Studant

The existential question of sin and its ultimate destiny has aroused the curiosity of numerous minds. For many do acknowledge that there's sin but differ on how it will finally be dealt with. In the book of Exodus God establishes the Israelite cult on Mount Sinai describing what, who, when and how this cult is to function including a sacrificial system of animals sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people in Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.  Thus the Israelites practiced animal sacrificial system where tens of thousands of animals were ceremonially slaughtered by priests for centuries in order to atone for their sins.
However the author  of the book Hebrews seems to contradict this explicitly states that it is impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins Hebrews 10:4.  Thus it leaves us with the question, did the animal sacrifices that the priest officiated remove sin or not? If it did then why would the author of Hebrews think otherwise? If it did not then why would God institute a sacrificial cult to atone for sin that did not work? Or is this one of the so-called Biblical contradictions?

The opening chapters of Genesis mainly 1-3 are of fundamental significance for both the origins of our world but also determine the notion of man’s interrelationships.  Therefore making the understanding and interpreting of it crucial of how one understands and shapes their worldview. The narrative of Genesis 2.18-25 describes in detail aspects of the carefully written creation story of Genesis 1, by complementing it on crucial points. This passage has become one of the most contentious passages of feminist-deconstructionist approaches as it had been used to enforce the subjugation of women to men in several ways. Thus, it has been used both for and against women’s equality, male headship.  Naturally the preponderance of commentators, have espoused that Genesis 2.18-25 proves God’s intention for a hierarchical relationship of the sexes where woman is subordinate to man.  Arguing that Adam was created first and then the woman.  Also that Adam names the woman just as he named the animals.  Some have argued that Eve was fashioned from Adam’s rib.  While others argue that the woman was created simply to help Adam, which this study seeks to explore further.

I began researching for this dissertation to prove that most biblical expositors are wrong, God is not wrathful at all and He has been misrepresented. However, the more I read, the more I uncovered evidence contrary to what I believed and thought I knew. I was very shocked and upon rereading the Bible with this new evidence, I indeed found out that God is wrathful. So the question arose in my mind, how could this be, how can a Being that is love be wrathful? How does it work?
Biblically, bible writers portray God’s wrath in many ways. They describe it idiomatically as His judgement; the last action that God does and will do when there is nothing more He can do for His people. On the other hand, the theological development process has not been a direct one. Some have indicated God as not being wrathful because wrath is a brutal attribute, a characteristic not aligning with a divine being as wrath distorts His perfectness. To a God who is wrathful and needs appeasing. Then, to God’s wrath is just a deterministic force of karma or retribution.
In this dissertation I set out asking the question whether the wrath of God is the opposite or part of God’s love. I begin by introducing the background, purpose, problem, methodology and limitations employed in the investigation. In chapter one, I move on to a brief survey of the historical development of the doctrine of the wrath of God. Then in chapter two, I present an analysis of Carson and Lane’s understanding of divine wrath from their works I have chosen. Chapter three proceeds with a critical analysis and comparison of the two theologians, pointing out where they differ and agree.
In conclusion, this dissertation proposes that God is love and everything He does is the result or the outcome of who He is. Thus, in the words of Paul found in 1st Corinthians 13. 4-7 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant, or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. Love is also wrathful.