God expresses Himself with emotions. This is well attested in Scripture, with statements of love (1Jn 4:8), anger (Ex 4:14), and delight (Isa 62:4). But the real question is not whether God has emotions, but what is the source of those emotions. If God emotes in the context of our suffering, and our suffering is not abated, does this mean that God is impotent or indifferent? Both possibilities yield a frightening conclusion. Rightly understanding the character and nature of God in this regard is paramount. For the past two thousand years, the prevailing doctrine was that God was in some way impassible, in that He is without passions or emotions with respect to his creation. This means that God does not change his feelings or thoughts about events on the earth. Even though certain passages called the “divine repentance” passages in the Old Testament (Ge 6:6-7; Ex 32:12-14; 1Sa 15:11, 35; Nu 23:19) appeared to contradict God’s impassibility, this was solved through the idea of anthropopathism, that is, the belief that God describes Himself with emotional terms. Prior to 1930, most of the English Bible renderings of the divine repentance passages preferred the word “repent,” because the prevailing theology was rooted in the impassibility of God, and these passages were deemed to be anthropopathic. But with the doctrine of God’s impassibility now in question, English Bible translations began to reflect the view that God actually reacts to our suffering with strong emotion. Words such as “sorry,” “grief,” “regret,” and even “changed his mind” were now used to describe the reaction of God whenever God appeared to be disappointed with his creation, or worse, if He was disappointed with his own plan. The purpose of this study is to provide an exegetical solution to the problem of God’s response in the divine repentance passages in four Old Testament historical texts. These passages are labelled as such because of the use of the Hebrew verb ~xn which describe God as “sorry” or “repenting.” For those who hold to God’s full immutability, the preferred view through the ages was that the Hebrew ~xn was to be taken as anthropopathically. This study will want to explore the possibilities of an alternative view for the Hebrew ~xn in the divine repentance passages which allow for God’s passibility while holding to his full immutability. Specifically, this study not only strives to answer the question “Does God repent?”, but through a sound methodology also wants to answer the larger question of the source of God’s emotion when his judgment or grace is in view. The methodology followed in this study is two-fold. First, it is biblical-theological, meaning that it utilises a whole-Bible theology, and following the work of Walter Kaiser and James Hamilton, posits that the Old Testament contains a theme or centre of grace within judgment. At the Fall in Ge 3, God simultaneously introduced judgment and grace into the world. That judgment and grace has never left. As one looks through the Bible, these are the two unbroken strands that weave their way through every chapter and every book. In addition, this study is also an exegetical study, and follows the grammaticalhistorical- lexical-syntactical methodology of Walter Kaiser. God disclosed Himself objectively through the words of a book. This book records actual historical events, as well as specific declarations and commands from God Himself. It is necessary that the words of this book be correctly understood in their context so that a correct understanding of God will result. Using this methodology, this study will explore the meaning of God’s ~xn in each divine repentance passage. The lexical study will be combined with the biblical-theological approach of a theme or centre of “grace within judgment” that flows through the Old Testament. Because of this, is it possible that God, who is fully immutable, provide us everything that we need to navigate a world of sin, suffering and uncertainty? The answer could very well be in the understanding of God’s ~xn in light of our suffering and sin. / PhD (Old Testament), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

God expresses Himself with emotions. This is well attested in Scripture, with statements of love (1Jn 4:8), anger (Ex 4:14), and delight (Isa 62:4). But the real question is not whether God has emotions, but what is the source of those emotions. If God emotes in the context of our suffering, and our suffering is not abated, does this mean that God is impotent or indifferent? Both possibilities yield a frightening conclusion. Rightly understanding the character and nature of God in this regard is paramount. For the past two thousand years, the prevailing doctrine was that God was in some way impassible, in that He is without passions or emotions with respect to his creation. This means that God does not change his feelings or thoughts about events on the earth. Even though certain passages called the “divine repentance” passages in the Old Testament (Ge 6:6-7; Ex 32:12-14; 1Sa 15:11, 35; Nu 23:19) appeared to contradict God’s impassibility, this was solved through the idea of anthropopathism, that is, the belief that God describes Himself with emotional terms. Prior to 1930, most of the English Bible renderings of the divine repentance passages preferred the word “repent,” because the prevailing theology was rooted in the impassibility of God, and these passages were deemed to be anthropopathic. But with the doctrine of God’s impassibility now in question, English Bible translations began to reflect the view that God actually reacts to our suffering with strong emotion. Words such as “sorry,” “grief,” “regret,” and even “changed his mind” were now used to describe the reaction of God whenever God appeared to be disappointed with his creation, or worse, if He was disappointed with his own plan. The purpose of this study is to provide an exegetical solution to the problem of God’s response in the divine repentance passages in four Old Testament historical texts. These passages are labelled as such because of the use of the Hebrew verb ~xn which describe God as “sorry” or “repenting.” For those who hold to God’s full immutability, the preferred view through the ages was that the Hebrew ~xn was to be taken as anthropopathically. This study will want to explore the possibilities of an alternative view for the Hebrew ~xn in the divine repentance passages which allow for God’s passibility while holding to his full immutability. Specifically, this study not only strives to answer the question “Does God repent?”, but through a sound methodology also wants to answer the larger question of the source of God’s emotion when his judgment or grace is in view. The methodology followed in this study is two-fold. First, it is biblical-theological, meaning that it utilises a whole-Bible theology, and following the work of Walter Kaiser and James Hamilton, posits that the Old Testament contains a theme or centre of grace within judgment. At the Fall in Ge 3, God simultaneously introduced judgment and grace into the world. That judgment and grace has never left. As one looks through the Bible, these are the two unbroken strands that weave their way through every chapter and every book. In addition, this study is also an exegetical study, and follows the grammaticalhistorical- lexical-syntactical methodology of Walter Kaiser. God disclosed Himself objectively through the words of a book. This book records actual historical events, as well as specific declarations and commands from God Himself. It is necessary that the words of this book be correctly understood in their context so that a correct understanding of God will result. Using this methodology, this study will explore the meaning of God’s ~xn in each divine repentance passage. The lexical study will be combined with the biblical-theological approach of a theme or centre of “grace within judgment” that flows through the Old Testament. Because of this, is it possible that God, who is fully immutable, provide us everything that we need to navigate a world of sin, suffering and uncertainty? The answer could very well be in the understanding of God’s ~xn in light of our suffering and sin. / PhD (Old Testament), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

This study articulates a God-concept in the tradition of classical Christian theism, contending with calls to modify significantly or revise classical constructions. Attention falls upon two closely related divine attributes that have, especially in recent decades, come under philosophical and theological attack – God’s timelessness and impassibility (inability to suffer). Is the “classical” Lord truly Immanuel, i.e. with us? This general question motivates the study. The opening three chapters analyze aspects of the God-concepts put forth by Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin. Apparent tensions between a timeless transcendence and an affirming union of the Trinity with creation are countenanced, with an eye to doing justice to both doctrines. Chapter One examines the idea of divine timelessness and corresponding thoughts about temporal reality found in the Confessions, supplementing Augustinian transcendence with the creational and eschatological insights of two other Church Fathers. Chapter Two documents Aquinas’s affirmation of both God’s strong immutability and the non-necessity of creation, while questioning whether he affirms these in a logically consistent way. Chapter Three then follows the contours of Calvin’s Trinitarianism and Christology, reflecting on the Triune Creator’s gracious “wedding” of himself to the whole work of creation. The final three chapters operate within the fields of philosophy and philosophical theology. Chapter Four commends a tenseless (or B) theory of time, highlighting several problems surrounding tensed (or A) theories of time. But this former view implies that there is no “official present,” leaving no apparent room for the presence of the timeless God with times and temporally located agents. Thus Chapter Five seeks to address classical eternalism’s “present problem.” The conclusion is reached that the temporally absent God’s “present problem” can be resolved by embracing a “risk-free” understanding of divine providence, best understood in terms of a “Reformed decree” that strongly actualizes all non-divine entities and events. Chapter Six begins by wrestling with what implications the timelessness doctrine might have for “responsive” divine compassion and ends by proposing that the infinite God “embraces” the finite world not by way of a panentheistic inclusion but in some ways more akin to a husband’s attentive care for his wife.

It is the purpose of this study to examine Moltmann's theology of the cross and its consequences for a doctrine of God. That is, it will serve to follow Moltmann in his attempt to develop an understanding of God that is founded upon the event of Christ's crucifixion. Under the general concept of a doctrine of God, three principal themes emerge from the theology of the cross: the dialectical revelation of God, the suffering of God and the doctrine of the Trinity. This study is a restructuring of Moltmann's argument that attempts to examine each of these themes in light of the theology of the cross and one that strives to demonstrate their logical interconnectedness in Moltmann's thought. In other words, it aims to establish that, for Moltmann, a thoroughgoing theology of the cross recognizes the revelation of God as revelation in the dialectic of the cross, acknowledges the suffering of God in the dialectic of the cross, and perceives that the suffering of the cross reveals God as Trinity. In summary statement, God is revealed as Trinity in the dialectic of suffering of the cross. In addition, the development of these three themes is supplemented by an examination of three contrary themes of which Moltmann is critical: dialectical revelation and the analogical understanding of God, the suffering of God and the impassibility of God, and the doctrine of the Trinity and monotheism. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

[pt] O sofrimento e o mal levantam uma série de questões sempre recorrentes. Tratando-se de homens e mulheres no contexto da mentalidade moderna, surge a indagação: como harmonizar a afirmação de um Deus Todo-Poderoso com a realidade do sofrimento e do mal, salvaguardando a autonomia do ser humano e do mundo? Através de três teólogos contemporâneos, Andrés Torres Queiruga, Jürgen Moltmann e Jon Sobrino, buscamos responder a esse questionamento, enfatizando a contribuição de cada um dos autores estudados, percebendo as lacunas e debruçando-nos sobre as críticas para completar, enriquecer e aprofundar suas reflexões. Nosso estudo parte de uma questão pastoral, refletida de forma teológico- sistemática, em vista de uma práxis cristã coerente para erradicar, amenizar e/ou integrar o sofrimento e o mal. / [en] Suffering and evil always raise a series of recurring questions. In dealing with man and woman, in the context of modern mentality, there arises an inquiry: how can we harmonize the affirmation of an All-Mighty God with the reality of suffering and evil, safeguarding the autonomy of the human being and the world? In dialogue with three contemporary theologians, Andrés Torres Queiruga, Jürgen Moltmann and Jon Sobrino, we try to deal with this questioning, emphasizing their contributions, detecting lacunas, and discerning the critiques in order to complement, enrich and deepen their considerations. Our study departs from a pastoral question, analyzed in a systematic-theological way, in order to establish a coherent Christian praxis which seeks to erradicate, ease and/or integrate the suffering and evil.