Actually, I just let it go by the first couple of times, but it was bothering me, so I thought I'd let you know.

In person, it's not so bad, since you can hear a person's tone of voice, but on-line it's not so pleasant.

Thanks!




Probably from not being familiar with the actual situation. Many people conceive of the area involved as being a small area, so they picture in their minds that there was Jesus and the money changers in close proximity. But the actual area involved was huge!

Imagine a football stadium, with the football field covered with people, with money changers throughout the stadium. Imagine Jesus on the 50 yard line, flipping over a table with a cord in His hand. Why would someone hundreds of feet away flee in fear? EGW's account makes sense.

Also, in John's account, he notes that not everyone fled. Immediately after cleansing the temple, Christ ministered to the sick and to children. So not everyone was afraid. This also agrees with the idea that it wasn't physical coercion that was going on.



I've heard this idea before. For example, James Raferty, who works with Ty Gibson, has this idea (I don't know if Ty does). I haven't heard it fleshed out though.



They, unless we are a part of the 144,000. Again, this is from EGW's view.



I went to the seminary, and have read quite a lot of books, perhaps that one (it's been some time now, and I honestly don't remember) and am very familiar with the concepts involved. However, I moved and can't find many of my books. I really appreciate your doing all that typing.

Even though I don't agree with the penal substitution idea, there were some real good observations made. For example, the dualistic idea regarding God is very good, as it gets into the fact that the Eastern conception of things is different than the Western idea. I was trying to get at this point in regards to justice.

The Western idea is that justice is retributive, and one thinks of vengeance, just desserts, debt repayment, and things like that. The Biblical idea is that justice is restorative and redemptive. Justice is feeding the hungry, caring for the widow and orphan, feeding the naked, and is manifest by acts of mercy and kindness.

For example:





Read the chapter "It Is Finished" from "The Desire of Ages" (which is on line, if you don't have the book. You can google "EGW wais" and get it quickly.



The issue is bigger than just us, though, and an understanding of that helps to correctly understand things. This idea is in Scripture. For example, from Col. 1.:



The things in heaven are not inanimate things, but heavenly beings. How can heavenly beings be reconciled? This is dealing with a finer appreciation of God's character and love, given though the cross. Paul's thought looks to be that the cross brought even heavenly angels closer to God.

MM: I assumed you agreed with Sister White. You often say, “I believe it is wise to apply the principle so well laid out by EGW.” Again, here is what she wrote about the will of God as it relates to God destroying sinners:

3SG 80
God controls all these elements; they are his instruments to do his will; he calls them into action to serve his purpose. These fiery issues have been, and will be his agents to blot out from the earth very wicked cities. Like Korah, Dathan and Abiram they go down alive into the pit. These are evidences of God's power.


MM: Thank you for answering my question, Tom. From this, I understand you believe God has never directly killed a sinner. It is true, at least in the following case, that Jesus did not kill the man Himself. Instead, He commanded Moses and the congregation to do it. But I suspect this isn’t what you had in mind.

Numbers
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Tom, does this situation symbolize God giving sin or Satan or nature permission to kill sinners? I'm having a hard time understanding how stories like this one fit into the model you advocate.


MM: Is the following case an example of evil violence or justice?


Also, are we to assume that “by the hands of the apostles” means Ananias and Sapphira were killed by the apostles? If not, who or what killed them? And why? To what purpose were they killed? BTW, it doesn't say God took away the ghost; instead, it says they "gave up the ghost".

AA 74
Infinite Wisdom saw that this signal manifestation of the wrath of God was necessary to guard the young church from becoming demoralized. Their numbers were rapidly increasing. The church would have been endangered if, in the rapid increase of converts, men and women had been added who, while professing to serve God, were worshiping mammon. This judgment testified that men cannot deceive God, that He detects the hidden sin of the heart, and that He will not be mocked. It was designed as a warning to the church, to lead them to avoid pretense and hypocrisy, and to beware of robbing God. {AA 73.4}

One needs to consider all she wrote on a subject. For example, she wrote:



Or, a much short one, "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son."

We should be able to find, assuming this is true, our ideas regarding God revealed in the life and character of His Son, while here with us in the flesh.



"Jesus" was a human being, who did not exist until His incarnation. It was not "Jesus" who commanded Moses, but Yahweh. The purpose of Jesus was to explain Yahweh to man, as John points out:



Paul point out the same thing (Heb. 1:1-3) and Ellen White (already quoted, plus DA 22, and many other places).

It's really a wrong technique you are applying in going to the Old Testament to understand what Jesus Christ was teaching in the New! This CANNOT HELP but lead to confusion. Even holy angels were confused, as DA 758 points out. MM is not going to avoid being confused by that which was unclear to angels.

OTOH, MM can be illuminated by Jesus Christ, as the holy angels were.

Ananias and Sophira were another example of the principle laid out in GC 35-37.

I didn't understand you point that is doesn't say God took away the ghost but they gave up the ghost.





This is more difficult, as I explained to Arnold, I'll pass on discussing this.

TE: Or, a much short one, "All that man needs to know, or can know, of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son." We should be able to find, assuming this is true, our ideas regarding God revealed in the life and character of His Son, while here with us in the flesh.

MM: Did Jesus, while here in the flesh, command people to kill sinners?

Oh dear. I answered this and I don't see it.

Oh well.

I guess second time around you'll get a much shorter answer! I would say that if we see God doing something in the Old Testament which is different, in principle, to what we see Jesus Christ doing in the Gospels, then we're missing something.

The starting point should be Christ in the Gospels. From that we learn what God is like. *Then* we can go to the Old, and try to determine how the different episodes in the Old correspond to what Jesus did in the Gospels.

1. Jesus commanded people in the OT to kill people. See Numbers 15:35.

2. Jesus commanded people in the NT to kill people. See John 8:7.

PS - It was Jesus Christ who commanded the Jews in the OT.

1 Corinthians
10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

You read this as a command by Jesus Christ to kill people?

OK. Given this is how you interpret Scripture, there may not be much point in continuing this discussion. (Most people see this as a wonderful example of forgiveness, yet you view it as a command to kill.)

What did Jesus mean when He said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

What did Jesus mean when He said, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

DA 460, 461
Their pretended reverence veiled a deep-laid plot for His ruin. They had seized upon this opportunity to secure His condemnation, thinking that whatever decision He might make, they would find occasion to accuse Him. Should He acquit the woman, He might be charged with despising the law of Moses. Should He declare her worthy of death, He could be accused to the Romans as one who was assuming authority that belonged only to them. ... {DA 460}

With all their professions of reverence for the law, these rabbis, in bringing the charge against the woman, were disregarding its provisions. It was the husband's duty to take action against her, and the guilty parties were to be punished equally. The action of the accusers was wholly unauthorized. Jesus, however, met them on their own ground. The law specified that in punishment by stoning, the witnesses in the case should be the first to cast a stone. Now rising, and fixing His eyes upon the plotting elders, Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And stooping down, He continued writing on the ground. He had not set aside the law given through Moses, nor infringed upon the authority of Rome. {DA 461}

Ok, how do you get out of this a command to kill?