Law and justice demands of God the death of sinners. Pardon is not a substitute for the death penalty. Death must happen. Jesus paid our sin debt of death to law and justice. His death was required. There was no other way to save us.

---

Jesus wasn't abrogating the "eye for an eye" law. Instead, He was addressing an abuse of it.

MM, please provide some motivation for what you believe, which is to say, a reason why. For example, consider the following:



This makes perfect sense. This explains why death was necessary. Sin would have been perpetuated without death.

I'm not seeing any reasoning similar to this in your explanations. I see you say, "I don't know why this is this way, but it is." or "I don't understand this" or "I can't explain this." We should have a reason for things we believe, so we can explain them reasonably to others. Again, I find what EGW wrote above here to make perfect sense.

Regarding Christ's statement to turn the other cheek, I still think you're missing the point. As the quote I provided stated, the principle Christ espoused was one He lived. He wasn't addressing the proper use of "eye for eye," but was revealing the character of God, which is not "eye for eye," but "turn the other cheek."



Please take another look at the quote I provided. It's a beautiful idea being expressed.

You realize if God followed the "eye for eye" principle that we'd all be lost, don't you?

TE: You realize if God followed the "eye for eye" principle that we'd all be lost, don't you?

MM: Tom, who do you think invented the law of "an eye for an eye"?

TE: This makes perfect sense. This explains why death was necessary. Sin would have been perpetuated without death.

MM: You are taking this out of context. Jesus' death was necessary because law and justice required it of God to save sinners. To pardon sinners without the death of Jesus would perpetuate sinning.

Here's the quote:



What am I taking out of context? I pointed out that the statement "Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated" makes perfect sense. What's not in context?

As I pointed out earlier, it seems to me that EGW is saying the same thing Fifield is saying here:

TE: What am I taking out of context?

MM: Here is what makes sense to me:

She asks, "Why was not the death penalty at once enforced in his case?" In other words,, Why didn't God enforce the death penalty, as promised, the instant A&E sinned? Why did He pardon them instead of execute them? What was the legal basis of His decision? How did He justify it?

The answer is short and sweet, "Because a ransom was found." Someone else died in their place, namely, the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Law and justice demand of God death for sin and pardon. Mere pardon is not enough; the Son of God must die in consequence of sinning.

"God's only begotten Son volunteered to take the sin of man upon Himself, and to make an atonement for the fallen race. There could have been no pardon for sin had this atonement not been made."

The "atonement" mentioned here is in reference to the death penalty. Jesus paid our sin debt of death through penal substitution. It was paid in full to law and justice.

"Had God pardoned Adam's sin without an atonement, sin would have been immortalized, and would have been perpetuated with a boldness that would have been without restraint."

In other words, if God had pardoned A&E without shedding the blood of Jesus, sinning would have been immortalized. Law and justice would have been undermined.

MM: I take it you believe Jesus invented this law. If so, why, then, do you believe He rescinded it when He was here in the flesh?

She says that sinning would have been perpetuated. That is, it would have continued. Her logic is the same as Fifield's.



Especially note the last paragraph. This is the same point EGW is making.

This isn't an answer to my question.

Following in the vein of answering a question with a question, what do you think of the law of divorce? Who instituted that? Why, then, did Jesus say that anyone who left their spouse, other than for adultery was guilty of adultery? Was He contradicting His own law here?

(I'm answering your question with these questions because the same principle applies to both this situation and the "eye for an eye" one.)

Do you acknowledge the point that turning the other cheek was not something Jesus was speaking about doing in special circumstances, but was, in fact, simply a revelation of how Jesus lived His own life (and thus, a revelation of God's character)?