Can God Change His Mind?
Among the various characteristics of God which are celebrated
by Christians all over the world and from the time of creation, is the
immutability of God. God is unchanging. In Malachi we read that God refers to
Himself as unchanging (Malachi 3:6). In addition to being unchanging, we learn
from other Old Testament writings that God does not lie nor does he regret (1
Samuel 15:29). These additional characteristics will prove important as this
essay unfolds.
As one reads through the narrative of the Old
Testament, with the above characteristics of God in mind, one will stumble upon
various circumstances which prove confusing. Stories such as Saul's kingship,
Jonah and Nineveh, and Hezekiah are examples of when God seemingly changes his
mind. How is one to reconcile these seeming contradictions?
It is the aim of this essay to examine a few
attempts at reconciling the contradictions, as well as looking at the law of
noncontradiction, in order to conclude how the Christian is best to understand
these dilemmas.
Attempting to understand
Some theologians attempt to solve the dilemma by
subscribing to a view called Open Theology. This view asserts that God does not
know (either by his choice or his limitation) the future. Ergo, God is actually
making up his mind as events unfold, because he did not know beforehand. (One
Open Theist even considers prayer to only be coherent within the model of
Scripture if God does not know the future).[1] If God cannot change his
mind, based on his inability to know the future, then Open Theorists are left
the understand references to God "changing his mind" in terms of
anthropomorphism (that is, ascribing a human characteristic to that which is
non-human). However, this understanding can be problematic.
Robert Chisholm explains that an anthropomorphic
label is "an arbitrary and drastic solution that cuts rather than unties
the theological knot."[2] The solution which
Chisholm offers is to divide the statements of intention offered by God, into
two categories. He explains "In the Old Testament not all statements of
intention are the same. Some are decrees... [and] others, which may be labeled
announcements, retain a conditional element and do not necessarily bind the
speaker to a stated course of action."[3] He further explains that
announcements depend "on the response of the recipient or someone else
whose interest it affects."[4] Though Chisholm does hold
to the immutability of God, he recognizes the passages as unhelpful for that
particular argument.
What it seems that Chisholm is getting at, which
would be consistent with many Evangelicals, is that God can change his mind,
but only within the bounds of what would be consistent with his character. If
God has given an ultimate command, such as those found in the Decalogue, God
cannot change his mind regarding the nature of these commandments, because any
alteration would be inconsistent with his character. However, if he is given
humanity (whether individually or corporately) a chance, he is using a
conditional command of which humanity has the ability to influence. This
understanding is consistent with what we read in Jeremiah "If that nation,
against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil
that I thought to do unto them” (Jer 18:8).
Bruce Ware, at least as far as this issue is
concerned, is an agreement with Chisholm. He elaborates that "divine
repentance, in such cases, functions as part of a tool for eliciting a dynamic
relationship with people."[5] Yahweh is a personal god
who engages with his people, ultimately for the cause of a restored fellowship
with him. He is a god who is willing to change his mind in instances when it
would not conflict with his character. Francis Andersen and David Freeman
reiterate that "Yahweh's repentance is limited to situations of a certain
number and kind and occurs only under certain conditions."[6]
Though I follow what Ware, Andersen, and Freeman
are saying, I find the wording of change
and repentance dangerous, because it
connotes something contradictory to what is affirmed by Christians. Taking into
account the doctrines of the immutability and the omniscience of God, it seems
of utmost importance for the Christian to qualify these words before using them
too freely, and especially before letting these passages serve as a theological
foundation from where we infer various truths about God. Chisholm is in
agreement when he notes that these passages should not "be applied
generally to every divine forward-looking statement."[7]
God and Logic
When titling this paper, I wrestled
with whether to use the word does or
the word can, one being more
philosophically weighted towards to ontological nature of God. I chose the word
can, because I believe a proper
understand on the necessary nature of the immutability of God is necessary for
a robust understanding of the issue at hand. Even if we grant the conclusion
that God can change his mind in regards to what is consistent with his nature, there
is a strong case to be made for why his nature is constant.
The law of noncontradiction asserts
that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same
way. When applying this to Yahweh, we can conclude that Yahweh cannot be both
one way and a contradicting way at the same time. His nature is unchanging,
i.e., he is immutable.
Certain theologians consider applying
logic to the study of God as at best problematic and at worst arrogant. Those
in the former category foresee the conclusion that God’s word is not to be
trusted if God is to be reduced to logical understanding and he seems to
contradict himself. (Though this would be the logical conclusion if God in fact
did contradict himself, we must fall back on our theological foundation of the
immutability of God, and look for another answer). In order to retain the
reverse conclusion that God’s word is to be trusted, they have to deny the
antecedent. However, this is a typical Modus Tollens argument. If P, then Q.
Not Q, therefore not P. In the attempt to deny logic, one has to implore it.
This itself is a logical claim, though implicit as it is: If God seems to contradict himself, then his word is not to be trusted.
His word is to be trusted, so therefore God does not contradict himself. In
order for God to not contradict himself, his character cannot be understood by
traditional laws of logic.
Those that would consider appealing
to logic as arrogant, could assert that God is too big to be bound by human
logic. However, if God is knowable and has revealed himself is various ways,
then ignoring one of those ways does not make someone humble, they only rob
themselves of God’s revelation. What is more, I would say that it is a false
dichotomy to present human logic versus any other kind of logic. The law of
noncontradiction is intuitively obvious, as is its close partner the law of
identity. When one asserts that these are simply laws of human logic, I would ask how then would God would his people to
understand what an idol was, if the laws of logic presented above do not apply
to both him and humans. If there is no law of identity, then how would the
people of God determine who he was and therefore what an idol was (if an idol
was a false version of God)? If the people of God recognized him by his
characteristics, one of which was his unchanging nature, how would they then
continue to recognize him as God, and steer clear of idolatry, if they inferred
a contradicting characteristic (a changing nature)? Obviously God thought it
was important for them to be able to recognize him, and expected them to so,
which can be inferred by his prioritizing of the Decalogue: Thou shalt have no
other God before me (Exodus 20:3).
Conclusion
When doing theology, it is best to
let the more intuitively obvious truths inform the scripture passages which are
harder to interpret. This usually works itself out by general revelation
informing specific revelation. In fact, it we do not look to general revelation
initially, we have no reason to trust to specific revelation (the Bible).
Though the two will never contradict, we must let both inform our study of God.
The doctrine of the immutability of
God can be established though reflection and experience, and this should serve
to aide the interpretation of certain passes which seem to imply God changing
in some form or another. Logic is a form of general revelation which also
serves to help us remain consistent in our understanding of God.
Based on these truths, it is the
conclusion of the author that though God is consistent in nature, He
purposefully delays deciding certain future outcomes when a variety of
consequences would be consistent with his character. We see examples of this in
the stories of Saul’s kingship, Jonah and Nineveh, and Hezekiah.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel
Freeman. Amos: A New Translation in Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible. New York:
Doubleway, 1989.
Chisolm, Robert B. Chisolm Jr.
"Does God 'Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sarca, 152, (October - December 1995):
387-99, accessed April 21, 2014 http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02- exodus/text/articles/chisholm-changemind-bsac.pdf.
Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of
Providence. Downers Grove: InterVaristy, 1998.
Ware, Bruce A. God's Lesser
Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton: Crossway, 2000.
[1]
John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A
Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 268.
[2]
Robert B. Chisolm Jr., "Does God 'Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sarca, 152, (October -
December 1995): 387-99, accessed April 21, 2014
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02-exodus/text/articles/chisholm-changemind-bsac.pdf.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Ibid.
[5] Bruce
A. Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The
Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2000), 97.
[6] Francis
I. Andersen and David Noel Freeman, Amos:
A New Translation in Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New
York: Doubleway, 1989), 644.
[7]
Chisholm Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment