation," the moneychangers left, not being able to abide His presence. This is a model of what will happen in the end, except that the wicked will have nowhere to run. That same discomfort that the wicked were running away from in Christ will be felt at the end. And just as the goodness of Christ attracted some (the children who sat on His lap and the lame) and dispersed others, to at the judgment His goodness will enliven some and destroy others.

R:
2- Another point is that God’s wrath and His goodness are not the same thing. Of course not. God’s mercy and goodness are His characteristics as a Father; God’s justice and His wrath toward evil are His characteristics as a Judge. At the last great day, in the same way as at the cross, God will divest Himself of His qualities as a Father, and will assume in relation to the wicked the character of a Judge:

“God permits His Son to be delivered up for our offenses. He Himself assumes toward the Sin-Bearer the character of a judge, divesting Himself of the endearing qualities of a father.” {FLB 104}

T: How is it that God assumed the character of Judge? By permitting "His Son to be delivered up for our offenses"! This is God's wrath: permitting the wicked to be delivered up for their offenses. In other words, allowing them to suffer the consequences of their choice, to reap that which they have sown.

quote:

---

The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. (DA 764)

---

R:
3- “Inclination” means “tendency”. God has no tendencies. God is what He is and does what must be done.

T: The context of "personal inclination" that we were discussing had to do with the definition of arbitrary. My point was that if the only reason the wicked die is because God kills them, and is not related to sin itself (i.e. to a law, or principle, that sin causes death), then that is arbitrary, because it is on the basis of personal discretion rather than on the basis of a principle or law.

R:
Isn’t “to exterminate” the same as “to destroy”?

T: No, not at all. "Eterminate" has a finer granularity than "destroy."

R:
An EXECUTIONER is someone whose main activity is to put people to death (like a hangman, for instance). He is used to this task. God definitely is not like that. Ellen White says:

“The Lord does not delight in vengeance, though he executes judgment upon the transgressors of his law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some, he must cut off those who have become hardened in sin. Says the prophet Isaiah: ‘The Lord shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work, and bring to pass his act, his strange act.’ The work of wrath and destruction is indeed a strange, unwelcome work for Him who is infinite in love. {ST, August 24, 1882}

T: The context of the statement that God should not be looked at as an executioner is given in the statement in which it is found, which is in the first chapter of the Great Controversy.

quote:

---

We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. 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 36)

---

God's hatred of sin and the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty was given a most "decisive testimonty" in the destruction of Jerusalem. What happened there? Sinners were left to reap the results of their sin.

R:
4-
"Grace is both effective and provisional, as are pardon, salvation and righteousness."

Sorry, Tom, but this to me is absurd. It is the same as saying that everyone is saved and everyone is righteous, which does not make any sense at all. In what sense are the wicked righteous?

T: God treats the wicked as if they were righteous . "He took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race of men to favor with God." (1 SM 343)

"This was the position of the human race after man divorced himself from God by transgression. Then he was no longer entitled to a breath of air, a ray of sunshine, or a particle of food. And the reason why man was not annihilated was because God so loved him that He made the gift of His dear Son that He should suffer the penalty of his transgression." (FW 21)

Men do not deserve to live, and only do live because of God's graciousness. He graciously treat wicked men as if they were as righteous as His own Son -- He gives them physical life when they deserve nothing but death.

R:
"The wrath of God *didn't* come upon Adam, because Adam did not die." (<==quote from Tom)

Tom, it *did* come upon Adam the moment he sinned, and hadn’t Christ proposed to become His Savior, God’s wrath wouldn’t have been restrained and it would have fallen upon him. Then he would have died.

“Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour's head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam.”-- The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.

T: The term is being used in a different way than it has been being used in our discussion. The wrath of God is, in Scripture, God's giving people over to the result of their sin. God didn't give Adam up to the choice of his sin, but instead gave Christ up to the choice of Adam's sin. So in the usual Biblical sense, God's wrath fell upon Christ, not Adam. The sense EGW is using the phrase "divine wrath" clearly means from the context "divine displeasure," which is again not the sense we have been using it in our discussion.