God and Change

14 Pages·2001·0.13 MB·English

God and Change
Millard Erickson
Millard Erickson is Research Pro- The question of the relationship of God in God’s nature to the challenge of pro-
fessor of Theology at Truett Theological to change has taken on a special signifi- cess theology.
Seminary in Waco, Texas. Among his nu- cance in the latter part of the twentieth At least upon the surface, orthodox the-
merous writings are Christian Theology, century. The old Greek question of the one ology has much at stake in this issue, for it
Introducing Christian Doctrine, and God and the many has been given an added has traditionally maintained the doctrine
in Three Persons: A Contemporary In- impetus in our day. One reason is simply of divine immutability. By this it meant that
terpretation of the Trinity. This article will that change, at least in terms of cultural although everything else in the universe
appear as a chapter in Erickson’s forth- change, has become commonplace in our appears to undergo change, God does not.
coming God the Father Almighty: A Con- thinking. Whole books are devoted to the He is the unchanging eternal one. In light
temporary Exploration of the Divine subject of change, such as Alvin Toffler’s of the recent developments mentioned
Attributes (Baker). Future Shock and John Naisbitt’s above, however, this topic needs fresh scru-
Megatrends. The change is the result of tiny and contemporary restatement.
many factors. The accelerating capability
of technology has meant that technologi- Basis of the Doctrine of Immutability
A. Biblical
cal changes are more radical, more
One source from which the doctrine of
frequent, and farther-reaching. The
immutability has drawn inspiration is the
knowledge explosion, together with radi-
Scriptures. Several passages seem to bear
cally improved means of communication,
testimony to the fact that God is the un-
results in changes being spread over wide
changing one. Three passages in particu-
areas rapidly. Modern physics increas-
lar have come in for attention by
ingly is coming to view reality not as static
theologians. The first is in Psalm 102,
and fixed, but as dynamic and growing.
where the context is the discussion of
Coupled with this is the rise and spread
God’s creation of all that is, and the con-
of process philosophy, with its emphasis
trast between him in his unchanging char-
upon the basic unit of reality as being not
acter, and everything else, which is so
the fixed substance, but event, something
subject to alteration and decay.
much more evanescent.
Interestingly, much of conservative the-
In the beginning you laid the foun-
ology has not really risen to the challenge
dations of the earth, and the heav-
to the traditional doctrine of divine im- ens are the work of your hands. They
will perish, but you remain; they will
mutability. Although there has been a real
all wear out like a garment. Like
outpouring of new systematic theology
clothing you will change them and
texts from conservative theologians in the they will be discarded. But you re-
main the same, and your years will
past fifteen years, most of them really do
never end (vs. 25-27).
not give much attention to this subject.
Among the exceptions are Wayne
Here the psalmist seems concerned to
Grudem’s Systematic Theology1 and Carl
demonstrate to his readers that they need
F. H. Henry’s God, Revelation and Author-
not be concerned as they see all that sur-
ity.2 Both volumes give major attention
rounds them deteriorating and changing.
with respect to change and permanence
38
God is not like this. He remains the same, corded philosophical treatises which we
and he is endless and ageless. have are from Greek philosophy, where
A second passage frequently cited is there was early debate over whether real-
Malachi 3:6. The context there is God’s dis- ity was fundamentally fixed and perma-
pleasure with his people, Israel. They have nent or changing and temporary. The
failed to live up to their part of the cov- eventual solution was to divide reality
enant that he made with them. He re- into two parts, one of which was chang-
minds them, however, that he is faithful ing, and the other unchanging. This un-
to his covenant, both in terms of blessing changing component frequently played a
as he has done in the past, when that is role in the Greek philosopher’s
what they deserve, and of judging, when metaphysic comparable to that of God in
that is the proper response to their actions. a theistic view.
As he has been in the past, he also is in The two major types of Greek philoso-
the present: “I the LORD do not change. phy, at least during the period of influ-
So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not ence upon Christian theology, were
destroyed.” The emphasis is upon God’s Platonic and Aristotelian. Each had its
unchanging action in the same situations, own version of immutability of the su-
but underlying this is the fact that God is preme principle. The Platonic variety was
constant in his dealings. While there is not first, both in terms of the development of
an explicit statement about metaphysical the philosophy and the period of influence
change and immutability, there is some exerted upon Christian theology.
implication that this is the basis of the be- The major discussion of this specific topic
havioral consistency. is found in the second book of Plato’s Re-
The final passage for our consideration public, in a dialogue between Socrates and
is from the New Testament book of James: Adeimantus. Socrates notes that all change
“Every good and perfect gift is from of a thing is effected either by that thing it-
above, coming down from the Father of self, or by something external to it, and that
the heavenly lights, who does not change the best of things are least liable to be
like shifting shadows” (1:17). James is at- changed by external influences. This is true
tempting to encourage his readers by of the influence upon persons of meats and
pointing out that all good things come drinks, upon plants by winds or sun, and
originally from God. These good gifts can upon such manufactured things as furni-
be expected to continue to come and to ture, houses and garments. Everything
be good, because the Father’s character which is good is least likely to suffer change
does not change at all. Of the three pas- from without. Since God is in every way
sages, this one seems to be the most di- perfect, he cannot be altered by the influ-
rectly addressing the issue of the ence of external things. Might he not, how-
constancy of God’s being, in terms of not ever, asks Socrates, will to change himself?
undergoing alteration. The possibility, however, is more apparent
than real. Since God is perfect, not deficient
B. Philosophical in any quality, he cannot possibly change
The other source from which the doc- for the better, being already the ultimate
trine of God’s immutability derives is good. If he is to undergo change, it must be
philosophy. As we noted, the earliest re- for the worse. Why, however, would God
39
or even a human ever will to change for the positively correlated with reality, in his
worse? Socrates’ conclusion, with which understanding. This analogy of the di-
Adeimantus agrees, is: “Then it is impos- vided line is followed immediately by the
sible that God should ever be willing to myth of the cave. Here, persons are seated,
change; being, as is supposed, the fairest and bound from their childhood by chains
best that is conceivable, every god remains which prevent them from turning and
absolutely and forever in his own form.”3 looking behind them. They can only see
There is a broader feature of Plato’s the wall in front of them. Behind them,
understanding of reality which underlies unseen by them, are persons, moving
this conception of immutability. For us, about, and behind these, a fire which casts
influenced by modern empirical science, its light upon these figures so that shad-
the visible or tangible, the perceptible, is ows of them and their movements are cast
most real, and the intangible things are on the wall in front of the prisoners. See-
less real. Plato understood reality in the ing only the shadows and never that
exact opposite way. He expounds this in which casts the shadows, they believe that
several places in his writings, but perhaps the shadows are the reality. Actually, how-
nowhere more clearly than in this same ever, the shadows are inadequate repre-
Republic. He develops the scheme in his sentations of the real characters behind
analogy of the divided line. The lower half them. Again, the visible and the chang-
of the line is the visible, and the other half ing are less real than that of which they
(although the parts are of unequal length) are images, and especially than the fire
is the intelligible. The lower part is in turn whose illumination makes it possible to
divided into a part composed of images, see the shadows.5
including shadows, reflections, and the Aristotle’s approach to the matter is as
like, and another part which consists of different from that of Plato as is his gen-
things which we see, and everything eral metaphysic from Plato’s. Aristotle
growing and made. The upper part of the worked with a scheme in which potenti-
overall line consists of invisible but intel- ality and actuality were of great impor-
ligible matters. The lower part consists of tance to understanding change. Change
ideals or forms, such as the absolute tri- is from potentiality to actuality, when
angle and square which geometricians something becomes actually that which it
use. The higher part of this upper part of is only potentially. He established,
the line is the realm of idea of the good, through his argument from motion, that
where, unlike the hypotheses dealt with for any motion to take place, there must
in geometry, one rises above hypotheses.4 be some unmoved mover. Change of the
The point is that the objects in the lower type that we term motion is understood
realm, subject to change, are less real than in terms of potentiality and actuality, for
are the ideas or forms in the upper half of something can only move when it is ca-
reality, which are absolute or pure and so pable of being elsewhere than where it
do not change. While there has been much previously was. God is immovable be-
speculation among students of Plato as to cause he is not potentially somewhere
the exact relationship in his thought of other than where he is. This is also true of
God and of the idea of the Good, it is ap- other types of change besides motion.
parent that permanence and fixity are God, being fully actual, cannot change,
40
because he has no potentiality not already changing, then he is not the God of pres-
fully realized.6 ervation and providence. And if there is
The philosophical arguments regard- no such guarantor of the change in the
ing the changelessness of God have also world, we cannot really relate to the world
been developed more recently. Three of on the basis of such expectations.8
these are quite closely related. Each pre- A final philosophical argument for im-
supposes the basic doctrines of the cre- mutability has been advanced by Geach.
ation and providence worked by God. The He contends that the confidence in God
argument advanced then becomes almost and his promises that Christians have can
a practical one: such a view of God can- only be experienced and justified on the
not be maintained unless he is changeless. basis of the immutability of God. This
In other words, the argument is that cer- guarantees that God can and will fulfill
tain activities of God, such as creation and his promises. If this is not the case, then
providence, are inconsistent with the idea Christianity as it has ordinarily been un-
of change in him. derstood is destroyed.9
P. T. Geach has raised the question of To summarize the several philosophi-
the changelessness of God as it bears upon cal arguments:
the question of origins, both of himself and 1) Because God is perfect, he cannot
of other things. He contends that the ques- change, because all change is either in-
tion “Who made God?” does not apply to crease or decrease, improvement or de-
a changeless God. Such would presumably cline, and perfection can neither be
have always been as he is now. If, however, improved upon nor lost.
God changes, then he is one among the 2) Because God is pure actuality, there can
many beings in the world. Even if it were be no change in him, for all change is actu-
possible to think of such a God as causing alization of potentialities which are present.
everything else, which he does not believe 3) If God could change, he would not
it is possible to think consistently, he would be uncaused, and therefore could not be
still, like all other changing things, have to the cause of anything else either.
be caused. He says, “So I dismiss any ‘re- 4) If God could change, we could not
thinking’ of God’s changelessness; it can have confidence in his preserving all
lead only to an alien and incoherent view things that are, since his ability to do so
of the Divine.”7 might decline or alter.
A somewhat similar argument has been 5) If God could change we could not
advanced by Keith Ward. He contends have confidence in him to keep his prom-
that divine changelessness is essential to ises, thus losing an essential component
divine providence, considered especially of Christianity.
as preservation. If God is subject to
change, then he might cease to be, or to Definitions of Change
There are many different definitions of
be the sustaining ground of the world.
change or varieties of change. It is helpful
Thus we have a guarantee of the stability,
to look briefly at these varieties.
regularity and ordered continuity of tem-
1) There is change that might be called
poral change only if there is a changeless
decline or deterioration. This is the loss, ei-
God. The problem arises both on a theo-
ther partially or entirely, of positive quali-
retical and a practical basis. If God is
41
ties, or the acquisition of negative qualities. or spatially located, the sense of change
2) There is change that can be referred as movement from one place to another
to as growth or improvement. This is the does not apply.
opposite of change of type one above. 2) Some cases of relational change are
3) There is locational change, the move- really not changes at all in the subject. The
ment from one place to another. other, the object to which this subject is
4) Relational change involves no related, may have changed, thus chang-
change in the thing itself, but in the rela- ing the relationship. So, for example, if I
tionship to another object or person. am taller than my teenage friend and I
5) Temporal change is aging, not in the remain the same height but he grows to
sense of the deterioration that we usually be taller than I, I am now shorter than he,
associate with growing old, but merely as but this is not really a change in me. To be
the accumulation of a great number of sure, the relationship can change through
years in existence. my becoming shorter than before and thus
6) Alteration is qualitative change, shorter than my friend. It would seem that
modifying the attributes or characteristics change of the former type can be attrib-
of that which changes. This could, how- uted to God without there really being any
ever, be alteration which supplements, change in him.
rather than contradicts, the qualities al- 3) Change as decline would certainly
ready possessed. be genuine change in God, but this type
7) Reversal is alteration of such a radi- of change is scarcely being argued for by
cal nature as to involve actual contradic- any theologians today.
tion of qualities previously possessed. 4) Change as increase or growth would
8) Change of mind involves coming to also seem to be genuine change. Process
hold different beliefs or attitudes, or mak- theologians claim that God is changing in
ing different decisions than previously. this sense.
9) Change of action is a matter of be- 5) Temporal change, or aging, is not a
having differently, or taking different ac- possibility if one holds that God is time-
tion than previously, again either radically lessly eternal. While those who think of
different and contradictory or supplemen- God as of infinite duration within time
tary and harmonious. might seem to be able to reconcile this kind
10) Change of knowledge is the acqui- of change with their concept of God, that
sition of information or truth which one may be questionable, since a God who is
did not previously possess. It could in- already and always has been infinitely old
volve displacement either of ignorance or could scarcely somehow become older.
of error. 6) Alteration, in terms of either the strong
or the weak sense, clearly conflicts with the
Which, if any, of these types of change more traditional view of God. It is under
can be appropriately attributed to God, dispute at the present time, however.
and which are inconsistent with the con- 7) Change of action seems to be clearly
cept of God or the biblical teaching regard- taught by Scripture. For example, God
ing him? And which of these are under delivered the people of Israel from
dispute in the current discussions? Pharoah at one point in history, and sent
1) Since God presumably is not spatial his son to the cross at another. Whether
42
such actions represent real change or are LORD’s house and speak to all the people
only consistent outworkings of one un- of the towns of Judah who come to wor-
changed and unchanging divine nature is ship in the house of the LORD. Tell them
debatable, however. To some extent, the everything I command you; do not omit a
answer here depends on the conclusion word. Perhaps they will listen and each will
to the next variety below. turn from his evil way. Then I will relent
8) Change of mind is the issue currently and not bring on them the disaster I was
being considerably debated, with not only planning because of the evil they have
process theologians but also free will the- done’” (vv. 2, 3). This sounds like a clear
ists claiming that God changes his mind declaration that God intends to bring judg-
and plan, often in response to the actions ment, but that he will change his mind, or
of human beings. literally repent, of that action. When
9) Change of knowledge, coming to Jeremiah goes to preach to the people, he
know something he did not know before repeats the message, and says the same
would seem to be change in God, enlarging thing about God that he has said of him-
what he possessed within himself previ- self: “Then Jeremiah said to all the officials
ously. This is also currently under dispute. and all the people: ‘The LORD sent me to
prophesy against this house and this city
Arguments Against Immutability all the things you have heard. Now reform
One argument being advanced most
your ways and your actions and obey the
vigorously is the contention that the bib-
LORD your God. Then the LORD will re-
lical description of God is of a being who
lent and not bring the disaster he has pro-
changes, in his attitudes, his decisions,
nounced against you’” (vv. 12, 13).
and his actions.
A final example of God’s repenting of
judgment that he plans to bring is the case
A. Repentance passages. The first of these
of Nineveh. The message which Jehovah
is Exodus 32:12. There Moses implores God
gave Jonah to preach in Nineveh and
to change his mind and his actions, not al-
which he finally did preach was a categori-
lowing his people to perish at the hands of
cal statement of judgment: “On the first
the Egyptians. He says to Jehovah, “Why
day, Jonah started into the city. He pro-
should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil
claimed: ‘Forty more days and Nineveh
intent that he brought them out, to kill them
will be overturned’ (Jon. 3:4). When the
in the mountains and to wipe them off the
king heard the message, he commanded
face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce
everyone to turn from their wicked ways,
anger; relent and do not bring disaster on
and to show their repentance through the
your people.” Moses certainly seemed to
use of sackcloth and ashes, for he reasoned:
think God capable of changing his commit-
‘Who knows? God may yet relent and with
ment to a course of action which presum-
compassion turn from his fierce anger so
ably he had decided upon.
that we will not perish”’ (v. 9). This indeed
Another significant instance is found in
proved to be the case: “When God saw
Jeremiah 26, where the possibility of God
what they did and how they turned from
changing his mind is mentioned. So Jeho-
their evil ways, he had compassion and did
vah says to Jeremiah, “This is what the
not bring upon them the destruction he had
LORD says: ‘Stand in the courtyard of the
threatened” (v. 10).
43
Nor is God’s change of mind restricted garded as one of the central themes
of Scripture. It represents ‘an impor-
to repenting of evil that he has purposed
tant interpretive vehicle for under-
to do. The opposite change also takes standing the divine activity
throughout the canon.’10
place. In Genesis 6, God comes to regret
having created humans, and resolves to
Rice does not think this a problem in
negate his creative action by wiping out
light of the sovereign nature of God, or a
wicked persons. The Scripture writer re-
contradiction of his nature. Rather than
ports, “The LORD saw how great man’s
being isolated incidents, the accounts of
wickedness on the earth had become, and
divine repentance are actually character-
that every inclination of the thoughts of
istic of God. He repents, not despite the
his heart was only evil all the time. The
fact that he is God, but because he is God.
LORD was grieved that he had made man
It is his very nature to repent, or to relent
on the earth, and his heart was filled with
of action he had planned to take, in light
pain. So the LORD said, ‘I will wipe man-
of human action and reaction. Rice finds
kind, whom I have created, from the face
repentance, or a willingness to turn from
of the earth—men and animals, and crea-
his determinations and actions, a defin-
tures that move along the ground, and
ing characteristic of God, as found in lists
birds of the air— for I am grieved that I
of such qualities in Exodus 34:6-7; Jonah
have made them’” (Gen. 6:5-7). This ap-
4:2; and Joel 2:13.11
pears to be a clear indication of God re-
We cannot conclude our consideration
versing his plan and doing what negates,
of the question of divine repentance or
at least with respect to some persons, his
change of mind at this point, however. For
earlier life-giving endeavor.
another set of texts seems to indicate that
Upon their surface, these passages
God does not, and indeed, cannot, repent,
seem clearly to indicate a change of mind
or change his mind. One of these is Num-
on God’s part. Certainly, such a God must
bers 23:18-20: “Then he uttered his oracle:
be subject to change, at least in terms of
‘Arise, Balak, and listen; hear me, son of
attitude, will, and intention, resulting in
Zippor. God is not a man, that he should
change of action from what he has already
lie, nor a son of man, that he should
done and indicated he was about to do.
change his mind. Does he speak and then
Thus, for example, Richard Rice takes
not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? I
these passages quite literally.
have received a command to bless; he has
The biblical descriptions of divine blessed, and I cannot change it.’” A sec-
repentance combine elements of ond is quite similar, in 1 Samuel 15:28-29:
emotion and decision to provide a
“Samuel said to him, ‘The LORD has torn
striking picture of the divine reality.
They indicate that God is intimately the kingdom of Israel from you today and
involved in human affairs and that has given it to one of your neighbors—to
the course of human events has pro-
one better than you. He who is the Glory
found effects on him. . .God works
toward his objectives in history in of Israel does not lie or change his mind;
dynamic interaction with human
for he is not a man, that he should change
beings. Their experiences and deci-
his mind.’”
sions affect his experiences and de-
cisions. So important is the notion Rice recognizes the difficulty of these
of divine repentance in biblical
two passages, but maintains that they do
thought that it deserves to be re-
44
not ultimately teach the traditional doc- priest forever’” (He 7:20b-21). Another pas-
trine of divine immutability, or mean that sage affirming the unchanging purpose and
God does not and cannot change his mind. commitment of God is found in Jeremiah
He negates such an interpretation of these 4:27, 28: “This is what the LORD says: ‘The
passages on four considerations: whole land will be ruined, though I will not
1) Repent is used here as a synonym destroy it completely. Therefore the earth
for “lie.” Thus, the passages are not de- will mourn and the heavens above grow
nying that God changes his mind, but dark, because I have spoken and will not
rather, that he never deliberately says he relent, I have decided and will not turn
will do something while fully intending back.’” Finally, Ezekiel delivers a similar
to do something different. message to Israel: “‘I the LORD have spo-
2) These statements pertain to specific ken. The time has come for me to act. I will
promises of what God intends to do. They not hold back; I will not have pity, nor will I
do not declare general principles. relent. You will be judged according to your
3) The assurance that God does not re- conduct and your actions,’ declares the Sov-
pent in these specific circumstances presup- ereign LORD” (24: 14).
poses the general possibility that he does or Interestingly, these passages seem more
can repent. It is not that God will not repent susceptible to the interpretation Rice
in such cases because he cannot, but because places upon the other two, namely, that
he does not choose to do so. they could refer to God’s particular pur-
4) One of the very chapters (l Sam. 15) pose and action in these specific cases.
that affirm that God does not repent actu- That is less the case with the passages that
ally says twice that he does repent (v. l 1, he does treat, however. There the fact that
35). “So,” says Rice, “the scope of this de- God will not repent is tied to the fact that
nial obviously is very limited. It is not a he is God, not a human. What he does or
statement of general principle.”12 does not do is a result of who and what
Is this rebuttal of contradictory passages he is. The statements contradict Rice’s in-
successful, however? Although Rice makes terpretation. One of the principles for de-
a point of asserting that there are only two termining whether a particular or
such passages, compared with more than situational statement is to be understood
forty that say that God does repent, he has as universal or as only applying to that
not taken into consideration all of the perti- situation is whether the statement is made
nent passages. While counting every con- dependent upon or is supported by a uni-
ceivable passage that asserts that God versal or doctrinal statement. Here, that
repents, he has disregarded several other is indeed the case. God’s action derives
passages on the other side. Two of these re- from who and what he is.
fer to God’s resolve with respect to Rice’s first point also deserves some
Melchizedek: “The LORD has sworn and scrutiny. He does not support his conten-
will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest tion with any discussion of the Hebrew
forever, in the order of Melchizedek’” (Ps words involved. Interestingly, the linguis-
110:4); “Others became priests without any tic data do not support his contention of
oath, but he became a priest with an oath synonymity. In each of the cases (Nu 23:19
when God said to him: ‘The Lord has sworn and two occurrences in 1 Sa 15:29), the
and will not change his mind: ‘You are a word for repent is the common one, naham.
45
This basically means “to be sorry, to con- trust, since He does not lie or deceive, or
repent of His purposes.16
sole oneself,” and is an onomatopoetic
word used to mean “to breathe pantingly,
On the basis of all these considerations,
of a horse.” In the hithpael, as here, it means,
we must judge Rice’s second point inad-
“rue, repent of.”13 In the former case, the
equate. Rice’s third point is also question-
word translated “lie” is kazov, which means
able. He affirms that the statement that
basically, “to lie, to tell a lie, to disappoint
God will not repent assumes the general
or fail.”14 In the Samuel passage, the word
point that God does or can repent. That
translated “lie” is shakar, which means, “to
does not seem to follow, however. The
do or deal falsely.” Linguistically, naham
assumption or hidden premise is that, “If
scarcely can be considered a synonym of
God promises that he will not repent in a
either of these words. It may be that Rice is
given case, that means that he can or does
claiming that there is Hebrew parallelism
at times.” What is the evidence for this
in Numbers 23:19, so that the two state-
contention? It would seem equally pos-
ments are equivalent, but he does not say
sible that God is simply affirming that he
that, and this does not really seem to be
has not changed, and just as he does not
poetry. Of further interest in 1 Samuel 15:29
repent or alter his behavior, he has not and
is the word natzach which can mean either
will not here. This is given as a practical
“pre-eminent” or “enduring.” Many trans-
encouragement, not a technical theologi-
lators and commentators, basing their in-
cal statement. Finally, what of Rice’s con-
terpretation upon a cognate meaning of
tention that 1 Samuel 15, which contains
“illustrious” or “pre-eminent” in Aramaic
the statement in verse 29 that God does
rather than that of “pure” or “reliable” or
not repent, actually includes two state-
“innocent” in Arabic and Ethiopic, trans-
ments (vs. 11, 35) that God did repent? In-
late this as “the glory of Israel.” Brown,
terestingly, Rice does not wrestle with the
Driver, Briggs also indicate that the word
apparent contradiction. Logically, at least
means “enduring, everlastingness, perpe-
three possible interpretations of this phe-
tuity,”15 and Keil and Delitzsch believe that
nomenon could be offered:
in the context, the idea of “permanence”
1) The statements in verses 11, 35 and
and “unchangeableness” make the best
that in verse 29 simply are in contradic-
sense. They say the word
tion and must be understood as such.
2) The statement in verse 29 must be
signifies constancy, endurance, then
confidence, trust, because a man can interpreted in light of those in verses 11
trust in what is constant. This mean- and 35.
ing is to be retained here, where the
3) The statements in verses 11 and 35
word is used as a name for God, and
not the meaning gloria, which is taken are to be interpreted in light of verse 28.
in 1 Chron. xxix.11 from the Aramaean
It would seem, in light of the consider-
usage of speech, and would be
ation offered earlier, that the narrative
altogether unsuitable here, where
the context suggests the idea of statements (about what God did) should
unchangeableness. For a man’s repen-
probably be interpreted in light of the
tance or regret arises from his change-
ableness, from the fluctuations in his doctrinal statement about what and who
desires and actions. This is never the God is. In any event, Rice’s sliding past
case with God; consequently He is the
the issue is disturbing. It should be noted
unchangeable One, in whom Israel can
46
that the major sources cited in support of ment would be: “I will reward obedience
his view are not persons usually identi- and righteousness, and condemn or pun-
fied as evangelicals (Fretheim and ish disobedience and unrighteousness.”
Knight). Non-evangelicals do not neces- Then, when God moves from promise to
sarily feel a responsibility to reconcile bib- punishment, it is not because he has in any
lical statements. Perhaps non-evangelical way deviated from his original intention,
assumptions about the nature of biblical but that the recipients of those pronounce-
authority have crept in, or perhaps Rice ments have changed. This means that the
is not conscious of or forthright about his changes to be found in God in these cases
biblical presuppositions. are actually relational changes. God is re-
What needs to be asked, however, is lated differently to these persons than he
whether this rather literal approach to the had been, but not because he has changed,
discussion of the divine willing and act- rather, it is they who have changed. Rela-
ing is carried through consistently, or what tional change, however, is considered by
would be the results were we to do so. most philosophers not to be real change
There are certain statements made in in the subject concerned.
Scripture about God which, if taken liter- To be sure, there are difficulties for the
ally, would produce some interesting re- position we have outlined. One would
sults for the doctrine of God. For example, wish, on this view, that there were not the
there is the statement by Jehovah in direct statements that picture God as
Deuteronomy 5:9, 10, “for I, the LORD changing and repenting. One must, how-
your God, am a jealous God, punishing ever, attempt to account for all of the rel-
the children for the sin of the fathers to evant data, not simply those which fit
the third and fourth generation of those one’s theory. This view is able to take into
who hate me, but showing love to a thou- account more of the data, with less dis-
sand generations of those who love me tortion and greater consistency, than is the
and keep my commandments.” Or take alternative view.
Malachi’s statement, attributed to God:
“Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have B. Knowledge passages. Several passages
hated, and I have turned his mountains seem to indicate that God has discovered
into a wasteland and left his inheritance something that he did not know. For ex-
to the desert jackals” (1:2b-3), and re- ample, after testing Abraham in connec-
peated by Paul: “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob tion with the command to offer his son
I loved, but Esau I hated’” (Ro 9:13). What Isaac as a sacrifice, God says to him, “‘Do
would be the effect upon the doctrine of not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do
God of interpreting these passages with not do anything to him. Now I know that
the same literalistic hermeneutic em- you fear God, because you have not with-
ployed on the repentance passages? Inter- held from me your son, your only son’”
estingly, Rice does not mention such data. (Gen. 22:12). The clear impression one
Is there a better way of understanding would get if coming to this passage with-
these statements about God’s repentance? out any other antecedent conception of
What if we look upon those promises and God is that God needed this test to deter-
warnings as being conditional in nature, mine what Abraham would do, since he
so that the comprehensive form of state- did not already have that information.
47