The notion that the God of Scripture doesn’t take the lives of His creatures—that if He did so, He would be violating His own commandments and thus His character of love—has festered around the fringes of the Seventh-day Adventist Church for some time, even if at times it has gained entrance into prestigious learning centers. More recently, what some call the “character of God” movement has revived and promoted this teaching, taking captive minds and hearts vulnerable, for various reasons, to its conclusions.
Because it involves the disregard of some of the clearest teachings and narratives found in the Sacred Record, this theory has never gained what anyone could describe as a significant following in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Few if any thinkers in mainstream scholarly or administrative circles in the denomination have fallen for its reasoning. But its influence and allurement for certain ones persists in various circles, and so a few words concerning it are in order.
The Right Thing in the Wrong Place
A professor of mine in college once said that a key principle of Christian ethics was recognizing that what is right in one setting can be very wrong in another. Food, for example, can be a very good thing when caressing one’s taste buds and going down one’s digestive tract. But if it gets on your clothes or some other place where it doesn’t belong, it isn’t so good anymore.
The morality or lack thereof in many of the choices we make is much the same. If I go to the bank and withdraw funds that belong to me, that is a perfectly moral and legal act. If, however, I go to the same bank, stick an Uzi in the teller’s ribs and demand $100,000 that isn’t mine, that’s called stealing, which is neither moral nor legal. In both cases money leaves the bank and comes to me. But in the first case the transfer is morally and legally right, while in the other it is neither.
If a man or woman in a Biblical marriage enjoys intimate and consensual relations with a spouse, that relationship is blessed by God. Scripture says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled” (Heb. 13:4). However, if one experiences such intimacy outside of a Biblical marriage, the Bible calls such an act fornication or adultery (I Cor. 7:2). The physical act is the same in both cases. But while in the first case the relationship is depicted in God’s Word as honorable, in the latter it is called sinful.
The same principles holds true with the Sixth Commandment, which declares, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Human beings are forbidden by this commandment to take the lives of fellow humans because they are incapable of giving such life themselves. God, by contrast, is the Giver of life; thus He—unlike His creatures—has the right to take it.
It isn’t the purpose of the present article to invite controversy regarding any number of issues (e.g. war, capital punishment, the killing of animals) impacted by this discussion. For now, we are simply addressing the question of whether the taking of life by the Sovereign God of the universe is truly a violation of the Sixth Commandment and thus a departure from His character of love.
The Sacred Record
Incidents of God putting recalcitrant sinners to death, or authorizing the same, are too ubiquitous in the Bible story to recount in the present context. Attempts to explain these away as either the work of Satan or some indirect activity on God’s part (how the latter somehow relieves God of responsibility for such action, I haven’t yet figured out), simply cannot be harmonized with a consistent reading of the inspired writings.
Ellen White explains how, before the Flood, those who were foremost in rejecting the preaching of Noah had a view of the divine character disturbingly similar to that held by those today who believe the character of God is incompatible with the punishment of sinners:
The men of that generation were not, in the fullest acceptation of the term, idolaters. Many professed to be worshipers of God. They claimed that their idols were representations of the Deity, and that through them the people could obtain a clearer conception of the divine Being. This class were foremost in rejecting the preaching of Noah. As they endeavored to represent God by material objects, their minds were blinded to His majesty and power; they ceased to realize the holiness of His character, or the sacred, unchanging nature of His requirements. As sin became general, it appeared less and less sinful, and they finally declared that the divine law was no longer in force; that it was contrary to the character of God to punish transgression; and they denied that His judgments were to be visited upon the earth [1].
In another, even stronger statement, the modern prophet explains in greater depth the problem with such thinking:
God's love is represented in our day as being of such a character as would forbid His destroying the sinner. Men reason from their own low standard of right and justice. "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself" (Ps. 50:21). They measure God by themselves. They reason as to how they would act under the circumstances and decide God would do as they imagine they would do.
God's goodness and long forbearance, His patience and mercy exercised to His subjects, will not hinder Him from punishing the sinner who refused to be obedient to His requirements. It is not for a man – a criminal against God's holy law, pardoned only through the great sacrifice He made in giving His Son to die for the guilty because His law was changeless -- to dictate to God. After all this effort on the part of God to preserve the sacred and exalted character of His law, if men, through the sophistry of the devil, turn the mercy and condescension of God into a curse, they must suffer the penalty. Because Christ died they consider they have liberty to transgress God's holy law that condemns the transgressor, and would complain of its strictness and its penalty as severe and unlike God. They are uttering the words Satan utters to millions, to quiet their conscience in rebellion against God.
In no kingdom or government is it left to the lawbreakers to say what punishment is to be executed against those who have broken the law. All we have, all the bounties of the grace which we possess, we owe to God. The aggravating character of sin against such a God cannot be estimated any more than the heavens can be measured with a span. God is a moral governor as well as a Father. He is the Lawgiver. He makes and executes His laws. Law that has no penalty is of no force.
The plea may be made that a loving Father would not see His children suffering the punishment of God by fire while He had the power to relieve them. But God would, for the good of His subjects and for their safety, punish the transgressor. God does not work on the plan of man. He can do infinite justice that man has no right to do before his fellow man. Noah would have displeased God to have drowned one of the scoffers and mockers that harassed him, but God drowned the vast world. Lot would have had no right to inflict punishment on his sons-in-law, but God would do it in strict justice [2].
Conclusion
Quite obviously, from the above statements, we recognize that this God-does-not-kill theory is nothing new, nor is the notion that God’s love disallows divine punishment for sin. In our day, with doctrinal and moral vacillation widespread even among professed Christians, with many urging that the faith community open its mind and its membership to persons whose beliefs and practices differ widely from the standards of the inspired writings, fabricating a god whose character rejects severity and judgment is an attractive option.
But for those who adhere without shame or embarrassment to the written counsel of God as their supreme authority in matters spiritual (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11), theological “creativity” of this sort has no place. The character of God cannot be measured by human standards, only by the inspired Word. None will deny the existence of stories in the Sacred Text that may be difficult to explain or understand. I’m not the only one, I’m sure, who has a list of questions to ask the Lord one day! But the Christian for whom “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1) will trust the Lord to offer satisfying answers to such questions in His own good time. As the God of Scripture knows the end from the beginning (Isa. 42:9) and the hearts of all His creatures (I Kings 8:39), we can trust Him to one day lay before us those reasons and explanations for His actions which today lie beyond our understanding.
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 95-96.
2. ----Last-Day Events, pp. 240-241.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan