I know that it sounds almost heretical to even suggest such an idea. However, if one reads the Old Testament carefully, especially in the King James Version, it soon becomes obvious that indeed He does repent (nacham in Hebrew). But the story is really not so clear since that same verb is used of God repenting almost twenty times vs. the six times it is said that He doesn't repent. This certainly sounds like a blatant contradiction, but appearances can be deceiving, as many Bible scholars are quick to point out.
Murray puts it this way: “In the AV (i.e. King James Version) the terms 'repent' and 'repentance' are seldom used in the Old Testament with reference to men...As translations of the root naham, they are applied most frequently to God...The negative with reference to God also appears with equal emphasis...The term used most frequently to denote human repentance is not naham, but sub, which means to turn or return and applied to turning from sin to God. When repentance is predicated of God,either in the direction of judgment or mercy, there is reference to the change that takes place in His relations to men. God is immutable in His being, perfections, and purposes. But He changes His relationship and attitude, in judgment upon sin from complacency to wrath, in mercy from wrath to favor and blessing.”
Vine says, “ In the O.T., repentance with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's actions, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a repentance attributed both to God and to man, e.g. Gen. 6:6; Ex. 32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed...”
Soza puts it this way: “God repented of his creation, responding to the sinful actions of human beings by sending a flood. This can pose a problem in English terminology because of the rather restricted use of 'repent' as meaning solely to turn from sin. However, the Hebrew can be understood as 'to be sorry' or 'to change one's mind.' There is certainly an emotional dimension of remorse that connotes a grieving in changing one's mind. Yet in some sense, in 'repenting' in this context, the creator God became the destroying God. His repentance is expressed in an action opposite to the action he had become pained over.”
Kaiser elaborates in some detail on this seeming quandary: “Many have taken offense because Genesis 6:6 said, 'The LORD was grieved [repented] that he had made man on the earth.' How could God appear to regret having made a decision once it was made?...Interestingly enough, Numbers 23:19 represents repentance as an impossibility for God...But lest this be thought to be an obvious contradiction, we must call the reader's attention to another place in the Old Testament where in the scope of one and the same chapter both affirmations are made about God...The chapter is 1 Samuel 15 [compare vv. 11 and 29]...The basic idea is that God can and does change in his actions and emotions towards men so as not to change in his basic character. God's repentance does not prove him to be fickle, mutable, and variable in his nature or purpose...God's repentance, then, is a form of anthropomorphism that dares to picture the God-man relationship in terms of our everyday lives...To deny any humanness to God would be to underinterpret these figures of speech; but to reduce God to the common failures and quirks of human inconsistency would be to overinterpret these anthropopathisms. The exalted state of God also embraces within himself a variety of emotions including regret, grief, and change in response (repentance) to mortals when they have changed against his divine purpose or nature.”
Finally, I will not even attempt to capture all that David Noel Freedman says on the subject of God repenting in his 30-page essay included in the compilation of his writings found in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Volume 1. He systematically investigates all those instances in the Bible in which God changes His mind. It will suffice for the purposes of the present post to say that Freedman's study is prefaced by the following words: “Throughout and in every case, it should be understood that the divine repentance is real, that the meaning and value of the story depend on the transaction between God and prophet or God and people; and that if it is not real on the part of God (i.e. that he does not and cannot change his mind), then the story is a charade without significance. Admittedly we are using a metaphor, involving stories and persons that include God and humans; but within the metaphor – and we believe that nobody can get closer to the reality behind the metaphor – we must be faithful to the data. Once it is understood that Yahweh enters into the drama as fully and wholeheartedly as the other participants, then we can proceed with the analysis.”
I will close with one warning here. For some, the Bible passages demonstrating God's “repentance” have led them to embrace what has been labeled Open Theism. This is the theology that describes God experiencing time alongside humanity, adapting, and genuinely "learning" as events unfold. Most Bible scholars and theologians would rightly label this concept as a heresy or near-heresy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments