About 5 years ago, I was sitting in a meeting with many other Christian leaders when a person with a certain celebrity status was given the opportunity to address the gathering. His role was to call the church out for its lack of involvement in global social issues, such as AIDS in Africa, poverty, and social justice. The primary Biblical basis for his challenge was Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:31-46. He argued that Jesus will judge us based on whether or not we serve the poor and imprisoned, and, on this basis, determine whether we are part of the kingdom or not. Since then, I have heard others treat this as established truth.
Admittedly, this is an unsettling and difficult passage. It does seem to say that our service to the poor and imprisoned of the world will determine whether we receive eternal judgement or eternal life.
But, an even more disturbing reality is this – If the position stated above is the correct understanding of this passage, then everything we believe about salvation by faith alone, independent of our works, is wrong, and we need to tear many pages out of our Bibles – Romans 2-4, Ephesians 2, and the entire book of Galatians, for starters. This is not a peripheral issue – it goes to the core of the Gospel and our faith.
So is Jesus saying that our eternal destiny is tied to our pursuit of social justice?
Let’s take a look.
The passage comes at the very end of the Olivet Discourse. To understand it, we must put it into the context of the entire discourse, which began in Matthew 24, when the disciples ask Jesus, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?”
Before we get into Jesus’ answer, we need to note that the disciples question reflects a significant development in their understanding. Consider the following sequence of events:
- As Jesus approaches Jerusalem, the disciples are expecting the Kingdom of God to be established immediately. (Luke 19:11)
- In response to this expectation, Jesus gives the Parable of the Minas to teach the disciples that He must go away to receive the Kingdom, and then return. (Luke 19:12-27)
- After the parable, He heads to Jerusalem, where He will make His Triumphal Entry, which we commemorate with Palm Sunday. (Luke 19:28-44)
- The Olivet Discourse takes place within two days of Jesus’ crucifixion (Matthew 26:2), which we, obviously, commemorate with Easter, a week after Palm Sunday.
The point? The week before the teaching in Matthew 24-25, the disciples were expecting Jesus to establish the Kingdom immediately. Indeed, from the Old Testament perspective, it appeared that there would be only one Coming of the Christ, and that in that Coming, He would suffer for the healing of mankind and establish the Kingdom. But, in light of the Parable of the Minas, the disciples now understand that He must go away, and that the Kingdom will be established at His Second Coming. Their question, “what will be the sign of your coming?” reflects this development in their understanding. They are still looking for the Kingdom, but they recognize that it will not be fully established until His return. So, they ask about the timing of His return.
Jesus’ begins to answer their questions by highlighting the events related to His coming.
- The time between Christ’s conversation with the disciples and His return will be characterized by wars, earthquakes, and famines. During this time, many will come in Jesus’ name, claiming to be the Christ, and will mislead many. His disciples are not to be frightened, for these things must take place, but they are not the end. (24:6-8)
- Then His disciples will experience tribulation and persecution. Many will fall away, and betray one another. Additional false prophets and false Christ will mislead many more, and the love of many will grow cold, but those who endure to the end will be saved (delivered through the suffering). (24:9-14)
- The Abomination of Desolation (Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) will mark the beginning of great tribulation, which will involve such intense suffering that, if the period were not cut short, all life would be wiped out. This shortening is for the sake of the elect.(24:15-28)
- Jesus will return with power and great glory, at which time all the elect will be gathered together. (24:29-31)
- Only God knows the day and hour of Christ’s return, and just as in the days of Noah, it will catch mankind off guard. They will not understand until they are taken away in judgment, leaving only the elect behind. (24:32-41)
In light of this uncertainty, Jesus then emphasizes the need for His disciples to be alert and ready for His return.
- One doesn’t know ahead of time when a thief will burglarize his home. Likewise, disciples must be ready because Christ will come unexpectedly. (24:42-44)
- A master promotes faithful servants to supervisory positions, and disciplines unfaithful servants. By implication, Christ will do the same to His servants at His unexpected return. (24:45-51)
- The parable of the Ten Virgins teaches that it will be too late to make preparations at the return of Christ, so disciples must be alert and prepared. (25:1-13)
- The parable of the talents teaches that Christ has entrusted His possessions to His servants, based on their ability, to be used for His agenda. At His return, each servant will give account for their stewardship. Those who have invested and produced a return will be praised and promoted. Those who did not invest will be rebuked and be stripped of all responsibility. (The “investing” in view here involves using everything God has entrusted to us to advance His agenda, not building a portfolio.) (25:14-30)
With this background, we are now ready to identify the key characters in Matthew 25:31-46, and interpret the passage – which we will do in Part 2, next week.
Always appreciate your thoughtful approach Garth. It is in keeping with the reality that we find ourselves in a story. A story that God is telling. A story in which we find ourselves, both in the sense that this is where I am, and we discover this is who I am. For me, the thoughtful approach makes the story worth reading, and worth living. The wealth that we long for is the depth of understanding that causes us to see God at work, knowing too that He is a good God. Faith, hope and love is born out of this place, so it seems. It is simply lived out in our presence as we see God at work. I’ve never thought about this before, but God Himself has a quality within Himself that we could call faith. He believes in what He is doing, to the point that He is willing to allow, and bring about great destruction. He too is looking forward to the second comng. It is perhaps one of the most glorious climaxes of the story. I want a story that is worth living. Worth the struggle of life, for so much of it is wrapped up in struggle. Fortunately the faith, hope and love is a greater force in my life. It enables me to endure, and to a great degree, overcome. Your work, thoughtfulness in capturing parts of the story, and taking the time to communicate it well makes for a good meal along the way. Thanks.
Garth, thanks for laying out a detailed explanation of your thoughts. In light of that, I would like to question your statement, “But, in light of the Parable of the Minas, the disciples now understand that He must go away, and that the Kingdom will be established at His Second Coming”. It might be beneficial to define the Kingdom of God/Heaven in our discussion. It could be argued that the Kingdom was “among” or “within” them.
Secondly, if we look further at the statement above, it could be argued that the disciples did not have Jesus’ second coming in mind, but were asking when he would come and judge Jerusalem and it’s sacrificial system. We see in Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces judgment on the Jewish leaders. Then in 24, Jesus continues to speak of the judgment that is to fall on Jerusalem as well as the temple.
Question: To whom is Jesus speaking in Matthew 24? Does Jesus have his first-century audience in mind as he does in Matthew 23? Or does Jesus have a future audience in mind? Again, when Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34), does he have a present generation or a future generation in mind?
HOWEVER, in looking over my questions, they seem to pull our discussion entirely off track. Maybe these are best reserved for another topic in the future. Would hate to high-jack the discussion and derail your original topic of what God loves/hates. Are we still considering WHAT God hates/loves or are we looking at WHO? It seems we may have made a subtle shift over the past weeks. Thanks!
Adam,
I know this has been a while coming . . .
I will begin by answering your last question first.
“Are we still considering WHAT God hates/loves or are we looking at WHO? It seems we may have made a subtle shift over the past weeks.”
In my mind the WHAT always included WHO, e.g., we might say that one of the THINGS that God hates is people WHO willfully lead people away from Him. Another way to describe what I have been pursuing is as a desire to align my affections with His, both positively and negatively. You might remember that, in the first article, I mentioned a passage from Psalm 139 as a part of what prompted this whole discussion – “O that You would slay the wicked, O God; . . . Do I not hate those who hate You, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies.” (Psalms 139:19–22 NAS95). While this does not speak of God’s hatred, David’s hatred is clearly directed at individuals, not just things like attitudes or behaviors. So, I am still very much on the path that I envisioned.
As for the questions you ask derailing the discussion, it is true that we cannot hash out the whole premillennialism vs. amillennialism debate here. But the questions you raise affect how the passage is interpreted, and are worthy of a response.
First, regarding the issue of defining, or better, identifying, the Kingdom of God/heaven, – I started out to address that here, in my reply to you, but have realized that it really needs to be handled in a way that is more accessible to others who might be reading the articles. So, for an overview of the Kingdom, see Looking For The Kingdom.
Your statement that, “It could be argued that the Kingdom was “among” or “within” them,” brings to mind statements Luke 17:20b-21, where Jesus tells the Pharisees, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” There is a footnote in the passage that offers “within you” as an alternative translation to “in your midst”.
The question is whether Jesus meant “within you” in the sense that the Kingdom is an internal reality, i.e., “the rule and reign of Christ in your heart”, or whether He meant “in your midst” in the sense that “the rightful King is among you”. I believe that it must be the latter, both because it better fits the rest of Scripture, and because I have come to realize that the idea of defining the Kingdom as the “rule and reign of Christ in your heart” is conceptually flawed.
Consider.
Currently, Jesus’ status in our hearts and lives is dependent upon our response to Him and the revelation about Him. For example, John writes his Gospel to convince us that Jesus is The King (John 20:30-31). It is up to us to recognize that He is the Christ (“The Anointed One”, i.e., The King) . . . or not. Furthermore, If we “deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him”, we walk as His disciples. If not, we don’t. These decisions determine His status in our hearts. But they have nothing nothing to do with whether or not He is actually King. He doesn’t need our permission to be King. He is King because it is His right to be King, whether we acknowledge it or not. His Kingdom, then, is the realm over which He rules as King. We don’t get to vote on that. Our acknowledgement only determines our relationship to it. His Kingdom cannot be dependent upon our consent. It cannot be something merely “within us”.
Now to your second question –
“. . . if we look further at the statement above, it could be argued that the disciples did not have Jesus’ second coming in mind, but were asking when he would come and judge Jerusalem and it’s sacrificial system. We see in Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces judgment on the Jewish leaders. Then in 24, Jesus continues to speak of the judgment that is to fall on Jerusalem as well as the temple.”
To understand the context, we have to go back further than Matthew 23. We need to go back to at least chapter 21. Consider the development –
~21:1-11 – Jesus officially presents Himself as the Messiah. His followers recognize Him as such, although the city as a whole does not.
~21:12-17 – He proceeds to the Temple where He casts out the money changers and merchants, heals the blind and lame, and is identified as the Messiah by children. However, the official representatives of the people, the chief priests and scribes, reject Him as Messiah.
~21:18-22 – Jesus illustrates the effects of the Jews rejection with the withering of the fig tree.
~21:23-27 – The religious leaders directly challenge Jesus’ authority, emphatically refusing to acknowledge Him as the Messiah.
~21:28-32 – Jesus uses the Parable of the Two Sons to show that tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom before these religious leaders who reject Him.
~21:33-46 – He uses the Parable of the Vineyard/Landowner to show the judgment that these religious leaders can expect for their rejection of Him as Messiah.
~22:1-14 – He uses the Parable of the Marriage Feast to demonstrate God’s wrath on those who reject God’s invitation, implicit in the presentation of Jesus as The Messiah, or who seek the kingdom on their own terms.
~22:15-46 – The religious leaders, just denounced, seek to trap and discredit Jesus.
~23:1-36 – Jesus exposes the leaders for what they are, and condemns them to hell.
~23:37-39 – Jesus weeps over Jerusalem, and announces that they will not see Him again until they recognize Him as Messiah. Said another way, when they recognize Him as Messiah, they will see Him again. This statement looks forward to His Second Coming.
Since chapter 21, the whole focus has been about Jesus presentation of Himself as the Messiah, and Israel’s rejection of Him.
As we move to chapter 24, Jesus and the disciples leave the Temple, where chapters 21-23 took place. Chapters 24:3-25:51 occur on The Mount of Olives, across the valley from the Temple.
~24:1 – The disciples are impressed with the Temple buildings, and are talking about that with Jesus.
~24:2 – Jesus replies that these buildings will be completely dismantled.
~24:3 – When they come to the Mount of Olives, the disciples ask Him when the Temple will be dismantled and what the sign of His coming and the end of the age will be. Note that this is now a private discussion.
~24:4-25:51 – Jesus’ response, prompted by these questions.
So, were the disciples asking about a destruction of Jerusalem and its sacrificial system, as an event independent of His Second Coming? I don’t see how. Their primary concern, both before and after this, was Jesus’ setting up the Kingdom (Luke 19:11; Acts 1:6), which they correctly associated with His coming as Messiah. Having learned that He would have to leave and then return before establishing the Kingdom (Luke 19:11-27), and having just seen His offer of Himself as the Messiah officially rejected by the religious leaders of Israel, it would be natural for the disciples to associate the destruction of the Temple that He speaks of in 24:2 with His Second Coming. This is especially true since Zechariah predicts a destruction of Jerusalem in association with that the Second Coming (Zechariah 14:1-5). The disciples expected the destruction of Jerusalem that Jesus spoke of to be the same one Zechariah spoke of, and to take place when He returns. So, in effect, this is the same question they are asking in Luke 19:11 and Acts 1:6 – “When are you going to set up the Kingdom?” And, as evidenced by these other two passages, they expected it to happen in the very near future.
The disciples expectation that the Kingdom is immediate is key to understanding Jesus’ answer.
From there perspective, they think they are asking a single question – “How will we know when are you coming back, destroying the Temple, and setting up the Kingdom?” But, in reality, there are four different issues –
~The destruction of the Temple that Jesus spoke of – This would occur in 70 AD. Only Luke gives us the details related to this part of Jesus’ answer (Luke 21:20-24).
~The signs of His Coming – the only sign will be Him, when He appears in the air after the Great Tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31).
~The time of His coming – Only the Father knows the timing, therefore, His disciples must always be ready (24:32-41).
~The need for perseverance – This was the most important part of the answer. Contrary to the disciples’ expectation that the Kingdom was going to start any time, Jesus answer reveals that before His return would be a time of unrest, suffering,and falling away. During this time, His followers are not to be frightened or mislead, but are to persevere in faithful service, anticipating His return, and ready to give account to Him (Matthew 24:4-28; 24:42-25:30). This should be their focus.
This brings us to your next question –
“To whom is Jesus speaking in Matthew 24? Does Jesus have his first-century audience in mind as he does in Matthew 23? Or does Jesus have a future audience in mind? Again, when Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34), does he have a present generation or a future generation in mind?”
In light of what I have said above, the message to us is the same as it was to the disciples in the first-century – “No man can know the time of His coming, so we must persevere in faith, always looking for His return, ready to give account for our lives to Him.”
To understand what “this generation” refers to, we have to recognize that Jesus has used the term, we need to look at the other times that Jesus uses it Matthew –
~Matthew 11:16 – “But to what shall I compare this generation?” (They refused to respond to either John the Baptist or Jesus)
~Matthew 12:39 – But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
~Matthew 12:41 – “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 “The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.
~Matthew 12:45 – “Then it goes and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. That is the way it will also be with this evil generation.”
~Matthew 16:4 – “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.”
~Matthew 17:17 And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?”
~Matthew 23:36 “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
In these passages, “generation” does not refer to a group of people born during a particular time period, but to those characterized by a particular mindset – the mindset that refuses to believe in Jesus as the Christ. For example, in 23:29-36, Jesus groups the religious leaders who rejected Him with all those down through the centuries who rejected the prophets. They are all part of the same “generation” headed to the same hell.
So, in Matthew 24:34, Jesus is saying that His disciples should not expect to be free of this unbelieving generation until He returns. False teaching, unbelief, and persecution will be with us until He returns.
Garth, thanks for the detailed response. Let me continue our discussion, clear up a few things, and ask a follow up so I understand correctly:
You mention – While this does not speak of God’s hatred, David’s hatred is clearly directed at individuals, not just things like attitudes or behaviors. So, I am still very much on the path that I envisioned.
Are you saying that since David expresses his hatred clearly at individuals, that God hates individuals? Or, do we say God hates sin and those associated with it are judged unless they are covered in Christ’s righteousness?
Let’s take an example and see how this works out so I might better understand. What do we say about an adult who’s never rejected their own agenda and has no intentions of following God? Do we say that God hates this person? Does it depend? Furthermore, if that adult then places his faith in Christ, repents of his own agenda, and makes Christ Lord and Savior does God hate this person or love this person? Does it depend?
Just for the record – premillennialism vs. amillennialism – I do not consider myself nor will I argue from a amillennial system of thinking. Might hold some views, but for different reasons…
I would also agree that the Kingdom was among them and not within them as you’ve argued.
As for the detail presented regarding Matthew 21-24, the destruction of Jerusalem, and “this generation”, I have many questions but can wait and deal with those later. I’ll steer my questions towards what God loves/hates at this point in our discussion. Thanks again for all the time and effort taken to answer my questions!
Adam,
Thanks for the clarification on your millennial perspective.
Regarding your question – “Are you saying that since David expresses his hatred clearly at individuals, that God hates individuals? Or, do we say God hates sin and those associated with it are judged unless they are covered in Christ’s righteousness?”
I do believe that David’s words support the notion that God hates individuals, but I would not make that the primary basis for such an argument. I say that God hates individuals because God says He hates individuals (e.g., Malachi 1:2-4; Romans 9:13; Psalm 5:4-6; 11:5-6; Proverbs 6:19; Jeremiah 12:8; Hosea 9:15).
While it is true that God loves people in spite of their sin, and hates the sin that destroys them, His truth is more complex than that. There are also individuals that He hates. It is this complexity that is a big part of what I am exploring in these articles.
As for your example – “What do we say about an adult who’s never rejected their own agenda and has no intentions of following God? Do we say that God hates this person? Does it depend? Furthermore, if that adult then places his faith in Christ, repents of his own agenda, and makes Christ Lord and Savior does God hate this person or love this person? Does it depend?”
The short answer is, “It depends.”
I think that there are some helpful distinctions to keep in mind as we consider this.
First, as I look at the biblical concepts of “love” and “hate”, it seems that the core issue is that of “choosing” (love) and “rejecting’ (hate). It is true that the emotional element of hostility is sometimes/often present, but at their core, they seem to reflect a choice.
Second is the recognition that God has an omniscient perspective – He knows the choices that people have made, are making, and will make in the future. By contrast, my perspective is very limited. My knowledge of the choices that they have made and are currently making is limited, at best. As to their future choices, I can only guess. So my assessment of whether God loves them, or hates them is based on my limited perspective. So is my choice of whether I accept (love) or reject (hate) them.
Third, although our commitment to follow Christ should be a commitment to a way of life, that commitment is lived out in the individual decisions that we face each day. Some of those individual decisions will be at odds with the commitment. The journey of our Christian life is about increasingly bringing those individual decisions in line with the commitment. So, I have to be careful about evaluating their commitment purely on the basis of the individual choices they are making.
With these considerations, let’s consider some more specific expressions of your example.
If the person who has not renounced their own agenda is an unbeliever who has not yet heard the Gospel, then I would be hard pressed to say that God hates them.
If they are a believer who goes to a church where the only message that they have ever heard is “Trust Jesus for forgiveness”, I couldn’t say that God hates them.
However, if they are a believer who knows about walking with God, submitting their life to Christ, and they actively choose to live their lives outside His will, then I think there is a problem. For example, if they choose to violate their marriage vows, and having been confronted by other believers, choose to persist in that choice, then I must treat them as if they are hated by God. Note that all of these elements are critical. Just because a person is divorced doesn’t mean that they are hated by God. It is the active, persistent decision to live life independently of God’s expressed will that is the issue. Furthermore, because of my limited perspective, I don’t know whether their condition is final, or whether they will repent, and thus, be restored in the future.
And, of course, there is a lot of area in between these examples.
Thanks for the reply Garth! I would like to continue our discussion and your response has helped clarify things for me.
I would like to review the statement you made “I do believe that David’s words support the notion that God hates individuals, but I would not make that the primary basis for such an argument. I say that God hates individuals because God says He hates individuals (e.g., Malachi 1:2-4; Romans 9:13; Psalm 5:4-6; 11:5-6; Proverbs 6:19; Jeremiah 12:8; Hosea 9:15).”
In particular, I want to focus on the last sentence when you state that God hates individuals because God says He hates individuals. I don’t think it’s that easy and would say we may not do the text justice if we stop there. As you mention, I think it’s more complex than that.
First, let’s review Psalm 11 and see how this text reads. The text reflects a time when the psalmist took refuge in the Lord on being warned that he had been targeted for death and needed to fly to the mountains like a bird (v1-2). The writer’s world was in such upheaval that he cried, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (v3).
In the second part, David envisaged the Lord in the heavenly temple reigning over and knowing all things (v. 4), and says, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares; fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup” (v. 5-6)
From my studies, I understand that the Hebrew word translated as “hate” in this text is sane (sorry I can’t include the associated symbols!). From what I understand, it expresses an emotional attitude toward persons and things which are opposed, detested, despised and with which one wishes to have no contact or relationship. If this understanding is correct, this would mean that “hate” in this sense is not out of ignorance or animosity; rather it is a righteous God’s opposition to something. And in this context, it is wickedness. His opposition to something that violates His holiness.
A number of commentators believe the historical backdrop to Psalm 11 is the time when David had to flee from Saul, who sought to take him down like a man hunting partridges in the mountains (1 Sam 18:8ff). Sin had so corrupted Saul that he not only tried to assassinate David on more than one occasion (1 Sam 18:10ff), but also succeeded in murdering the priest, women, and children of Nob, who provided David sanctuary (1 Sam 21-22) I bring this up to say that Saul was indeed in the place of receiving divine judgment, and the author rightly captures the situation in poetic hyperbole with the words “the one who loves violence His soul hates” (Ps 11:5)
We could say the same idea is communicated by Isaiah against unrepentant Israel, declaring, “I hate (sane) your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, they have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them” (Isa 1:14). Solomon, likewise says, “There are six things which the Lord hates (sane), yes seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers” (Prov 6:16-19 – another text you site)
I find it interesting and instructive for our conversation that in our Prov. 6 example, hate is associated or equated with abomination. And in this context, I would say abomination means a detestable act. Do we say God hates the eyes? No, it’s the haughtiness of an act. Does He hate the tongue? No, it’s the lying act. The hands? No, those that shed innocent blood. I would agree with your choosing/rejecting statements. To me, the entirety of the bible is blessings for those who follow, cursings for those who rebel.
I believe this understanding of “hate” (God’s opposition to wickedness) can be used in the same manner with the Malachi and Romans text listed, but I thought I would put this out there for discussion before reviewing those. Thoughts?
Adam,
A major problem that I see with the distinction you are trying to make is this – wickedness, whatever form it takes – whether lying or haughtiness, or murder – does not exist independently of the hearts, minds and deeds of willful beings, be they human or angelic. Wickedness of any sort does not exist as an independent entity. We don’t get it on us because we were in the wrong place. It springs from within us.
Furthermore, it cannot be punished as an independent entity. God will not send lying, or murder or haughtiness to hell. He does not punish the concept, He punishes the sin by punishing the people responsible for its presence.
Another problem – given that love is the antithesis of hate, it should follow that if the object of God’s hatred is not individuals, but wickedness, then the opposite should also be true – the object of His love is righteousness, not individuals. To be consistent, wouldn’t you have to say that God doesn’t love me, He loves righteousness, and that because I am associated with righteousness, through my faith in Christ, I benefit from His love of it, but am not the object of that love?
Perhaps a more fundamental and helpful question is this – what truth or doctrine are you trying to protect by making wickedness, not certain individuals, the object of His hatred?
I have been reviewing all of the comments this a.m., realizing that I had not seen all of them before. I thought your last argument Garth concerning the object of God’s love was very good. The discussion with your last argument leaves me thinking about God in just a little bit different way. He is very interested in all of our lives, to the point of being personally interested in each one, and at a depth that He has an emotional response to each one of us. It leaves me with a deeper conviction about His awareness of my life and interest in me. I appreciate that. Appreciate the discussion.
duplicate post deleted
Thanks, Mark. I always appreciate knowing that what I have written is having a positive impact on people’s lives.
Your comments about God’s interest in each of us personally brings to mind Psalm 139:17-18, which speaks of God’s thoughts about us as individual believers
“How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand. When I awake, I am still with You.”
(Psalms 139:17–18 NAS95)