The small number against the Gentiles is frightening because it seems that God would direct His wrath against them more often than against His chosen or covenant people. However, as we will note in the next section, Additional Evidence, this number must be interpreted in the broader context of the story, as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Ten Plagues. In exodus. 16, before the law, the Israelites whispered that they had nothing to eat, so God gave them manna and quail. But nowhere in the text does it say that God poured out His wrath on them for their sin of complaining. In contrast, in Numbers 11:4-35, after the law was given, the people complained that they had only manna. God became “extremely angry,” but still provided him with quail. He also condemned them with a plague because they apparently ate it raw. An image of rioting is possible. That severe punishment is anger. I don`t offer the meaning of words all the time in this study because they mean anger, anger, rage, and so on.

But I notice it when, in some contexts, they mean zeal, nostrils, discord, sorrow and so on. Generally, these are not counted unless they are metaphors for anger and anger in certain verses or they actually mean them. In Exodus 15:22-27, before the law in Exodus. 19, the children of Israel are in the wilderness. They found no water, and the water they eventually discovered in Marah was bitter. They complained. God performed a miracle without specifically mentioning anger. In Exodus 17:1-7, they camped at Rephidim, still in the wilderness, and found no water.

They complain again, but God`s wrath is not mentioned. Instead, Moses struck the rock and water came out. In contrast, in Numbers 20:1-13, after the law was given, the Israelites complained that they had no water, and this time God told Moses to speak to the rock, and the water would gush out. Instead, Moses disobeyed and struck the rock. Although the “wrath” in Numbers 20:1-13, Psalm 106:32 says, “By the waters of the Meribah they angered the Lord, and because of them Moses went into distress.” God judged Moses, so that the lawgiver was not allowed to lead the people to the Promised Land (cf. Num 20:24; Num. 27:14; Deuteronomy 32:51). But sometimes the human party of the covenant, in its bad faith, has gone so far that for centuries they have broken the law so monstrously that the aggrieved party (God) has acted. He judged and punished them, but not in His full anger and not to destroy them. And after this painful ordeal – painful for him – he forgave her and still loved her.

He was merciful to the offenders he had chosen. It is the perfect blend of mercy and justice. This is the story of God`s wrath in the Old Testament in a nutshell. The law thundered from above on Mount Sinai, beginning with Exodus 19. God shows anger against His own people after the law was given when they broke it. God shows anger against individuals outside His covenant (pagans). Hebrew keywords appeared only once before the law was promulgated – against the Egyptian army. But after the law is given, most Hebrew words take place in national contexts: God`s wrath and wrath must be poured out on the nations that crushed Israel, such as Assyria and Babylon. Isaiah was careful to pronounce these prophecies. Question: In Nigeria, it is customary for government officials and security personnel to say that criminals “will face all the wrath of the law.” I searched for the phrase in dictionaries, sentence books, and several grammar websites and couldn`t find it.

Is it a unique Nigerian English expression? God`s wrath before the law, either on His chosen people or on His Gentiles: 4 (or 2) In addition, Jacob stole Esau`s birthright (Genesis 27), but he was still blessed by revelation (Genesis 28:10-21). He wrestled with an angel and got a name change (character), but this is not explicitly called God`s wrath (Genesis 32:22-32). He and Esau reconciled, and Jacob was allowed to continue with birthright privileges (Genesis 33 and Genesis 49). Answer: Why not? Well, I think he probably meant that it`s useful to be consistent with a strain. But there are several expressions from American English to British English and vice versa. And because American English is the dominant variant of today`s international English, it`s really hard to maintain a strict demarcation between American English and British English. Several everyday English expressions began as Americanisms before becoming widely used in World English. Words and phrases such as “radio”, “immigrant”, “squatter”, “teenager”, “prolonged”, “defender”, “locate”, “belittle”, “live wire”, “hot air”, “third degree”, “cold war”, “mass gatherings”, “peace process”, “OK”, “film”, etc. clearly have American origins and have already been ridiculed by British Anglophones as “terrible Americanisms”. Today, they are so integral to our daily expressions that many of us cannot even imagine why the British had problems with them. On the other hand, many Britisms never cross the Atlantic, a notable exception being the sudden popularity of the informal British English word “gobsmacked” in American English after internet sensation Susan Boyle of “Britain`s Got a Talent” used it to describe her unexpected success at the talent show. The word means “to be so surprised that you don`t know what to say.” After telling CNN that she was “stunned, absolutely stunned” by her success, the word dominated internet search terms in America for weeks.

Now I see that many Americans have incorporated it into their active idiolect. However, some American expressions are still rejected by British writers and orators. phrases such as “OK, I think”, “review”, “lose”; the phrase “hopefully”; spellings such as “colour”, “theatre”; forms such as “gotten”, “proven”, “dove”, “snuck”; and grammatical features such as the use of “he” to refer to “one” (You need to support your team; “a” British team) or informal “real” (It was really good; The “really good” British) failed to get into British English. Thus, many words and phrases such as “sidewalk” for sidewalk, “gas” for gasoline, “first floor” for ground floor (with corresponding modifications for the other floors), “tap” for faucet, “name for” for the British “name after” (as in, Washington DC was named after (British: named after) former US President George Washington), “wash” to wash your face and hands, etc. Second, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons deserved wrath on certain occasions, but never obtained it as such, certainly not with the same intensity that his people will receive after the law of Moses was given. “The lack of anger against wickedness is a lack of care, which is a lack of love” (pp. 23 or 160). Now let`s look at what happens in Genesis after the creation story. Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob committed registered sins, but they did not specifically suffer from anger. Abraham lied to Pharaoh, but God inflicted diseases on Pharaoh, not Abraham. God spared His chosen man, but not the Gentiles. However, God restored them (Genesis 12:10-20).

Answer: No, it is not a unique Nigerian English expression, although it is almost absent from contemporary American and British English. The expression “the (total) anger of the law” is a translation from German. My results show that it was first used in an English translation by the German theologian Martin Luther in the “Commentary on Galatians” by the German theologian Martin Luther, which he wrote in 1535.