Consulting or calling up the dead

[steve]

This is true. In Jesus saying, "for all live to Him." (Luke 20:38), in the present tense, it seems He is saying (in context) that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were living at the time of Moses (as indicated in the scripture Jesus quoted) and also were living, along with all others who had ever lived, in God's awareness, when Jesus spoke. This certainly sounds like an affirmation of soul survival after death (though not necessarily of human immortality, which is another matter).

[Paidion]

I wonder how whole nations will inherit the kingdom or be cursed and sent into everlasting fire?

I wonder about that also, Michelle, though I doubt that whole nations (or individuals for that matter" will be sent into "everlasting fire". It could simply refer to the destruction of the these nations. Steve made the following comment which is well worthy of consideration:

I think your questioning how whole nations can be judged and rewarded en masse reflects a reasonable suspicion of the suggestion. The passage certainly does not require that "all nations" (ethnoi=Gentiles) be treated as complete political entities being judged for their national crimes or virtues, any more than "disciple all nations" means that the political nations will necessarily be discipled en masse as whole nations. It is quite reasonable to understand "all nations", in both contexts, as meaning "people of all ethnic groups."

I agree, Michelle, that "The passage certainly does not require that 'all nations' be treated as complete political entities..." and I am certainly not adamant that it does so require. I simply proposed the concept for your consideration. That is why I prefixed the suggestion with the words "I might add the following as a possible alternative".

However, on the surface, it does appear that Jesus sometimes spoke of future judgments for whole cities, and that they would receive such judgment, not only in 70 A.D. or in some other future (to them) historical holocaust, but in the Judgment Day itself!

Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent.

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” Matthew 11:20-24

Now I suppose it is well possible that when Jesus spoke of judgment of such cities on judgment day, cities such as Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, as well as ancient cities such as Tyre and Sidon and Sodom, He could have been thinking of individual people of those cities. Yet it does state that He began to denounce the cities. That suggests that he was denouncing the cities as an entity, and the people thereof as a group. On the surface it appears that the judgment of each city is also a single entity.

In the case of the judgment of the nations, Matthew wrote that "Before Him will be gathered all the nations". That suggests that the nations are gathered as entities. Of course, I grant that it might be "Before Him will be gathered all the gentiles". Yet the primary meaning of "ethnoi" is "nations".

Steve also proposed some reasonable difficulties in his following comments:

Would a nation like ancient Rome be judged as a "goat nation" because of Nero's crimes against Christians, or as a "sheep nation" because of Constantine's good treatment of Christians? Would England be judged as a "goat nation" because of the crimes of Bloody Mary, and her martyring of Protestants, or as a "sheep nation" for the pro-Christian eras in its history? The histories of nations are too complex and checkered to allow any nation to be regarded as falling completely into either the sheep or the goat categories.

Since all of this takes place "when the Son of Man comes in His glory", and if we can accept that the return of Christ is to the earth, I submit that it is possible that the nations which will be gathered before Him at that time, may be limited to the ones which will be on earth when He returns.

[SteveF]

Hi RND, here are my thoughts

Steve, in the KJV it says that, in his disguised form, Saul was asked by the witch, "Whom shall I bring up unto thee?" In other versions it says: "Well, whose spirit do you want me to call up?" - NLT, and “Whom shall I bring up for you?” - NIV.

My point was not that she was asked to do it. I was observing there is no account of her actually doing it. The fact that she was startled when Samuel appeared seems to support this. I'm more inclined to think the woman wouldn't have the power to call a prophet from the dead. That's one of the reasons I think it was God that intervened.

The witch wasn't surprised or shocked at the demon she brought up, but that Saul had deceived her. She even said, why she was surprised and shocked: "Why hast thou deceived me? for thou [art] Saul." She wasn't in control because of Saul's deceit, not anything the demon had done. In fact, she seems rather confident to me, "Well, whose spirit do you want me to call up?" This confidence would seem to be a job requirement of being a "medium." Showmanship!

Also Steve she initially asked Saul: “Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?” So she was surprised and shocked because she was doing something Saul had outlawed, and she didn't know that the man was Saul who was attempting to have her do something for which she could be killed. Saul then told her, “As surely as the Lord lives, you will not be punished for this.” She wasn't surprised at anything but the deceit of Saul.

I think that's a reasonable point about her being concerned about consequences from Saul. On the other hand the verse says:

1Sa 28:12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul."

I see two posibilities:

1. She was startled to see Samuel show up because she didn't expect it

or

2. When Samuel showed up this caused her to realise it was Saul she was talking to

If you see a third scenario let me know. If these are the only two then I think this clearly takes the woman out of the picture as a deceiver in this situation….which would only leave the possibility of a deceiving spirit.

Lastly you mentioned that you think that God directly intervened to rebuke Saul. OK, fair enough. But you also said at the end of this post, "I don't think God uses divination, but he certainly seems to do things in spite of it." Well, this is confusing to me. On one hand you say that God intervened, but doesn't use divination. If so,

I should have been clearer in my statement. WHat I mean is I don't think God uses divination as a regular course of action. In fact the opposite. We are told to seek God's guidance, not the horoscopes. BUT, there does seem to be precedent in the scriptures for God intervening/overriding/using??? it in situations. I don't know exactly how it works, I just know it's in the scripture.

why would God who refused to answer Saul by either by dreams or by the Urim or by the prophets speak to Saul?

I think God didn't speak to Saul in a dream because I see this encounter as partially a direct rebuke for seeking out a witch.

1Sa 28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?

and

1Sa 28:16 And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy?

Yet clearly we have an instance of divination at work. Do you believe it was God, speaking through Samuel, that was speaking to Saul? Or that God actually called up Samuel and not the witch?

I do think God was speaking through Samuel. Not only because the scripture states it but because there is nothing in what was said that's inconsistent with anything I think God would have said through Samuel. To top it off, it was fulfilled.

and

Yes, I'm more inclined to think it was God that called up Samuel.

I As I mentioned in my other post, demons can be used as "messengers of light."

Agreed, but why do you think it's a messenger of light in this scenareo?


Just wondering. It seems because you are SDA that this is an important topic for you. If my thinking is correct, that this is a unique situation in which God intervened, how would that affect SDA doctrine? Couldn't it be explained by an SDA that maybe the woman regularly encountered demons but this seems to be a unique situation where God jumped in....hence, the possible reason she screamed out.

PS....how's the wrist?

[Paidion]

In Luke 20.38 we read of Jesus responding to the Sadducees regarding Abraham,Isaac and Jacob. "He is not the God of the dead, BUT of the living, for all live to him."

This is one of those places where the context is VERY significant. In speaking with the Sadducees, Jesus is addressing their belief that there is no ressurection:

But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him. Luke 20:37,38


When Moses called Yahweh "The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob", he showed that the dead are raised! That's what Jesus says here. Jesus doesn't indicate that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not really dead, but are actually living. Rather He indicates since God is their God, they must be going to live again. Otherwise, He would be the God of the dead, rather than the God of the living. It's all about the truth of the resurrection.

The phrase rendered "for all live to him" is probably better translated "for all live for Him" The dative case allows this. The idea may that since all people who live, live for the purposes of God, then everyone is worthy of being raised to life again.

[steve7150]

Steve7150 you wrote:
In Luke 20.38 we read of Jesus responding to the Sadducees regarding Abraham,Isaac and Jacob. "He is not the God of the dead, BUT of the living, for all live to him."


This is one of those places where the context is VERY significant. In speaking with the Sadducees, Jesus is addressing their belief that there is no ressurection:





Jesus often led the conversation to where he wanted to take it like he did with Nicodemus and here he addresses the state of the dead not just the resurrection by saying "He is not the God of the dead BUT of the living" drawing a contrast between the living and the dead and speaking in a present tense.
This contrast establishes a different state of being between death and life. Jesus also says,

"I tell you the truth if anyone keeps my word , he will never see death." John 8.51 The jews asked if he was greater then Abraham who died and Jesus did'nt modify his statement by saying "well i really meant they will die but their next conscience moment will be the resurrection."
He simply said "he will never see death."

Back to the thief on the cross, the statement by Jesus "truly i say to you", IMO is the NT version of the OT expression "Thus saith the Lord" in the OT and we never see the word "today" ever added to that like "thus saith the Lord today" , it does'nt sound right nor does it really sound right from Jesus lips when he has a few moments left to live "truly i say to you TODAY" as if Jesus wanted the thief to know for sure that Jesus spoke to him on the same day the thief asked the question? No as Steve brought up as a very good point which was that the "TODAY" remark was addressing the concerns of the thief, which would be twofold , being in the kingdom at all and when might that be? Thus "truly i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" answers both concerns.

In Phil 1.21-23
"For me to live is Christ and to die is gain . If i am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me, YET WHAT SHALL I CHOOSE? I AM TORN between the two, I desire to depart and be with Christ WHICH IS FAR BETTER."

Note the urgency of Paul's dilemma and his two choices, does it sound like he is torn between doing fruitful labor or being dead in the grave?
Would being dead in the grave be a gain over doing fruitful labor?
Would being dead in the grave be "far better"?
When he says he desires to depart and be with Christ, is he thinking that he will be in the grave but his next conscience moment will be the resurrection? The emphasis here is that he is torn between his two choices to stay and do fruitful labor or be with Christ, that is what troubles him as he says " yet what shall i choose" which makes him torn and denoting a sense of urgency. Hoping dead into a grave is not an urgent option for Paul to choose from but departing to be with Christ, is indeed.

Lastly Paul is aware of all the OT references regarding the state of the dead yet Paul believes he can depart and be with Christ, where did he get this belief?

[RND]

Just wondering. It seems because you are SDA that this is an important topic for you. If my thinking is correct, that this is a unique situation in which God intervened, how would that affect SDA doctrine?

Because it would make God to a "Do as I say, not as I do kinda God." Why would God communicate using a method He called and abomination? It makes no sense Steve.

To me that would be akin to suggesting that God can engage in murder, theft or homosexuality to accomplish His means and worse, He would. I mean if He breaks His own word to speak to people through the dead then certainly He can break His own word and commit murder, steal or engage in abominable relations to accomplish His means. But God never does that. He doesn't break His rules for us to accomplish His aims.

Couldn't it be explained by an SDA that maybe the woman regularly encountered demons but this seems to be a unique situation where God jumped in....hence, the possible reason she screamed out.

Listen to this:


I hope you listen to this study by Pastor Dwight Nelson to help with your perspective in what I believe.

Study Guide

PS....how's the wrist?

It hurts and is sore.

“As the crowning act in the great drama of deception, Satan himself will personate Christ. . . . In different parts of the earth, Satan will manifest himself among men as a majestic being of dazzling brightness, resembling the description of the Son of God given by John in the Revelation. Revelation 1:13-15. The glory that surrounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyes have yet beheld. The shout of triumph rings out upon the air: ‘Christ has come! Christ has come!’ The people prostrate themselves in adoration before him, while he lifts up his hands and pronounces a blessing upon them, as Christ blessed His disciples when He was upon the earth.”

[Michelle]

Because it would make God to a "Do as I say, not as I do kinda God."

God reserves all kinds of activities for himself. Vengeance is His. The ability to know and the right to judge a man's heart is His alone. He gives us life and takes it from us. And, actually, when he raised people from the dead (the son of the widow Elijah lodged with, Jairus' daughter, the son of the widow in Nain, Lazurus...to name a few), and when he will raise us in the resurrection, isn't he doing what we've been talking about, and isn't He doing what only He can do?

Why would God communicate using a method He called and abomination? It makes no sense Steve.

Hmm...that is an interesting question.

To me that would be akin to suggesting that God can engage in murder, theft or homosexuality to accomplish His means and worse, He would. I mean if He breaks His own word to speak to people through the dead then certainly He can break His own word and commit murder, steal or engage in abominable relations to accomplish His means. But God never does that. He doesn't break His rules for us to accomplish His aims.

How can God commit murder? He has the right to give life and take it, so when he does take a life, it's not unlawful, besides he's God... not our equal.

How can God steal when he's the one who created everything? Isn't it all his?

I can't even bring myself to reply to the homosexuality argument...

“As the crowning act in the great drama of deception, Satan himself will personate Christ. . . . In different parts of the earth, Satan will manifest himself among men as a majestic being of dazzling brightness, resembling the description of the Son of God given by John in the Revelation. Revelation 1:13-15. The glory that surrounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyes have yet beheld. The shout of triumph rings out upon the air: ‘Christ has come! Christ has come!’ The people prostrate themselves in adoration before him, while he lifts up his hands and pronounces a blessing upon them, as Christ blessed His disciples when He was upon the earth.”

Is this quote from the lesson you linked in your post?

[RND]

How can God commit murder? He has the right to give life and take it, so when he does take a life, it's not unlawful, besides he's God... not our equal.

God, in the person of Jesus Christ, equates Himself as a friend to man, particularly His disciples. Friends are equals.

"You are my friends if you obey me. I no longer call you servants, because a master doesn't confide in his servants. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me."

Do we have any instance where Jesus Himself kills and takes life?

“As the crowning act in the great drama of deception, Satan himself will personate Christ. . . . In different parts of the earth, Satan will manifest himself among men as a majestic being of dazzling brightness, resembling the description of the Son of God given by John in the Revelation. Revelation 1:13-15. The glory that surrounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyes have yet beheld. The shout of triumph rings out upon the air: ‘Christ has come! Christ has come!’ The people prostrate themselves in adoration before him, while he lifts up his hands and pronounces a blessing upon them, as Christ blessed His disciples when He was upon the earth.”

Is this quote from the lesson you linked in your post?

No.

[Michelle]

How can God commit murder? He has the right to give life and take it, so when he does take a life, it's not unlawful, besides he's God... not our equal.

God, in the person of Jesus Christ, equates Himself as a friend to man, particularly His disciples. Friends are equals.

"You are my friends if you obey me. I no longer call you servants, because a master doesn't confide in his servants. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me."

Yes, Jesus said that. I'm not certain that friends are always equals, however. I'm pretty friendly with my boss, but we're not equals; I have to ask her permission to do certain things and she can tell me to do tasks, but I don't get to give her orders. But it is true that we are both equal in our humanity, however. Jesus was a man, but he's also God. I don't think the fact that Jesus said that his disciples are his friends means that we are equal to God.

Do we have any instance where Jesus Himself kills and takes life?

No, not Jesus while he ministered here on earth. Sorry, RND, but I don't understand what your point is with that question.

“As the crowning act in the great drama of deception, Satan himself will personate Christ. . . . In different parts of the earth, Satan will manifest himself among men as a majestic being of dazzling brightness, resembling the description of the Son of God given by John in the Revelation. Revelation 1:13-15. The glory that surrounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyes have yet beheld. The shout of triumph rings out upon the air: ‘Christ has come! Christ has come!’ The people prostrate themselves in adoration before him, while he lifts up his hands and pronounces a blessing upon them, as Christ blessed His disciples when He was upon the earth.”

Is this quote from the lesson you linked in your post?

No.

Oh. Where is it from, then?

[RND]

Yes, Jesus said that. I'm not certain that friends are always equals, however. I'm pretty friendly with my boss, but we're not equals; I have to ask her permission to do certain things and she can tell me to do tasks, but I don't get to give her orders. But it is true that we are both equal in our humanity, however. Jesus was a man, but he's also God. I don't think the fact that Jesus said that his disciples are his friends means that we are equal to God.

I think you're describing a "friendly and respectful" relationship with your boss but not necessarily a relationship that Jesus described.

No, not Jesus while he ministered here on earth. Sorry, RND, but I don't understand what your point is with that question.

Michelle, you stated "How can God commit murder? He has the right to give life and take it, so when he does take a life, it's not unlawful, besides he's God... not our equal" and this was why I inquired if Jesus ever killed seeing that He was "
Immanuel."

Jesus was the creator of life.

Oh. Where is it from, then?

The book Maranatha page 276.