Gen 6

THE REPENTANCE OF GOD NOT INCONSISTENT WITH HIS IMMUTABILITY

“MR. ROBERTS, Dear Sir,—When I look at Numb. 22:19 and Sam. 15:11:

‘God is not a man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent.’
‘Also the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for he is not a man that He should repent.’

And compare it with 1 Sam. 15:11; Gen. 6:6, and Exodus 32:14:

‘It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king.’
‘It repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth.’
‘The Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do with His people.’

There seems to me to be a contradiction. Be kind enough to give an explanation in The Christadelphian.—Yours truly, H.P.”

ANSWER.—The first two texts affirm the steadfastness, in the sense of non-fickleness, of any purpose the Almighty may form when the stability of that purpose depends upon Himself alone. The last three intimate a change of purpose consequent on a change of the conditions in others upon which the purpose was based. The difference between a stable and an unstable man illustrates the point in some degree. The one can always be relied upon under given circumstances; and the other not at all. But the steadiness of the stable man does not consist in a propensity to adhere with mulish pertinacity to plans without reference to their propriety; but in the disposition to steadily follow a certain course of action so long as that course of action is wise. To continue in the course when circumstances have so altered as to make that course unwise, would be evidence of stupidity and not of stability. To alter the course when the circumstances dictating it have altered, is no evidence of inconstancy or instability. The stability of a wise man shows itself in steadily pursuing one end, and in adapting himself to every change in circumstances that might prevent him reaching his aim; like the captain of a vessel who has to shift his sails a hundred times in a voyage, and tack in many different directions to reach the port of destination. The contrast to this would be the man at sea without a destination and without a compass. The first man will be found in a certain port at last, weather permitting; but the other you will never know where to find.
Now, in effect, the declaration concerning God is that He is more stable than any sea captain that ever put foot on a quarter deck; that His purposes, where they depend only upon Himself, are immovable and unchangeable; that anything resting on His word is more certain and secure than the everlasting hills; that He is, in His nature, the highest reason and most steadfast of purpose; that the principles on which he acts are absolutely unchangeable; that nothing like wanton change or fickleness is possible with Him. But this is not inconsistent with the fact that He adapts Himself to circumstances as they arise in the evolution of His purpose. The human race, in the first instance, turned out differently from His desire. He intended them to be obedient, and was working with them on this basis. They became disobedient and (after much patience) with the alteration in the conditions upon which the original intention was based, He alters His intention, and gives them up as hopeless. Saul is chosen on the understanding that obedience is the basis of favour. Saul disobeys, and God repents (or changes His mind) with reference to his selection as king. This is not inconsistent with the unchangeability of the principle on which He acts. What would be thought of a stable captain who should allow a mutinous officer to continue in his place? The captain would put him in irons, and would not, thereby, sacrifice his character for stability, but contrariwise would establish it.
When it is seen that the first set of passages quoted by “H. P.” have (as the context will show) reference to God’s sovereign purpose, while the second set refers to intention dependent upon the condition of others, the appearance of “contradiction” will disappear.

1871 Christadelphian p293