Leaderboard

The Adventist Review has posted on its website the following comment of mine:

I do mean "global", but more than that. Humans have sent satellites far beyond this planet. Won't those human creations also be destroyed? There are human beings living on space stations. They will also be effected by the plagues. It would include everything under Satan's dominion. How far does Satan's dominion reach? Is it only this one planet, or does his dominion reach beyond? God said to His Son, "You LORD in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish." Hebrews 1:10-11. "They will grow old like a garment, and like a garment you will roll them up." How would He "role up" just one planet? Hence the need for "new heavens", not simply a "new earth".

Are people today still born "under the law" ? I believe we are. You sin - you die, is still "the law". Right? Yes. For those of us who have believed, Christ has "set us free from the law of sin and death". But that still leaves a lot of people still "enslaved". When the text says that Christ was "born under the law" - was it not "the law of sin and death" that Christ was "born under". The verse makes a point to say that he was "born of a woman". What does being "born of a woman" have to do with being "born under the law"? I think Paul makes the point that Jesus was born human, and therefore was subject to "the law of sin and death". 1. It means that IF He had sinned, He would have died eternally. He had no savior but His Father. His Father was bound by His own law (you sin - you die eternally). 2. It means He was born "mortal", and therefore subject to the effects of "sin and resulting death" upon this whole creation. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, can only be overcome/balanced by an input of energy from God Himself. Without that, this creation will slow down, run down, wear out and die. That's the LAW and we are all subject to it. In our world, babies die. Babies have not sinned. They die because they live in a world that is dying, and they are subject to the effects of "the curse" on this whole creation, under Satan's dominion. Jesus was not born with Adam's height, or stamina, or longevity. He was born with Mary's deteriorating DNA. If Christ had not died by crucifixion, he would have grown physically "old" just like every one else in human mortal flesh. Not because He had sinned. Just because He lived in this world, and had a human/mortal nature. He could have lived without sinning for a hundred or two hundred years, and then died. Yes - that life would have fulfilled the terms of the Covenant, and would have won our salvation. Yes. His Father could have resurrected Him, because He perfectly obeyed and never sinned. But such a life and death would not have made the public statement that His crucifixion made. The crucifixion was God's "love letter" to say "This is how much I love you!" Hebrews 2:9 says "He was made a little lower than the angels FOR the suffering of death" (Heb 2:9). The verse could have said, "He was born human so that He could die. It was the plan for Him to suffer physical death. He had to be "obedient unto death" - in order to fulfill the terms of the Covenant and rescue the willing. My point here - about "the law", is that "under the Law" does not have to mean just "under the Law given from Sinai" (though that was life or death). Evangelicals believe that's all it means, so they can dismiss all of the Law of Sinai for themselves.

As I compare them, I don't see a strong argument for comparing sequence of the Egyptian plagues with the sequence of the bowls of God's wrath. I do, however, believe that the plagues on Egypt are a type of the wrath to be visited on the unrepentant - proper sequence or not.