The incident with the pigs jumping over the cliff seems to illustrate the principle.

I suppose. But giving evil angels permission to drive pigs over a cliff is addressing a different aspect of God's character, isn't it?

I don't think so. It seems to be the same principle. If one gives oneself over to the control of Satan, the pigs running off the cliff is an illustration of what happens.

Jerusalem is another example. Jesus cried out how He would have gathered them up as a hen gathers her chicks, but they didn't allow that. Jesus wept for their fate. Their destruction was a result of their refusing the presence and protection of God.

Lazarus' sickness and death also illustrate the principle, in a way. As long as Jesus was near Lazarus, he couldn't get sick and die. So Jesus went away, so that he could die, and Jesus could resurrect him.

To the paralytic, Jesus warned, "Do not sin, lest a worse thing come upon you" which is illustrating the principle in a broad context.

When a structure fell and killed a number of people, Jesus pointed out that their death was not due to God, but warned that unless His hearers repented, something likewise could happen to them. If God wasn't causing the destruction, then someone or something else was. The implication was that if they did not repent, then they would forfeit God's protection, and they could suffer disaster as those who were killed by the structure falling did.

These are a few that come to mind. There are probably others.

The point is that if EGW's statement that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Christ is true, then whatever aspect of God's character we're interested in studying, it must be revealed in Christ. That doesn't mean we don't have to hunt for it.

Well, I guess if you're going to use loose interpreting techniques, we might be able to stretch the illustrations you gave as examples of Jesus being forced to withdraw His protection and giving evil angels permission to punish and destroy stubborn, unrepentant sinners. But, I must admit, it's a hard sell. Except for the Jerusalem example, which actually applies to after Jesus returned to heaven and not to while He was here in the flesh, the other ones miss the mark.

If the statement that all we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son is true, then whatever we know to be true of God must be there. That's just simple logic. We may have to hunt to find it. We may have to think. The statement doesn't say that all that we can need of God was spelled out in such a way that you don't have to look to see it, or think about it. It says that all that we can know of God was revealed.

True, but "hunting" and "stretching" are two different methods, right?

I suppose it depends upon how clearly you see it.

Which one of the examples you gave clearly demonstrates God being forced by circumstances to withdraw His protection from stubborn sinners and giving evil angels permission to punish and destroy them?

That's not how I would put it. I like how EGW puts it.



There are a number of points brought out here, and I think the episodes I suggested bring out these points. There's also the parables Jesus taught which should be considered. There may be some good examples there. I'd have to think about it.

"By stubborn rejection of divine love and mercy, the Jews had caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them, and Satan was permitted to rule them according to his will. The horrible cruelties enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem are a demonstration of Satan's vindictive power over those who yield to his control."

Tom, please explain to me how this statement and my statement are different. Thank you.

Also, the following insights are helpful: