Did Saul sin? (Aside from the main Destruction of Wicked).

[Twilight]

I have been considering the points made on the threads about the destruction of the wicked.

This incident springs up in my mind:

The time had come for the Lord to punish the Amalekites, and Samuel brought Saul the message that Amalek was to be utterly destroyed. God gave commandment unto Saul: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." {YI, December 1, 1898 par. 8}

The Lord commanded Saul to "utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." The Lord knew that this wicked nation would, if it were possible, blot out his people and his worship from the earth; and for this reason he had commanded that even the little children should be cut off. But Saul had spared the king, the most wicked and merciless of them all; one who had hated and destroyed the people of God, and whose influence had been strongest to promote idolatry. {ST, July 17, 1884 par. 11}

Now some main points:

1. God specifically commanded Saul.

2. The reason is given for Gods order.

So a question:

Did Saul sin?

Mark :-)

[Guest]

Yes he did sin, by not obeying God.

So Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king." 1Sa 15:22,23

Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 1Sa 15:24

[Twilight]

Fair point.

Saul sinned by NOT killing the women and children it seems.

The main issue I had in mind though, was did Saul "sin" by killing the women and children when God commanded him to?

But this is a really interesting point.

Saul by not "killing" all that God had commanded him to, sinned...

Mark

[Guest]

Yes, that is how he sinned. So then Samuel had to finish the job.

Then Samuel said, "Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me." So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past."

But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. 1Sa 15:32,33

I saw HMS Richards Jr. preach a sermon on this one year at campmeeting here in NC. It was great.

[Dr. Rich]

What is sin? IF sin is disobeying God, then yes, Saul sinned.

[Guest]

That's how he sinned alright, by not killing off everything, like God said to, including the King. But especially the King.

[Twilight]

Yes, that is how he sinned. So then Samuel had to finish the job.

Then Samuel said, "Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me." So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past."

But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. 1Sa 15:32,33

I saw HMS Richards Jr. preach a sermon on this one year at campmeeting here in NC. It was great.

So if only satan and his followers destroy (as argued from a certain viewpoint), did Samuel sin in "finishing off the job"?

Mark

[Guest]

No, he only did what God had commanded.

And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.

And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? 1Sa 15:13,14

[Twilight]

No, he only did what God had commanded.

And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.

And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? 1Sa 15:13,14

So then, if we accept the idea that it is a sin for God to kill.

God ordered Saul and Samuel to kill.

Then God must have sinned.

----------------------------

If I pay someone to kill someone else, then I am just as guilty of their death as the one who carried out the act.

----------------------------

This is why I struggle with the idea that God does not destroy.

The bible just does not plain agree.

How else can you look at this plain statement?

Mark

[skyblue888]

Saul did obey the command from God to kill but he did not carry out the command perfectly.

No he would not have sinned by obeying the command of God to exterminate this nation. Their cup of iniquity was full.

This question has already been answered earlier. This was a theocracy. God was the Ruler in both religious and civil affairs but because of their lack of faith, the people did not leave it to God entirely to be their defense against their enemies. They chose to defend themselves with the sword. God respected that choice. He does not force His ways upon anyone. Since they were less skilled at war than their avowed enemies who were determined to blot them out from the earth (inspired and urged on by Satan) God in His love and mercy went the second mile with them and gave them instructions in harmony with the choice they had made.

The Amalekites had filled up their cup of iniquity. If the Israelites had trusted God to defend them without the use of the sword, the Lord would have delivered them in righteousness as He had delivered them from the armies of Pharaoh without having to fight at all.

When God is allowed to have His way, it is seen that He never uses carnal weapons to hurt or destroy those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas. This is the spirit of Satan. He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown. If the Israelites had allowed God to deliver them from the Amalekites, they would never have had to fight with the sword and the command to exterminate the Amalekites with the sword would never have been given and God would have destroyed them in righteousness as He had the armies of Egypt. They would have been left with no power to control the evil passions of the soul and with no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan.

When God's perfect ways are understood, it is seen that indeed He does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression. He does not directly hurt or destroy those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas. "I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon the wicked but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14, 3.1.

sky

[Dr. Rich]

Sky--please tell that to those killed by the flood!

[Guest]

What mental gymnastics! Explaining away the word of God. You must be tired sky.

[Guest]

Sky--please tell that to those killed by the flood!

Maybe someone left a faucet running.

[skyblue888]

Richard, since you refuse to accept the divine principle that "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression" why would you accept any light that would explain how the flood took place?

Your reply shows that you see God as the executioner of the sentence against transgression at the time of the flood. But that is wrong. God was not the executioner at the time of the flood anymore than He executed the sentence against Saul for his sin. The Bible says that "God slew Saul" just as it says that God sent the flood to destroy the antediluvians but we know that Saul killed himself. He fell on his sword. It was a suicide, Richard.

If we see a ray of light, we are to press to the light and put up the bars behind us.

sky

If the Bible did not tell us that Saul killed himself with a sword and we read, "God slew Saul," then we would have reasons to think that God directly did it. But we know that God did not even touch Saul. The same language is used for the flood. That language is consistent throughout the Bible and there is a good reason for it.

[Guest]

sky, you have gone to far with this theory of yours, and blinded yourself to the plain teaching of the Bible and SOP. I didn't think it was dangerous at first, but now I see that it is very dangerous.

Anytime you take something to the very extreme like you have this topic it is detremental. Ellen White warns against it in many places. You would do well to take her advise on fanatacism.

[Guest]

To say that the flood was merely suicide is ludicrous.

[skyblue888]

I said it was a case of suicide in the case of Saul. That is the explanation given in his case, how he died. I did not say that it was a case of suicide for the antediluvians. You are putting words in my mouth.

For them it was the flood but how did the flood come? Did God directly cause the flood or did it happen because He could no longer prevent it from happening? In order to understand this, we need a knowledge of what the conditions were before the flood.

There are a lot of things I could share about the flood but what difference will it make Richard?

sky

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding #279936, that was a very nice explanation (by nice I mean well written and clear).

[Gail]

Did God directly cause the flood or did it happen because He could no longer prevent it from happening?

I'd like some clarification on this.

[pnattmbtc]

How else can you look at this plain statement?

Exactly as Sky explained. It's the same principle as God's directions in other areas, such as divorce. Should we conclude that God is in favor of divorce because through Moses the Israelites were given instructions allowing it? No, because this only happened because of the hardness of their hearts. Had they been willing to follow God, there would never have been any divorce. Similarly, God never gave them weapons to destroy their enemies with. God's way is not to obtain victory by way of the sword. That's not the way His kingdom works. Christ made that as clear as anyone possibly could. When Peter tried to defend him with a sword, Christ told him to put it away. To Pilate He said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight."

The big mistake, IMO, in this study is not to take an approach which is likely to lead to a successful outcome. The SOP tells us that no truth in Scripture can be understood apart from the cross; that is the truth around which all other truths cluster. Also she speaks of how the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God (she quotes John to establish this point). She tells us that there is nothing we can know of God which was not revealed by Jesus Christ in the flesh (2T 816).

So what did Jesus Christ reveal? *That* should be the starting point. Especially what did the cross reveal?

[Twilight]

Saul did obey the command from God to kill but he did not carry out the command perfectly.

No he would not have sinned by obeying the command of God to exterminate this nation. Their cup of iniquity was full.

This question has already been answered earlier. This was a theocracy. God was the Ruler in both religious and civil affairs but because of their lack of faith, the people did not leave it to God entirely to be their defense against their enemies. They chose to defend themselves with the sword. God respected that choice. He does not force His ways upon anyone. Since they were less skilled at war than their avowed enemies who were determined to blot them out from the earth (inspired and urged on by Satan) God in His love and mercy went the second mile with them and gave them instructions in harmony with the choice they had made.

The Amalekites had filled up their cup of iniquity. If the Israelites had trusted God to defend them without the use of the sword, the Lord would have delivered them in righteousness as He had delivered them from the armies of Pharaoh without having to fight at all.

When God is allowed to have His way, it is seen that He never uses carnal weapons to hurt or destroy those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas. This is the spirit of Satan. He leaves the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they have sown. If the Israelites had allowed God to deliver them from the Amalekites, they would never have had to fight with the sword and the command to exterminate the Amalekites with the sword would never have been given and God would have destroyed them in righteousness as He had the armies of Egypt. They would have been left with no power to control the evil passions of the soul and with no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan.

When God's perfect ways are understood, it is seen that indeed He does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression. He does not directly hurt or destroy those who do not appreciate His work or act contrary to His ideas. "I was shown that the judgments of God would not come directly out from the Lord upon the wicked but in this way--they place themselves beyond His protection." MR 14, 3.1.

sky

But God commanded someone to kill.

And is party to that killing.

How are we supposed to deal with that?

By saying He was not responsible, because the Isrealites were warmongers?

God told them to kill.

If it is a sin for God to kill, then God has sinned.

Mark

[Guest]

Did God directly cause the flood or did it happen because He could no longer prevent it from happening?

Are you saying that God could not have prevented the flood?

Where did the water come from?

We know it wasn't Satan, because the SOP says that he feared for his life, the upheaval was so great.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

How else can you look at this plain statement?

Exactly as Sky explained. It's the same principle as God's directions in other areas, such as divorce. Should we conclude that God is in favor of divorce because through Moses the Israelites were given instructions allowing it? No, because this only happened because of the hardness of their hearts. Had they been willing to follow God, there would never have been any divorce. Similarly, God never gave them weapons to destroy their enemies with. God's way is not to obtain victory by way of the sword. That's not the way His kingdom works. Christ made that as clear as anyone possibly could. When Peter tried to defend him with a sword, Christ told him to put it away. To Pilate He said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight."

The big mistake, IMO, in this study is not to take an approach which is likely to lead to a successful outcome. The SOP tells us that no truth in Scripture can be understood apart from the cross; that is the truth around which all other truths cluster. Also she speaks of how the whole purpose of Christ's mission was the revelation of God (she quotes John to establish this point). She tells us that there is nothing we can know of God which was not revealed by Jesus Christ in the flesh (2T 816).

So what did Jesus Christ reveal? *That* should be the starting point. Especially what did the cross reveal?

The issue here is simple.

God ordered Israel to kill.

If it is sinful for God to kill.

Then God sinned.

Mark

[Guest]

That's pretty straight forward Mark. I do not believe God sinned, therefore when God kills, it is for good reason, and not a sin.

[skyblue888]

Mark, your question has already been answered. Did u miss it? These civil statutes concerning the wars of Israel were given by Jesus Christ in the context of the theocracy, remember? The Israelites had elected the sword to defend themselves but Christ did not abandon them to their fate. Had He done so they would have been destroyed completely. They also used the sword to solve any rebellion in the camp. God in His mercy gave them instructions accordingly. He was willing to go the second mile with them. Just as the civil statute "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" was a civil statute to limit the evil consequences of having adopted their way instead of God's way. See M.B.70.

sky