This isn't correctly characterizing the situation.

Consider the case of divorce. God's ideal, in regards to divorce, is clearly articulated by Jesus Christ. What Jesus said was always God's will. But God accommodated the Israelites, because of their ignorance and stubbornness. God's allowing the Israelite's to divorce should not have been understood as His teaching that this was OK, even though He "instituted" it.

But He didn't really institute divorce any more than He instituted capital punishment, did He? Both divorce and capital punishment existed before God said anything to the Israelite's about it. So God's words should be best understood as His giving the best loving counsel possible to a stubborn, ignorant people in their given circumstances. But not as God's ideal will.

Do you really think God wants people to be stoned for not keeping the Sabbath? Should we do that now? Is the only reason why not because we are not living in a theocracy?

When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, that was the perfect situation to demonstrate that God delights in having people stoned for moral vices. (I'm using "delights" here as a synonym for "God's will"). But what did Jesus do? He said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." He expressed God's ideal. He revealed God's character.

Another example of this principle is seen when the disciples urged Jesus to show the Samaritans a lesson by having fire come down from heaven to destroy them. Jesus responded, "You know not of what spirit you are."

Jesus revealed God's idea of correct behavior towards those who treat you badly, and despise you. It's to pray for them, to sacrifice for them, to die for them, to love them. He expressed God's ideal. He revealed God's character.

Jesus' entire life was all about revealing God's character. This is the point which caused man to fell, and this is the point that still causes him trouble. The "whole purpose" of Christ's mission (EGW) was to reveal God's character. The final message, which will prepare for the coming of Christ, is a revelation of God's character.

So completely did Jesus reveal God's character, we are told that "all" that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus' life and teaching. Given the following facts:

a)Man was deceived into sin by a misrepresentation of God's character.
b)That man might be reconciled to God (and the universe), Jesus came to reveal God's character.
c)The final message that will be given before Christ's second coming to humanity is the message of God's character.
d)So completely did Jesus reveal God's character, we are told that "all" that we can know about God was revealed by Jesus' life and teachings.

it seems to me that our approach should be to study and understand the life and teachings of Christ. We need that as our base. With a solid base, we can discuss other issues, such as incidents in the Old Testament, so that we can interpret God's actions correctly, in a way that is in harmony with what Jesus Christ taught and how He lived.

The problem is that in your example of divorce, there is no command from God that we must do it. Clearly, He is accommodating our imperfection.

In the case of capital punishment in the OT, the Amalekites for example, killing the people was not optional. He wasn't accommodating the Israelites' desire to kill. In fact, when Saul didn't kill them all, God was displeased. Will God be displeased if in a case of adultery, the offended party did not go through with the divorce?

That is the difference, which is why I think you are misapplying the principle.

Now, on to other capital issues. Have the wages of sin always been death?

Obviously, the answer is Yes in the NT, since that came from the NT. Also obviously, lots of people were killed in the OT for sinning.

But do we believe the adulterous woman somehow got around the just wages of her sin? I don't think so. She died alright.

How about the Gibeonites? They were afraid to get killed. But we are told that they would have been spared since they were willing to follow God. Did they get around the death penalty? No. They also died.

The antedeluvians? They died, too. And God caused all that death.

Of course, the death that God prefers is death to self, sin, and Satan. But for those who do not want that kind of death, the only alternative is permanent physical death. But in every case, the wages of sin is death.

I don't think so. I think the same principle is involved. God was counseling an ignorant and backward people the best way possible, given the circumstances.

A question that needs to be asked in these types of situations is, did God really want the Amalekites dead? Is this something that made God happy, seeing them dead? Or was their death a victim of circumstances?

The way to approach these things, it seems to me, is to study the life and teachings of Christ. That is the way, the only way, that we will come to an understanding as to God's character. Second to this, I would say, would be to consider how God has treated us individually in our own lives. I believe we will see, in every case without exception, that God has treated us exactly as we see how Jesus Christ treated others (as opposed, for example, as to how we perceive God to have acted in certain places in the Old Testament).

The wages of sin is death (the second death) because that is the nature of sin. Other versions put the idea perhaps a bit more clearly: "Sin pays its wages; death." (James expressed the same thought, that sin, when it is through, brings forth death, and of course, many other Scriptures bring out the same idea).



I'm not following this.



I think you're getting things confused here. The death that is the wages of sin is the second death, and she did not die that death, but, on the contrary, was saved from that death by being saved from sin.



There's no issue involved in getting away with anything. The issues involved have to do with understanding God's character and being saved from sin. Again, the death that is the wages of sin is the second death.



How did they die? They died by waters that were under the earth, which exploded into the atmosphere. This is clear from statements from Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy, and also investigations by creationist scientists have led to this conclusion.

Now since the waters were under great pressure, what can we conclude? Either God knew when they would erupt, and would have prevented that from happening had man not been so wicked, or the waters would have erupted sooner, but God kept that from happening as long as there was still an opportunity for man to repent. These are just two possibilities, among others, which are in perfect harmony with God's character as revealed in Jesus Christ, as well as being in harmony with His own law.

As long as they had not irrevocably grieved His Spirit, there were under God's protection. But when the boundaries of God's forebearance was past, which is simply to say that they had so hardened their hearts that they could, or would, no longer respond to God's overtures, He gave them over to the results of their choice. It's the same principle as discussed in the first chapter of "The Great Controversy," and the same principle explained and exemplified in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.



Not because God kills them! The wages of sin is death because sin is deadly.

If we have the idea that God will kill us if we don't do what He says, it's inevitable that we will "serve" God out of fear. At the very least, our ability to have as full a relationship with Him as we could is hampered. There is no fear in love, and love is awakened by love.

Backing up a moment, the Spirit of Prophecy tells us that the cross is the key to understanding every truth in Scripture, and this is certainly in harmony with the testimony of Scripture (in particular, Paul comes to mind). I think in terms of understanding different principles we have discussed, the easiest principle to apprehend is the atonement. Probably hand in hand with that comes the judgment.

A big question that comes up with all of these issues is whether the penalty for disobedience is an imposed penalty by God, or the natural consequence of choosing another way than the way of agape. If one holds to the idea that the penalty for sin is imposed, I don't see how it would be possible to understand the things we have been discussing.

At any rate, I think understanding the atonement and final judgment would be a better place to start a discussion of these questions. For example, I don't know anyone personally who shares similar thoughts to what I have been sharing regarding God and violently killing people who does has the concept of penal substitution in regards to the atonement nor the idea that God, in the final judgment, burns people with fire to have them pay for their sins, before killing them. On the other hand, I know quite a few people who share similar idea in regards to the atonement and the final judgment that I have, but do not see the question of God's using violence the same way I do.

We need to differentiate between penalties and wages. Wages are earned for legitimate work; penalties are punishment for illegimate work.

In the expression "the wages of sin is death," the meaning seems to be quite clear, which is simply that sin results in death. Paul, who wrote this, wrote elsewhere, "The sting of death is sin" (1 Cor. 15:16), which communicates the same idea.

I like the way each set of Christians believes the Bible is the inviolate word of God then immediately changes its meaning to match any doctrines they hold. Either they have no respect for God or none for His Word.

I think it's the other way around. That is, different people read the Bible, and from that understand the Bible to be saying certain things, which are formed into doctrines. Sometimes it could be the other way around, the way you wrote (i.e. the doctrines come first, and then the Bible is interpreted to fit the doctrine), but it's not necessarily that way.

Of course, to someone who has a different understanding of Scripture than the position of those presenting a certain doctrine, it will appear to be the way you stated (that they are changing the meaning of the Bible to fit their position).

Actually, as I think about it, there are times when you say happens regardless of one's doctrine, which is when the Bible appears to be contradicting itself. For example, on the state of the dead, there are passages which appear to be teaching that the soul remains conscious after death. In explaining these positions, one will appear (to someone who believes the soul is immortal) that the meaning of the Bible is being changed.

Another possibility would be that the Bible does contradict itself, and some authors thought the soul was immortal, but others not. But most discussions in forums such as this have the tacit assumption that the Bible does not contradict itself in terms of doctrine.

God can prevent death if He chooses. Satan has lived so long separated from God.

If God does not prevent the death which would be so easy for Him to do, that can be considered killing. That would be like me putting an infant in the middle an empty highway, then saying I didn't kill it when it gets run over when the traffic comes.



Yes, we must look at the cross. But while some see the cross as God's wrath against sin, and His Son who happened to be bearing said sin, you might see it in a different light. So while the cross is the key, not everyone agrees on what the key unlocks.