Prologue: A Traditional Observation
Wrath and love are not opposites but two expressions of the same divine concern. Wrath is love’s fierce response when what is cherished is violated - it is the cost of God’s holiness protecting the mnost precious covenant of all, the covenant of life. Love, in turn, is the enduring ground from which even wrath arises, for judgment without compassion would destroy relationship, while compassion without judgment would cheapen it. Thus, to ask whether God is wrathful or loving is to divide what belongs together: wrath defends love’s integrity, and love gives wrath its redemptive purpose.
An Orthogonal Framing
The central question is this: How can a God of wrath be loving, or can a loving God also be wrathful? At first glance these qualities appear contradictory, but they may in fact be orthogonal - existing on independent axes rather than canceling each other out. Wrath expresses the seriousness of justice and holiness; love expresses the depth of mercy and fidelity. In the Hebrew heritage, sacrificial practice highlighted God’s demand for holiness through judgment, yet also God's willingness to spare through substitution. In modern Jewish theology, emphasis has shifted toward God’s compassion, justice, and ethical concern for humanity. Taken together, these perspectives do not negate one another but reveal a multidimensional God, whose character embraces both the severity of judgment and the steadfastness of love.
Introduction and Opening Observations
In the ancient Near East, sacrifice was the language of religion. Animals were slaughtered and blood spilled to feed the gods, secure harvests, or stave off disaster. Within this shared cultural world, the Hebrew tribes also offered sacrificial lambs. Yet when examined closely, their practice points to a different conception of deity. The Hebrew God was not imagined as hungry for offerings or swayed by bribes, but as one who set stable relational terms through covenant.
From the lamb sacrifice itself several inferences emerge. First, this God took wrongdoing with utmost seriousness: blood had to be shed, showing that offense was not trivial. Yet substitution was permitted, meaning God did not demand the life of the offender but allowed a lamb to stand in their place. Second, sacrifice was structured by ordered ritual, not left to chance, revealing a God of pattern and covenant rather than caprice. Third, by linking blood with life, the practice suggested a God who owned life itself and demanded recognition of that claim. Finally, the need for sacrifice revealed a conditional relationship: access to God’s favor was real but required continual renewal.
Placed alongside neighboring cultures, these features stand out. Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and Greco-Roman sacrifices aimed to feed or appease deities whose moods were unpredictable. By contrast, the Hebrew God was relational, covenantal, and morally weighty. Here was a deity who tied Himself to promises and set clear conditions for how human beings could remain in fellowship.
This covenantal framing is crucial. With Abraham, sacrifice marked God’s binding oath of promise. At Sinai under Moses, it became the structured system that ordered Israel’s life before God. The prophets later critiqued empty ritual, insisting that justice and mercy mattered more than blood. Finally, what came to be called the New Covenant pushed beyond sacrifice altogether, emphasizing direct relationship and inward transformation.
It is along this covenantal trajectory - Abraham, Sinai, Prophets, New Covenant - that the character of God is most clearly revealed. Wrath and love, judgment and compassion, appear not as contradictions but as dimensions of a single divine reality, worked out across history through covenantal sacrifice and its eventual transcendence. This then is the traditional observation made by both ancient and modern Jewish theology emphasizing the one or the other.
The Covenants in Light of Jewish Theology
1. Abrahamic Covenant
The story begins with Abraham, where God promises land, descendants, and blessing, binding Himself with solemn oaths. Here sacrifice marks the seriousness of this bond - animals cut in two, blood spilled, symbolizing the life-and-death stakes of covenant loyalty. God is inferred as both promise-maker and demanding partner, one who requires visible tokens of fidelity but also commits Himself to unbreakable promises. Wrath is implied in the costliness of breach; love is evident in the permanence of divine commitment.
2. Sinai Covenant
At Sinai, the covenant terms expanded into law. Sacrifice became systematized - burnt offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, each precisely regulated (cf. the OT book, Leviticus (*ESV)). Wrongdoing demanded atonement, and the blood of lambs, goats, or bulls became the means by which Israel could dwell in God’s presence without being consumed. Here, God appears as lawgiver and holy presence, intolerant of impurity but gracious in providing structured means of restoration. Wrath emerges in the non-negotiable demand for holiness; love appears in the provision of substitution that spared human life.
*I usually prefer the NASB95 or ESV versions; occasionally, the NRSV; see the Appendix at the end of the article for a few general observations.
3. Prophetic Critique
Centuries later, the prophets broke through ritual complacency (in my observation, the same is happening again as progressive theologians are breaking free of restrictive evangelical teachings). Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah declared that sacrifice without justice, mercy, and humility was meaningless. God, they said, desired not blood but ḥesed (steadfast love) and righteousness. This marks a turning point: wrath is redefined, not as divine hunger for offerings, but as divine indignation at injustice and hypocrisy. Love is elevated, revealed as God’s truest demand - not ritual appeasement, but transformed life.
4. The New Covenant
It is here, under the New Covenant, that God enacts in God's own personage (Jesus the Christ, the Coming One, the Anointed One) the prophetic teachings while also fulfilling the covenantal obligations at first made with Abraham and later, with the tribal federations of Israel (later to become a *federated nation-state). Israel's ancient heritage culminates in what later traditions call the New Covenant. Here, sacrifice itself is relativized, no longer repeated endlessly but replaced by a once-for-all symbolic act that opened direct access to God. The inference is of a God who moves beyond blood to unhindered relationship (symbolized both by the Roman Cross as well as the rending of the veil in the Temple dividing the people from the high priest's "Holy of Holies"), preferring inward fidelity over outward slaughter. Wrath is not abolished, but it becomes the shadow side of love — God’s refusal to let covenant-breaking destroy creation. Love, however, stands at the center: reconciliation without perpetual bloodshed.
5. Contrast with Neighboring Religions
Against the backdrop of Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Greco-Roman, and Persian religions - all of which remained bound to sacrificial cycles - this trajectory is radical. Other deities demanded ongoing offerings, often viewed as food for the gods or cosmic maintenance. The Hebrew God, by contrast, permitted sacrifice for a season but then redirected devotion toward justice, mercy, and inner transformation. Wrath and love were not capricious moods but covenantal commitments, moving history toward a God who could be approached without blood.
6. Modern Jewish Theology
In today’s Jewish thought, the emphasis tilts further toward compassion, justice, and ethical responsibility. Orthodox traditions still speak of God’s holiness and judgment, but wrath is rarely centered. Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist streams emphasize God’s love, covenantal faithfulness, and demand for social justice. Sacrifice is long gone; prayer, ethical action, and community repair (tikkun olam) are the tokens of covenant today. Here, wrath is often interpreted as consequence rather than divine rage, while love and mercy are foregrounded as God’s defining attributes.
Conclusion
Thus, the question remains alive: Can wrath and love coexist in the same God? The heritage of covenantal sacrifice shows a deity who demands life for transgression yet provides substitution to spare the guilty. The prophets and the New Covenant move this further, portraying a God who longs for mercy and justice above ritual slaughter. Today’s Jewish theology, while less concerned with wrath, still upholds God’s moral seriousness even as it emphasizes compassion and relational fidelity.
Seen orthogonally, wrath and love are not contradictions but independent dimensions of divine character (which is also the more progressive teaching of evangelicalism showing a continuity with modern Jewish interpretation as well). Together they describe a God who is at once holy and merciful, exacting and compassionate - a God whose wrath protects love’s integrity, and whose love gives wrath its redemptive purpose.
Appendix 1
1. Jewish Teaching: God as Compassionate
-
The Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly describe God with words like ḥesed (steadfast love, covenantal loyalty), raḥum (compassionate), and ḥannun (gracious).
-
A famous formula, repeated in Torah and Psalms, identifies God as:
“merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6).
-
This shows that for ancient Israel, sacrifice was never meant to depict God as only wrathful. The system was framed within a broader vision of God’s covenantal love and willingness to forgive.
2. Jewish Teaching: God as Just and Holy
-
At the same time, God is described as holy, righteous, and a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24).
-
His holiness means that sin, impurity, or covenant breach cannot simply be ignored. This underlies the sacrificial system: God is morally serious and will judge wrongdoing.
-
But crucially, judgment is not arbitrary wrath; it is part of God’s consistent character of holiness and justice.
3. The Balance in Jewish Thought
-
Sacrifice is seen as God’s gift: a way for sinful people to remain in covenant fellowship without being destroyed.
-
Prophets remind Israel that God’s love is primary: “For I desire steadfast love (ḥesed) and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6).
-
Thus, sacrifice was never the ultimate goal. It was a means toward restored relationship, grounded in God’s mercy.
4. Contrast with Inference Alone
-
Without theology: We inferred a paradox - wrathful yet merciful, demanding blood yet allowing substitution.
-
With theology: Ancient Jewish teaching clarifies the paradox: God is indeed just and wrathful against sin, but His dominant character is steadfast love and covenantal compassion. Sacrifice reflects not God’s hunger for blood, but His willingness to provide a path for forgiveness.
Conclusion
Ancient Jewish teaching resolves the tension seen in sacrificial practice: God is not equally wrathful and loving but is fundamentally loving, whose holiness requires judgment but whose mercy provides a way through it. The lamb’s blood does not point to a cruel deity but to a God who, in covenant faithfulness, opens the door to reconciliation without abandoning justice.
Chart: Modern Jewish Theology's Key Shifts & Emphases
Here are several ways in which contemporary Jewish theology has shifted, re‐emphasized, or reinterpreted the character of God (loving, judgmental, wrathful, etc.) in light of modern contexts (philosophy, ethics, science, pluralism, etc.):
| Aspect | Heritage Emphasis | Modern Shifts / Reinterpretations |
|---|---|---|
| Omnipotence, Omniscience, Transcendence | God was often conceived as all‐powerful, fully knowing, transcendent, sovereign. “God is judge,” commands, etc. | Many modern Jewish thinkers question or nuance omnipotence / omniscience, especially in relation to human freedom. Some prefer emphasizing God’s relational, processual, or ethical aspects rather than overriding power. My Jewish Learning+1 |
| Personhood vs. Impersonality | Heritage: God personal, responsive, speaking through prophets, interacting. | Contemporary theology sometimes stresses metaphoric, symbolic, or abstract conceptions of God. Some streams, e.g. Reconstructionist Judaism (Kaplan), lean toward understanding God in naturalistic or ethical ideal terms — less personal, more value or force of morality. Wikipedia+2My Jewish Learning+2 |
| Judgment / Wrath | Heritage: Real possibility of wrath, consequences, punishment for transgression. | Today many Jews emphasize the aspects of God’s compassion, justice, mercy, love over wrath. Some may downplay or metaphorize divine anger or judgment, seeing them in ethical or human‐psychological terms rather than literal cosmic punishment. Modern thinkers often stress that God’s “judgment” is more about moral order, consequence, social justice than punitive destruction. Broadly, the idea of God’s wrath is less vivid or less central in many modern Jewish teachings. |
| Love / Mercy / Compassion | Always present, but sometimes balanced (or tensioned) with holiness, law, sacrifice, justice. | In modern thought, love, compassion, ethical relationality often take more prominence. God is often described in terms of moral ideal, love, concern for justice, inclusion, social ethics. The heritage value of ḥesed (steadfast loving‐kindness) is frequently reinterpreted in contemporary settings (social justice, inclusivity, human rights). |
| Sacrifice / Ritual | Sacrifice (animal offerings), temple, ritual were central to maintaining covenant relation, at least until destruction of the Temple, etc. | Many modern Jews do not see ritual sacrifice (animal offerings) as relevant or possible today. The focus is more on prayer, ethical behavior, community, Tikkun (‘repair’), and ritual in symbolic or moral senses. The sacrificial system is often treated as historical or metaphorical, not active. This changes how one views God’s demands: rather than demand for blood, modern theology frames demands in terms of justice, ethics, community engagement. |
| God’s Hiddenness & Mystery | Even in heritage, God was partly hidden (e.g. Moses cannot see God’s face, etc.), but revelation through law, prophets was more direct. | Modern Jewish theology often emphasizes mystery, transcendence, ineffability. Some thinkers stress that God is ultimately beyond full human comprehension; anthropomorphic language is metaphorical. There’s more interest in apophatic theology (what God is not) and mystical or existential experience of the divine. Wikipedia+2My Jewish Learning+2 |
| Pluralism, Ethical Monotheism | Heritage: Monotheism, covenant with Israel, law as defining relational terms; non‐Israelites less central. | Today many Jewish theologians emphasize that belief in one God, and God’s moral law or justice, has implications for universal ethics; that Judaism has something not only for Jews but for all humanity (partial universalism). Also, pluralistic respect for different views of God. |
Appendix 2
-
Loving, compassionate aspects are more emphasized now in many Jewish theologies than wrathful ones. The idea of God forgive, of God’s mercy, love, concern for justice, inclusion — these are central in many modern teachings.
-
Wrath or judgment is still present in many Orthodox or traditional strands (often with traditional understandings of commandments, sin, reward and punishment), but often it's treated with more nuance: maybe judgment is understood as karmic consequence, social consequence, or divine justice rather than an angry supernatural punisher.
-
The balance tilts more toward love, relational trust, ethical responsibility rather than fear of wrath. Modern contexts (witnessing suffering, Holocaust, scientific worldview, pluralism) tend to make Jewish thinkers more cautious about attributing punitive wrath directly to God without substantial interpretive work.
Key Examples / Thinkers
-
Mordecai Kaplan (Reconstructionist): God as non-anthropomorphic, perhaps not personal in the traditional sense; more the sum of forces or ideals that make for human flourishing. In this view, God’s “judgment” is more about moral outcomes, not supernatural vengeance. Wikipedia
-
Ethical Monotheism in Reform and Conservative Judaism: God is the source of morality and justice; ritual and law are means to express ethical values; love, social justice, compassion are central.
-
Mystical/Kabbalistic streams may still stress God’s majesty, judgment, wrath, but pair it with mercy, redeeming love, and the notion that divine “severity” and “mercy” are held in tension in the sefirot.
Conclusion: How Modern Judaism Differs from Its Heritage
-
While the heritage (based in covenant, sacrifice, prophetic justice) already included both judgment and mercy, modern Jewish theology tends to retain justice, holiness, sacredness, but re‐accentuate God’s compassion, mercy, relational love, and ethical demand.
-
The “wrathful” aspects are downplayed, metaphorized, or reinterpreted; judgment remains but more in moral/ethical/consequence terms rather than cosmic retribution for many.
-
Modern Jewish theology sees God less as someone who demands ritual blood for atonement (since sacrifice is no longer practiced), more as someone whom humans approach through ethics, prayer, community, whose “demands” are about how we treat others, justice, compassion.
-
God’s transcendence and mystery are more emphasized; anthropomorphic images are more likely to be understood metaphorically rather than literally.
Appendix 3
Definition of “Orthogonal”
-
In mathematics/geometry: two lines or vectors are orthogonal if they are at right angles — i.e. independent, not overlapping in direction.
-
In general use: “orthogonal” means independent or unrelated variables, qualities, or categories — not necessarily opposed, but operating on separate axes.
Applied to God’s Character Then and Now
When we compare “heritage” views (sacrifice, covenant, holiness, judgment, mercy) with “modern” Jewish theology (ethics, love, compassion, justice, transcendence), we could say:
-
Heritage axis: Holiness, wrath, covenant judgment, blood sacrifice.
-
Modern axis: Compassion, love, ethical responsibility, universal justice.
If we think of these as orthogonal, then:
-
They are not simply opposites (wrath vs. love).
-
Instead, they can be seen as independent dimensions of divine character, each describing God in a different way.
-
For example: God’s justice (demand for holiness, sacrifice, judgment) and God’s love (compassion, forgiveness) may not cancel each other out but exist at right angles — distinct but both true.
How Orthogonality Helps
-
Then vs. Now, not Either/Or
-
The God inferred from heritage sacrifices (wrathful/judgmental yet merciful) is not simply opposed to the God described in modern Jewish theology (loving/compassionate).
-
Rather, they may be orthogonal portrayals: one dimension highlighting God’s holiness and judgment, the other emphasizing God’s mercy and love.
-
-
Deepening, not Replacing
-
Modern theology does not erase the heritage dimension of God’s seriousness; it reorients attention to another axis.
-
By seeing them as orthogonal, we understand that both can coexist without contradiction — just as a person can be both firm and tender, depending on the relational axis in play.
-
-
Broader Portrait of God
-
Orthogonality allows for a multidimensional God:
-
One axis = covenantal holiness, justice, wrath.
-
Another axis = ethical compassion, mercy, steadfast love.
-
-
Together, these axes give a fuller picture than if we reduced God to one pole or another.
-
Conclusion
Thinking “orthogonally,” the character of God “then” (heritage: covenantal sacrifice, holiness, judgment) and “now” (modern: love, compassion, justice) are not simple replacements or contradictions. They are different dimensions of portrayal, like two perpendicular axes, each independent but together forming a more complete theological space.
Thus, the question remains alive: Can wrath and love coexist in the same God? The heritage of covenantal sacrifice shows a deity who demands life for transgression yet provides substitution to spare the guilty. The prophets and the New Covenant move this further, portraying a God who longs for mercy and justice above ritual slaughter. Today’s Jewish theology, while less concerned with wrath, still upholds God’s moral seriousness even as it emphasizes compassion and relational fidelity. Seen orthogonally, wrath and love are not contradictions but independent dimensions of divine character. Together they describe a God who is at once holy and merciful, exacting and compassionate - a God whose wrath protects love’s integrity, and whose love gives wrath its redemptive purpose.
- Philosophy: Very literal, word-for-word translation.
- Pros: Highly faithful to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek vocabulary and syntax. Excellent for deep study and understanding of the original languages.
- Cons: Can have awkward or "wooden" English and sentences that don't flow as smoothly when read aloud.
- Best For: In-depth study, detailed textual analysis, and those who want the closest possible rendering of the original text.
- Philosophy: Essentially literal translation, but with contemporary English and improved literary excellence. It balances formal (word-for-word) and functional (thought-for-thought) equivalence.
- Pros: Clearer and more readable than the NASB, often considered excellent for memorization and for church use.
- Cons: Less literal than the NASB, and tends to have a more conservative theological bias, which can influence translation choices.
- Best For: A balanced translation for personal study, devotions, and congregational worship that provides both accuracy and readability.
- Philosophy: A highly accurate translation that is less literal than the NASB or ESV, aiming for readability and modern language.
- Pros: Uses gender-inclusive language for humanity, making it a good choice for mainline denominations and a broad Christian audience. It is known for its scholarship and lack of sectarian bias.
- Cons: Not as literal as the other two, which might be a concern for those prioritizing strict word-for-word rendering.
- Best For: Readers who prefer modern, accessible English, need gender-inclusive language, or are part of a mainline denomination.
- Two or more levels of government: These governments operate within the same territory and over the same citizens.
- Constitutional division of powers: A national constitution outlines the specific powers and responsibilities of each level of government.
- Shared sovereignty: The constituent states or provinces are partially self-governing and have a degree of constitutionally guaranteed autonomy.
- Representation: The interests of the states are represented in the national government, often through an upper legislative chamber.
- Decentralized structure: Power was allocated among the twelve kinship-based tribes, which controlled their own land and operated with considerable autonomy.
- Covenant-based union: The tribes were bound together by a covenant, or brit in Hebrew, with a common constitution (the Torah). This served as the basis for their shared identity and limited, lasting union.
- Shared governance: While a national leader like Moses or Joshua guided the entire nation, the tribes also had their own officials, known as elders (zekenim). After Joshua, a series of charismatic regional leaders called Judges provided proto-national leadership during times of crisis.
- No standing army: The republican character of this era is also shown by the reliance on tribal militias instead of a standing army, which could be used by a power-hungry ruler.
- Growing centralization: The king's power and national institutions became more prominent, centralizing authority.
- Retained traditions: The early kings grafted the monarchy onto the existing tribal federation, preserving many of its institutions in a more subordinate capacity. The division of the kingdom after Solomon's death was in part a rejection of centralized, arbitrary rule, consistent with the earlier covenantal tradition.
- The federal idea endures: Even after the tribal structure was eventually dissolved, the federal principles of covenant and dispersed power remained deeply ingrained in Jewish political thought and reemerged after the end of the monarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment