HomeFeatureWhy I Believe a God of Love Kills    

Comments

Why I Believe a God of Love Kills — 48 Comments

  1. true, God punishes in various ways, that is through; starvation, sickness, floods, death .etc . by this we get to see His mark of glory and honour.

    (2)
    • We must not confuse disasters such as drought leading to starvation, sickness, floods and death from various causes with God's "punishment." That is a view of God that Satan has worked hard to ascribe to God, and, unfortunately the Jews of Christ's time had accepted that view. They believed that the blind, the crippled and the ill were under the curse of God.

      By contrast, the story of Job demonstrates clearly how Satan can and does produce all sorts of "natural" disasters. They are not "acts of God," as insurance companies like to call them. The Bible tells us that all good things come from God. (James 1:17) Satan is the one who constantly seeks to destroy whomever he can. (1 Peter 5:8)

      Christ taught that disasters are not the result of God's curse. For instance, when men were killed by a falling tower at Siloam, He said that they were no worse sinners than His listeners. (Luke :4-5)

      As Christians, it is our responsibility to speak well of God - to reveal in our own lives and with our personal testimony that He is a loving God and always acts with our best interests in mind. No exceptions!

      In invite you to also read the post by James Rafferty, "Natural Disasters - an Act of God?"

      (14)
  2. Nowhere in the Bible or God's messages to us through Ellen White do I see any clear expression that there is any time or circumstance a Christian may kill. God has the power to protect us, as is demonstrated in the story of the three men in the fiery furnace. Did they kill anyone defending themselves? No. Yet their lives were clearly threatened. They left the choice up to God, knowing that God had the power to save them, but might or might not choose to do so, according to His will. I believe that is how all Christians should view any life-threatening situation, to fully submit our will to God and accept His choice in the matter of our continued survival. "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."

    (4)
    • Hi Dave. I have I provided this Biblical evidence in my post.

      . After all, the Jews in the book of Esther were allowed to defend themselves. See Esther 8:13. In Nehemiah they worked next to their weapons. See Nehemiah 4:16. And while Jesus chastised Peter for defending Him with the sword, that was because Jesus was already on the path to sacrifice Himself in behalf of humanity, as foretold by Scripture. Jesus still encouraged the disciples to have swords for their own sake. See Luke 22:36-38.

      Also there is,

      “If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image.”
      ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭6‬ ‭NLT‬‬

      And there is the story of the flood where God’s love put sinners put of their misery. And of course, the destroying angel in the first Passover in Exodus.

      So there is plenty of biblical evidence that God kills and Permits people to kill to defend their own lives. Again the verse I started off with in Ecclesiastes three says there is a time to kill.

      Again, it is the fact that God does kill that makes Him a God of love. A love that does not kill at appropriate times is not real love.

      (15)
      • God is perfect. He knows a person's innermost thoughts. He knows if a person has rejected Him permanently and is beyond any possibility of reconciliation. We are not perfect, and we do not know any of those things. During the time of the Theocracy, when God literally and personally led His people, when He ordered them to kill, it was Him acting through them. That is no longer that case today. Now, we cannot ever kill another human being and be assured it was according to God's will. I believe that if there was any exception to that, God's messages to us through Ellen White would make that clear, yet in her writings she never describes Christians killing in their own defense or the defense of their families in modern times, or in the last days, she says that we will be martyred for our beliefs. I will trust in God to protect me and my loved ones.

        (5)
        • Hi Dave,

          AS far as theocracy, in Romans 13 Paul still tells us that those who protect the laws of the land do not carry a sword in vain. Paul also tells us the man with the sword is placed there by God. The problem is many have misused their authority and thus have misrepresented God. We definately need to show compassion wherever we have authority.

          I certainly hope you are never in a situation where you would have to use violent force to defend your family. That is a terrible situation to be in. I have had friends tell me they believe it would be okay to kill in self defense to protect their family, but they would not be able to make themselves do it even though they think it would be okay. It is a situation no one would want to be in! However, when Pearl Harbor was attacked should we have just not retaliated and just prayed? How many countries would be celebrating religious liberty if every Christian soldier refused to bear arms? Remember the Adventist church supports those who refuse to bear arms while also supporting those who do bear arms. Desmond Doss had a tremendous testimony but even he was aiding those who were killing, and the US would never have won the war and be a nation with religious freedom if every soldier was a Desmond Doss. God does not call everyone to be conscientious objectors.

          If I were to walk into a school and see a man shooting kids I would do everything in my might to stop him even kill him in order to save lives and keep the sixth commandment.

          I personally do not see love or Jesus as being passive. When Jesus said to turn the other cheek if someone slaps you on the face He was using figure of speech. A slap in the face was then and is now considered figure of speech for verbal insult. If Jesus got out whips and turned tables over in a temple and said it would be better for millstone to be hung around the neck of a child offender and they be tossed into the bottom of the sea then I can see Jesus condoning using physical violence to protect others. Jesus is God. God is love. And a God of love kills when necessary. That is what makes Him love.

          God is not a vengeful God waiting to strike us with fire and brimstone whenever we mess up. However we need to be careful not to go to the other extreme and present a God who will not kill when necessary. We need a balanced view of God so we can see a balanced view of His love which is not vengeful but also is not passive.

          (9)
          • I agree with you 100%. Anyone who would watch children being murdered and not do everything possible to stop the perpetrator, is just a coward.

            (2)
        • Ah, Dave, I very much appreciate your observations regarding God's judgment in ending sinners' lives even before they self-destruct.

          You provide food for thought when you write

          Now, we cannot ever kill another human being and be assured it was according to God's will.

          Can you consider that there is a difference between one individual killing another and a government sentencing a person to death for murder or an equally heinous crime?

          I see that God instituted capital punishment way back in Genesis 9:6. Would it not be be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard?

          Paul tells us that God gave government certain authorities, including the authority to tax and to "bear the sword." (Romans 13:1-7) "To bear the sword" to me represents the authority to execute. Of course, we would hope that the government would employ judges who judge righteously, according to standards set by God in the Old Testament, requiring at least two real witnesses. (Deut. 17:6; Num. 35:30)

          How do you see it?

          (4)
          • Genesis 9:6 is ambiguous as to its meaning. Roman’s 13:1-7 doesn’t say that governments have the right to “bear the sword.” At least not in the KJV. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible or in God’s messages to us through Ellen White where there is any clear instruction that in modern times an individual or a group (army) or institution (government) is given by God permission to kill humans under any circumstances. I do see where God tells us that both Justice and Vengeance are His. I’m also reminded that if you read all the stories of all the battles fought by “God’s people” in the entire Bible, the battles where the fewest of His people died, and they had the greatest victory, were the ones where God did ALL the fighting, and they did none. I believe that at best it is doubtful whether it is acceptable to God that humans are killed by other humans under any circumstances. If it was, I believe God’s messages to us through Ellen White would clarify that for us.

            (0)
            • Hi Dave, Genesis 9:6 is ambiguous in its meaning? In my humble opinion it is very clear. I wonder how other Bible studies on other topics would go if we just said every plain this saith the Lord is ambiguous?

              (2)
      • Genesis 9:6 in the KJV is perhaps a better translation, and does not specifically indicate that tho0se who kill humans should be killed by humans, it may as likely refer to the known likelihood that people who kill people are themselves more likely to be killed by other people. God often allows that which is not His will, and we see manyn other examples in the Bible where that is commented on and described.

        Also, God's messages to us through Ellen White do not, to my knowledge, indicate any instance where God has given modern humans permission to kill other humans.

        (1)
        • Dave, God has not given us Ellen White to answer all our questions. He expects us to study things for ourselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You mention that

          Also, God's messages to us through Ellen White do not, to my knowledge, indicate any instance where God has given modern humans permission to kill other humans.

          To that I reply that neither has she written anything to indicate that civil governments do not have the authority to "bear the sword ... to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Romans 13:4)

          A common-sense reading of that passage, with context, would seem to indicate that God has authorized rulers to punish evildoers by using "the sword." And what is the normal use of "the sword"?

          (4)
        • 1 Peter 2:13-14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

          14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."

          Submission implies following orders or laws. If you're in the military or certain branches of government, you may be required to kill.

          Furthermore, castle doctrine allows killing and is encouraged by my local Sheriff as a money saving measure.

          (1)
        • You are right Dave about the difference between Old Testament times and now. Remember before the cross they need to sacrifice a lamb but after, no, and before the cross there was capital punishment for breaking the commandments but after it was done away with.
          Jesus plainly told Peter he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword.
          No where do I find the disciples or any of Christ followers fighting for their lives. And matter of a fact Jesus told Piolet in John 18:36 that His kingdom was not of this world, if it was, then they would fight for Him. Another thing was Jesus was being rejected and killed because he would not make His kingdom of this world.
          And this is why as Adventist we should not bare arms, because the principles of the kingdom have changed the heart from the ways of this world, in which we are told it is Satan who creates war to cause men to die in a lost condition, so why should we be a part of causing that? So the follower of Christ should be about saving lives, after all Jesus said He came into the world to save lives and not condemn. This is why Desmond chose to do what he did. God has given all of His followers gardian angels to protect us and we should have the faith that Desmond did that God will protect us and nothing is going to happen to us that He does not deem best, after all that is what true faith does, and Jesus showed us by example how to trust our Father in heaven and not yield to the power we might have to protect our selves, just like Jesus did who had the power by one word to protect himself. After all we are told that God’s people will be unarmed just as Jacob’s clan was when his brother Esau was coming with armed men to kill them. We need to live like those described in Heb 11, this is not our home, and remember Jesus words “For whoever desires to save his life, will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Matthew 16:25. So since the cross we live under grace and grace is what we should show to our enemies and trust in God.

          But yes God does kill as stated here.

          “ Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides me; I kill, and I make a live; I wound and I heal; nor is there any other who can deliver from my hand.
          Deut 32:39

          (5)
          • Dave and Richard,
            I appreciate your comments but I would like to point out that the circumstances that William was pointing out are not related to martyrdom. If we are being oersecuted by authorities for out preaching of the gospel, then killing is not the answer. However, if we are being persecuted, shoupd we runaway or hide from authorities so we may continue to preach the Gospel out side of prison?

            Also, in the event that your life is threatened by someone coming it you with a knife or gun, in believe that up to that point in the persons life, he or she has made their decision to reject God. If given time after that event that person may repent and yes taking their life may remove that opportunity, but dont you suppose that a God of love who is all powerful and all knowing would be capable of preserving that persons life so that they may repent. While I do not agree with the churlish saying "kill them all and let God sort them out" killing in self defense or in the defense of others is never condemned within the Bible or Ellen Whites writings.

            We are encouraged to ne take up arms, specifically referring to the civil war, but like many of her writings we must pray for discernment as to whether or not those particular writing were meant for all the church for all time or for specific people for specific times. Otherwise, her writing are contradictory by telling us to not eat eggs and cheese in certain parts of her writings and encouraging people to eat those same items for health reasons in other parts.

            I appreciate the open discussion as a physician and member of the armed forces.

            (3)
          • Richard, I would like to suggest a small amendment to your comment. You wrote

            Remember before the cross they need to sacrifice a lamb but after, no, and before the cross there was capital punishment for breaking the commandments but after it was done away with

            The God-given laws under God's government of Israel (theocracy) included capital punishment for certain offenses.

            Even the Israelites could not enforce those laws much of the time when they were under other governments, such as the Babylonians or Assyrians. In the time of Christ they were under Roman government and could not administer capital punishment.

            Whether or not governments have the authority to administer to capital punishment has nothing to do with the sanctuary services or the cross. It has to do with whoever has the governmental authority to exercise.

            In the time of Christ, it was the government of Rome. And it was during the Roman occupation (which was already corrupt at the time) that Paul and admonished Christians to submit to the government. (See Romans 13:3-7, Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14)

            (0)
            • Inge, thank you for your reply. Yes it went to the governments of this world, because the Jews had rejected Christ and His kingdom which was to change the heart or mind of those who made up the Christian church. So the change was brought about by the cross, of which the Jews both used and rejected Christ and His Kingdom. But yes we are to yield to the government’s of this world, as Paul says in Titus to what is good, that’s because they are not perfect, many of God’s people have been put to death by those who we have been admonished to obey. So the government’s of this world is like going to the tree of good and evil. Matter of fact if you read the Geneva Bible, it states all governments are evil, but King James did not like that statement and so had it changed

              “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and against the worldly gouernours, the princes of the darkenesse of this worlde, against spirituall wickednesses, which are in ye hie places.”
              ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭6‬:‭12‬ ‭GNV‬‬

              Which makes sense that Jesus would say to Pilot that His Kingdom was not of this world. And I can see how those text you shared will be used against those who will not except the Sunday laws in the end, of which in this country separation of church and state is the only thing that holds back the persecution that will come with the Sunday laws and so when faced with these text at that time we must remember Peters words

              “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts‬ ‭5‬:‭29‬ ‭KJV‬‬

              As far as the two swords in Luke 22:38 there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of what Jesus said here. The Catholic Church interprets it as a right for the state and the church to put heretics to death, because one was for the church and one for the state.
              But I invite you to look that up in the SDA Bible Commentary and see what it says, starting with verse 24-38. Let us follow Christ example of trusting and obeying the Will of God, who has promised to never leave or forsake us and as he told Peter, that one day he would be led to go where he did not want to go but Peter loved His Lord so much as to lay down his life as well.

              (0)
  3. William,

    I appreciate you taking the time to write an article discussing a very important topic concerning the character of God. What we believe about God and His ways of dealing with His children, especially His wayward kids have a profound impact on our relationship with Him and others.

    After reading your article I couldn’t help but be taken aback by the shortage of biblical evidence to support your claims of a God who kills. I figured it is due to the fact that this is just a type of blog and not a Bible study, but a topic of such importance cannot be done much justice in a couple of paragraphs, but the effort is appreciated, nonetheless!

    I noticed that you used an example of an abused wife/abusive husband and “hero” new husband to support your claim. However, when man expresses his wrath, no matter how delayed, or how “justified” it seems I am reminded of the text in James 1:20, which says, “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” It doesn’t say the wrath of “wicked man”, or the wrath of “the unrighteous man,” but simply the wrath of MAN (humans). So, when man shows wrath, according to scripture this does not produce the righteousness of God, period. So, your example of a meek and mild husband threatening another man with a violent death is not reflective of the righteousness of God.

    His tears for His wayward children are not joyous tears, but sorrowful. Recall Christ’s tear-filled speech looking over Jerusalem expressing His desire to protect His children as a hen her little ones.

    Another major issue with the article is the misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the 6th Commandment. You seem to believe that what the commandment prohibits is not killing, but murdering. But this is false according to scripture. The same word from the commandment which is “ratsach” H7523 (kill) in Hebrew is used in Deut. 4:42. And this is a case of an “accidental killing” not premeditated with ill-intent. And there are more.

    And just in case you may believe that the word that should be used for accidental killing is “muwth” H4191. The Bible uses this term (muwth) in cases of premeditated, unjustified killings.

    “The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay (muwth, H4191) him.” Psalm 37:32.

    “But Jonathan Saul’s son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee: …” (1 Sam 19:2).

    So, there is much that your article fails to mention and also fails to accurately present. Just because the Bible says that there is a “time to kill,” has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God actively kills people. In the same way you say, “The Bible does not say there is a time to let the wicked self-destruct.” The text also does not say that there is a time to let God kill people. You have exercised eisegesis in your interpretations.

    Just because you are able to hold the opposing idea of a God of Love who kills does not mean that it is what the Bible teaches. I have no issue with you believing that about God, but I do take issue with you presenting it as a biblical fact by using flawed man’s wrath and misinterpreted terms.

    Isaiah 53:9 - And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done NO VIOLENCE, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

    Hebrew 7:26 - For such an high priest became us, who is holy, HARMLESS, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

    In each of these texts, Christ is revealed MUCH differently than the “meek and mild” new husband of the formerly abused wife you presented. In the case you present, this new husband is not fully “non-violent” because eventually he will CHANGE and be willing to kill. This also says that his “harmless” attribute has an expiration date dependent on circumstances.
    But the God I serve is the SAME, yesterday, today and forevermore! If He has done NO VIOLENCE, He will NEVER do violence. If He is HARMLESS, He will ALWAYS be harmless, and a non-violent and harmless person CANNOT EVER harm or kill another human being.

    (4)
    • Hi Benjamin, I appreciate your passion for helping others understand the love of God. After all, we just read in Christ's Object Lessons, pages 415-416, a few weeks ago in our Sabbath school lesson that the last message to go out to the world is removing all of the misunderstandings about the character of God and showing his true love. This is also why I love the quote in Gospel Workers, page 315, that every truth must be studied in the light of God‘s love and in light of the cross.

      The conversation I am having with you right now is very similar to the conversation I was having with my good friend at Olive Garden that I wrote about in the article. So I hope you will give me the permission to consider you a good friend as well, even though we have never met in person.

      I understand you believe that my article is lacking scriptural references to my point. As you may notice, my posts are generally short, and that means they are not exhaustive. I thought I had provided Scripture references, although my point is simply that while my friend was trying to prove that God does not kill and that’s why God can be loved, I believe there is no reason to prove that God does not kill in order for him to be loved.

      I realize that our current culture is very quick to judge those who use their authority to enforce the law. And I wonder if that might be what is making people feel pressured to portray God as a God who does not kill?

      I believe we can take the Bible as it reads and know that there are times when God does kill. The illustration I used, I thought it was fitting to make a point of how we can trust our heavenly Daddy, knowing that he can and does kill.

      You correctly observe that human illustrations are flawed. Yet Christ Himself used such illustrations - which each one making a single point. For other biblical illustrations, consider these:

      In the account of the children of Israel finding refuge in Egypt and then being made slaves, we see multiple instances in their deliverance that indicate that God did, indeed, cause suffering and death. I believe that through these experiences He wanted to call the Egyptians to repentance by helping them realize the powerlessness of their gods. The story culminates with the LORD Himself announcing that " I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD." (Ex. 12:12) You can read the rest of the story in that chapter, ending with, "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle." (Ex. 12:29)

      Please consider the Israelites celebrating in Exodus 15:1-21 after the Egyptians were destroyed in the Red Sea. I believe they were not just celebrating the fact that the Egyptians died, but the fact that they were now relieved from their tormentors very similar to what I explained in my illustration with the family. I note that this event is enshrined in Heb 11:29, in the faith chapter of the Bible. And the Apostle John in vision saw the redeemed sing a very similar song in Rev. 15:3.

      And then there's the story of David killing Goliath. (1 Sam 17:37-46) David understood that God would deliver the Israelites by enabling him to kill their God-defying enemy.

      I asked my friend at Olive Garden all of these questions and, of course, she had answers, and I’m sure you do too. That is why we need to be careful when we say that there is no biblical evidence for an opposing view. I have studied with Sunday keepers who have told me that there is absolutely no biblical evidence that we should keep the Sabbath, even after I shared the evidence with them. That is why I am learning that, instead of saying, "there is no biblical evidence," to say "I fail to see the biblical evidence."

      I am glad you referenced the Sermon on the Mount. That helps us understand that God‘s people are all on a journey. When the children of Israel were first taken out of Egypt, all they could understand was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But after years and years of God revealing His love, Jesus was able to share and even better way.

      As far as Jesus saying to turn the other cheek, I think there is a big difference between turning the other cheek when somebody slaps me on the face and me turning the other cheek when someone slaps my family member or a little child on the face. Jesus told me to turn the other cheek when someone slaps me in the face. He never told me to turn the other cheek when someone slaps a family member of mine in the face.

      Regarding the 6th Commandment, it is good to remember the spirit of the law. Genesis 9 indicates that capital punishment biblical. Now if I have a gun and I walk into a mall and see someone doing a mass shooting, what should I do? Turn the other cheek? Just pray that God will take care of the situation? This may be controversial, but I believe that if I take out my gun and shoot the mass shooter dead, then I have just saved many more lives and am in harmony with the sixth Commandment. We have to leave a bit of room for individual Spirit guidance in such situations.

      From my study, I believe a God of love does kill - even though it is a "strange work" to Him. (Isa 28:21) He was just as much a God of love when he destroyed the wicked in the flood as he was when he hung on the cross.

      (6)
      • Hi William,

        Part 1

        Thank you for your response! And yes, I agree that Satan has cast a shadow over God’s character and he exults over our misunderstanding of it.

        Thank you so much for mentioning that quote from Gospel Workers, page 315. Yes, every truth must be in “light of God‘s love and in light of the cross.” And what does the cross tell us?? It tells us much, but one thing it definitively tells us without controversy is that God would rather DIE for His enemies than to KILL them. He would rather forgive His persecutors than to condemn.
        And this all goes in line with His words spoken to James and John in Luke 9:56 – “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them…”

        You stated that, “I believe there is no reason to prove that God does not kill in order for him to be loved.”
        Oh He can be “loved” but that love is framed in fear. How can fear not be present in a person who watches the Object of their love kill and slaughter those who reject Him? In that person’s mind they must entertain the thought that if they would somehow choose otherwise that they would suffer the same fate. 1 John 4:18 says, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.”

        If God believes that force is eventually a good idea to use, then it would make sense to use it at the beginning of the controversy instead of prolonging through so much death and destruction to only do what you could have always done.

        You mention the current culture as making “people feel pressured to portray God as a God who does not kill.” I am not sure of the culture you exist in William, but it is the exact opposite from my vantage point. Actually, it is the ways of the culture that is the paintbrush we use to portray God. I would say that more people would rather God kill and get rid of the people causing all the evil in the world.

        People dislike the justice system for housing r**ist, pe**philes, and other heinous violations instead of outright putting them in front of a firing squad. Citizens despise the fact that their tax dollars are paying for the rent of the individuals in prison cells instead of using tax dollars in a better way. So, I fail to see what you are saying about culture pressuring a desire for God not to kill.

        You make this statement, “I believe we can take the Bible as it reads.”

        That’s a very dangerous approach to a spiritual book based on principles. It is the very fact of taking many texts in the Bible as it reads that confuses people about the character of God. I could give plenty of examples that should seeming “contradictory texts” and making God look like a liar and deceiver, that if one is to take your counsel and “take it as it reads” should not trust the Bible or Christianity. I believe we must correctly interpret texts, not just get the English words on the page right.

        You stated this about human illustrations, “Yet Christ Himself used such illustrations.”
        Of course, Christ used human illustrations in order to meet the darkened human understanding where it is. How else could He reach us? God speaks to us in imperfect language, this is also more proof why taking everything as it reads on the surface is a bad idea for the serious Bible student. This is also why there is much debate on whether or not hell is an eternally burning firehouse, because Christ using the human understanding of His day, and spoke about the rich man and Lazarus, and now we have people using His words as evidence for an eternally burning hell.

        You made this claim that “God did, indeed, cause suffering and death.”
        I personally find this statement very sad. How does this statement harmonize with James 1:17 which says, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”
        How does God work antagonistic to Himself? How can John say in 10:10 that “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” So, God coming to give life involves death and suffering?? I’m sorry that doesn’t make sense to me.

        (3)
      • Part 2 of my comments...

        You brought up the story of Egypt and the plague of the death of the firstborn, “I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt”

        Don’t leave out other vital verses from the account. We must take in the whole picture and not just the parts we believe support our claims. Ex. 12:23 says, “23 For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will “pass over” the door, and will not suffer “the destroyer” to come in unto your houses to smite you. I don’t want to make this even longer than it already is, but if you study the term “Passover” it actually means “To protect.” Also, the LORD says, He will not suffer the “destroyer” to come unto your houses to smite you.

        William, who is the “destroyer?”

        Your answer to this will prove very vital and informative in this discussion.

        I would suggest reading 1 Cor. 10:10 & Rev. 9:11. *Hint: It’s not God.

        Speaking of celebrations, you stated that, “I believe they were not just celebrating the fact that the Egyptians died, but the fact that they were now relieved from their tormentors”
        Again, using a human celebrating is not the best way to address God’s character. Did God celebrate that those whom He created and loved just as much as the Israelites are now drowned in the Red Sea? The Bible gives us a look into the heart of God when the wicked perishes, He is not pleased, and He desires that ALL be saved. So, using flawed humanity’s celebratory cheers only provides glimpses that cannot be trusted until put in the frame of Calvary as you so rightly stated in the beginning of your comment. This is about God’s character not man’s.

        You further state, “And then there's the story of David killing Goliath.”
        It would seem odd to me that David would be prohibited BY GOD from building Him (God) a house due to the fact that had blood on his hands. 1 Chron. 28:3 – “But God said to me, ‘You shall not build a house for My name, because you have been a man of war and have shed blood.’”

        Also, and again, God meets darkened humanity where we are, and He does not condemn us for our darkness. He accommodates. So, when we see David killing Goliath that is not an Endorsement from God that killing is a good thing. It shows the mercy of God that He is willing to strive (work) with man even though that man is far from His perfect will.

        I can accept that correction, that I can say, “I don’t see the biblical evidence.” Because I know as well as you do, that we can make the Bible say whatever we want. And that is why we cannot take many scriptures “as they read” but we must correctly interpret scripture. I don’t know about you, but my Exegetical Tool is the Life of Jesus.

        You rightly shared that, “When the children of Israel were first taken out of Egypt, all they could understand was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But after years and years of God revealing His love, Jesus was able to share and even better way.”
        I am very surprised to hear you say this, because this really points us to the truth of God’s character. Yes, I have said over and over that humanity’s minds were darkened and God is constantly accommodating (not endorsing) their frailty so that He may show them (and us) His true way. The fact that you would say this is shocking, since you still hold to an “eye for an eye” as shown in your own examples.

        You said, “He never told me to turn the other cheek when someone slaps a family member of mine in the face.”
        Jesus was being arrested and Peter unsheathed a sword. Jesus said He was wrong. Peter had a Friend being mistreated and he tried to defend Him. Jesus said, you’re wrong. Not because it wasn’t the best time to do it, but because this was not in keeping with the operation of His kingdom at all. If someone slaps your family member, by all means restrain them, but to commit violence as a response to violence is un-Christlike as clearly seen in Jesus’ life.

        You state, “but I believe that if I take out my gun and shoot the mass shooter dead, then I have just saved many more lives and am in harmony with the sixth Commandment.”
        If you are in the mall with a gun and you believe in using violence, then it will be called ‘right” in your eyes according to your conscience, but you cannot say that your act is considered absolutely good and the only way that this crime could have been prevented. To give praise to your carnal weapon to stop violence is to forget that God is our ultimate Protector.
        Don’t avoid another salvific act in the same situation; the prayer of a righteous (unarmed) man in that mall can do more than kill the shooter and save others but can be a great witness and eternally save all who are present EVEN the shooter. The war is first and foremost spiritual; therefore, the best weapons are first and foremost spiritual.

        You mention it is a "strange work” of God to kill, but brother, strange work does not mean uncharacteristic work. God’s strange act will not be a change in His character, because He does not change, not even for his strange act, which I believe it would do well for you to read the surrounding verses for context to better understand what is going on there.
        Also, why would it be strange for God to kill if He has been doing it for 6000 years according to your view?

        (3)
        • Benjamin, as I read your comment to William, I see a great deal of personal interpretation. That's not necessarily wrong, per se, but it is also not THE only and correct meaning. For example, you wrote,

          You brought up the story of Egypt and the plague of the death of the firstborn, “I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt”

          Don’t leave out other vital verses from the account. We must take in the whole picture and not just the parts we believe support our claims. Ex. 12:23 says, “23 For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will “pass over” the door, and will not suffer “the destroyer” to come in unto your houses to smite you. I don’t want to make this even longer than it already is, but if you study the term “Passover” it actually means “To protect.” Also, the LORD says, He will not suffer the “destroyer” to come unto your houses to smite you.

          William, who is the “destroyer?”

          Your answer to this will prove very vital and informative in this discussion.

          I would suggest reading 1 Cor. 10:10 & Rev. 9:11. *Hint: It’s not God.

          You suggest that it is not Jehovah/Yahweh that does the destroying, even though the Bible literally says,

          I will strike all the firstborn .... I am Yahweh/Jehovah

          You say this on the basis of Ex. 12:23 which reads in the KJV and a number of other versions:

          For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

          A straightforward reading leads most readers to believe that "the Lord" (that is Yahweh) will "smite the Egyptians" but will pass over the houses with the blood on the door posts. You focus on "the destroyer," appearing to suggest that the "destroyer" is Satan, thus making Satan cooperating with God in the execution of His judgment. But that is not sustainable by looking at the Hebrew word used here. The noun "destroyer" is actually translated from a verb phrase (action phrase) meaning chiefly "to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay." Thus a more literal but more awkward translation would be

          I [Yahweh] ... will not allow the destroying [that I am doing] to enter your house.

          This reading appears to be corroborated by Ex. 12:13 in which God takes responsibility for the destroying plague:

          I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

          The NLT translates Ex. 12:23 NLT this way

          23 For the Lord will pass through the land to strike down the Egyptians. But when he sees the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe, the Lord will pass over your home. He will not permit his death angel to enter your house and strike you down.

          That looks like a legitimate translation to me because there are a number of other places in the Bible in which God commissions His angels to mete out destruction and death. (One that comes to mind is the Angel that destroyed the Assyrian army and others appear in the book of Revelation.)

          Thus I suggest it is not wise to put too much weight on individual words gathered from different contexts. Rather, read the passage as a whole in the given context.

          You also suggest that the sixth commandment forbids killing rather than murder - again by attempting to extract precise meaning from individual words, which is not possible in the Hebrew language. If the 6th commandment forbade killing, per se, God would be most capricious in going against His own law and requiring capital punishment for certain crimes when He ruled Israel directly in a theocracy! If, on the other hand, the commandment forbids murder, He is being perfectly consistent in requiring capital punishment for murder - to prevent murder from becoming commonplace.

          While "we can make the Bible say whatever we want to," I believe it is not wise to do so. Instead, it is wise to pray for insight and read the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as it was written, keeping in mind that writers use figures of speech as well as prophetic symbolism.

          (P.S. I am not an expert in biblical languages, but my husband knows just enough Hebrew to know that a Hebrew word can mean many different things, depending on context. I rely on the BlueLetterBible.org for my insight into the meaning of original Hebrew and Greek words. )

          (6)
          • *Disclaimer: Every use of CAPS is for emphasis only. I am not yelling, shouting, or making ad hominem attacks at you or anyone else mentioned in my comments or any other reader who may feel they are being indirectly addressed.

            Thank you for your response, Inge!

            I actually think it would be better to hone in on one particular point in your comments instead of overwhelming you with an altogether response that turns into 2 or 3 parts.

            You said, “You suggest that it is not Jehovah/Yahweh that does the destroying, even though the Bible literally says,
            I will strike all the firstborn .... I am Yahweh/Jehovah”

            I really wish that you actually dealt with everything that I brought for this particular defense, instead of appearing to pick and choose where your paradigm seemingly fits to support your view.

            So, you tell me, Who is the destroyer in 1 Cor. 10:10? Or in Rev. 9:11?

            Are there 2 destroyers?

            Holding to literalism will fail you. Will you keep the same “literal” energy towards the reading of Ezek. 14:9?

            “And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I THE LORD HAVE DECEIVED that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.”

            Serious Question: Does God deceive us?

            Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that HE SHOULD LIE; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

            Serious Question: Is deception lying? Or is it something different when God does it?

            This is yours and William’s literalism put to test. I could give more examples, but I think this individual one will suffice.

            Why does the Bible literal say that God deceives, but also says that He doesn’t lie? Is this a contradiction? If it is not a contradiction, then you have forfeited your original position of taking the Bible as it reads and must adopt my position of correct interpretation, which neither of you gave a nod to.

            You stated, “You focus on "the destroyer," appearing to suggest that the "destroyer" is Satan, thus making Satan cooperating with God in the execution of His judgment.”

            I’m sorry, Inge, but how does God protecting His people from destruction from another source (Satan) put Satan in cooperation with God?? If anything, this is the clear evidence of two opposing forces, not teamwork.

            *Btw, I have the BLB app on my phone, and website bookmarked on my computer. I use it often.

            By giving the definition of destroyer (H7843) in Hebrew I find it quite strange that you will still insist on these actions as being sourced from God?!?

            Serious Question: Are things like corruption, ruin, decay, etc. GOOD things? (Please answer this).

            If they are NOT good, then how do they come (Sourced) from God?

            If you call these things GOOD, then we can expect them in Heaven, or were in existence in Eden.

            So, I am hopeful that you will agree that these things are NOT good.

            So, let me quote you, “The Bible tells us that ALL GOOD things come from God. (James 1:17) SATAN is the one who constantly seeks to DESTROY whomever he can. (1 Peter 5:8)” (emphasis mine).

            Wouldn’t ALL GOOD things mean NO BAD THINGS?

            If you are attributing the destruction (NOT GOOD things) happening in Exodus to God (the Source of ALL that is GOOD), then Inge, I am sorry, but you are either intentionally contradicting yourself or experiencing severe cognitive dissonance.

            Let’s look at James 1:17 together,

            “Every GOOD gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

            Notice the phrase, “with whom is no VARIABLENESS, neither shadow of TURNING.”

            I hope you agree that that means, God’s GOODness does not change, where He at times does UNgood things, like cause decay, corruption, or ruin. Agree??

            Notice later in the book of James 3:11, 12,

            “Doth a fountain (SOURCE) send forth at the SAME place sweet water AND bitter?
            Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain (SOURCE) BOTH yield salt water AND fresh.

            James is providing INCREDIBLE insight into this discussion!

            In chapter 1:17, he uses the word FATHER. What is a Father? We know that every MAN is a MALE, but not every male is a FATHER. A Father PRODUCES, He is a SOURCE, or as James puts it in chapter 3, a FOUNTAIN. And this Source produces only GOOD things as you said yourself in another comment that I quoted above.

            Therefore, if God is the Father (Source) of Good, He CANNOT ALSO be the Source/Father/Fountain of BAD things like corruption, ruin and decay. James says that No fountain (Source) can yield two different things, like sweet water AND bitter, or good things AND bad things. The Father (Source) MUST produce “after its KIND.”

            This same word is used in Gen. 6:11 when it says, “The earth was corrupt (H7843) before God, and the earth was filled with violence.”

            Was the earth like this because God caused it??

            According to your view, Inge, you would have to say, “Yes” if you’re honest.

            And if your husband “knows just enough Hebrew” maybe you should ask him to explain the meaning of the term “Passover” to you. It’s only used 8 times in the OT. I think with an honest inquiry and study of that word (it won’t be a long study) you will see something very interesting to say the least.

            *Disclaimer: Every use of CAPS is for emphasis only. I am not yelling, shouting, or making ad hominem attacks at you or anyone else mentioned in my comments or any other reader who may feel they are being indirectly addressed.

            (0)
            • Thank you for your response, Benjamin. I will try to address one line of argument at a time

              Yahweh as Destroyer?

              You wrote previously, beginning with quoting my comment:

              You said, “You suggest that it is not Jehovah/Yahweh that does the destroying, even though the Bible literally says,
              I will strike all the firstborn .... I am Yahweh/Jehovah” (Ex. 12:12 NKJV)

              I really wish that you actually dealt with everything that I brought for this particular defense, instead of appearing to pick and choose where your paradigm seemingly fits to support your view.

              So, you tell me, Who is the destroyer in 1 Cor. 10:10? Or in Rev. 9:11?

              Surely you are not saying that I am only allowed to refer to the texts you cite, without seeking context in the rest of Scripture? 😉

              I mentioned earlier that

              The noun "destroyer" is actually translated from a verb phrase (action phrase) meaning chiefly "to destroy, corrupt, go to ruin, decay." Thus a more literal but more awkward translation would be

              I [Yahweh] ... will not allow the destroying [that I am doing] to enter your house. (Ex. 12:23)

              In other words, the word used is a verb meaning "to destroy," not the noun "destroyer." Thus instances of "the destroyer" in the New Testament does not seem relevant to this passage.

              It seems to me that you are far more of a "literalist" than I am - seeming to suggest that specific words have specific intrinsic meaning, regardless of context. The Hebrew language simply does not work that way. Neither does English, for that matter.

              On the basis of what you see as the intrinsic meaning of šāhat [Strong's #H7843], you seem to be arguing that God is not destroying the firstborn of the rebellious Egyptians, even though the Bible tells us the following in the same chapter:

              For I [Yahweh] will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. (Ex. 12:12)

              And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. (Ex. 12:13)

              For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians (Ex. 12:23

              For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians (Ex. 12:27)

              And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of livestock. (Ex. 12:29)

              I believe God communicates clearly in language we can understand without needing a degree in ancient languages. We can understand His Word, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by using our God-given common sense. Thus I am arguing for a "natural" or "common-sense" reading which considers the context of what is related.

              In all the passages cited above, God says that He will smite/destroy the firstborn of the Egyptians. But you appear to say that Satan will destroy the firstborn - and that appears to cast Satan in the role of Yahweh's enforcer - which you surely do not mean.

              You appear to be arguing for a literal reading - focusing on individual words, whose meaning you believe is intrinsic, regardless of context. I would like to suggest a "natural reading," under the direction of the Holy Spirit, which pays close attention to context. (Expressions have different meanings in different contexts.)

              You also write:

              Serious Question: Are things like corruption, ruin, decay, etc. GOOD things? (Please answer this).

              The destruction of the firstborn in Egypt was the trigger that caused Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, and that seems like a good result. God did what was necessary to deliver His people. He did that in other instances as well.

              For instance, we read that "the angel of the Lord" killed 185,000 Assyrians (2 Kings 19:35 and Isa. 37:36) after Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and mocked the Living God. The destruction of the Assyrian army was a very good thing that delivered God's people in this instance, leaving Sennacherib to return to Nineveh in defeat. (2 Kings 19:35) It's a great story, by the way. Read the whole chapter of 2 Kings 19.

              You write that

              If you call these things GOOD, then we can expect them in Heaven, or were in existence in Eden.

              Sorry, but I can't agree. That conclusion would be based on the fact that God does not change. (Malachi 3:6. James 1:17) It is true that God's character does not change, but that does not mean that He has to do precisely the same thing in the future that He did in the past. (That would be a literalistic, wooden interpretation!)

              God acts only for the good of His creation. He did so in the past. He does so in the present, and He will do so in the future. His character of love does not change.

              God's loving actions in the future will include the destruction of sin and sinners, which will leave this earth purified to be re-created and restored to its Edenic beauty. Sin and sinners will be no more, and one glad pulse of harmony and love will beat throughout God's universe. He will never again have to "destroy" because those who will live for eternity will have passed the test of loyalty and faith on this planet. They will be the ones who relied on Him in faith through even the worst trials.

              (See Ps 37:9-11, 28; Ps 92:7; Isa. 3:11: Eze 18:20; Mal 4:1; Matt 10:28; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rom 2:8; 2 Peter 3:7, 12; Revelation 20:9-15; Rev 21:8; Rev. 21)

              We both agree that God is love and only love. We just need to agree on a definition of love that fits the biblical story, don't you think?

              (2)
      • I agree with you.

        That strange work of God is strange because of his love for us.

        But just like we vindicate his name when we choose him and serve him in return for his love and sacrifice, those that reject him (and will ultimately be destroyed) also vindicate his name.

        They are evidence of the false accusations of Satan.

        Jesus name will be glorified even when we witness His strange act of destruction because he is love.

        (5)
  4. Interesting topic.

    Clearly, those that believe the commandment prohibits all killing are more interested on being right and proving God wrong.

    Just think about how many people the same God commanded the Israelites to kill.

    If killing is prohibited, why would God order them to kill?

    Clearly, either God is a liar or their interpretation is wrong.

    I chose the latter.

    God ordered the Israelites to kill their enemies because it is not the killing that he prohibits, it is the murder or the killing of the inocent (look it up in the Hebrew text).

    Those that God ordered destroyed (killed) were not innocent. God had found them guilty, and therefore they were no longer "innocent". God's judgments are perfect.

    We can see this from Cain's action to Jesus crucifixion. The killing of the innocent. Events that God found abhorrent because both, Abel and Jesus were innocent.

    It is important to keep in mind that just like king David, you should be merciful with a defeated enemy or a criminal. Once they surrender, wait for the police and have him arrested.

    Defending yourself and your family is a requirement for every Christian. You can choose not to do it, but don't blame God for your poor choices.

    (12)
    • You wrote

      We can see this from Cain's action to Jesus crucifixion. The killing of the innocent.

      We can also see from historical examples, beginning with Cain, what happens when murderers are allowed to live and multiply.

      I have been able to observe in my own lifetime the difference in modern countries with and without capital punishment for murder and other biblical punishments.

      I remember some of our church members - a missionary couple who had spent time in Singapore - how safe they felt in Singapore and how little serious crime there was in that city of 5 million or so. A woman could leave her purse on a park bench and come back the next day to pick it up just where she left it. (Punishment for theft was severe.) Women could walk the streets at night in perfect safety - not something you would want to try that in major Western citiy today.

      Even back then people decried the "barbaric" laws of Singapore that included public hanging for murder at dawn.

      Now let's consider if Americans who see themselves as more "humane" than the Singapore government and more humane than the Old Testament laws given by God ensured that fewer people died. (Results with a little help from AI)

      Singapore intentional homicide rate 0.1 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2022

      Detroit, MI: 40.9/100,000 in 2023.

      St. Louis, Missouri: 48.6 murders per 100,000 residents in 2024, down from 72.1 in 2019.

      New Orleans, Louisiana: In 2022, 53.6 per 100,000 residents.

      Washington DC: 40.4/100,000 in 2023.

      Oakland, CA: 28.1/100,000 in 2022.

      Memphis, Tennessee: Homicide rate of 18.2 per 100,000 residents in 2024.

      Atlanta, Georgia: 27.7/100,000 residents.

      Chicago 22.1/100,000 residents in 2022.

      New York City: 5.1/100,000 in 2023 - a surprise to me, but still 51 times higher than Singapore!

      So are "humane" modern governments actually more humane than God's laws? Let's check it out:

      Is it more humane to allow 2,424 people to be murdered than to execute 6 murderers in a city of nearly 6 million? (Singapore's numbers for executions match the intentional homicide rate!)

      Singapore's rate of .1/100,000 means 6 people were murdered and 6 executed an in a city of close to 6 million, which means a death rate of 2/million or 12 people losing their lives that year in Singapore.
      Washington DC's rate of 40.4/100,00 would be equivalent to 2,424 lives lost in Singapore! Feel free to check my math.

      (One reference: RIT: Center for Public Safety Initiatives)

      (1)
      • The problem is that the USA does have the death penalty, and it has been used frequently in certain states. I'm not an American and don't know the stats, but can we say that Texas (which has used the death penalty frequently) is safer than Michigan (which hasn't had the death penalty since the Adventist church was young)? I suspect not. It is also not used in an unbiased fashion. Just a little research will tell you that African Americans are much more likely to be executed than white Americans. The same is true of the poor and so on.

        Singapore is a dictatorship and perhaps more benevolent than some, but there are a lot of limits on human rights. Personally I don't want that kind of society, but it probably works for some. I don't judge countries for having their laws, but I don't know that it's cut and dry on this issue. My country, Canada has not had the death penalty for decades. I live in a larger (for Canada) city and I feel safe. Many Europeans would say the same.

        I'm not saying all this to say that death as a penalty for murder is not just. I think it is, but in our human society, I think I would rather let a murderer live than execute an innocent person or use that punishment in a way that's not just. But I respect everyone who thinks differently about this.

        (1)
        • Thanks, Christina. I'm not arguing for the death penalty in our society. Neither am I making the point that Singapore's government is ideal.

          I was trying to make the point that humanity's attempt to be kinder than God fails miserably.

          There are many problems with the American justice system, and that's why I think that a comparison between states that occasionally enforce a death penalty and those that do not doesn't prove much of anything. (Any comparison would have to be much more granular, but this blog is not the place for that.)

          A justice system based on the second table of the Decalogue is still the very best that humanity can come up with. The Mosaic laws provide examples of how to apply the principles in real life of that time, and they provide guidance for today. (No human government is authorized to interfere with a person's relationship with God and thus is not authorized to legislate or enforce the first table of the Decalogue.)

          (1)
          • The interesting thing is that God did enforce the death penalty on violations of the first table of the Decalogue. We have a record of both a Sabbath keeper and a blasphemer being executed. Of course Israel was a theocracy and had access to God's direct guidance in difficult court situations. Obviously much of this would not and could not apply to our day.

            One author I read noted that there are no penalties in the Ten Commandments; all penalties were part of supplementary laws, which suggests they are not as crucial. Of course, all sins ultimately lead to death so even if we are more "kind" in the way we treat criminals, they will still be subject to God's judgment.

            I think we can learn a lot from the judicial system that Israel had, though probably some of it was a concession by God to their own hardness of heart. (Jesus said as much about the divorce laws and I think Ellen White said the same about the cities of refuge - that they weren't actually God's ideal). It was also an unique time where the Urim and Thummim provided direct access to God. So I wouldn't feel it would be right to try to replicate it again. Not that most of us would have any opportunity to anyway, but I sense that some of the religious right would like to and the consequences of that would be truly scary.

            Anyway, I've said enough about this and am ready to let it die (no pun intended).

            (1)
  5. Some believe that when Jesus said to turn the other cheek that He was saying to accept violence without defending yourself, while many realize it was a figure of speech. Most Bible scholars agree that the slap in the face was a verbal insult, and not literal physical violence Jesus was talking about.

    I do not see any need to go to great lengths trying to make it look like God does not kill in order for Him to be love. The killing God does is within His realm of love.

    (6)
  6. The "God never destroys" teaching appears to lead to labeling as "dangerous" the usual Adventist practice of interpreting the Bible "just as it reads," under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, when there is no obvious indication that something is not meant literally, while paying attention to historical context, because context is crucial to meaning.

    How then should we read the Bible instead of interpreting it literally, unless there are clues that it should not be read literally?

    It is, in fact, this insistence that "God never destroys" which necessitates the warning not to read the Bible literally that alarms me the most. It implies that we must have a guide, other than the Holy Spirit, to interpret the Bible for us - as the state church taught so many centuries before the Reformers freed the Bible from the chains of altars and priests.

    The Protestant Reformation, whose fruits we experience in the many translations of the Bible today - including in contemporary language - lightened the world through the teachings of the Bible, as long as the people valued its teachings. And our God Who is Love intends that His final message of mercy to this world shall lighten the world with His glory through a revelation of His character of love in the lives of His people. That is intensely practical.

    When I read the Bible, I read it with the assurance that God IS love, not just that He loves. Therefore all His acts are an expression of love. It is up to us to figure out, from context, how this can be. Rather than imposing our definition of love upon God and His Word, we need to allow God and His Word to shape our understanding of the love of God.

    The "God never destroys" teaching appears to be promoted on the basis that any form of discipline or judgment cannot possibly be part of love. To me that looks like an arbitrary human pronouncement, because I do not see it anywhere in the Bible.

    A loving God expelled our first parents from Eden, while at the same time granting them probationary life dearly bought by offering Himself as the sin bearer.

    A loving God saw that humanity was bent on sin and its resultant misery and would soon destroy even the few faithful humans left on this planet. Thus, in love, he cut short the life of those bent on self-destruction and saved a remnant from whom the Savior would be born.

    A loving God saw that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha were literally hell-bent on a path of destruction of themselves and those around them. So he saved the only inhabitants that allowed themselves to be saved and judged the rest by fire - foreshadowing the final destruction by fire to be initiated by Christ Himself. (John 5:22; Rev 20:11-15.)

    (None of the above is intended to deny that sin is destructive and sinners essentially self-destruct. At the same time, God reserves to Himself the right to intervene to cut off His life support for sinners in situations that call for it. )

    Back to my initial point: I believe it is always important to consider the practical application of what we believe. We are not saved by correct belief. The danger I see in a teaching that causes its promoters to warn that it is "dangerous" to read the Bible literally (as I have described above) is to discourage personal Bible reading, trusting in the Spirit's guidance, in favor of depending on some spiritual guru. And that leads only to darkness.

    (7)
    • *Disclaimer: Every use of CAPS is for emphasis only. I am not yelling, shouting, or making ad hominem attacks at you or anyone else mentioned in my comments or any other reader who may feel they are being indirectly addressed.

      Inge, you have (not intentionally) grossly misrepresented the entire message of the character of God. It is no wonder that if this is your view of my position you should feel that way. In fact, I would agree that whoever you are representing in your comments is in gross darkness and needs to reject and repent of their heretical ways.

      With that being said, I have no problem with what the Bible says. What I do have a problem with is what individuals believe the Bible MEANS when it says something. Does God destroy? Yes! The Bible clearly states it. But He does NOT destroy in the way presented by many I have been in discussion with here, and that is the issue.

      When we take a literal approach to the Bible it is impossible not to walk away from the Bible and be utterly confused! Jesus said *literally to eat His Body and drink His Blood! Do we take that literally, by all means, “No!” However, there were those who heard His words and took them literally and were grossed out about it and walked away from Him. But did Jesus actually SAY, drink My Blood and eat My flesh? Yes! But what did He MEAN is the question that needs to be answered.

      My belief is that God does not use force, because force is NOT a principle of Love. Therefore, God does not operate according to man’s ideas and ways, because as the Bible clearly state, His ways and thoughts are Higher than ours. And when James says, “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (James 1:20), anything that I see man do in wrath and anger, if I am to remain true to scripture I cannot in good conscience assign the same attribute to my Father in heaven. And many in this discussion have given God man's attributes in His ways of carrying out wrath.

      What I see as an issue from those who read texts in the Bible that say on the surface things like "God destroys," they stop right in their tracks and think that have it completely understood. They fail to harmonize scripture with scripture making the Bible its own interpreter and they themselves become the final arbiter of truth.

      The god promoted by these individuals look nothing like Jesus Christ and His *33 ½ year life on this earth. Jesus Himself made the audacious claim that if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father! Wow! But nowhere in His life and ministry do we see Jesus (perfect revealer of the Father) hurt, kill or endorse the killing of ONE person, not ONE. And instead of going back to the OT with a "Jesus Lens" as Paul prescribes in 2 Cor. 3:13-16, these individuals appear to double-down and find real estate in cognitive dissonance.

      My position is that we don’t merely need to know what the Bible says, but we need to know what the Bible means when it says something.

      (1)
  7. In relation to this discussion, I feel that mostly God does use natural consequences and the withdrawal of His protection to punish. Sin will destroy on its own. I suspect if God's grace had been withdrawn from the beginning, even Lucifer and the angels would have destroyed themselves by now.

    But there are definitely some situations where God actively judges and kills. The flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the judgments on Egypt, and the destruction of the prophets of Baal are a few examples that to me have to occur because of God's active judgment. They do not make sense otherwise and lead to the possibility of Satan being a sort of henchman for God. Horrors!

    When God chooses to bring a certain situation to an end (as the ones mentioned above), it's probably actually merciful because it shortens the suffering caused by evil and protects God's people. For example, God could have not sent the flood and eventually all the evil people would have killed each other, but it would have gone on longer and eventually the righteous would be killed too.

    Realizing humbly that I don't understand how everything will work, I believe when the wicked are destroyed at the end of the age, their own sin will destroy them. But God will initiate that process so in a sense He is responsible. He could leave them on the earth to live selfishly and wait for everyone to destroy each other prior to restoring the earth. But He speeds up the process. The universe, the righteous, are satisfied He has been just and there's no purpose to allowing sinners to continue.

    (3)
    • I agree Christina. God isn't going to say "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-44) and then proceed to kill His own enemies. That would make Him a hypocrite. Many people attempt to get around this perversion of God's character, a result of believing Satan's lies, by calling it a "strange act" or other such rationalizations. I won’t even get into the issue of God torturing the lost, a satanic lie that is categorically inconsistent with God’s character and consistent only with Satan’s. Yet, many Christians and Adventists believe this.

      More importantly, is that we conflate different meanings of "death.” No one on earth, save Jesus, has experienced Biblical death. All of the Biblical examples of God “killing” discussed above are merely examples of God putting humans to sleep. They are NOT dead, they are asleep. All will be resurrected someday, some to everlasting life, the rest to everlasting death (Daniel 12:2; John 5:29).

      God putting someone to death (not sleep) is not a "strange act," it is an impossible act since it would directly contradict His character. Satan is the destroyer and God is the Creator. Yet, Satan has convinced even Adventists that God is just like him (a destroyer). Wasn't this always Satan's strategy (i.e., to describe God's character as equal to his own)?

      God is Love. He cannot be otherwise. Everything he does or allows must be completely consistent with His character of Love. If it is not, chances are very high that we are believing the father of all lies (John 8:44).

      (0)
      • Hi Sieg,

        You say, "God isn't going to say "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-44) and then proceed to kill His own enemies."

        I totally agree. However, a parent can discipline and punish their child and still love them. Jesus will still love His enemies even after He has to destroy them. A child will sometimes try to make a parent look mean by just carrying out a just and reasonable punishment. Likewise Satan tries to make Jesus look mean for carrying out a just and reasonable punishment. Do we try to convince the child making the false accusation against their parents that the parent is not really punishing them? No. The parent needs no justification. Likewise, likewise I do not think that we need to make it look like Jesus is not carrying out justice when what He is doing is totally just and reasonable. It breaks a parent's heart to punish a child. The parent still loves the child. Jesus will still love His enemies and it will break His heart to have to carry out justice, but as a God of love that's what He has to do just like a loving parent has to punish a disobedient child.

        (2)
    • Thank you, Christina, for this reasonable and common-sense explanation of what the Bible teaches on the subject of God's dealing with sinners throughout history. And since G does not change, history can also tell us a little about how God is likely to act in the future.

      I agree totally with your understanding.

      I believe God is the best Communicator in the universe, and He did not make His Word hard to understand. Thus it is easy enough for all to understand with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

      It concerns me when I see "meanings" proposed that are impossible for the ordinary person to glean from the Bible without some explanation from some kind of spiritual guru.

      (2)
  8. Without giving my position on whether or not I believe God serves justice on those who choose to turn away from Him, and thus justice will sooner or later be served, I would like to turn the focus to letting God off the hook, or keeping God on the hook, I hope it is not the latter. Now that may sound sacrilegious, yet bear with me. My simple understanding is that we let God off the hook if we have daily relationship with God, letting Him be our mediator and intercessor. May I purpose that letting God off the hook is the only way to a complete salvation of daily surender to the One who bore our sins on the cross. I call it Getting on God's Hook and Staying on His Hook.

    Now, a much more detailed on How to Be a Part of the Three Angels Message, and understanding Love and Justice of God, let me refer you to the book 'Righteousness by Faith and the Three Angels Message' chapter 4, 'Getting God off the Hook'. I chose what I call the summation paragraphs, page 38-39. Now for just $9.99, 1/2 of what it cost to eat out once, you can read all of chapter 4, the whole book for that matter on kindle.

    If we don't like the concept of getting hooked, then let us get a tight grip on God's arm.

    "The arm that raised the human family from the ruin which Satan has brought upon the race through his temptations is the arm which has preserved the inhabitants of other worlds from sin." The same mighty arm that takes the drunk out of the gutter and puts him in heaven someday is the arm that keeps other worlds from from falling. Wow, I am incentivised to read the whole book. In fact I used the link below to purchase it.

    https://www.amazon.com/s? k=Righteousness+by+faith+and+the+three+angels

    (2)
  9. Sometimes we go too far out of the way to "defend" the reputation of God. The best way to defend God's reputation is done is by living a consistent and compassionate Christian life. The God of the Bible is slow to anger, merciful, forgiving, very patient, etc.. His record speaks for itself. He is not impetuous or capricious. He bore long with the antedeluvians, (from Cain to the Flood of Noah over 1,600 years) Sodom and Gomorrah, the Canaanites, in some cases hundreds of years. However, there is a limit to his forbearance. His Righteousness requires there to be consequences for continued willful rebellion.

    I wish that his patience with Lucifer, aka Satan, would run out sooner, but it will run out. Perhaps Satan has been given a period of time to deceive the nations, then no more. We do know that the "Lake of Fire" was originally planned for the devil and his angels, not humans. However humans who side with Satan in the Great Controversy will likewise suffer the same fate.

    He could have destroyed Lucifer when he first started undermining God’s authority but he didn't because it would have played right into the false accusations made against him. When God does kill it's only because he was left with no other option. Appeals for repentance, and time granted to repent have been unheeded and squandered. Those unrepentant people or people group(s) would only further harm God's chosen people, whether Israel of old, or the remnant at the end of time.

    Jehovah-Elohim is not a "killer," but unfortunately there is a time when, to defend his people and even his reputation, he has to use his last resort option of euthanizing rabid rebels that are incorrigible.

    Just some of my thoughts on the matter.

    Shabbat Shalom!

    Tim

    (3)
  10. Letting the Bible Interpret Itself

    It seems to me that we are having a discussion about what God can and cannot do, based on the fact that His character is Love.

    We all agree that His character is Love.

    We appear to disagree on what that means.

    I think the problem may be that some teachers in Christendom have imposed a human definition of "love" on the Bible, thus concluding that God cannot do certain things - such as destroying sinners - because He is love.

    Others see that God must destroy sin and sinners because He is love.

    How have we come to this place?

    I suggest that we need to begin with the Bible premise that God is Love and, therefore, all that His actions are actions of love. That will help us to define God's love.

    Some of His actions may not look like "love" to us because we see "love" as an emotion that is not compatible with certain actions that God is said to do in the Bible.

    However, if we recognize that Love is a principle of actions that always acts in the best interests of the object of Love, then all of God's actions - including the destruction of the wicked - can be seen as actions of love.

    What do you think?

    (3)
    • Very good observation, Inge. Love is much more than a feeling, it is first and foremost a principle. That principle requires difficult decisions and consequences for wrong actions.

      In my growing up years, my mother would remind me when she disciplined me, that she was only doing it because she loved me. To which I replied, "I wish you didn't love me so much!" 😆 She would then say that some day I would understand and appreciate that she disciplined me and made me suffer the consequences of my wrong attitudes and actions. She was right and so are the Scriptures (Hebrews 12:11).

      Our world largely reflects a society that is quite undisciplined in their thoughts, attitudes, and actions. It seems that discipline has become taboo because it involves pain and deprivation. The truth is that undisciplined people inflict far more pain and suffering on the world than their counterparts ever experienced through the pain of discipline. How many sociopaths could have been prevented by the proper administration of loving discipline? The world will never know. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is one of the safest countries in the world because they have swift and severe justice for wrongdoers. How is leniency for criminals working out in the U.S.? Not too well. There is no fear of justice because criminals know that at best they will get released with a "slap on the hand," at worse they will get a lifetime of free room, board, laundry, medical, dental, etc.. If justice was swift and severe there would be a greater deterrent to crime.

      My father warned me as a teenager, that if I ever got in trouble for breaking the law to not waste my one call, by calling home. In other words he wasn't going to deliver me from the consequences of my foolishness. In fact, there would probably be greater consequences waiting for me at home.

      Some tribal peoples have the death penalty for certain crimes committed in their culture and community.

      Some people wonder how could a God of love operate under such principles. My question is, how could he not? Is man more just than God? Certainly not!

      There is a time and place for "tough love," and people have lost sight of that fact. Yes, even God uses that principle when necessary. People today call it "karma," the Scriptures refer to it as reaping what you have sown. If someone wants to live a life of sowing their "wild oats" then they better be prepared for the harvest of sour grapes.

      Just some of my thoughts on the subject.

      (1)
      • Capital punishment is a tricky issue. The Bible definitely allows for it, but I don't know it's an absolute principle that must be enforced, despite Genesis 9:6. There are a number of Bible characters who committed murder who were spared the death sentence - David, Moses, Paul are some that come to my mind. Even Cain was spared an immediate death sentence. Beyond murder, the Bible enforced a death sentence for many crimes that today would not be punished in such a way (some such as adultery are really not even punished at all).

        In principle, I believe capital punishment for murder is justified, but in practice I am opposed to it because there is so much room for corruption and injustice. Beyond the possibility of errors (which do happen), the poor and racial minorities tend to face it much more than others. And yes, many of the Muslim countries have strict justice but they have problems of their own. I've read enough about the beheading of foreign workers in Saudi Arabia to not want to go down those paths.

        Many countries that don't have the death penalty are quite safe, and given the challenges of being fully just, I would prefer that we avoid such punishments and leave the justice to God. Let's face it, under Israel's system, there had to be two eyewitnesses to put someone to death. Most killers today would not have that burden of proof.

        (0)
  11. It is time to give my position. Yes, I have let the Bible interpret itself. The Lord God of the New and Old Testiment is and has destroyed the wicked, yes killed. I do not believe He only does it by withdrawing His presence. That is saying God is incapable of doing the dirty work. God being all powerful has destroyed and killed, is, has, and will distroy the those we do not turn to Him. He does not need a sword or modern weapon. His presence unveiled kills the wicked and preserves the righteous.

    I really appreciate all the insight given by William Earnhardt and others on this solemn topic. The evidence solidifies my position.

    I really liked Dr. John Peckham's words last week on It is Written. He said, "Love compassion, and long-suffering of God is juxtiposed on God's justice, and justice is not disposed of by love, compassion, and long suffering.

    Now, to change the focus a little. I am reading side by side(juxtiposed, if you will) Morris Vendons books on how to tell others of my belief of 'Righteousness by Faith and the Three Angels Message', and how to, yes, 'To Know God, A 5 Day Plan'. I am reading them side by side(juxtiposed). You may also. I see now the price on Kindle is lowered to $2.99, the price of a pack of chewing gum sweetened with aspartame.
    Though I prefer monk fruit sweetner as a non-sugar sweetner. Ladies, and yes, gentlemen, my wife and I tried monk fruit sweetener in making biscotti. When baked, it was hard as a rock. We put it in almond milk and heated it in the microwave. Then we did not brake our teeth, trying to eat it.

    The Goodness of God. Yes, the sweetness of God who loves all, yet hates sin(the justice of God). 🙏

    (2)
  12. I must include this from the book 'To Know God, A 5day Plan'. It is apropos.

    Reading from page 7.
    "But there are conflicting ideas of what God is like. Some say He is vengeful, angry, and arbitrary. Others picture Him as a sort of Santa Claus, whose primary purpose is to fulfill the wishes of His people. Still others say He is like a giant marshmallow, who wouldn’t hurt anybody and who is easily swayed and permissive."

    I sat through 4 years years of Morris Vendons sermons. His prose in books is even better. Never dull just the ability to make Ellen White and the Bible understandable, yet accurately interesting. Not necessarily commonplace, but understandable to the commoner and interesting to the mathematicians. I remember him saying, "it is alright for me to speak in parables, is it not? Then, hearing the chuckle of the audience, common and sofisticsted alike. Now, not making him a grurue, but there is value in his writings. He was not an entertainer. He was a man with a message to reach all. We have many like that in our day and time. It would behove us to utilize them. Read, if they don't speak to the law and to the testimony. Well, I recommend being grounded in your faith, and then turn to to someone's writings who does speak according to the law and to the testimony. I know I may be speaking to the choir.
    Good day my friends.

    (2)
  13. With respect to Pharaoh and the Israelites God, from the outset, acknowledged that Pharaoh would never release the people except under compulsion (Ex 3:19,20) - that might be offensive to some believers. God further stated ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, “Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”’”(Ex 4:22).And He did.

    It was God’s plan and intent to kill Pharaoh’s son, not an evil angel’s or a good angel’s plan. So that even if God did it by some destroyer, He, God, killed the firstborn. But God was not done yet. He must destroy Pharaoh too, because He had raised up Pharaoh specifically to demonstrate His power in him and that His name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth (Ex 9:16; Rom 9:17). God made him the most powerful potentate on earth.
    Pharaoh was forced to let Israel go by the death of His son (just as Satan was forced to release the people of God by the death of his firstborn, sin). God devised a method to draw Pharaoh to the Red Sea: “Tell the sons of Israel to turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. Pharaoh will say, ‘They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has shut them in.’ Thus I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be HONORED through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.”(Ex 14:1-4). (See how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart! He withholds softening graces leaving him up to himself and Satan and presents hardening providences to him by which his proud arrogant stubborn and insolent heart is stirred into action. When God allowed his magicians to imitate Moses’ sign He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. When God gave him respite from the plagues He hardened his heart).
    We all know what happened. All the nations hearing of this recognized God as the god of gods, and fear and awe overtook them (Ex 15:2-8,10-16; Josh 2:8-11). Did God draw Pharaoh out to lovingly put him to rest? To mercifully pardon him? How is God offended when His instruments take the credit for what He does in or through them (Isa 10:5-16; Dan 4:28-35).

    Moreover, the Lord Himself says, “See now that I, I am He, and there is no god beside Me; it is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal. And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.”(Dt 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7). It’s amazing that some are willing to accept completely God’s very word that He gives life, but not that He puts to death. Now who is the god here?
    At the judgment of the harlot there is no pity party, no wailing in sympathy. On the other hand “Hallelujahs” ring out: “Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever.”(Rev 19:1-3).

    (0)
  14. Greetings William Earnhardt. Seems that you may have stirred up an energetic discussion.
    Does the Biblical teachings of the first and second death as well as first and second resurrection lend any help to this discussion?
    Regardless of how one’s life on earth is ended, all will be raised to continue their lives…either in God’s Kingdom, or or to annihilation. Our choices will lead to our final destination.

    (1)

Leave a Reply

Please read our Comment Guide Lines and note that we have a full-name policy.

Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail. (You may subscribe without commenting.)

Please make sure you have provided a full name in the "Name" field and a working email address we can use to contact you, if necessary. (Your email address will not be published.)

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>