Can God change his mind?

[RAdam]

It's not about what God is big enough to do, it's about what God actually does. The problem that you have is that you dismiss human logic when consider God altogether. You admit that it makes sense for things to be fixed in the mind of God but then you will say, "that's your finite human mind trying to understand God, you can't do that, etc." That's utter nonsense, it's a cop out, and it's poor biblical interpretation.

In Exodus 32 God tells Moses, "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." First of all, the part where God says He would make of Moses a great nation is logically dependent on God consuming Israel. The order is this: let me alone that (in order so) my wrath may wax hot against them, and (next part) I may consume them and (final part) I will make of theee a great nation. He won't make of Moses a great nation unless He consumes Israel.

All of this goes right back to the first part of that text, "let me alone." Moses, however, did not let God alone. Moses made a great intercessory prayer for Israel.

 

[Skandelon]

It's not about what God is big enough to do, it's about what God actually does.

Which is exactly MY point. Does he say that he is going to destroy Israel and make Moses a nation or not? Does he lie when he says that?

You want to look at the outcome and conclude that God couldn't have actually changed or relented, but the scripture say that He did. That is "what God actually does."

The problem that you have is that you dismiss human logic when consider God altogether. You admit that it makes sense for things to be fixed in the mind of God but then you will say, "that's your finite human mind trying to understand God, you can't do that, etc." That's utter nonsense, it's a cop out, and it's poor biblical interpretation.

Really? I affirm both the texts you present and the texts I have presented as being equally true and valid. You hold up one set of scriptures as being more authoritative than another and dismiss the clear reading of the text. Why not just take them both as being true?

In Exodus 32 God tells Moses, "Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." First of all, the part where God says He would make of Moses a great nation is logically dependent on God consuming Israel. The order is this: let me alone that (in order so) my wrath may wax hot against them, and (next part) I may consume them and (final part) I will make of theee a great nation. He won't make of Moses a great nation unless He consumes Israel.

All of this goes right back to the first part of that text, "let me alone." Moses, however, did not let God alone. Moses made a great intercessory prayer for Israel.

Correct. So what is the problem? If you leave it at that explanation nothing would be wrong.

Truth is, you don't just leave it at that. You believe that God casually determined/decreed/ordained Moses to intercede and that God was never intending to destroy Israel or make Moses a great nation. So to you God is bluffing. It's an empty thread at best and a lie at worse. Why not just let the passage be what it is? BTW, there are dozens of these types of passages, not just these. God is always showing his frustration and regret over the sinfulness of man, which seems nonsensical in a system where God is one who decrees their rebellion and the only one who can effectually cause them to repent.

 

[Winman]

Yes, you only have two options, either God can and does change his mind at times, or else God makes misleading, insincere statements.

God sent Jonah to preach that Ninevah was be overthrown in 40 days, but the whole city repented. And God says he repented or changed his mind.

Jonah 3:1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

So, you only have two options here. Either God was being completely insincere (why don't we just say lying) when he said Ninevah would be overthrown in 40 days, or else God is truly able to change his mind and determination.

I mean, it's kind of laughable to believe that men can and often do change their determinations, but God cannot do this? We have more ability than God?
That's ridiculous if you ask me.

And notice in verse 9 that the people of Ninevah did not believe God could not change his mind. Not that that means anything, but this was clearly not the perception people had of God in those days.

 

[RAdam]

Here are some classic commentators' views on this text:

Jamieson Faussett and Brown:

"10. make of thee a great nation--Care must be taken not to suppose this language as betokening any change or vacillation in the divine purpose. The covenant made with the patriarchs had been ratified in the most solemn manner; it could not and never was intended that it should be broken. But the manner in which God spoke to Moses served two important purposes--it tended to develop the faith and intercessory patriotism of the Hebrew leader, and to excite the serious alarm of the people, that God would reject them and deprive them of the privileges they had fondly fancied were so secure."

John Gill:

"Verse 10. Now, therefore, let me alone,.... And not solicit him with prayers and supplications in favour of these people, but leave him to take his own way with them, without troubling him with any suit on their behalf; and so the Targum of Jonathan, "and now leave off thy prayer, and do not cry for them before me;" as the Prophet Jeremiah was often bid not to pray for this people in his time, which was a token of God's great displeasure with them, as well as shows the prevalence of prayer with him; that he knows not how, as it were, humanly speaking, to deny the requests of his children; and even though made not on their own account, but on the account of a sinful and disobedient people:

that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: which suggests that they were deserving of the wrath of God to the uttermost, and to be destroyed from off the face of the earth, and even to be punished with an everlasting destruction:"

 

[Winman]

RAdam

Who cares what commentators say, what do the scriptures say?

With your view, you have God constantly making misleading, insincere statements. In other words, you are saying God lies, and lies often.

And what Calvinists fail to see is that they themselves believe themselves authorities on defining who God is and what he can do. God clearly says he can repent of things he had sincerely purposed to do, you say he cannot.

I don't think Calvinists see this. They believe they actually understand God and can definitely say what he can do or can't do. That is a little presumptuous to say the least.

 

[webdog]

But if God is omniscient, he knew Hezekiah would ask for more time and He knew He would give it. So it comes down to whether or not God is omniscient.

He is omniscient, and THAT is the mystery, just like Christ being 100% God (who is omniscient) not knowing the day or the hour of His return.

 

[webdog]

The same charge could be made to your view - either God lied or He was mistaken when he told Moses he would destroy the people (since that's not what actually happened). That's assuming you believe God made an unconditional declaration. Or you could assume He made a conditional warning, Moses interceded and God granted mercy to the people through Moses' intercession.

Those are not the only two. The third is "it's a mystery". I won't pretend to understand it like some on here have.

 

[Skandelon]

I understand the commentators. I understand the explanations of "anthropomorphic" language used to describe God so that we can understand him.

But isn't what you all are attempting to do undermining the simplicity of the original intent? If the authors of scripture intended to use simple methods that we all could understand by giving God human like qualities in the way he interacts in time with his creation, then what is wrong with the readers understanding God by those terms? Why do we need John Gill to explain it with intellectual jargon and theological qualifications?

Isn't there a reason Jesus told us we need to become like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven? Don't you think that sometimes we try to make something that God has intended for the simple and weak ones only accessible to the wise and educated ones?

If God chose to use human like qualities to reveal himself and his ways of interacting then why not allow people to understand and relate to Him by those exact terms?

I believe that the prayer of a righteous man avails much. In other words, I can make a difference if I pray. Not because of my power, but because God WILL LISTEN and respond to my request. What is wrong with simply believing that truth without all the qualifications and theological jargon?

 

[GBC Pastor]

I believe that the prayer of a righteous man avails much. In other words, I can make a difference if I pray. Not because of my power, but because God WILL LISTEN and respond to my request. What is wrong with simply believing that truth without all the qualifications and theological jargon?

:applause::applause::applause:

 

[AresMan]

I do not see how God's words to Moses could not have been a similar test of faith to that which He did with Abraham. God promised Abraham that He would make of him a great nation. According to Romans 9:7-9, Isaac was the promised seed through which the nation would come.

Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

God clearly commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt sacrifice. This means that God clearly commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. Now, Abraham, knowing that God had promised a nation through Isaac who had not yet married believed that God may have planned to raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19). Abraham, believing that God's own promises were sure, had to believe that somehow Isaac would be the father of a nation.

Now, just because the narrative does not explicitly say that God was testing Moses, does not mean it was not implicit. God prophesied through Jacob that Messiah would come as a king through the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10). God told Moses in Midian that He would deliver the Israelites "unto a land flowing with milk and honey" (Exodus 3:7-8). In other words, the same people that were in bondage to Egypt (which Moses was not), God said would go to the Promised Land.

When God told Moses to let Him destroy the Israelites and make Moses a great nation, He was clearly testing the faith of Moses and his knowledge of God's promises. Moses replied to God's "outburst" by relaying God's own promises. Moses had to have known that God keeps His promises.

In both the cases of Abraham and Moses, God gave a command whose purpose was to test their faith in His promises. In both cases God did not follow through with His expressed intentions, because the purpose was actually to reiterate and vindicate the truthfulness and integrity of His word.

If God legitimately could have followed through with His expressed intentions to Moses, then God would have not kept His own promises. To believe that God could literally rescind unconditional promises based upon the actions of man can place doubt about other important promises of God. How can we be sure that God will truly keep His promise about salvation by grace through faith?! What if He gets fed up with the wickedness of the world and decides to break His promise and send everyone to hell?!

 

[Andy T.]

I won't pretend to understand it like some on here have.

No high ground for you here, since you've made plenty of definitive statements on what you think the text means and doesn't mean. So you "understand" it alright - it's just that our understanding differs, that's all.

 

[Marcia]

He is omniscient, and THAT is the mystery, just like Christ being 100% God (who is omniscient) not knowing the day or the hour of His return.

But if He's omniscient, why/how can He change his mind? That means he is not omnisicient. There is just no other way to slice or cut it.

The case of Jesus is a special case and does not apply, because you are speaking of Jesus when he was on earth. We are talking about God the Father, who never incarnated and never did not know anything. In fact, in this passage you refer to, Jesus says the Father does know this information. So this is irrelevant.

 

[webdog]

But if He's omniscient, why/how can He change his mind? That means he is not omnisicient. There is just no other way to slice or cut it.

The case of Jesus is a special case and does not apply, because you are speaking of Jesus when he was on earth. We are talking about God the Father, who never incarnated and never did not know anything. In fact, in this passage you refer to, Jesus says the Father does know this information. So this is irrelevant.

You are looking at it from YOUR understanding of omniscience. In YOUR understanding it cannot be done.

Was God interacting with man physically while on earth in the accounts of Moses and Hezekiah? Yes. Same problem remains.

 

[webdog]

No high ground for you here, since you've made plenty of definitive statements on what you think the text means and doesn't mean. So you "understand" it alright - it's just that our understanding differs, that's all.

I take the statements at face value, you do not. I'm not saying what it means, I'm saying what it says. When Scripture states God repented it IS saying God changed his mind. That is fact.

 

[Marcia]

You are looking at it from YOUR understanding of omniscience. In YOUR understanding it cannot be done.
.

No, I am looking at it from what the Bible says about God, and from what it means if he does change his mind.

Was God interacting with man physically while on earth in the accounts of Moses and Hezekiah? Yes. Same problem remains

God the Father never incarnated and always knows everything. God can interact with men and not be part of time or affected by it. In fact, God cannot be affected by time since He is outside it. He created it.

 

[webdog]

No, I am looking at it from what the Bible says about God, and from what it means if he does change his mind.

The Bible says God does not change His mind as man changes his, and that He doesn't change, meaning His attributes...righteousness, holiness, justice, etc.

God was not incarnated and always knows everything. God can interact with men and not be part of time or affected by it. In fact, God cannot be affected by time since He is outside it. He created it.

Again, you are telling God how and how He cannot act / react in time. I see nothing from Scripture that an incarnated God does not know everything, and only in this "mode" that can happen. That is an argument from silence.

 

[Robert Snow]

Yes, He does "change His mind". There are many Scriptures showing just that (account of Hezekiah one of the biggest). He doesn't change His mind as man does, but there is a mystery we cannot understand in regards to how God deals with man within the confines of time and how He acts / reacts as such. We can try to philosophize it away, but there is a tension in Scripture that exists. If He didn't change His mind, the prayer of the righteous would mean zilch

Perfect answer! This thread should have ended with this posting, at least that is how it appears now. However, I will continue to the end to see it there is any more great things to be learned. Thank you Webdog!

 

[Andy T.]

I take the statements at face value, you do not. I'm not saying what it means, I'm saying what it says. When Scripture states God repented it IS saying God changed his mind. That is fact.

Webdog, I don't want to fight or cast aspersions. I still think our disagreement is a matter of semantics. If I were to ask you why God changed his mind in the Hez. or Moses accounts, I assume you would say because of their prayers, correct? And I agree, essentially. He changed His course due to a condition being met - i.e., the request for mercy. That's why His original warnings were conditional, which is what I've been saying all along. But for some reason, we can't come to an agreement on that point.

 

[Skandelon]

Webdog, I don't want to fight or cast aspersions. I still think our disagreement is a matter of semantics. If I were to ask you why God changed his mind in the Hez. or Moses accounts, I assume you would say because of their prayers, correct? And I agree, essentially. He changed His course due to a condition being met - i.e., the request for mercy. That's why His original warnings were conditional, which is what I've been saying all along. But for some reason, we can't come to an agreement on that point.

In the same way, however, man's destruction is conditional upon his refusal to repent. "Repent and believe or you will surely perish." If God can "relent" with regard to Moses based upon his conditional statement, why couldn't he relent with regard to anyone who might repent and believe?

 

[Skandelon]

No high ground for you here, since you've made plenty of definitive statements on what you think the text means and doesn't mean. So you "understand" it alright - it's just that our understanding differs, that's all.

I don't agree. The text says, "God changed his mind," and you are the ones trying to explain that away and theologize it while Webdog is merely taking it for what it says.