First, none of this is going to fly in Silver Springs - but that aside, there are some issues both Greg and Paul need to settle for themselves before this book comes out. If much of the OT lives in the “shadow lands”, pointing to the NT (if only in retrospect), what is the Adventist church doing living in those shadows. Overwhelmingly, SDA theology comes straight out the OT; but, instead of living in, and promoting the thing being anticipated, we settle into the OT paradigm, substituting Adventist membership for the Hebrews. We give the NT its meaning out of the OT; instead of seeing the NT the object of the OT - not the same thing. For the one, the OT is primary; for the other the NT is the real.
In a nutshell, might I suggest that we could solve the whole problem by applying this “responsible identification” to the entire NT as it relates to the Old. Could Jesus not have referenced the OT - its laws and stories - on the same basis as Greg suggests is God’s relationship to the violence He seems to promote in the OT.
Jesus came into the land of the Hebrews, not because they were promised that he would come; but because they were waiting for rescue - political rescue, but rescue nevertheless. Israel sat in the center of the crossroads of civilization. From this vantage point, information would spread to all corners of the globe, especially with the Roman empire at the helm. To this strategic location, God sent His Son - just as alien to the Jews as to any of the others. To the Jews He became the awaited Messiah (with a twist); to the Greeks, the “unknown God,” for whom they had even erected a statue. As the Jews were being dispersed into every corner of the globe, their “messiah” would also go with them - except it wasn’t their Messiah. It was God, taking advantage of the ego-centric dreams of a people.
We can’t somehow intertwine the OT God of vengeance with the NT God of grace and unfathomable love, by excusing the violence on the basis of a disengaged God. What we permit, we also promote.