Does a loving God send people to Hell?

The other day, I was listening in on a conversation with several church members. They were discussing the instances in the Old Testament of God judging and killing people in large numbers. One of the people involved in the conversation stated that they did not believe that God would destroy a large group of people and send them to Hell due to Him being an all-loving God. That caused me to ask this person what about Sodom and Gomorrah. God completely destroyed those cities and all those who were in them. Did God destroy the cities and kill the inhabitants for their wickedness, only to have compassion on them and allow them to live in Heaven afterwards. What about in II Kings 19:35 where the Angel of the Lord enters the Assyrian camp and kills 185,000 of Sennacherib’s soldiers. Did God have compassion on these people because so many of them died, and allowed them into heaven? We can take it further and look at Genesis 6, where God is sorry that He made mankind because of their wickedness. God chose to destroy mankind with a worldwide flood and only spare Noah and his family. Did God turn around and choose to allow those who were killed and let them into heaven because He killed so many at one time. We can look throughout the O.T. and see where God has allowed the death of large groups of people for various reasons. When one looks at this, they often ask, “Is this the work of a loving and gracious God?” and “Can God be a loving God and kill people and let them go to Hell?” How do we reconcile the fact that God allowed people in the O.T. to be judged and killed in mass groups, and still be a loving God? How do we as believers explain this to a non-believer?

Is Mission's a New Testament Concept?

While much of modern day missions have been shaped by key passages in the New Testament, we find evidence of missionary activity all throughout the Old and the New Testament. Throughout the Old Testament, we're introduced to a mission minded God that reveals his presence and power to all the surrounding nations through the testimony of His people. The concept of missions is not first introduced in the days of the early church but the Old Testament serves as the base that the early church used in their blueprint for missions.

The Old Testament is saturated with verses that support the mission mind of God. In Genesis chapter 12, God makes a clear promise with Abraham that all blessings will come through him. This promise was clearly seen and given again through Moses when he was called by God to free God's people from bondage. God through and through calls people so that all nations will know the true and living God. This is our mission minded God doing his work. In Psalm 67, we find that God clearly desires the worship of people from all nations. From Isaiah chapter 11 to all throughout the Minor Prophets, we find examples of God's care for and judgment over all of His creation.

The New Testament does not start the mission of God but rather simply continues what God had done all along in the Old Testament, as it reveals this mission focus of our God in a straight forward and descriptive manner. This has been the initial heart and the primary passion of God all along, all throughout the generations from the days of Genesis, to the early church days, to even today. Missions is not a newly developed concept only found in the New Testament but developed so it could be applied to Christians for today.

Is Whole Hearted Devotion to God Reasonably Attainable?

Was it reasonble for God to expect the Israelites to follow after Him and obey His commandments with their whole heart? What makes it possible for humankind to follow after God and obey His commands in their sinful state? It is common for mankind to feel helpless in their sinful state. As humans we are created in God's image (Gen. 1:27). The decision of the first humans, Adam and Eve, to disobey the Lord created a barrier between all mankind and the Lord because of the sinful nature of mankind (Gen. 3). The Lord desires to have intimate fellowship with mankind and in the Old Testament continues to make a covenant with Israel so they might be in fellowship with Him (Gen. 17; 22:16-19; 26:24; 28:13-15). The Lord states within His covenant, "I am with you" (Gen. 26:27). This Covenant and the Mosaic Law both point toward the atonement by Christ Jesus enabling us to come into an abiding relationship with God (Matt. 27:50-51; John 3:14-15; Col. 3:2-4).

The Lord enables His children the Israelites to obey Him (Deut. 30:14-15). It is written in the Old Testament that the Lord circumcised the Israelites' hearts to love Him (Deut. 30:6). He goes on to state, "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it" (Deut. 30:14). The Old Testament contains individuals who followed Him with their whole heart including Joshua and David (Joshua 14:8). Serving the Lord wholeheartedly does not mean a person will not sin as there were times David and Joshua sinned. In 1 Chronicles 28:9, Solomon is implored to serve the Lord with his whole heart as God searches the hearts and the minds of people.

Is God a Dictator?

I think one of the greatest challenges Christians face in today's society is reconciling the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament in terms Him being a political leader. When the historical events regarding the formation of the nation of Israel are unpack through the political lens of today’s society, one might categorized Jehovah God as a dictator. The question remains then is God being a dictator good or bad? Scripture reveals that God was a political leader who feared none and demanded loyalty from his subjects (Israel). But how can that be true? God-- a Dictator? In light of current day terminology a dictator is often associated with a negative connotation. However, when I revisited the scriptures, I have found that this idea may not be such a bad thing.

In our class discussions we have covered God’s authority over the universe as creator (Genesis 1-2); his role as Lawmaker (Deutornomny 5:1-29) ; as a Commander in Chief (Exodus 3:14); as judge (Genesis 6:13, Genesis 19:1-29), and as advocate for those in suffering (Exodus Lev 23:21-23). Understanding these attributes of Yhwh has allowed me to examine the context of other passages outside of the torah (or Pentateuch) in a new light. For example the Passages in Joshua 5:12-14 where it says:

“Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?" "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence” and then in chapter 6-- God fulfills his word and delivers Jericho into Joshua s’ hands.

The Old Testament portrays the strength and strategy of leading a nation in a war campaign. God led his people to war, he ordered israel to destroyed those who opposed his people, his ways, or Him in the OT. in their totality. This included the destruction of their cities, the elimination of their livestock and their people.

I am not advocating such measures, for the present day to church to venture out on a search and destroy mission. Rather, I am merely acknowledging the nature of God as the Political leader revealed. From our class discussions, Dr. Yates pointed towards the moral and ethical implications of the Mosaic Law. Only a political leader who is controlling and determined to have his people act accordingly, would give such specific instructions. Is that bad for Christians today? We also have to consider as the social advocate and the politician the Almighty was for his people. He wanted to bless them and make his nation a great one. Only a great dictator would go to such extremes to fulfill that vision. The interesting aspect is that understand the nature of God as a dictator in the Old testament directly correlates to his supremacy over everything in the New testament -- all the way to The Great Judgement Day. I believe if we grasp this aspect of God, we may just deepen our faith and our service to the one who is victorious in a new way.

Cain and Able and true offerings

Many know the story of Cain and Able. The story of these two brothers is found in Genesis 4:1-16, Cain was a tender of the Land and his brother Abel watched the sheep. One day both brothers bring an offering to the Lord. The Lord accepts Abel’s offering but rejects Cain’s. Cain gets jealous and kills his brother.

The Bible gives no explanation as to why Cain’s offering is rejected. All that is said by God about the matter is found Gen 7-8 “if you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

Was God rejecting Cain’s offering because he had not done well as stated in the first part of the verse? Or was God rejecting Cain for the Sin not yet committed as forewarn in the last half of the verse.

Even though the passage of Genesis 4 seems to focus on the interaction between God and Cain, I want to know more about Abel. Why did he decide bring the type of offering? Yes he was a herdsman so it would only make sense that meat would be his offering to God. But why the first born and they fat portions?

I cannot help but think how Abel’s offering of an animal resembled God’s killing to make garments to clothed Adam and Eve, revealing his grace and mercy. Abel’s offering may have been regarded for the fact that his offering was in remembrance of God’s good will. Something his brother Cain’s offering may have not symbolized.

The story of Cain and his brother Able can be applied to how we give to God. Giving to show that we remember what God has done for us and how thankful we are for his grace and mercy.

If there was no first, then there is no need for the second

In the booklet Creationism and Evolution, the co authors Buffaloe and Murray discuss the possibility of certain Genesis accounts never truly being reality, but fable. Here is an excerpt of the book: “When we read the ancient Hebrew accounts of the creation—Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, man’s fall by listening to the seductive words of a serpent, and God’s Sabbath rest—we must understand, says Napier, that these things never were……”(1981, p. 8, italics added). If there was not a first Adam, then could there have been a second Adam? Scripture addresses the reality of there being a literal Adam.
All men were made from Adam. Paul in describing the UNKNOWN GOD while addressing the Greeks in Athens makes a bold statement, From one man he made every nation of men...(Acts 17:26a). Who is this one man or in some versions, one blood? It has to be Adam. There is no difference of mankind in God’s eyes, making him no respecter of persons.
All men sinned when Adam sinned. Paul takes on the reality of inherited sin from one man. Read Romans 5:12-21 in context, but in particularly Romans 5:19, For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Paul even mentions Adam’s name in Romans 5:14 to define this one man. 1 Corinthians 5:22 states, For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. If there was not a first Adam who sinned condemning all mankind then a savior (a second Adam) would not be needed.
A literal Adam is crucial to the redemptive story of Christ Jesus, the second Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul answers the question about the dead being raised up in verse 35. He explains that through the first Adam, we receive our natural bodies, which are subject to death due to the fall of man but through the last Adam we will receive our spiritual bodies which is the result of resurrection from the dead.
Therefore it is crucial that there be a literal one Adam who was a type of the one to come. If it were not so, then it would not be possible for one man’s actions to affect all mankind for the negative (Adam) or for the Positive (Christ).

Seeing and hearing the true about the poor.

The universal church of America has become deaf and blind to most of the issues that are present to us now. During election time conservative Christians tend to focus their attention to if the candidates are pro-choice or pro-life. There are other issues that conservatives Christian tend to heed to but there are others that they forget. One of them is how we treat to poor. I tend to look at all the issues of America as a pie and there are sometimes we forget about the different pieces of the pie and we focus on our own agenda and to the agenda of God. As the riches country in the world we should not have a very low poverty level but we do. We as conservatives Christian get upset about governmental programs helping the poor but if all the churches would get on one accord and work together there would be no poor unless they make the choice to stay poor. The poor is slaves to their situation but if churches all over this land will rise up and take a stand and truly share the love of Christ by giving to the poor and setting up programs the poor will be free. All people need is basically a roof over their head, clothes on their backs, food on their table and a job to pay their bills. It is really hard to believe that America is in a recession with our Pro-sports athletes making millions and millions of dollars and the same with our church conventions. As he universal church of the Almighty God we need not to follow in the shoes of Israel but we need to open our eyes and ears to the hurting people of America and do not believe the lie of Satan that if you speak out against social issues of America that you are a socialist.

Is it ok to married to two or more women at once? (Polygamy)

During the Old Testament time men did have two or more wives. Good examples are Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and many more man in the Old Testament. On Genesis 29 Jacob worked fourteen years for Laban to marry Rachel, and Leah. Even thought, Jacob did not want to marry Leah, he still had two wives. Abraham was married to Sarah, and Hagar; he also had more than two wives. Is it ok to have two or more wives at same time just like in the Old Testament time?

The answer is no. On the Scripture, God clearly teaches us a monogram. Genesis 2:24 “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife.” Bible clearly used singular “a man” and “wife.” Also 1 Timothy 3:12 said “must be the husband of but one wife.”  It is telling us husband of one wife. Therefore, polygamy is clearly wrong.

Why God did allows men in the Old Testament to have two or more wives? God did not allow them to have two or more wives. Men in the Old Testament just married to two or more wives at same time. God promised Abraham and Sarah to have children, but Abraham just could not wait and took Hagar to have child. Also Solomon failed to God because he had 700 wives. Deuteronomy 17:17 says “He must not take many wives.” Also 1 King 11:3 - 4 says “his wives led him astray… his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord.”  Men in the Old Testament just had many wives even though God did not allow them to have.

LAW

I think one of the greatest challenges in dealing with some of the difficult passages in the Old Testament is having a working understanding, with the comprehension to decipher what passages of the Mosaic Law we are to follow today, and what portions of the law that are no longer valid for today. Things I have learned that I thought were helpful in making the connection between parts of the law which were relevant and parts which were not valid today included the idea that the law was civil, ceremonial, and moral. At first my inclination was to expel that which was ceremonial and civil, while keeping the moral law of God. However as Dr. Yates pointed out to the class this becomes problematic when two people offer different interpretations on laws, which could fall into one category or another, or be blended into both. Other insightful concepts such as: the portions of the law, which were restated in the New Testament, are valid. This offered a provocative and meaningful concept. However this view of interpretation also has problems. The most helpful conclusion I was able to come to was offered by Dr. Yates: “The law of Christ resembles the law of Moses. The law still has moral authority for Christians even though we don’t live under it.” The Scriptural example which I found to be illuminating to this concept came from 1 Tim 5:8, when Paul cited Deut 25:4. “The Old Testament law was not so much about justice in the sense of people getting what they deserved, but that people were able to get what they needed.”-Dr. Yates

Old Testament Law and Romans 13

Properly applying the Old Testament law today has been the source of much discussion. It is not wise to simply disregard any of Scripture, because all is God-breathed and profitable (II Timothy 3:16). However, many of the 613 laws seem extreme and irrelevant in today's context. Christ said that the law and prophets could be summed up in "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind," and "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37-38). For many, this still leaves confusion as to how modern-day Christians should approach O. T. law.

Romans 13 shines an important light on the subject. Romans 13:1-2 commands all believers to submit to every governing authority, because all authority is "appointed by God." Following the exodus from Egypt, the Israelites had no official government or code of law by which to guide them. Motivated by love and a desire for His people to know Him, God revealed the law to His servant Moses. Their law was deeply rooted in the context of their day and applied to them directly. Similarly, we have a governing authority over America that is rooted in the context of our day and applicable to us.

There is, however, a deeper love and meaning behind every law that must be grasped. Every governing authority is ordained by God, including both the O. T. law and today's constitution. The specifics of the law may vary, but the intentions are the same. The O. T. law is not the governing authority for today, but many of the laws are rooted in the same moral foundations. We are commanded to obey our governing authority, and where the morals and intentions are consistent is where the O. T. law applies to us.

-A. Aaron Hedden

Unfair God? Faithful God!

As we read the Bible, we read many stories about the kings of Israelites. There were many kings in Northern kingdom of Israel and southern kingdom of Judah. However, there were only few kings who “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD.” The well-known kings are David and Hezekiah. They did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. But, were they perfectly “right” throughout their lives? No!

As you have read the Bible, David made a mistake of taking the faithful servant, Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba (2 Sam 11); Hezekiah was proud of his wealth and made a mistake of showing his storehouse (2 King 20). Yet, when they were condemned, they had humble hearts and repented right away. Although they have repented, there were sequences of their sins. David’s kingdom was divided into two kingdoms, and Hezekiah’s descendents were taken to Babylon. God told them that these things will happen, not in their time, but to their descendents because of their sins.

As I read the Bible, I was curious. Why the sequences of their sins had to fall on their descendents, not on them? If they repented and if they were forgiven, why there should be the sequences? Why God still had to punish the next generations?
I still do not know the exact answer. Yet, what I learned from studying the Patriarchs is this: God was still faithful. God made a covenant with David that if his sons obey the word of God, they will be blessed, and if not, they will be punished. God kept his promise. Although these kings made mistakes and God’s people were rebellious, God kept one light for David’s descendents (Kingdom of Judah). Although Israelites were taken as captives to Babylon, God kept them safe and let them return to the Promised Land. God fulfilled his promise that he made with Abraham and David through Jesus.

He gave us the New Covenant. Through Jesus Christ, God provided us the unconditional forgiveness and blessing. If you believe in Jesus, your failures of past will be forgiven and you will inherit the eternal blessing from God, Our Father! What a great God! Hallelujah!

Abrahamic vs Mosaic Covenant

Probably the two biggest covenants in the Old Testament are the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. The Abrahamic covenant promises three things: to make Abram's name great with a promise of many descendants, to give him and his descendants land, and to bless the world through Abram. The Mosaic covenant was quite different but with similar flavor. This covenant was a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant, but with conditions. The Law was given to the Israelites in hopes of making them into the people that would eventually be the blessing that was promised in the Abrahamic covenant. In Exodus 19: 4-6, God says if you obey my commands. This if was to say that when you obey my commands, you will be a blessing to all people and a blessing to Him. However, if they did not obey the commands, they would not reflect the nature and holiness of God, and therefore not be a blessing to others and to God.

My proposal here is that the covenant with Moses and the people of Israel was not needed until the time of the Exodus. The Abrahamic covenant was a covenant made with Abraham and his family. We are talking less than 100 people. As time goes on, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph reproduce and begin to fulfill the promise of making Abraham a great nation. By the time of Moses, Israel is huge. It is said that there were over 600,000 men who came out of Egypt when the Israelites were finally delivered. This is significantly larger than 100 people. The point I'm attempting to make here is that one man (Abraham) can lead a small group, especially a family, in the way of the Lord. But when the family grows to at least 600,000 men with probably over 2,000,000 people when you add the women and children, it becomes difficult to keep up with and scold each one of them individually. I believe that the Law was given so that everyone, who was not very close to Moses and Aaron, would know exactly what was expected of them by having this written Law. Also by having this written Law, most people would be familiar with it and help keep everyone else accountable for their actions when they were not "being a blessing."

In conclusion, is the Abrahamic covenant different than the Mosaic covenant? Yes, but the principles that are provided by the Law in the Mosaic covenant reflect what was already expected of Abraham and his family in the time of the Abrahamic covenant. The big difference comes when the condition if is applied in the Mosaic covenant.

Why did God give the people of Israel the law which could not be observed? What is the real purpose of the law?

Men do not observe the law without the Holy Spirit because men thmselves ae not good. Was there Holy Spirit in individuals in the Old Testament times like New Testament times? No, the Holy Spirit had gone after Adam and Eve's sin. After that, God tried tobring back the Holy Spirit to men. What is the Holy Spirit? It is Love itself, Truth itself, Peace itself, and Freedom itself which can lead to the perfect law. God knew that men in the Old Testament could not obey the law. Why did God give the people of Israel the law which could not be observed? God was waiting for them until they lay down their goodness, their righteousness and their will. God used the people of Israel as an example in order to teach love to both the gentiles like us and the people of Israel through a very long history. God wanted to let us know that the men cannot follow the law without love. With a sense of judgment, the more the men try to follow the law, the more they have anxiety and condemnation. Worse, in order to be perfect like a god, men must keep the law. What is the genuine purpose of the law? God is not only for the living on this earth happily but also for living and reigning with Jesus for a thousand years and forever as a priest.

Reflection on Righteous Anger

Is anger neutral? If not, can it be divided into righteous/positive or sinful/negative anger? How can they be distinguished from each other? In this post, I want to reflect on the concept of anger in the light of the Scriptures.

After the Jews returned from the exile, the nobles and officials oppressed the poor by imposing heavy interest, so they provoked Nehemiah. He stated in Nehemiah 5:6, “When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry.” He kept saying, “What you are doing is not right. Shouldn’t you walk in the fear of our God to avoid the reproach of our Gentile enemies?” (Nehemiah 5:9) What made him furious? Where was his resentment based on? The Word of God in Exodus 22:25 explicitly states, “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.” This passage demonstrates how God care about the poor.

I believe that Nehemiah knew God’s compassion on His creatures including non-human creatures through the Law and his relationship with God, so he would have been angry on the rich’s maltreatment. In that point, his anger might be distinguished from sinful anger. Moreover, in Nehemiah 13:25 he curses the people who married to Gentile women, even beats them and pulls out their hair. Nehemiah’s action seems somewhat overly responsive to them, but he reminds me of God. Indeed, Psalms 7:11 depicts God as a righteous judge, who shows his resentment.

In Reflections on the Psalms, C. S. Lewis argued that the absence of anger was much worse than the spirit of hatred the ancient Jews held, since they perceived righteousness as one of God’s characteristics and revealed their honest resentment as a natural result. Does not Nehemiah’s anger reflect God’s image put within humans?