The truth and the glory of God are inseparable; it is impossible for us, with the Bible within our reach, to honor God by erroneous opinions. Many claim that it matters not what one believes, if his life is only right. But the life is molded by the faith. If light and truth is within our reach, and we neglect to improve the privilege of hearing and seeing it, we virtually reject it; we are choosing darkness rather than light. {GC 597.2}

M: Jesus had two choices - 1) Create free moral agents and deal with the great controversy, or 2) Not create free moral agents and not deal with the great controversy. I'm surprised you have no problem with Jesus sustaining evil men and evil angels with life. In so doing He is culpable, responsible. I'm also surprised you have no problem with Jesus commanding holy men to kill criminals and enemy soldiers.

A: In the original creation, everything was very good. Did God create leprosy? I guess MM you'd say YES. Do you agree? Next question - for what purpose? To torment humans?

M: No, Jesus didn't create disease in the beginning. Disease is the result of sin. Nevertheless, Jesus sustains the laws of nature that make it possible for disease to exist and act.

A: Is God responsible for sin? He is in control after all, nothing happens unless He permits it, right? So is He responsible for sin?

I'm also surprised you have no problem with Jesus commanding holy men to kill criminals and enemy soldiers.

Jesus had two choices - 1) Create free moral agents and deal with the great controversy, or 2) Not create free moral agents and not deal with the great controversy.

I'm surprised you have no problem with Jesus sustaining evil men and evil angels with life. In so doing He is culpable, responsible.

I'm also surprised you have no problem with Jesus commanding holy men to kill criminals and enemy soldiers.

Exodus
17:8 Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
17:9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.
17:10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.
17:11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.
17:12 But Moses' hands [were] heavy; and they took a stone, and put [it] under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.
17:13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.
17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this [for] a memorial in a book, and rehearse [it] in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.
17:15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi:
17:16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn [that] the LORD [will have] war with Amalek from generation to generation.

JSOT,

God is not honored by error, nor by erroneous views. You have not honored Him in some of your posts here.



Shall I give you an opportunity to correct your own error? Go back up to post number 157944 and look carefully at what you described about the scapegoat. Once you have again read the truth about it (use the Bible and Mrs. White), you may correct your error here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

MM - sin is transgression of the law. Adultery is transgression of the law. Killing is transgression of the law. Dishonoring parents is transgression of the law. You may like to think it is apples and oranges.

Question for you MM - - WHERE did the Israelites get the weapons that used to fight Amalek? To slay the worshipers at the golden calf? I have used several very unambiguous quotes of EGW. {DA 759.1}, {GC 36.1} do I need to quotes them again??? How about this one? "Earthly kingdoms rule by the ascendancy of physical power; but from Christ's kingdom every carnal weapon, every instrument of coercion, is banished." {AA 12.2} 3 different books in the Conflict of the Ages series of EGW, same theme. Are these statements vague in their meaning? Not in the least! Is God schizophrenic? Is there a good and an evil side to God? Compare these statements witht he following.

And he [Moses] said to them, "Thus says the Lord God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.'" So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day. Then Moses said, "Consecrate yourselves today to the Lord, that He may bestow on you a blessing this day, for every man has opposed his son and his brother" (Exodus 32:27-29).

If you want to cling to the view that God inflicts judgments on those who offend Him these stories provide incontrovertible proof for your stance. Indeed, these stories are difficult to understand, but not even in these situations has God acted as an executioner or destroyer. It cannot be overstressed that success in uncovering the real truth of God's part at the golden calf execution, the genocide of the Amalekites, the annihilation of the Canaanites, and so forth, depends upon there being complete confidence in God's consistency. There must be the unassailable conviction that there are no contradictions in the Word of God and that He does not make a declaration about His character and behavior in one place and then proceed to do the opposite in another. The quotes I gave above are not ambiguous. Then the quote about the golden calf seems to be exactly the opposite. Read PP pages 324-326 carefully.

I'm going to quote from a previously written article. A long answer. Will you read it?

The people's behavior [golden calf] can only be classified as rebellion. In the case of those who refused to repent of it, it was persistent and incurable. It is clearly seen that the insurrection was overcome by force. The Levites took their swords and slaughtered the rebels. Thus, by force alone the rebellion was overcome.
What makes this critically different from the numerous other occasions when rebellion has been overcome by force is that God ordered this solution to be applied. The sinners were not left to themselves to reap that which they had sown. Rather, a direct sentence was formulated against them and summarily carried into effect.
Thus, at first observation, every step God is reported to have taken denies what He laid out as His principles in the first three references quoted (GC36; AA12; DA759) God declared that it is not His way to overcome rebellion by force, yet He directed that it be done in just that way. He claims that He leaves the sinners to themselves to reap what they have sown, but He certainly did not do that here.
It is simple to see how quite a case can be built up against God by using this evidence. It is argued by those who believe that God executes those who disobey Him that the only way to deny this is to make the Bible read as we wish it to be read. Before this study is over, it will become evident that those who make this charge are, in fact, the ones who are guilty of doing this.
When rightly understood, scriptural records will show that at the golden calf God did nothing in violation of His stated principles.
How is it, though, that the vast majority have failed to rightly perceive the work of God at the base of the mountain? Why has He been viewed as the maker and executioner of the sentence? Why has no real difference been made between the behavior of God and earthly monarchs?
It is because one vital factor, being completely overlooked, is never taken into consideration. When it is, it makes all the difference to understanding the case. Then the charges leveled against God will be redirected where they rightly belong.
The factor that we will be discussing is the Israelites introduction of the sword into their lives. Adopting the sword was an extremely serious and tragic step that placed them on a different relationship with their divine Leader. It amounted to the institution of humanity's procedures in the place of God's. Israel exercised their freedom of choice, and Jehovah could not and, therefore, did not compel them to discard it. All He could do was to labor to save them from the worst effects of what they had elected to do.
Their decision to take up weapons of coercion and destruction was not made in complete ignorance of God's will. Their heavenly Father had faithfully communicated to them that the sword was to find no place among them whatsoever.
They were named after their revered father Israel, whose history of victory over his foes was well known to them. God designed that this should be a witness to them of His ways. The lesson was especially pertinent, for there was a distinct parallel existing between Israel's situation and theirs. As he was a prisoner of his scheming uncle, Laban, and desired to depart for the promised land, so they were held in Egyptian bondage and longed to leave for Canaan's land.
When the patriarch set forth on his journey, he was pursued by Laban who was determined to bring his son-in-law back with him. It cost Laban seven days to overtake Jacob, seven days in which his temper had time to reach fever heat. When he found Jacob,
He was hot with anger, and bent on forcing them to return, which he doubted not he could do, since his band was much the stronger. The fugitives were indeed in great peril (PP193).
Jacob, knowing full well that he would be pursued, made every provision possible to prevent his being forced to return. But in all his careful planning for the security of the ones he loved so dearly, he made no move to arm his servants with swords and spears. He put his entire trust in God as his Protector, and the Lord filled that commission so effectively that not only did Jacob not go back to Laban's home but not one of his household was even so much as scratched.
This peril gone, with the pacified Laban returning to his place, Jacob pressed on to meet the greater peril of Esau who reportedly was coming to meet him with six hundred armed men. Esau had only one objective in mind―to ensure that Jacob could never dispossess him of their father's wealth. The only way to assure this was to slaughter Jacob and his band. That would settle the question for all time.
As this deadly peril threatened Jacob, there were at least two different courses he could have adopted. The common human reaction is to turn to the power of weapons. Accordingly, Jacob could have chosen to divert from his course to spend time in arming and training his servants. He did not do this, for he rightly understood that this was not God's way. Instead, he continued without deviation, his entire confidence resting in the assurance that God would faithfully fulfill His responsibility of protecting him and his entourage. On the night before the encounter, he turned aside to pray, his deep concern arising from the fear that unconfessed sin would obstruct God's work and leave him exposed to his enemy. There was no lack of faith in God's power to deliver him. His only fear was that his own spiritual condition would make that power unavailable. The long hours of agonized wrestling brought the victory.
God did not force Esau to leave his brother unmolested. Instead, He sent an angel to reveal to him the true character of Jacob, his sufferings, his spirit, and his intentions. Thus Esau was led to view Jacob in a new light. He realized that Jacob was not a threat to him and, therefore, did not need to be eliminated. His rage was replaced by sympathy, and the outcome again was that not a single one from Jacob's household received so much as a scratch.
Here is a point worthy of emphasis. Whenever the children of Israel gave God the task of protecting them, not one of them lost their lives or suffered injury, but when they took the sword, there was nearly always loss of life, which in some cases was very heavy.
From Jacob's experience, we gain a vision of how we should rely on God for deliverance. It is the same message reiterated by the psalmist.
God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, even though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though its waters roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with its swelling (Psalms 46:1-3).
The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him, and delivers them (Psalms 34:7).
The great controversy is not between us and Satan but between Christ and Satan. We do not have the power to overcome the enemy. God alone can do that and has undertaken to do so. Our task is to leave Him to do what He has promised. The victory is ours as a gift, which is demonstrated in the wonderful experience of Jacob.
Through this experience, God provided the Israelites with a perpetual testimony of the security available to them if they trustingly committed the keeping of their lives to Him. As a preparation for their departure from Egypt, it was sufficient to assure them that they were to make no provision for acquiring and using swords. They were to entrust that task to God as fully as Jacob did, knowing they could expect the same results.
God, knowing that the success of the great venture depended on their strict adherence to these principles, reiterated the lesson repeatedly during the exodus and the period leading up to it.
Moses had been thoroughly trained in the art of war and had proved himself on the battlefield to be a brilliant tactician.
His ability as a military leader made him a favorite with the armies of Egypt, and he was generally regarded as a remarkable character (PP245).
Moses, therefore, naturally expected that the Lord would deliver them by force of arms. He saw in his Egyptian education a divinely provided training for such a campaign. Had God purposed to do things this way, no better man than Moses could have been found anywhere in history. It is significant that God made no use of this ability in Moses at any time in his life, for not once did Moses lead the armies of Israel into battle.
The elders of Israel were taught by angels that the time for their deliverance was near, and that Moses was the man whom God would employ to accomplish this work. Angels instructed Moses also that Jehovah had chosen him to break the bondage of His people. He, supposing that they were to obtain their freedom by force of arms, expected to lead the Hebrew host against the armies of Egypt, and having this in view, he guarded his affections, lest in his attachment to his foster mother or to Pharaoh he would not be free to do the will of God (PP245).
Thus Moses was dedicated to the divine purpose for himself and Israel and longed for the fulfillment of the plan. When he saw the Israelite being oppressed by the Egyptian, he slew the persecutor, supposing that thereby he had initiated the armed struggle which would liberate the slave nation. But even though the Israelites were aware of God's appointment of Moses, there was not a man inspired to rise with him. Instead, he was forced into precipitous flight to Midian. This unexpected development caused Moses a great deal of deep heart-searching, providing God with the needed opportunity to teach him that it was not by warfare that Israel was to be delivered.
Forty years later he returned, clad, not in the shining armor of a military leader, but in the simple garb of an eastern shepherd with a staff in his hands. Before all Israel, God was proclaiming the way by which they would be taken out of bondage and preserved forever from their enemies. It was a reminder to them of the same truth as revealed in God's dealings with Jacob.
In all of this we are to clearly see that God did not intend to free them by His providence only to change His method and have them fight their own way to the Promised Land under His guidance. God started the exodus upon principles that were to be forever preserved and maintained. At no time did He deviate from His established course of action. During the reign of sorrow, as plague followed plague, the Israelites had no part to play other than merely standing by and letting the Lord handle everything.
When, just before their final departure, God impressed the Egyptians to liberally provide the travelers with everything they would ever need on their journey, He did not put it in the hearts of their former masters to give them weapons of war. It was a people for whom God had made every provision, who went out of Egypt, "unarmed and unaccustomed to war" (PP282). If the Lord had intended a change from His fighting their battles to their doing this work for themselves, then He certainly would have made sure they were equipped for this role. The fact that He did not impress the Egyptians to arm them is clear proof that He never intended they should be. As the exodus began, so it was to continue.
How much happier their subsequent history would have been had they learned from Jacob and their recent experience of God's deliverance. There would have been no substitution of human, faithless methods in place of the infallible, divine procedures. God would never have commanded them to take their swords and slaughter men, women, and children. In every situation He would have been their Defender and Deliverer.
When they came to the Red Sea, the Lord once more demonstrated the way in which the power of their enemies would be broken if they relied on God. There it was shown in the most vivid way that the rejecters of God's mercy were simply left to themselves to perish.
When Pharaoh led his army into the corridor between those standing walls of water, it was an act of terrible presumption on his part. The only way in which the Israelites could pass safely over was by remaining within the circle of God's protection. But the Egyptians had deliberately and defiantly cast off that protection, and therefore, the Spirit of the Lord could not maintain the waters in their position. As the army advanced, the Spirit of God had no choice but to retire before it. As that power was withdrawn, the waters simply rushed back to their original position, overwhelming the enemies of God and delivering His people.
God's commitment to offering His creatures freedom of choice would be no more than empty words if there was no opportunity to choose another course. Accordingly, in order to give full support to His declared principles, the Lord is careful not to deprive the people of the means whereby they could go in another direction if they wished.
So while the Lord had made it absolutely clear that they were not to carry the sword in their journey from Egypt, they had the same freedom to obey or disobey as did their first parents in Eden. The opportunity for them to take the sword was afforded when the armor-clad bodies of the Egyptian soldiers were washed up at their feet.
As morning broke it revealed to the multitudes of Israel all that remained of their mighty foes―the mail-clad bodies cast upon the shore (PP 287, 288).
Here was the great test for the men of Israel. They were tempted with a veritable arsenal of weapons―swords, spears, helmets, shields, and breastplates. They could either rush down and take the spoils, thus equipping themselves to fight as other nations fought, or they could turn their backs upon it and leave their protection in the Lord's hands.
There are no direct records confirming that they rushed down and took the armor from the Egyptians, but all the evidence points strongly in that direction. Here are the facts. They approached, crossed, and emerged from the Red Sea without implements of war. Shortly after leaving the Red Sea, they engaged in warfare against the Amalekites in which they did not use sticks and stones. As there were no swordsmiths between the Red Sea and the location of their first battle, the only way they could have become equipped was by salvaging the weaponry washed ashore.
It was a critical point in their history, for the sad decision made there influenced the full span of their future. The real issue involved whether the people were going to trust God as their sole Protector or whether they were going to take His work into their own hands. It was the question of implicit trust in God versus greater confidence in the power of their own fighting abilities. They introduced a new order into the camp, replacing the divine arrangement. Thus they prevented the nation from giving a true representation of God's character, and this eventually led to their final dismissal as the channel of God's communication to the world.
What makes their decision so significant are the circumstances under which it was made. God had just demonstrated to them the most thrilling and convincing display of His ability and willingness to deal with their enemies according to the principles of eternal righteousness. With a God like that, what need did they have of weapons? In taking up the sword at that point, Israel failed tragically.
That it was not His intent for them to make war is proved by direct statements as well as by all the principles which undergird God's character.
The Lord had never commanded them to "go up and fight." It was not His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare, but by strict obedience to His commands (PP392).
The use of force is exclusive to Satan's kingdom. It has no part in God's order. They were to possess the Promised Land by strict obedience to His commands, one of which prohibits killing.
So while it is true that they gained the land by force, contrary to God's way, let it not be forgotten that they also lost it in the same manner. Their sad history confirms the truth of Christ's words to the valiant and belligerent Peter: "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
Jesus did not give these words a limited application in time. He was not saying, "From this time forward, all who take the sword will thereby perish." What He stated is an eternal truth. It is a statement of the fact that the use of force engenders counterforce.
God, understanding perfectly that those who live by the sword will perish by it, knew that for Israel to use weaponry was to ensure their destruction. God did not desire such an outcome. Therefore, from this motivation alone, it is certain that He never gave them the sword. More than this, if He had done so, then He would be responsible for their destruction, for he who gives to another that which will assuredly effect his death must carry the blame for that demise.
It follows then that it was never in God's purpose that Israel or anyone else should ever carry the sword. It has no place in His character and corresponding methods, and therefore, it is to find no acceptance in the character and behavior of His people.
The recognition of this truth is essential to understanding the directives from God which sent the Israelites forth with the sword to utterly destroy the peoples who opposed them. The institution of this form of government was entirely the people's work, the expression of their having more faith in themselves than in God. It was the establishment of human principles and procedures in place of the divine.
Therefore, in every instance where the Israelites went to war or executed the wrongdoers among themselves, their actions were not a revelation of the character of God. There has been a universal readiness to conclude that they were acting in complete righteousness by simply doing as the Lord told them. If they had been a truly obedient people, they would not have had the swords at all and, therefore, would never have gone forth to slay their enemies.
Yet God did give directions to them. There is no denying this, nor is there any desire to do so, for the nature of those commands reveals a very wonderful and beautiful Father in heaven who is ever reaching out to save and never to destroy. The tragic error is that He has been terribly misunderstood to the point where the actions designed to minimize the evil effects of the slaughtering to which they were committed have been judged in an altogether different and wrong light.
The purpose here is to establish that it was in spite of God's best efforts to the contrary that the sword became an establishment in the encampment of Israel. The recognition of this truth is essential to understanding the directives given to Israel, which have long been viewed as an indication that He was personally using them as executioners.
Again, if God's will had been respected, they would never have used the sword, and God would have been free to do His work for them according to the eternal principles of righteousness. The command given by God at various times in connection with the various slayings during the sojourn of Israel makes it difficult for the average person to see anything but that God was personally and directly involved and that He decided the particular sentence and then ordered its execution.
But God does not give orders contrary to the principles of righteousness. Therefore, more study is required to remove the seeming inconsistencies. This may be done with the sweet consciousness that there are no contradictions in the Word of God and that God's character is perfectly consistent in all its behavior.