Did the Almighty have second thoughts? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
While this examination of if God can change His mind will start with Scripture, it will be impossible to avoid tradition and reason along the way. Let’s start with a big example in Genesis 6:6-7.
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
To many, the text seems clear, God repented. Yet what does this mean? If God does something wrong, does God need forgiveness? And if God needs forgiveness, who is above Him that can give it? If God needs forgiveness, how can He be good? If it just means regret, what else does God regret that we might not even know about? Could He regret having us in eternity one day?
Tertullian says about this that:
In this way it was that even then He knew full well what human feelings and affections were, intending as He always did to take upon Him man’s actual component substances, body and soul, making inquiry of Adam (as if He were ignorant), “Where art thou, Adam?”—repenting that He had made man, as if He had lacked foresight; tempting Abraham, as if ignorant of what was in man; offended with persons, and then reconciled to them; and whatever other (weaknesses and imperfections) the heretics lay hold of (in their assumptions) as unworthy of God, in order to discredit the Creator, not considering that these circumstances are suitable enough for the Son, who was one day to experience even human sufferings—hunger and thirst, and tears, and actual birth and real death, and in respect of such a dispensation “made by the Father a little less than the angels.”
Thus, God asks a question, but not as if He was ignorant. He repents, but not as if He doesn’t have foresight, and on and on. The language is here for a reason. Tertullian ultimately thinks it’s meant to show us something about Christ when He comes.
In a later account said to describe a debate between Simon Magus and Peter, we read that:
“Therefore also Adam, being made at first after his likeness, is created blind, and is said not to have knowledge of good or evil, and is found a transgressor, and is driven out of paradise, and is punished with death. In like manner also, he who made him, because he sees not in all places, says with reference to the overthrow of Sodom, ‘Come, and let us go down, and see whether they do according to their cry which comes to me; or if not, that I may know.’ Thus he shows himself ignorant. And in his saying respecting Adam, ‘Let us drive him out, lest he put forth his hand and touch the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever;’ in saying Lest he is ignorant; and in driving him out lest he should eat and live for ever, he is also envious. And whereas it is written that ‘God repented that he had made man,’ this implies both repentance and ignorance. For this reflection is a view by which one, through ignorance, wishes to inquire into the result of the things which he wills, or it is the act of one repenting on account of the event not being according to his expectation. And whereas it is written, ‘And the Lord smelled a scent of sweetness,’ it is the part of one in need; and his being pleased with the fat of flesh is the part of one who is not good. But his tempting, as it is written, ‘And God did tempt Abraham,’ is the part of one who is wicked, and who is ignorant of the issue of the experiment.”
I do not think this is historical at all, but i do think it is a representation of Christian thought at the time. The arguments made today by some to show God changes His mind were those made by heretics in the past.
Augustine in the City of God says:
For though God is said to change His determinations (so that in a tropical sense the Holy Scripture says even that God repented), this is said with reference to man’s expectation, or the order of natural causes, and not with reference to that which the Almighty had foreknown that He would do.
And he says:
The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain. But if Scripture were not to use such expressions as the above, it would not familiarly insinuate itself into the minds of all classes of men, whom it seeks access to for their good, that it may alarm the proud, arouse the careless, exercise the inquisitive, and satisfy the intelligent; and this it could not do, did it not first stoop, and in a manner descend, to them where they lie. But its denouncing death on all the animals of earth and air is a declaration of the vastness of the disaster that was approaching: not that it threatens destruction to the irrational animals as if they too had incurred it by sin.
It wasn’t just the fathers who thought this language wasn’t literal. John Calvin said the same thing:
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sakes he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot take place in God, easily appears from this single considerations that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen. The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity. Wherefore, there is no need for us to involve ourselves in thorny and difficult questions, when it is obvious to what end these words of repentance and grief are applied; namely, to teach us, that from the time when man was so greatly corrupted, God would not reckon him among his creatures; as if he would say, This is not my workmanship; this is not that man who was formed in my image, and whom I had adorned with such excellent gifts: I do not deign now to acknowledge this degenerate and defiled creature as mine.’ Similar to this is what he says, in the second place, concerning grief; that God was so offended by the atrocious wickedness of men, as if they had wounded his heart with mortal grief: There is here, therefore, an unexpressed antithesis between that upright nature which had been created by God, and that corruption which sprung from sin. Meanwhile, unless we wish to provoke God, and to put him to grief, let us learn to abhor and to flee from sin. Moreover, this paternal goodness and tenderness ought, in no slight degree, to subdue in us the love of sin; since God, in order more effectually to pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections. This figure, which represents God as transferring to himself what is peculiar to human nature, is called anthropopatheia
And Keil and Delitzsch:
The force of ינּחם, “it repented the Lord,” may be gathered from the explanatory יתעצּב, “it grieved Him at His heart.” This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in His nature of His purposes. In this sense God never repents of anything (1 Samuel 15:29), “quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non praevisum accidit” (Calvin). The repentance of God is an anthropomorphic expression for the pain of the divine love at the sin of man, and signifies that “God is hurt no less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His heart with mortal anguish” (Calvin). The destruction of all, “from man unto beast,” etc., is to be explained on the ground of the sovereignty of man upon the earth, the irrational creatures being created for him, and therefore involved in his fall. This destruction, however, was not to bring the human race to an end. “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” In these words mercy is seen in the midst of wrath, pledging the preservation and restoration of humanity.
At this point, one could say that all of these people, from the fathers to the Reformers, were wrong about how they saw God. It is entirely possible that they could be. However, to argue that, one needs to make a better case than just “I think God literally has these emotions in Him.”
From a perspective of reason, one has to deny to some extent that God knows the future and did not know what people would do. With that, I do not know how He could be the God of all truth since He would not know all truth but would merely be discovering all truth. There is no way all knowledge could lie in Him since He would be always learning something new.
Many times when I encounter atheists who like to put God on the same moral plane as us as if God has to follow a moral law out there, I say that their argument is not against God, but against Superman. God is on a whole other plane than we are. We should not be surprised if we cannot describe Him entirely with our language and must use what Aquinas called analogical language. A God that would be easy to understand would not be the God of Scripture.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
