I have sat out of this discussion for a time, and I marvel at the length of it without a conclusion.

The fact is that the truth is progressive. What God allows due to our ignorance may change when we have become more fully aware of His requirements.

Ellen White has written much that is not found in the Bible and which further defines the line between good and evil.

Simply put, those lines were not always defined. This does not mean the line did not exist, but it does mean that God did not require us to abide by lines that were beyond our understanding.

It is my firm belief that what we look upon so harshly as sin today may not always have been counted as sin, even though it certainly always fell short of the glory of God.

When Ellen White uses the word "sanctioned" in that passage which you have quoted, it is my belief that she meant to say that God never recommended, commended or advocated this. This does not mean, however, that it was not commanded.

A captain in the army might never say that killing was a good thing, in spite of the fact that he commanded it of his troops. God never told David that killing was good, but He commanded and prospered him in his conquests of the heathen nations around him. In fact, God said that because he had been a man of blood, he was not permitted to build God's temple. Nonetheless, David had been obedient to God in killing Goliath and others.

Back to the crux of the issue: The Ten Commandments do not forbid polygamy. The seventh commandment forbids adultery. Adultery, by definition, means sexual relations with someone to whom you are NOT married. Marriage, then, legalizes this act--and there is no specification in the Ten Commandments regarding the number of times one may marry.

TE: When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, the law of Moses commanded that such be stoned. See how Jesus Christ handled the situation. This is God's ideal will.

GC: It was also God's ideal will that Moses obey Him as he was told.

Had the stoning been forestalled or foregone with some kind words as Jesus did in the New Testament, Moses would have been sinning by breaking the express commandment of God.

So, was Moses like Jesus? I would say yes. Jesus also obeyed His Father.

We can't have God's ideal will being contrary to His ideal will. Unless you think His ideal will varies depending upon circumstances, like in situation ethics.

Why? Does this make sense? If Moses understood God's character as Jesus did, and revealed it in the same way that Jesus did, that would be sin? So sin does not depend upon what you actually think, say and do but on who you are?

There's a difference between Moses and Jesus. As John put is, the law came through Moses, but grace and truth have come to us through Jesus Christ. John also said, "No one has seen God at any time. His only Son, who knew Him best, has shown us what God is really like." (John 1:18).

Divorce was permitted, but it was an evil. It, and polygamy, did not cease to be evil because they were permitted.

Regarding the stoning question, the same principle applies to this incident as to the other incidents you're asking about. It's no different. Because of the hardness of men's hearts, God permits certain things. To try to determine God's ideal will by studying the COI is hopeless. If you want to know God's will, look to Jesus Christ.

When the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus, the law of Moses commanded that such be stoned. See how Jesus Christ handled the situation. This is God's ideal will.

He was soon interrupted. A group of Pharisees and scribes approached Him, dragging with them a terror-stricken woman, whom with hard, eager voices they accused of having violated the seventh commandment. Having pushed her into the presence of Jesus, they said to Him, with a hypocritical show of respect, "Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?" {DA 460.4}

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 460.5}

Jesus looked for a moment upon the scene,--the trembling victim in her shame, the hard-faced dignitaries, devoid of even human pity. His spirit of stainless purity shrank from the spectacle. Well He knew for what purpose this case had been brought to Him. He read the heart, and knew the character and life history of everyone in His presence. These would-be guardians of justice had themselves led their victim into sin, that they might lay a snare for Jesus. Giving no sign that He had heard their question, He stooped, and fixing His eyes upon the ground, began to write in the dust. {DA 461.1}

Impatient at His delay and apparent indifference, the accusers drew nearer, urging the matter upon His attention. But as their eyes, following those of Jesus, fell upon the pavement at His feet, their countenances changed. There, traced before them, were the guilty secrets of their own lives. The people, looking on, saw the sudden change of expression, and pressed forward to discover what it was that they were regarding with such astonishment and shame. {DA 461.2}

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. {DA 461.3}

He had not set aside the law given through Moses, nor infringed upon the authority of Rome. The accusers had been defeated. Now, their robe of pretended holiness torn from them, they stood, guilty and condemned, in the presence of Infinite Purity. They trembled lest the hidden iniquity of their lives should be laid open to the multitude; and one by one, with bowed heads and downcast eyes, they stole away, leaving their victim with the pitying Saviour. {DA 461.4}

Jesus arose, and looking at the woman said, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." {DA 461.5}

The woman had stood before Jesus, cowering with fear. His words, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone," had come to her as a death sentence. She dared not lift her eyes to the Saviour's face, but silently awaited her doom. In astonishment she saw her accusers depart speechless and confounded; then those words of hope fell upon her ear, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Her heart was melted, and she cast herself at the feet of Jesus, sobbing out her grateful love, and with bitter tears confessing her sins. {DA 462.1}

This was to her the beginning of a new life, a life of purity and peace, devoted to the service of God. In the uplifting of this fallen soul, Jesus performed a greater miracle than in healing the most grievous physical disease; He cured the spiritual malady which is unto death everlasting. This penitent woman became one of His most steadfast followers. With self-sacrificing love and devotion she repaid His forgiving mercy. {DA 462.2}

In His act of pardoning this woman and encouraging her to live a better life, the character of Jesus shines forth in the beauty of perfect righteousness. While He does not palliate sin, nor lessen the sense of guilt, He seeks not to condemn, but to save. The world had for this erring woman only contempt and scorn; but Jesus speaks words of comfort and hope. The Sinless One pities the weakness of the sinner, and reaches to her a helping hand. While the hypocritical Pharisees denounce, Jesus bids her, "Go, and sin no more." {DA 462.3}

If you choose to define your lines by "His ideal will", then I am inclined by that definition to accept situational ethics. I cannot believe that it is God's ideal will to destroy people in hell. But it will happen. And it will be His will.

God does not desire the destruction of any. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die?" Ezekiel 33:11.(COL 133)

54And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9)

8How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.(Hosea 11:8)

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This term "ideal will" is a rather odd concept. You are basically, in using this term, addressing God's meta-cognition. That's a lofty ambition, and not one that I'm inclined to attempt myself.

What you are saying Tom, if I have understood correctly, is that Moses should have treated the Sabbath-breaker as Jesus treated the prostitute caught in adultery. Is this correct?

If this is your conclusion, then I must respectfully disagree.

God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, and nothing short of the knife plunging toward Isaac's heart satisfied the Divine command. Should Abraham have reasoned that this was an un-Christlike act, and therefore abstained? Hardly! It was through his obedient act of faith that he entered Heaven's Hall of Fame. Moses, in like manner, was given a Divine command to stone the Sabbath-breaker. To disobey God is to sin. To argue against God is to place your own wisdom above His--which is foolish at best. God commanded Aaron not to grieve for his sons when God struck them dead--what kind of command was that? Yet we have no record of Aaron's disobedience on this point, and in spite of the seeming insensitivity of the command, faith is the better part of reason.

But notice here that obedience is not a mere outward compliance, but the service of love. The law of God is an expression of His very nature; it is an embodiment of the great principle of love, and hence is the foundation of His government in heaven and earth.(FILB 93)

God does not force the will or judgment of any. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of His hands shall love Him because He is worthy of love. He would have them obey Him because they have an intelligent appreciation of His wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love Him because they are drawn toward Him in admiration of His attributes.(GC 541)

That you should quote John in this manner to put a difference between Moses and Jesus is interesting, considering that Ellen White has made clear that the law is an image of Christ's character: "To abrogate the law of God is as impossible as it would be for God to abolish Himself. The law of God's kingdom is a transcript of His character." Jesus is not different from the law. Moses, in presenting the law, was presenting Christ and His character. (And of course, Moses did not speak his own thoughts, but by God's direction.)

The Light of this dark world had been shining amid its gloom, and they had failed to comprehend whence were its beams. They asked themselves why they had pursued a course that made it necessary for Christ to reprove them. They often repeated His conversations, and said, Why did we allow earthly considerations and the opposition of priests and rabbis to confuse our senses, so that we did not comprehend that a greater than Moses was among us, that One wiser than Solomon was instructing us? How dull were our ears! how feeble was our understanding!(DA 508)

Tom, it is amazing to me that you believe the law of Moses permits people to do things that are evil and contrary to God''s will.

That a person can be guilty of evildoing by obeying the law of Moses is amazing to me.

It represents an oddity that God would risk being misunderstood by commanding Moses, when he inquired, to kill the Sabbath-breaker, instead of taking the opportunity to explain His ideal will.

In the following passage nothing is said about God permitting evildoing in the law of Moses. Indeed, it says, "He had not set aside the law given through Moses..." Why didn't Sister White take this opportunity to explain that the law of Moses permits evildoing, permits things contrary to the will of God?

As Green Cochoa said, the law of Moses is a revelation of God's character, as such it allows for mercy and justice - two important traits of character.

Christ was misjudged by the Jews, because he did not dwell constantly on the law as written in the tables of stone. He invited men to learn of him, for he was a living representation of the law of God. (RH 1/7/90)

Christ held the key to all the treasures of wisdom, and he could diffuse knowledge as no other one could. He was indeed more than a teacher come from God; he was the only-begotten Son of the Father, the one sent into the world to save those who should believe on him. (ST 11/23/91)

Whatever great ideas man may have evolved, have come through Christ. Every precious gem of thought, every flash of the intellect, is revealed by the Light of the world. No human being, however learned, however gifted with talents, has precedence of the divine Teacher.

Christ makes no apology when he declares, "I am the Light of the world." He was, in life and teaching, the gospel, the foundation of all pure doctrine. Just as the sun compares with the lesser lights in the heavens, so did Christ, the source of all light, compare with the teachers of his day. He was before them all; and shining with the brightness of the sun, he diffused his penetrating, gladdening rays throughout the world. (9/16/97)

God has made it very clear that His will is that the wicked live, not that they be destroyed.

Why do you think that God's will is that the wicked be destroyed?

God has demonstrated time and time again that this is not the case. Here's another example:

I'll cite just one more:



Well, I said one more, but I remember another:



So it's very clear to see that God does not will for the unrighteous to be destroyed.

It's not odd at all. It's simply a way to express what God wants vs. what He permits. For example, God permits anyone to choose to be lost, but His choice is that all be saved.

No, not correct. What I said is that from Jesus' treatment of the adulteress, we see God's ideal will in terms of how she should be treated. In other words, if God Himself were present during the incident, we see in the actions of Jesus Christ how He Himself would have acted. Now if Moses, or any other human being, would have acted in the same way that God Himself would have acted, it's really difficult to see how this could be characterized as "sin."

No, that wasn't my conclusion.

I think you're taking a dangerous course here. It is in Jesus Christ that we see what God is really like. You seem to be assuming that God can say anything at all, even things explicitly contrary to His law, or to His will, and we should simply do them, because it is God who is speaking. This way of thinking implies that God wishes that we obey simply on the basis of His authority, as opposed to our being convinced that His principles are correct.

Given that the at the end of time Satan will be impersonating Christ, if God (or Christ) is capable of commanding us to do things contrary to His law, how do you propose to know who is speaking, Satan or Christ?

The law of God is an expression of God's nature, which is "the service of love." How could God command us to do something contrary to His nature, contrary to "the service of love"?

God does not desire mindless obedience. He desires that we obey Him because we are convinced of His character, that He is good, and that His law is good.



A slavish obedience is one that obeys only because God speaks. This is not what God desires. He desires that He be loved and obeyed because He is worthy of love, because we have an intelligent appreciation of His character.

Here is basically the crux of our disagreement: the definition of "will." The word "will" can mean more than one thing. I think we may in the end agree if we can but understand this word. "Will" can mean "want" or "desire." It can also mean "ordain" or "choose." You have been looking at the former, while I have been pointing out the occasions for the latter. None of us here would say that God WANTS to destroy people. But He does ordain it. He must. His law of love is too strong to permit the sinners to live forever to their own misery. His law of love is too strong to permit them to hurt others without consequence. His justice will protect the righteous from those who choose to be His enemies. His law of love has given them the choice, and He respects that choice, even though they should choose the way of death.

None of us here would say that God WANTS to destroy people. But He does ordain it. He must. His law of love is too strong to permit the sinners to live forever to their own misery. His law of love is too strong to permit them to hurt others without consequence.

The Jews had forged their own fetters; they had filled for themselves the cup of vengeance. In the utter destruction that befell them as a nation, and in all the woes that followed them in their dispersion, they were but reaping the harvest which their own hands had sown. Says the prophet: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;" "for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity." Hosea 13:9; 14:1. Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work. 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.

His law of love is too strong to permit the sinners to live forever to their own misery.

Alright, but did God merely "permit" the flood? hell? the death of Uzzah, Nadab, & Abihu? I think you must accept that God ordained these things. Nadab did not strike himself dead; God acted proactively to cause it.

God Himself would have acted as Moses did, for it was God Himself who told Moses to do it. Why do you not ask Moses about the time that "Moses" acted as "Christ" and "Christ" acted as you see "Moses" having acted? I refer to the time that God told Moses to stand aside so that He could destroy the Israelites. Moses saved them by his own pleadings on their behalf.

God does not desire the destruction of any.(COL 133)

Then I have somehow failed to understand your logic. It seems illogical to me that Moses could have both stoned the Sabbath-breaker in obedience to God, and dispersed the crowd who would stone him as Christ did in the New Testament, since you seem to be saying that it is both un-Christlike to stone him and un-Christlike to disobey God's command.

If I believed that God would say "things explicitly contrary to His law," then I would not be believing in God.

That is simply not an option, my friend! The fact that God DID say them, then, is final proof of the fact that He has expressed His will. If you are not convinced that His principles are correct, it is still far safer to obey Him simply on the basis of His authority, than to choose a different course because of your doubts about His wisdom. "Be not faithless, but believing."

This must be accomplished in the same way that Abraham did--by continual communication with God so that you recognize His voice. "My sheep hear my voice..." I think the story of Abraham is given to teach us this very lesson of implicit trust in God, and that we must be able to recognize His voice.

TE:A slavish obedience is one that obeys only because God speaks. This is not what God desires. He desires that He be loved and obeyed because He is worthy of love, because we have an intelligent appreciation of His character.

GC:You are speaking truth here, but it only represents part of the picture. Of course God wants us to obey him because we love him.

But in one of Jesus' parables, the concept of implicit obedience, whether we desired to obey or not, was also taught. The son who did what his father asked, even though he had first said he would not, was the one who had obeyed. I believe that if we ever exalt our own reasoning above a "thus saith the Lord," we are on shaky ground.

If God gives a command, we are always safe to follow it without question--so long as we know His voice. God will never instruct us to do something expecting that we should reason it out in our own minds first, and possibly do something different than what He has asked.

No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.” (John 15:15)