Does God Kill?

[archierieus]

Does the Bible teaches that God kills people? Has He done so in the past? Will He do so in the future? Any thoughts?

Dave

[archierieus]

By way of explanation of the post, some years ago a gentleman in Washington state built quite a ministry around the idea that God doesn't kill people. Recently, the question came up again. What does the Bible really teach about this question?

[Pockey]

I don't know if He directly kills or not. I do believe the wicked may be killed when there is a removal of His hedge of protection (ex. the serpents in the desert) when someone's gone beyond the point of no return (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit). I also believe as the bible says, it is His "strange act" when the wicked are destroyed (such as at the 2nd resurrection).

[stef]

Interesting food for thought. The Bible states that the wage of sin is death. We are told that Christ experienced the second death so that we would not have to. As I reflect on this question, I also think of the stories told of those faithful who have been in the direct presence of God, Whose righteousness made them as dead men. Even man's most righteous are to be considered filthy rags in the presence of God!

Sid, my understanding is along the line of thought that you brought up. Death is a natural consequence of sin--God is Creator, giver and restorer of LIFE. Yet there are times when the Bible tells us that where sin abounds, we cannot have the protection that those who are hidden in His righteousness receive (Noah and his family amidst the Flood, Lot and his family from the perils of Sodom & Gomorrah, the newly converted Ninevites from the threat against Ninevah, etc.) and will do so again in the future when He cleanses the earth. For those of us who believe the literal interpretation of the Bible, I would have to say that God allows death and distruction as a consequence of sin.

I guess I would like to add that often times our focus is on all those who perished (or will perish) instead of on those whom God preserved through the cleansing event when sin was destroyed.

Nevertheless, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) Thankfully He is merciful and just and will give us every opportunity to take refuge in His Holiness through the covenant He established with Christ's sacrifice. Prayerfully we will take heed and take refuge.

[melvin mccarty]

Well what a question!! Did you ever hear of the Flood?

mel

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Sid said:

I also believe as the bible says, it is His "strange act" when the wicked are destroyed (such as at the 2nd resurrection).

---

Yes, the Bible does teach that. We also find the story of Nadab and Abihu, who were slain by God in the tabernacle, as well as the dwellers in Sodom and Gomorrah, and other examples. Personally, I haven't had difficulty reconciling the concept of God bringing an end to a life which has become so wicked that there is no hope of restoration. I have wondered about why some people would have a problem with that. I would like to find out.

Dave

[Nicodema]

[tagging on via quick reply]

I stand by the position that death is the result or consequence of sin and thus it is sin, not God, which kills. [short answer; longer answer would include what place the Law, the devil, etc. have in that equation as well.]

I am aware that many things written in scripture on the surface appear to support another view, but I do not believe the surface understanding is the correct one here.

I'm just "weighing in" and sharing my view -- I'm not prepared to enter a formal debate upon it at this time. There are many principles that would need to be explored first to lay the foundation on this one. This is not a question to be dashed off with either a 15-minute proof-text answer or a mini-doctoral-dissertation answer. The heart of the real answer lies in the revelation of God which is in Christ Jesus. Everything else -- yes, even the words printed in the Bible -- must be secondary to this supreme revelation of God in human flesh come down to our world walking out A Life, His Life, for all to see what the Father is really like. For in a very real sense, the HEART of the real answer is the very HEART of Almighty God, and only found fully therein.

So even if someone should "convincingly" approach this question through "academic" means -- plethora of quotations, picking apart bits of logic, debate tactics, whatever -- I would simply encourage readers to keep an open mind (and heart) toward further and deeper study and above all, a further and deeper heart experience with Jesus Christ, because this is a question whose ultimate answer is more a heart matter than a head matter.

If anyone here would like some positive online resources for exploring this question personally, feel free to PM me. I'd be delighted to share the Good News about God that is even BETTER than many think!

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Does the Bible teaches that God kills people? Has He done so in the past? Will He do so in the future? Any thoughts?

Dave

---

[:"blue"]Of course, He does. Is He guilty of murder? NOOOOOOOOO!!! As Judge, He has to carry out the sentence Himself because He has no executioners. For those who believe He does not kill, let me ask: Who killed the people that refused to get into the ark? Who kills those who will be in the lake of fire? Would Satan fry himself? [/]

Gerry

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

CoAspen said:

... I would hope no one would project salvation loss or gain being dependent on 'correct understanding'.

---

Absolutely not!

However, I do think it is reasonable to ask myself this: if I were given incorrect information about someone, information that makes them seem like someone vengeful, arbitrary, hypocritical (going against what they tell others to do), untrustworthy, and in certain crucial areas, indistinguishable from the enemy they have been warning me against, would I be more inclined to seek deeper friendship with that person or to avoid them?

So while I do not believe for one instant we are judged based on our understanding of this specific question, I think it is fair and reasonable to recognize that the view we hold of what kind of character God has is very important in determining how motivated we are to draw near Him, love Him, and serve Him. What do you think?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Gerry Cabalo said:

For those who believe He does not kill, let me ask: Who killed the people that refused to get into the ark?

---

Whose decision was it for them not to get into the ark?

Quote:

---

Who kills those who will be in the lake of fire? Would Satan fry himself?

---

Our God IS a consuming fire. In the end, there is the full unveiling of His direct presence. It is we who decide what effect the unveiled Shekinah glory will have upon us:

Isaiah 33:

14 The sinners in Zion are terrified;

trembling grips the godless:

"Who of us can dwell with the consuming fire?

Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?"

15 He who walks righteously

and speaks what is right,

who rejects gain from extortion

and keeps his hand from accepting bribes,

who stops his ears against plots of murder

and shuts his eyes against contemplating evil.

Jesus Christ offers the "asbestos" protective covering (so to speak) that we may dwell in the presence of God. None are excluded from the offer of eternal life in Him, none. By natural consequence of sin (also called the "wages of sin") we already inherit death, each and every one of us, not because God kills us to punish us, but because we choose sin and that is the result of choosing sin -- just as surely as plummeting to the pavement is the result of stepping off a high building in an environment with working gravity. Jesus Christ took that consequence for everyone into Himself, and offers us life in Him in exchange. Our only security of standing is standing in Him.

If we refuse this freely-given gift of Life, whose choice is it to experience the natural consequence of sin ourselves? Who has chosen to experience the final unveiling as destruction instead of translation? God has already made His choice for us, not against us -- sending His Son to save us, not to condemn. God's choice is life.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

melvin mccarty said:

Well what a question!! Did you ever hear of the Flood?

mel

---

You know, that is a good point. Definitely something that God did. Interesting. But, then, I wonder what people like Mike Klute, who devoted a whole ministry to the idea that God doesn't kill people, would do with that?

Dave

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

CoAspen said:

I find such questions, DGK, as very interesting interesting discussion material, but I would hope no one would project salvation loss or gain being dependent on 'correct understanding'.

---

Around 20 years ago, I was driving through Washington state one day, and came to the town of Scappoose. That was the home base for "God's Last Call" ministries, headed by one Mike Klute. A friend of my dad's used to get his publications, so I swung by to find out what it was all about. I did find out. Mr. Klute explained to me why he thought it was very important that people understand that God doesn't kill people. He said that our understanding of what God is like can affect how people respond to God, and whether they trust God. So, that was his personal crusade--to get the message out that God doesn't kill people.

That was my only exposure to the idea, and I have not explored it since that time. Personally, I have a different understanding of Scripture. I don't have a problem with God executing judgment, and it doesn't affect my trust in Him. But, to answer your question, CoA, that is the reason that I was told.

Dave

[Gerr]

Actually my trust in God IS stronger because He does execute justice!

Gerry

[Gerr]

Yes, God is only carrying out the natural result of our death-choice.

[:"red"]"I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, [:"blue"] for He is your life and the length of your days... [/] " Dt 30:19,20 NKJ [/]

To live apart from God is to die.

Gerry

[Nicodema]

[post got messed up, trying again]

[Nicodema]

[tagging on here]

Interesting concept, "justice". It can only arise in a world where it is needed because something or someone has created a situation requiring redress with it. The concept of justice is often represented by scales, symbolising the restoration of balance, presumably where imbalance has occurred.

In our human understanding, however, "justice" has become laden with emotional overtones and quite often, from our fleshly nature, become mixed in with desires for vengeance or retribution.

Christ taught us specifically how we are to relate to our enemies in this regard:

"I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..." (Matt 5:44)

"I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." (Luke 6:27-29)

If we are clinging to an inner need or desire[:"red"]*[/] to see retribution or vengeance exacted on our enemies -- on those unlike us, on those who anger us, on those who vex us, on those who persecute us, on those who use us despitefully -- then we are out of harmony with these instructions of our Lord, which are also a revelation of HIS character.

Often we will deny our own personal feelings[:"red"]*[/] and pretend our motives are entirely noble[:"red"]*[/] in this regard: we want to see God smite the wicked for HIS glory. This we call "justice" so that it will sound "righteous".

But there is no need for God to "smite." He has invited us into the presence of His full unveiled glory, which is coming soon. That full unveiled presence destroys sin by its very nature, no deliberate premeditated effort needed. When it comes, what we have chosen will be revealed. If we have chosen Christ, we receive new bodies as the result of our exposure to His consuming fire, and dwell with Him forever. Sin IN us is burned up and destroyed forever. If we have chosen sin, we have become sin ourselves (instead of accepting that HE, Jesus, became sin FOR us, who knew no sin) and will be destroyed by the presence of that very same consuming fire, fully unveiled. But it will be sin that kills us in that event, not God.

------

[:"red"]*[/] Disclaimer: these are general observations and musings on my part about a concept itself. They are NOT intended to insinuate anything about the personal motives or heart of any specific individual. If the proverbial shoe doesn't fit, then by all means, don't wear it.

[Ted Oplinger]

Tagging in a moment...

Would God do something contrary to the Law?

Interesting question...as if He did, then that would in effect prove His enemy was right!

It seems the wrangling begins when we equate the words "kill" and "murder" to be the same meaning in English.

Originally, they did not mean the same. Today, popular usage nearly always equates the two...a usage I don't agree with.

Properly read, the commandment reads, "You shall not commit premeditated murder in anger/hatred"...if I have understood rightly those who know the proper usage and nuances of the words used there.

In my studies, I've found that Hebrew has several words that can be translated to the English as "kill", but they do not contain motives and emotions as found in the the word used in the commandment.

If indeed my understanding of this is correct, then a God of love would not - indeed, could not - end the life of anyone in an act of premeditated hatred. I can also then see why Jesus taught that looking upon another in anger/hatred was breaking the commandment - one did not need to do the actual deed.

However, to extend the thought to the idea that God will not "uncreate" those who identify with sin, in order to save His Creation, is an extension I can't make.

More later....

[John317]

Without a doubt God has definitely taken the lives of people in the past. To deny it is to deny the plainest statements possible in Scripture about the subject. The only way we can deny it is to say the Bible does not mean what it says. For instance, Genesis 6:7 tells us that God said, "I will blot out man whom I have created..." Does God mean what He says? If so, then he did it, and Genesis 7 & 8 is the proof that He did do it.

God certainly knew that everyone was not going to be able to get into the ark to escape the waters that He sent, didn't he?

Also, what about Genesis 8:21? There God is recorded as saying that He he will never again "destroy every living creature as I [Yahweh] have done." Did He destroy them? Well, yes, he did-- unless we want to say God lied or that language is utter nonsense.

Did not the angels of the Lord say that God had sent them to "destroy the city" of Sodom? Was that true or not? For a clear answer, please see Gen. 19:24 where it states in plain language that "the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven."

In Genesis 38:7, God is reported to have slain Er for being wicked. Then we also have Genesis 38:10 which clearly says God "slew," or killed, Onan for deliberately spilling his semen on the ground instead of fulfilling his moral duty.

Who killed the first born of Egypt, the Pharoah's own son, if not God's angel? Did God say, and mean, the words recorded in Exodus 12:13? (See also Ex. 12:27, 29) If words have any meaning at all, then I don't see how it can possibly be denied that God killed people in the land of Egypt. God told Moses to tell the Israelites that God killed the Egyptians. If He didn't do it, then He told Moses a lie and asked him to pass that lie on to the people.

God often gave direct orders to have people killed, and in that sense God was responsible for the deaths of these people. He certainly knew the results of His actions, did He not? How then can we say He does not kill? Only if language is nonsense and if we will say anything in order to avoid something we find either unpleasant or difficult to explain.

Example: Deut. 20: 10-18. There God tells the Israelites to "save nothing alive that breathes" when they enter the areas that God has given them. If you don't believe that they tried to do it, please see the book of Joshua

Example: Joshua 7:15. God tells Joshua to "burn with fire" Achan and his sons and daughters. The Bible says Joshua did that. Would he have done it without God telling him to do it? No, of course he wouldn't have. Would Joshua have done what he did in Joshua 8:24,25-- killing 12 thousand men and women-- unless he believed he was following God's directions? Doubtless he would not have, and the Bible says in no uncertain terms that Joshua was right to do those things. I maintain that Joshua's killing of those people was virtually the same as God's killing those people. I don't see the difference. If anyone does see a difference, I would like to know what it is.

I realize that there are many complexities involving God's punishment of the wicked at the end of the thousand years (Rev. 20:9). Some believe that God actually simply throws open the doors of the Holy City and invites everyone in, and that those who hold on to their sins are destroyed by their own sins and that those who have allowed God to take sin out of their lives are able to live in God's holy presence.

To sum up, then, while God has indeed killed people in the past, the second resurrection and death of the wicked is absolute proof for the entire universe that the wicked have not changed at all-- that they would kill God Himself if that were possible-- thus demonstrating forever that God has always been just and righteous in His dealing with sin and sinners.

One of the main problems people apparently have with God's killing people is that God appears to them to be violating His own law, which is that we are not to kill. Yet it needs to be remembered that the commandment does not say we are not to kill but rather that we are not to murder. There's a big difference between the two both in the Bible and in human law.

Finally, God is not obligated to do what we humans think He ought to do. (See Job 40: 1-8.) He has no need or reason to submit Himself in any absolute sense to the judgment of mortal men's standards of right and wrong. Jim

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

[tagging on here]

Interesting concept, "justice". It can only arise in a world where it is needed because something or someone has created a situation requiring redress with it. The concept of justice is often represented by scales, symbolising the restoration of balance, presumably where imbalance has occurred.

In our human understanding, however, "justice" has become laden with emotional overtones and quite often, from our fleshly nature, become mixed in with desires for

vengeance

or

retribution

.

---

[:"blue"]That's why we are to leave the judging & vengeance to the One whose ways are "just and true", Rev 15:3. [/]

Gerry

[there buster]

Quote:

---

If we are clinging to an inner need or desire* to see retribution or vengeance exacted on our enemies -- on those unlike us, on those who anger us, on those who vex us, on those who persecute us, on those who use us despitefully -- then we are out of harmony with these instructions of our Lord, which are also a revelation of HIS character.

---

How about this:

Quote:

---

4The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say:

"You are just in these judgments,

you who are and who were, the Holy One,

because you have so judged;

6for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets,

and

you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.

emphasis supplied

---

Or this:

Quote:

---

4Then I heard another voice from heaven say:

. . . .

6Give back to her as she has given;

pay her back double for what she has done.

Mix her a double portion from her own cup.

---

Sounds like "retribution" to me. Are those 'voices from heaven' 'out of harmony' with God?

[Nicodema]

Ed,

With all due respect, I prefer to avoid debate and argument because it is difficult for me to keep a "right spirit" in the course of that type of exchange. I prefer to simply share the things (I believe) the Lord has shown to me and let people make up their own minds about those things as the Holy Spirit leads them individually. I am open to hearing what others would like to share concerning what (they believe) the Lord has shown to them as well. I simply prefer, for myself, to avoid the course of turning "sharing" into a debate/argument format.

I hope you can understand my reasons for this decision and respect that.

I say this because whether you intended it that way or not, your response read like a "debate challenge" to me. It is possible you did not intend it that way; that may only be how I read it.

For whatever it is worth, my "short" (but by NO MEANS "complete") answer would be that these texts, and others like them, which seem to portray something "other than" the revelation of the character of God in Jesus Christ, are to be understood through FIRST grasping that more perfect revelation, and then resolved in a manner that fits with that more perfect revelation -- not the other way around, where they are used to "revise" that revelation.

As mentioned before, I am neither prepared nor willing to enter a formal debate about this subject. That does not mean I have nothing to share; it simply means I have not been appointed to quench any or every doubt raised or remove every possibility of being gainsaid in that sharing. The Lord has specifically shown me that is neither my task nor my responsibility. I want to be true to His charge to me personally.

Sincerely,

Nico

[there buster]

Not to Nico, unless she desires to respond, but for the general discussion.

Quote:

---

through FIRST grasping that more perfect revelation, and then resolved in a manner that fits with that more perfect revelation -- not the other way around, where they are used to "revise" that revelation.

---

The fallacy in that statement is that we can grasp a "more perfect revelation" independent of Scripture.

Since Scripture is our source for understanding the revelation which is Christ, we must take all of that Scripture into account. All the more so when the book I quoted, Revelation, specifically states it is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ."

If, in vision, John hears "voices from heaven" making declarations, we must conclude that these are 1) In harmony with heaven, and 2) in harmony with heaven's King.

Without the Bible and its testimony, we have no way of knowing what "more perfect" means, except by human preference. And, not only do human preferences differ, they lack authority for the church.

So. although I personally find the notion of a "more perfect" revelation appealing, in the end it lacks verifiable substance.

[there buster]

Another point, I just noticed when Gerry quoted it

Quote:

---

Interesting concept, "justice". It can only arise in a world where it is needed because something or someone has created a situation requiring redress with it.

---

That's actually exactly backwards. Justice is an attribute of God's character. Justice reigned throughout eternity before Lucifer sinned. It is "injustice" which requires redress.

It is true that, like vitamins, we become aware of it mainly through its absence.

[Ted Oplinger]

Nicodema,

Quote:

---

With all due respect, I prefer to avoid debate and argument because it is difficult for me to keep a "right spirit" in the course of that type of exchange. I prefer to simply share the things (I believe) the Lord has shown to me and let people make up their own minds about those things as the Holy Spirit leads them individually. I am open to hearing what others would like to share concerning what (they believe) the Lord has shown to them as well. I simply prefer, for myself, to avoid the course of turning "sharing" into a debate/argument format.

I hope you can understand my reasons for this decision and respect that.

---

I won't presume to answer for someone else - just for me.

This way of reply/sharing has pretty much been your style ever since you first started posting here. It's a nice change from some of the debate/challenge style others maintain.

Each style has it's place here, and it's important to remember that.

Quote:

---

For whatever it is worth, my "short" (but by NO MEANS "complete") answer would be that these texts, and others like them, which seem to portray something "other than" the revelation of the character of God in Jesus Christ, are to be understood through FIRST grasping that more perfect revelation, and then resolved in a manner that fits with that more perfect revelation -- not the other way around, where they are used to "revise" that revelation.

---

And to share a bit from my experience - I'd answer yes and no to that.

Yes, the revelation of God as seen in Jesus is much more complete than that seen in the OT symbols and shadows.

No, in that what we see in Christ's ministry is not the only facets of God's character revealed in the Scriptures.

This is why there's so much conflict between Christians as to who God really is and what His character really is like.

Christ Jesus' life and ministry on earth is a very accurate picture of God's love and motives toward His Creation.

But we must also remember Creation is involved in a civil war, in which the nature of sin is at issue. What is being laid out before the universe is both the supreme character of God as well as the ultimate character of sin.

The main questions:

Is the Creator the only rightful ruler of known existence?

If God cedes rulership to any part of Creation, what happens to the very fabric of existence? Would it continue to exist, or decay into non-existence, being put apart from being connected to the Creator?

And...is sin just another way of existing, or is sin the very mechanism by which what is created decays into non-existence? Something which only the Creator can step forward and put an end to, as ending sin must tap into the Creator's power in a way never seen before?

The last book of the Bible is appropriately named, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", and in there, I see the Lamb sacrificed is also the Lion of Judah. I also see in there that the civil war started in heaven - and that it was Christ and His angels that drove out the dragon and his allies (Chapter 12). Lamb and Lion - Christ is both at the same time.

I do not believe God is a bellicose warmonger, but I do believe God will defend His Creation when it needs defending.

Trouble is, most Christians I meet want either the Lamb or the Lion, but not both at the same time...The sacrficial Lamb tears at the very heart of human pride, violated dignity, and desire for avenging wrongs/sins, while the Lion of His character is completely at odds with what we perceive to be noble sensitivities, compassion, and mercies.

I agree, Nico, arguing won't resolve differences in opinions here - only entrench us into "sides" we really aren't needing to take. I will say, though, that at the end of it all, all who follow Christ Jesus will come to the same conclusions about sin that God has always said of it - and will support Him in any action He must take to resolve the issue once and for all.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

I agree, Nico, arguing won't resolve differences in opinions here - only entrench us into "sides" we really aren't needing to take. I will say, though, that at the end of it all, all who follow Christ Jesus will come to the same conclusions about sin that God has always said of it - and will support Him in any action He must take to resolve the issue once and for all.

---

Ted, I completely agree. I somehow suspect that's what a lot of the 1000 year period is going to be about -- helping us sort out and understand anything about which we have lingering questions or misgivings. Not because God "has" to -- He does not "have to" answer to us -- but because that is the kind of God He is -- open, honest, completely trustworthy, and willing to let Himself be put on trial even by someone like Satan who has no "right" to do what he did AT ALL.

The Lord has shown me some beautiful and wonderful potentials for all kinds of things with the Song of Moses and of the Lamb. Combining this with the "keys of the kingdom" given in Matthew 18:18-20 the possibilities to the praise of the GLORY of His GRACE are just endless and marvellous! Remember, it is those redeemed from the face of the earth who will learn to sing that Song, and I believe the singing of it refers to the living of it in their lives and choices in some very marked and creative ways.

In the end, His "strange act" is only going to seem "strange" to those who are certain they know exactly what He will do and how He will do it. We shouldn't assume because we see only the potential for understanding the "how" to be this X,Y,Z thing (all hammered out beforehand, or so we THINK) that we are seeing as God sees and know exactly how He will resolve the matter ultimately.

But one thing is for certain, as you have pointed out: He will remove sickness and death and sin from His universe in the end; we who have chosen to follow the Lamb withersoever He goest will understand and support Him indeed; and we will sing Great and marvellous are THY works, O Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Saints!