God Repents

Introduction

Are there some aspects of the future that are not settled until free agents choose?  I intend to look at some cluster of passages in the Old Testament in which we are told that God repents. If humans are free, we would expect God's interaction with humans to show traces of this freedom.  I claim that the passages I will examine show just such a trace.  Of course, the rejoinder is that this language is only anthropomorphic and that God does not repent.  I will address this rejoinder and the verses usually employed to support it (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 110:4).

Strategy

If human beings are free creatures, then we would expect that if the claim is made that God repents, then that divine repentance would be conditional upon human choice.  My strategy is to ague that most of the verses in the Old Testament that employ the word "repent" (nhm) in relation to God do so precisely in connection with human freedom.  This is powerful evidence that the future is not exhaustively settled.

The Texts

Genesis 6:6-7

And the Lord was sorry he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.  So the Lord said, "I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created--people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

Now, the cause of God's grief here is clearly humankind's wickedness: "every inclination of the thoughts of their heats was only evil continually" (6:5).  My gloss: human freedom and the evil that resulted caused God to repent.  If humankind would not have chosen evil, then the implication is that God would not have repented in creating them.  The text goes on to say that Noah, who is described as "righteous", "blameless" and "walked with God"(6:9) is saved.  Again the implication is that Noah chose rightly and is therefore in the clear. Many evangelicals dislike this implication and interpret 6:8 to mean that Noah found "grace" with God (6:8) as though the descriptions in verse 9 are the result of that grace.  But in his notes E. A. Speiser states of the verse in question: "Literally "won favor (not 'grace') in the eyes of".

Exodus 32:14

And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.
 

The context of this verse is the Golden Calf incident.  God is intent on consuming the Israelites and even asks Moses to let him alone to do it (32:10).  Moses intercedes using some gambits.  My gloss: in this case it is Moses' intercession that causes God to repent.  One would think that God is privy to the gambits that Moses uses to convince God to repent.  Therefore, my take is that it is somehow Moses himself and his willingness to chose to set things right that convinces God.  Right after the intercession, Moses chooses to destroy the calf (32:20) and to commissions the Levites to purge the people (32:25-29).  It was Moses, I claim, that persuaded God to repent.  If Moses would not have chosen to intercede because he cared about the relationship with God, then the Israelites would have been consumed there and then.

Amos 7:3, 6

The Lord relented concerning this; "It shall not be," said the Lord.
The Lord relented concerning this; "This also shall not be," said the Lord.
 

Amos reacts to God reslove to punish in two cases by saying forgive/cease and saying "How can Jacob stand?  He is so small."  My gloss:  as with Moses, I take God's reaction to Amos to be of utmost importance.  It is Amos' choice to be concerned for his people that changes God's mind.  However, the reprive failed and in a second pair of visions God punishes and Amos does not intercede (7:7-9; 8:1-3).  A case could be made that God accepted Amos' resolve and gave Israel more time to repent but Israel chose not to and God reverted back to his resolve to destroy. 

1 Samuel 15:11, 35

"I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands."
And the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel.
 

The reason for God's repentance is stated right in the verse.  Saul did not obey God and allowed King Agag of Amalek.  My gloss: Saul chose not to obey God and therefore God repented that he had made him King over Israel.  The implication is that Saul had the freedom to obey God and that if he had then God would not repented.

2 Samuel 24:16/1 Chronicles 21:15

But when the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented concerning the evil, and said to the angel who was bringing destruction among the people, "It is enough; now stay your hand."
 

This is one passage that God's repentance seems spontaneous.  We are not told what triggered God's anger in 24:1 nor how it seems to be resolved in 24:16.  David's confession only caused a choice of punishment.

Jeremiah 18:8, 10

but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on it.
but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I intend to do to it.
 

My gloss: Here is a statement of God's freedom to change his mind in relation to the choices of humankind.  The results are dependant upon the choices made.  We are not told that God knows which choice is to be made.  The sentences are conditional and not declarative.

Jeremiah 26:3, 13, 19

It may be that they will listen, all of them, and I will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.

Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he pronounced against you.
Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death?  Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them?
 

In this Temple sermon, Jeremiah is clear to tie together God's repentance to human choice in verses 3 and 13.  There is no indication that God knows which option that will transpire.  Again, the logic is conditional and not declarative, God is not declaring what is to happen regardless of human choice.  Verse 19 is about a prophecy of Micah about the destruction of Jerusalem.  He was not responded to by death threats but by repentance in which God also repents.  Again, God's action is conditioned upon human choice.

Joel 2:12-14

Yet even now, says the Lord, return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; rend your hearts and not your clothing.  Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and relents from punishing.  Who knows whether he will not turn and relent, and leave a blessing behind him...
 

God is described in terms used in Exodus 34:6-7 but with the addition that God repents.  The point is clear: God's repentance is related to human choice.  The human choice for good is perhaps a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for God to repent.  God still is sovereign but his decisions are tied to human response.

Jonah 3:9-10; cf. 4:1-2

Who knows?  God may relent and change his mind; he may turn from his fierce anger, so that we do not perish.  When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.
 

The king of Nineveh urges his subjects to repent from their evil ways (3:8) which is clearly related to human choice.  God sees this human choice and repents.

Zechariah 8:14

For thus says the Lord of hosts: Just as I purposed to bring disaster upon you, when your ancestors provoked me to wrath, and I did not relent, says the Lord of hosts.
 

Here, God's decision not to relent is due to the disobedient choices of the Israelites.

Ezekiel 24:14

I the Lord have spoken; the time is coming, I will act.  I will not refrain, I will not spare, I will not relent.  According to your ways and your doings I will judge you, says the Lord God.

This negative statement is in accord with Ezekiel's belief that Jerusalem is to be blamed for its disaster (see 24:1-13).

Judges 2:18

for the Lord would be moved to pity by their groaning because of those who persecuted and oppressed them.
 

Here, God's repentance is in response to the people's groaning.  It may be that this groaning is a sign of repentance but it is not stated and the reason given is the oppressors and persecutors.

Contrary Verses

There are verses which state that God does not repent.  One case, 1 Samuel 15:29, is interesting in that it is sandwiched between two verses which claim that God does repent (!) (11 and 35; cf. Numbers 23:19 and Psalm 110:4).  I think the best way to interpret the claim that God does not repent is that he does not repent exactly like a human repents, either in the sense that he does not need to morally repent or in the sense that his repentance is not capricious or frivalous.  But this is not to deny that God is not effected by human choice.

Rock Bottom

Is the language of God repenting only anthropomorphic?  What I think can be said is this:  the authors of our passages used the language they used because they wanted to say something about how God interects with humankind.  If God did not really "change his mind", then we are owed an explanation as to why the authors wrote as they wrote.  Perhaps it is true that the authors could not get closer to the truth about what was going on--even if all interaction between God and humankind is metaphor--than by using the metaphor that God repented.  If so, that is saying a lot.

Conclusion

There is ample evidence in Scripture that God repents.  This repentance is almost always related to human behavior, good or bad.  An explanation of this is that human choices matter.  Human choices bring about realities that change God's stance.  This has huge implication for theology and ethics.  What we do matters.  We are not puppets destined to live a life predetermined for the ages.  God calls us to live in such a world by trusting him and relying on his guidance.  We can do no better.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Gollum and his 'Precious'

Introduction


The sad and pitiful figure of Gollum of Tolkien fame provides an excellent example of a life lived under the power of sin.  I will try to draw out some lessons from the life of Gollum.

From Smeagol to Gollum

"What do you mean?" said Frodo.  "Surely the Ring was his precious and the only thing he cared for?  But if he hated it, why didn't he get rid of it, or go away and leave it?"
"You ought to begin to understand, Frodo, after all you have heard," said Gandalf.  He hated it and loved it, as he hated and loved himself.  He could not get rid of it.  He had no will left in the matter."
 

 The 'precious' that consumed Gollum is that idolatry that seeks to get life in ways contrary to God's will.  To borrow from a completely different movie reference, Gollum got caught in the Matrix.  As with Israel's sin, Gollum was cursed and "driven away" because of his transgressions.  Jesus puts the  matter starkly in Mark 8:34-37 (Mt. 16:24-26//Lk. 9:23-25):

If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.  For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.  For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?  Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
 

When we don't follow God's will we become deformed and ugly, a sad caricature of what we ought to be.  We all at times cling to our own 'precious'.  Our 'precious' can be anything that we get life from other than from God.  We all have caused untold damage to those around us and to ourselves by ruthlessly guarding and protecting our 'precious'.    When we don't trust God we die, just like Gollum.

Romans 7

In chapter 7 of Romans, Paul describes a person much like Gollum.  I think this chapter has often been used by Christians to justify the sin in their life (Gollum too blames: "the precious made us do it").  But Paul is, I think (and see my commentary on Romans on my website), referring not to Christians but a typical Jew before Jesus.  The Christian now has the power to be free from sin: Jesus has rescued us from the power of sin, not just forgiven us our sins--"but thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:25). 

Conclusion

We don't have to be like Gollum.  Let us give up our 'precious' so we can have that which is truly precious! 

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; on finding on pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.  ---Mt. 13:45-46