Injuring God
The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. Genesis 6:6 NASB
Was sorry – This verse is a problem for most theologians. It’s not a problem because we can’t understand the words. It’s a problem because theology doesn’t think of God in biblical terms. Theology is the victim of philosophy. “The bricks we collect in order to construct the biblical image of God are, as a rule, conceptual notions, such as goodness, justice, wisdom, unity. In terms of frequency in biblical language, they are surpassed by statements referring to God’s pathos, which, however, for a variety of reasons, has never been accorded proper recognition in the history of biblical theology.”[1]
You might reply, “Well, this is just a theological problem. It doesn’t affect me. I believe what it says in the Bible.” And for most believers (as opposed to theologians), this claim seems true. We do believe that the descriptions of God in the Bible are true and accurate. That is to say, we believe them until we start playing with theology. Then this verse, and quite a few like it, aren’t reconcilable with our theological construct of God. Our doctrines are in conflict with the text. God isn’t the kind of being who regrets anything, particularly a decision to create men. He must have known beforehand that men would reach this condition. It’s not news to Him. And since He created them knowing this would happen, how can He possibly be sorry for His choice? It doesn’t make any sense.
Actually, in Hebrew this verse is even more paradoxical. The verb is nāḥam. It means, “be sorry, repent, regret,” but also “be comforted.” It is a quintessential emotional verb. “The origin of the root seems to reflect the idea of ‘breathing deeply,’ hence the physical display of one’s feelings, usually sorrow, compassion, or comfort.”[2] This, of course, presents a real dilemma for a theology of immutability. Wilson writes:
The KJV translates the Niphal of nḥm “repent” thirty-eight times. The majority of these instances refer to God’s repentance, not man’s. The word most frequently employed to indicate man’s repentance is šûb (q.v.), meaning “to turn” (from sin to God). Unlike man, who under the conviction of sin feels genuine remorse and sorrow, God is free from sin. Yet the Scriptures inform us that God repents (Gen 6:6–7: Ex 32:14; Jud 2:18; I Sam 15:11 et al.), i.e. he relents or changes his dealings with men according to his sovereign purposes.[3]
How do we resolve this? There are two approaches. One employs a paradigm commitment to the abstract attributes of a transcendental God. This is the typical Christian and Jewish approach (since the Middle Ages). Wilson provides the explanation:
On the surface, such language seems inconsistent, if not contradictory, with certain passages which affirm God’s immutability: “God is not a man … that he should repent” (I Sam 15:29 contra v. 11); “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind” (Ps 110:4). When nāḥam is used of God, however, the expression is anthropopathic and there is not ultimate tension. From man’s limited, earthly, finite perspective it only appears that God’s purposes have changed.[4]
Philosophical theology, committed to the ideal God, considers the conflict only a matter of our limited understanding. It only appears that God changes, but, of course, our paradigmatic commitment makes real change impossible, so the verse must be wrong. Theology trumps text. By the way, this isn’t just a Christian problem. Significant Jewish sages like Maimonides take the same approach.
The other approach follows Heschel. He writes, “To the prophet, knowledge of God was fellowship with Him, not attained by syllogism, analysis or induction, but by living together.”[5]
“For more than two thousand years Jewish and later Christian theologians have been deeply embarrassed by the constant references in the Bible to the divine pathos. What were the reasons for that embarrassment? Why did they oppose the idea of pathos? The opposition, it seems, was due to a combination of philosophical presuppositions which have their origin in classical Greek thinking.”[6]
“ . . . divine pathos is not an absolute force which exists regardless of man, something ultimate and eternal. It is rather a reaction to human history, an attitude called forth by man’s conduct; a response, not a cause. Man is in a sense an agent, not only the recipient. It is within his power to evoke either the pathos of love of the pathos of anger.”[7]
According to the Bible, God changes. He is not eternally fixed, detached from history, plotting the course of human events as a divine puppet master. What we do affects Him, and He reacts. What He does affects us, and we react. “To the prophets, the attributes of God were drives, challenges, commandments, rather than timeless notions detached from His Being.”[8] Of course, this kind of God is far riskier. “Both justice and mercy as the main attributes of God’s relation to man afford an insight into the polarity of God’s dominion. Justice is a standard, mercy an attitude; justice is detachment, mercy attachment; justice is objective, mercy personal. God transcends both justice and mercy.”[9] “God’s call to man, which resounds so frequently in the utterances of the prophets, presupposes an ethos based, not upon immutable principles, but rather upon His eternal concern. God’s repenting a decision which was based on moral grounds clearly shows the supremacy of pathos.”[10]
Now you can appreciate the enormous importance of bāṭaḥ, that is, “trust.” Now you can ask yourself, “Do I really trusta God of pathos, or do I place my trust in a theology of certainty?” “Do I serve God because I trust Him, or do I worship a God who is a symbol for my need for security?” “Do I follow a God whom I can injure with my actions, or do I believe in a God who is above it all?”
Topical Index: pathos, repent, sorry, trust, nāḥam, bāṭaḥ, Genesis 6:6
[1] Abraham Heschel, The Prophets: Two Volumes in One (Hendrickson Publishers, 1962), Vol. 2, p. 2.
[2] Wilson, M. R. (1999). 1344 נָחַם. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 570). Chicago: Moody Press.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Abraham Heschel, The Prophets: Two Volumes in One (Hendrickson Publishers, 1962), Vol. 2, p. 3.
[6] Ibid., p. 27.
[7] Ibid., p. 5.
[8] Ibid., p. 1.
[9] Abraham Heschel, The Prophets (Hendrickson Publishers, 1962), Vol 1, p. 220, fn. 34.
[10] Ibid., p. 217.
PIE TIME: Rosanne has posted a new recipe – Caramel Apple Pie. Check it out on the home page, skipmoen.com
