I don't believe every incident of death and destruction is due to evil angels. At least not directly. Indirectly Satan is responsible for all death and destruction since if it weren't for him, there wouldn't be any.



She hit the nail on the head with this one. We are so ignorant of God's protection of us, from "a thousand dangers" (Satan is just one) that we don't realize He's doing anything at all. So then when something bad happens, we assume it's God doing it, since we never realized His protecting hand from the "thousand dangers" to start with.



Permitted, but not sanctioned.



I never said this, right? Nor would I say this. So I would not state our difference as such.

To get back to the topic, I raised it because you agreed that polygamy was sin, but thought it was not sin against the seventh commandment, which I thought was rather a fantastic idea. It's very easy to see how, given it's a sin (which you agree to) that it would be in violation to the seventh commandment, because the seventh commandment was set up as a protection to marriage, and polygamy quite obviously has to do with marriage.

However, rather than recognize this, you believe that polygamy is a violation of the commandment to not have other God before you (any sin could be sin as this in some way), a violation against the commandment go have idols (ditto) and a violation against the commandment not to use God's name in vain (I can't guess what you're reasoning is here, assuming you have some reason for affirming this). I don't believe you've stated that polygamy is a violation of the fourth commandment.

We really have gotten off track. 17 pages, and I still don't know why you would think polygamy is a sin, but not a sin against any of the last 6 commandments, but just against the first 3.



When the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, and stated to him that the law of Moses required that such be stoned, how did Jesus act? They were trying to trick him, but forcing him to either reject the law of Moses or to have the woman killed. They knew from His character that He would not kill the woman, because they had seen his mercy and compassion. So they thought they had Him.

How did He answer the question? He instructed them that "he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone." He neither had the woman killed nor disrespected the law of Moses.

I have tried to walk in Jesus' steps here. I have been careful not to disrespect the law of Moses. You have attributed some things to me that I would consider disrespectful of the law of Moses, but they are not things I have said. I have tried to be careful not to speak against either Moses or his law. I have no desire to denigrate Moses, but to uplift Christ.

The point I've been making is that if we wish to know God, we need to look to Christ. How did Christ act? That's God's ideal will.

God in judging another takes into account the light and knowledge a person has. God has not given me the job of judging Moses, or anyone else for that matter. So I respectfully decline the invitation to do so. I'll continue affirming that if we wish to know God's ideal will, it's easy to do so. When we see Jesus, we've seen the Father.

That's good. Because really, the "Law of Moses" is a misnomer. It did not come from Moses. It was God's law, and should more appropriately be credited to Him.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, this is news to me. I didn’t realize you allowed for times when evil angels did not directly cause death and destruction. Of the hundreds of places in the Bible where it says God caused the death and destruction of sinners, which ones did God cause directly and which ones did God give evil angels permission to cause directly?


Tom, here is what you did say:


What did you mean when you wrote – “Divorce was permitted, but it was an evil. It, and polygamy, did not cease to be evil because they were permitted.” In what ways are divorce and polygamy, when practiced in accordance with the law of Moses, considered “evil”? Are you associating what God permitted in the law of Moses with "Christ came to correct these evils"?


Please keep in mind what I said about the differences between polygamy as it was practiced in accordance with the law of Moses and polygamy as it was practiced in contradiction to the law of Moses. When practiced in harmony with the law it was not a sin, but it was a sin when not. When kings had multiple wives for political reasons, they were in essence making idols of them, which misrepresents the name of God. Given the fact they were married, though, is clear evidence they were no more guilty of violating the 7th commandment than those who were practicing polygamy in accordance with the law of Moses.


Another nice dance, Tom. Which is frustrating since your entire argument rests on reinterpreting the Bible to suit your theory that "God destroys no one" (5T 120). So, refusing to comment on whether or not Moses was guilty of sinning, when he obeyed God’s command and stoned the Sabbath-breaker to death, makes me think you cannot defend your position in light of the facts of this case. In other words, you cannot support your theory in the face this case, so you are hiding behind an unreasonable unwillingness to answer the question.

I've said this many times, MM. I've quoted the "thousand dangers" passage to you as well.



This is the wrong thread for this discussion.



You're phrasing things awkwardly here. For example, when you ask "In what ways are divorce and polygamy, when practiced in accordance with the law of Moses ..." which assumes that divorce can be practiced in accordance with the law of Moses, as if God desired divorce! But God hates divorce:



God hates divorce (and violence).

Do you disagree that divorce is an evil? Do you disagree that God permitted it?



The evils Christ came to correct are delineated here.



From the SOP:



This is clear that there was never a time when God approved of polygamy.



This makes clear that polygamy is a violation of the law of God, a sin. Notice the reason is tied to "the family relation." Notice it is not limited to kings (if you look at the context, you can see she's not talking about kings).



Not a helpful comment.



My argument is based upon the principles I've been laying out.

1.Jesus Christ fully revealed God's character.
2.The law warns us of acts which are destructive.
3.There are two roads, the road of self, and the road of agape. God does all He can to get us on the agape road.
4.Force and violence are not principles of God's government.
5.Force is the last resort of all false religion.
6.Satan tries to fool us in regards to God's true character by blaming God for things he does.

Are these principles unscriptural?



It seems to me you're trying to put me in the same box the Pharisees were trying to put Christ into. Christ did not speak against the law of Moses, nor against Moses. But He didn't stone the woman either. In a similar vein, I am not speaking against either Moses or the law of Moses, but am explaining that Christ's actions demonstrate God's view of this matter.

My point is that God's ideal will is revealed by Jesus Christ. If we wish to know how God wants someone like the adulteress brought to Him to be treated, we have but to see how Christ treated her.

Honestly, I can't see how anyone could disagree with this. Christ was God in the flesh, and His mission was to reveal to us what God is like.

Whether one has committed sin depends upon the light which one has. God, in judging Moses, or any of us, takes these things into account.

Tom, you still haven’t explained what you meant by - “Divorce was permitted, but it was an evil. It, and polygamy, did not cease to be evil because they were permitted.” Are you associating what God permitted in the Law of Moses with "Christ came to correct these evils"? In other words, when God included divorce and polygamy in the Law of Moses was He permitting people to practice evil?

Also, where does it say God “permitted” polygamy, the “duty of an husband's brother to her”? For example, if God intended for us to understand it in terms of permission, rather than a command, why didn't He say so? Why did He say instead that a man "shall" perform "the duty" of a husband's brother unto his wife to raise up children on is behalf? The words "shall" and "duty" do not give the impression it was optional.

Deuteronomy
25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
25:6 And it shall be, [that] the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [which is] dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
25:7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and [if] he stand [to it], and say, I like not to take her;
25:9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
25:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Exodus
21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
21:10 If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.


No, they are not unscriptural, but the way you apply them is. Yes, you are working hard not to speak against the Law of Moses or Moses himself, but you are not stating your position clearly. You are being intentionally vague and elusive, which is anything but helpful. Jesus plainly upheld the Law of Moses when He said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Which is exactly what the law required.

Since Jesus was not the one who caught them in the act of sinning the law did not give Him permission to cast the first stone. If Jesus had stoned her to death He would have been a law breaker. He would have been guilty of sinning. So, of course He didn’t stone her. But more than this, Jesus also knew the Pharisees had set her up, that she was more innocent than guilty in the matter. The Law of Moses permits mercy in such cases. Jesus demonstrated this aspect of the law. But there is nothing "evil" about capital punishment as commanded in the Law of Moses. It represents God's will.


What about the Law of Moses? Does it reveal God’s ideal will? Or, does it reflect His compromised will? What is the difference between the two? What were the circumstances that prevented God from expressing His ideal will in the Law of Moses? What forced Him to compromise?

Also, why did God command Moses to stone the Sabbath-breaker to death? Why didn’t He express His ideal will when Moses inquired of Him what to do with the man who broke the Sabbath?

It was God's idea to stone the guy to death - not Moses'. You seem to be saying executing capital punishment is evil. And, yet, here we see God clearly commanding Moses to kill the guy. This doesn't coincide with your view of God, does it?

What's unclear about this? I meant:
1.Divorce was permitted.
2.Divorce is an evil.

That divorce was permitted is made clear by Jesus' comment:



That divorce is an evil is clear, isn't it?



I'm associating the evils with divorce and polygamy.



That the levirate marriage was speaking of something permitted. That God was not sanctioning polygamy by this custom is a point made even by some Jews, which is why I gave the web site I did as a reference. It is by no means clear, even without considering the SOP, that was was sanctioning polygamy, much less ordering it.

Now when we consider the SOP, there's no doubt at all.



This settles the issue. The interpretation you are suggesting cannot be. Why?

1.Polygamy was contrary to God's will.
2.God did not sanction it (much less order it) in a single instance.

It is worthwhile considering why polygamy was contrary to God's will. "He knew the happiness of man would be destroyed by it." Please note this has nothing to do with kings having multiple wives.



I'm not seeing this. I'm pointing to Jesus Christ, and pointing to how he acted. It seems to me this should settle the matter.

Regarding the law of Moses, it did not reveal God's will as fully as Jesus Christ did, which is the point I've been making all along. Nothing in the OT revealed God as fully as Christ did. That's why we should primarily look to Jesus Christ if we wish to understand God, and make sure any interpretations we make in regards to the law of Moses or elsewhere in the OT are in harmony with what we see in Christ.

Just remember:

GOD's Law, as given through Moses, IS a representation of His character.

GOD (not Moses) gave the death decrees, and the laws of capital punishment. Did I say "laws?" No, God's Word says this:



Here are some examples of the laws of capital punishment:



Interestingly, God commanded this system, and that of the "cities of refuge," which were the equivalent of "prisons."

God's own words commanded that form of polygamy which MountainMan has already outlined. When God gives laws for how to treat one's plural wives, it cannot be said that God is commanding men to do evil. Why do you think Paul in the New Testament makes a point of saying that elders in the church should be the "husbands of one wife?" It seems this would have been no issue if men never had more than one. God makes an issue of commanding that kings should not "multiply" wives unto themselves...but this begs the question, why did not God give this command to everyone?

Why, for example, did God command the Levites to marry virgins? Anyone else could marry a non-virgin, but Levites were special. Kings and elders are also special. The laws for kings were more strict. Proverbs tells us that it is not for kings or princes to drink wine, but let the dying ones drink, and those with "heavy hearts" so that they "remember [their] misery no more." Proverbs 31:4-7

Perhaps even more fascinatingly, I don't see any exclusion granted to the Levites in the law of receiving a deceased brother's wife. Shall we discuss this conundrum? Obviously, she would not be a virgin...but then we have this:



So, a Levite should NOT take a widow to wife. But what if his brother died leaving his sister-in-law childless? I guess he would be forced (permissible?) to be spat on and to have his shoe taken away, and to be called "the one that has his shoe loosed?" That doesn't sound very noble for a priest to be treated and respected this way.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

I think, Tom, that since you appreciate the writings of Mrs. White so well, you might enjoy reflecting on one of her statements which sheds light into her usage of the term "sanction," which you have touched on so well above.

Here is the statement:



Thoughts?

Here are some of mine: 1) Mrs. White may not have used the term "sanction" in the same way we do in today's English. 2) The same disparity exists here as that in our previous discussion related to the sanctioning of polygamy; namely, that of the use of flesh meat not being "sanctioned" by God.

Here is the same quandary of interpretation:

1) God does not "sanction" or "approve" the use of flesh meat.
1b) Ditto for polygamy
2) God gave commands requiring polygamy in certain cases.
2b) Ditto for eating flesh meat (e.g. Passover lamb)
3) God does not change.
3b) God's law does not change.

The interesting thing about the meat issue, is that God also gave the Children of Israel quail to eat. David writes about this historical event and says of it that God "gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul." (Psalm 106:15, KJV)



I won't speak for others here, but while I see polygamy as having been permitted by God in times past, I do NOT see God as having ever sanctioned it. The same is true of eating flesh meat, of drinking wine, of capital punishment (killing), of wearing jewelry, etc. Because polygamy was clearly permitted by God. Flesh foods were clearly permitted. Jesus himself both drank wine and ate fish (and I like to think the wine was the pure grape juice, but none of us has proof of this).

Again, while it may seem counterintuitive, I believe that a gift or a command does not necessarily constitute "sanction." It would seem that Ellen White's writings must also allow for this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I don't think she's using the word "sanction" in any unusual way. That is, the meaning of the word hasn't changed, and she is using it just like we would. Regarding the eating of meat, I think using this to compare with polygamy is problematic. For one thing, the reason EGW gives for meat-eating being a problem has to do with the health of animals having become worse, not an issue which has a counterpoint in regards to polygamy.



The quail is similar to God's granting their desire of a king. He would have preferred they ate of the food He was providing, just as He would have preferred to have been their king.



I agree.



I agree.

I think where a problem can come in is with the word "command." We naturally understand a command to be something akin to a military order, when a superior says, "Do this!" and the underling must do it. However, a command in Scripture may be more along the lines of what we would call a counsel. So while God did not wish for anyone to get a divorce, if they were intent on being divorced, then God, in mercy for women, for one thing, gave instructions on how divorces should be handled. The same logic can be applied to the things you included on your list.

So if we understand certain commands to be akin to counsels, then it is easy to see how God could "command" something without sanctioning it. However, if we interpret "command" in a militaristic sense, I don't see how we can see God as commanding but not sanctioning.

Tom, do you really not understand my question? I actually want to understand your point of view. As you know, once I understand it, I will be content and move on to the next point. Don’t be afraid to state your position clearly.

So, we both agree God permitted people, under specific conditions, to get divorced and to have more than one wife at a time. We both agree divorce and polygamy under conditions other than the ones God specified was not permitted, in fact, it was considered evil and sinful.

Now, my question to you is – In light of the quote you posted, what evils did Jesus come to correct? Are you applying this insight to the things God permitted in the Law of Moses? Or, are you applying it to the evil things the Jewish leaders permitted? Or, are you applying it to all of the above?


If polygamy was contrary to God’s will, and never sanctioned by Him, doesn’t it seem strange to you that He would make it a part of the additional laws He gave to Moses? How can we say God permitted it because of the hardness of Jewish hearts, when in reality no one was clamoring for it? In fact, the evidence makes it clear that anybody who refused to comply with the law regulating polygamy were dealt with in a humiliating manner, in accordance with God’s command. Here is it is again:

Deuteronomy
25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
25:6 And it shall be, [that] the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother [which is] dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
25:7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and [if] he stand [to it], and say, I like not to take her;
25:9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
25:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

Again, if God intended for us to understand it in terms of permission, rather than a command, why didn't He say so? Why did He say instead that a man "shall" perform "the duty" of a husband's brother unto his wife to raise up children on is behalf? The words "shall" and "duty" do not give the impression it was optional. Or, do you interpret these words in this context if a different way?