Yaweh and the Destroying Angel

[steve7150]

I understand his reasoning, but I can't figure out how it makes a difference. I mean, i understand the technical difference between God doing it and God having someone/something do it. But God is still doing it, really.

A person who hires a hit-man is as culpable as the hit-man





According to Hebrews 2.14 "so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is the devil." , the devil has the power of death.

According to 1 John 3.8 "the devil has been sinning from the beginning."

So the devil can kill and has been sinning from the beginning, so did God cause the devil to sin? Yet in the OT almost nothing sinful is attributable to the devil, and virtually all killing and destroying is attributable to God even though John 10 seems to say the devil comes to kill and destroy.
Maybe the OT writers who knew little if anything of the devil used a style of writing that simply attributed everything to God, like today when the expression may go "the White House said." This style of writing which may have been used by OT writers can be called "metonymy" which is the exchange of one noun for another.

[TK]

Hey Steve--

The only problem is that it seems that God DID want the Israelites to wipe out the devil-worshiping canaanites. Didn't He? God DID want Sodom and Gomorrhah wiped out- didn't He? It sure seems that way. Even in Saul's time he wanted towns wiped out including women children and animals, and Samuel let Saul have it when he didn't follow instructions. To say that all those episodes weren't really from God but rather from satan, and the OT writers just missed it, really seems to twist scripture.

At the same time, I am with you that satan is a thief and a robber and a murderer. But if people are carrying out God's instructions, I don't see how that could be considered murder.

I am sure that some of the OT stories had some satanic influence, but to say that he (and not God) was behind them seems a bit of a stretch.

TK

[steve7150]

The only problem is that it seems that God DID want the Israelites to wipe out the devil-worshiping canaanites. Didn't He? God DID want Sodom and Gomorrhah wiped out- didn't He? It sure seems that way. Even in Saul's time he wanted towns wiped out including women children and animals, and Samuel let Saul have it when he didn't follow instructions. To say that all those episodes weren't really from God but rather from satan, and the OT writers just missed it, really seems to twist scripture



Hi TK,

My point is that God has no obligation to keep his hedge of protection over anyone particularly if they epitimize evil and if they stand in the way of God's plan of redemption. So IMO the devil did a lot of the dirty work in the OT but God always had a reason for allowing this, it never was capricious it was part of a long term plan. I imagine the Cananites had to be wiped out because they were demonically possessed and the Israelites had no Holy Spirit to counter this enemy therefore it had to be a physical destruction. If God is love according to John then God must know that there was no other way then allowing destruction for the greater good of mankind.
In the NT it says the kingdom of God expands with violence , in the OT it was physical and after Jesus is was spiritual.

[TK]

steve7150 wrote:

In the NT it says the kingdom of God expands with violence , in the OT it was physical and after Jesus is was spiritual.

Nice point.

TK

[Jason]

After having read his article 3 times, I think GB was trying to make the point that God can't participate in violence because He only possesses light and there is no darkness in him (1 John 1:5). As I mentioned previously, the case of David being rejected in favor of Solomon for the temple-building project was due only to the blood David spilled in various battles - battles sanctioned by God himself. Likewise, Satan had to ask God for permission to afflict Job. If God wanted to test Job he could have done everything himself. Rather, he simply lifted the protective hedge which kept the enemy at bay. I think a strong case can be made for what I'm arguing here, though GB might be trying to make a different point altogether.

My take on violence on in the OT (tentatively) is that God is sometimes moved to do (or, rather, command) things that He hates. If God isn't willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) and doesn't enjoy the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23) then we must assume that God ordered the Israelites to do something He hates, even the destruction of wicked societies. That's good news in the since that it reconciles the love of Jesus for sinners with His hunger for justice. It still makes me wiggle a bit but I like knowing God doesn't delight in the death of others, even His enemies.

[steve7150]

My take on violence on in the OT (tentatively) is that God is sometimes moved to do (or, rather, command) things that He hates. If God isn't willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9) and doesn't enjoy the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23) then we must assume that God ordered the Israelites to do something He hates, even the destruction of wicked societies. That's good news in the since that it reconciles the love of Jesus for sinners with His hunger for justice. It still makes me wiggle a bit but I like knowing God doesn't delight in the death of others, even His enemies.





There is such a thing as "righteous anger" as Jesus had on occasion, so when violence is associated with God yet "God is Love" i guess we have to believe in righteous violence.

[Homer]

Just happened to read this quote in an article by Robert C. Kurka critiquing John Sander's open theism:

Sander's elevation of love to the defining attribute of God cannot be successfully argued as Scripture's dominent divine motif. John Frame states, "It is especially difficult to make a Scriptural case that God's love is more important than his leadership," going on to note that the word "Lord" occurs some 7,484 times in the NIV. Furthermore, "Lord" is the translation of the divine name that God gave to Moses, and in turn becomes the fundamental Christian confession, "Jesus is Lord." The Bible, then, organizes God's love (and all other attributes) around His character as Lord, rather than the other way around.

So would God's love conflict with His activities as Lord? Could the destruction of the world in Noah's day be attributed to Satan? And what about this, which sounds very specific:

Leviticus 10:1-2 (New King James Version)

1. Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

[steve7150]

So would God's love conflict with His activities as Lord? Could the destruction of the world in Noah's day be attributed to Satan? And what about this, which sounds very specific:







Sander calls God's love an attribute but according John it's who he is, plus he demonstrated his love that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. After his demonstration of love Christ was given all authority and could then be our Lord, so the two compliment each other, IMO. The number of times something is mentioned is not the only criteria of importance.
As i said there must be an act of God equivalent to "righteous violence" even if Satan actually executes it.

[steve7150]

According to 1 John 3.8 "the devil has been sinning from the beginning" If God was allowing him to do it for God's purposes, this would be like a kingdom divided against itself because if the devil was sinning from the beginning then he was'nt doing God's will. Yet he steals, kills and destroys and generally we attribute this to God either one way or the other.

[Homer]

So again I ask, what is the explanation of this passage?

Leviticus 10:1-2 (New King James Version)

1. Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

I do not think that "God is love" is a total expression of God's character. The following attributes from the scriptures also come to mind:

God is faithful
God is holy
God is Lord
God is a consuming fire