Is the open view the only view that is compatible with the Incarnation?

Question: You have said that the Open view of God is the only view that squares with the Incarnation and the only view that truly exalts God’s greatness. On what basis do you say this?

Answer: The revelation of God in the Incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s willingness and ability to change that is depicted throughout Scripture. In the Incarnation, God is portrayed as the One who, out of love for a lost and enslaved race, altered his state of being to become human (Phil. 2). The incarnation reveals that God is not, as the classical tradition held, “immutable,” “impassible” are “devoid of potentiality.”

This is confirmed throughout the rest of Scripture. Because of God’s love for humanity, Scripture portrays God as continually adapting and responding to the ever-changing human situation. God changes his plans, revises decisions, expresses emotions, implements new strategies, and so on, in response to the flow of human history. Rather than portraying change as a defect, as classical theism tends to do, Scripture portrays change as a facet of God’s greatness, supremacy and sovereign beauty!

In Jeremiah, for example, Yahweh portrays himself as the master potter, exercising control over the clay (creation in general, and Israel in particular), precisely because he is willing and able to change his plans for a nation in response to its character (Jere. 18:5–10). He is God and has the right to change—even after he has prophetically declared a certain coarse of action.

For example, in response to the Ninevites’ repentence, God changed his mind about destroying them (Jonah 3–4). In response to Moses’ intercession, God changed his mind about judging Israel harshly (Exod. 32:12–14). And in response to Hezekiah’s prayers, God graciously altered his prophecy concerning his death (Isa. 38:1–5). For good reason, then, the prophets Jonah and Joel proclaim that God’s willingness to change his plans is one of his gracious attributes (Jon. 4:2, Joel 2:13)!

An inferior deity would carry out his sovereign plans regardless of any change on the part of human subjects—viz. he would behave just as Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas and much of the classical tradition concluded God must behave! But Scripture portrays God as “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love,” and that he is “a God who relents from sending calamities” (Jonah 4:2).

These biblical depictions of God changing his plans are not isolated. Scripture generally depicts God as One who is unchanging in character and perfectly resourceful in adapting his character to the changing situations of world history. For this reason God is exalted as being a “wise” God. God doesn’t ordinarily choose to control all things (which would require power, but no wisdom). Instead, God is infinitely resourceful in working toward his desired ends in the midst of a cosmos that is populated with free, self-determining agents.

The Incarnation is at home in the biblical narrative because the entire narrative portrays God as being genuinely responsive to his creation and open to change. By contrast, the Incarnation is not at all at home in the Hellenistic and Classical Traditions that describe God as being “above” such things.

Related Reading

The Greatest Mystery of the Christian Faith

God has always been willing to stoop to accommodate the fallen state of his covenant people in order to remain in a transforming relationship with them and in order to continue to further his sovereign purposes through them. Out of love for humankind, Scripture tells us, Jesus emptied himself of his divine prerogatives, set aside…

Quotes to Chew on: How First Century Jews Came to Worship a Man

“Legends do not generally arise in contradiction to fundamental convictions held by the culture of those who create and embrace them. Yet if the Jesus story is largely a fictitious legend, this is exactly what we must suppose happened. We submit that the initial historical implausibility of this supposition should be enough for us seriously…

What is the significance of 1 Samuel 13:13–14?

Because of Saul’s rebellion, Samuel tells him, “The Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever but now your kingdom will not continue.” The biblical narrative depicting God’s dealings with Saul up to this point is predicated on the assumption that God intended to establish Saul’s descendants as the permanent heir to the throne…

Topics:

What is the significance of Jeremiah 26:19?

“Did [Hezekiah] not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against [Israel]?” As in 2 Kings 20:1–6 and Isaiah 38:1–5, if the future is exhaustive settled, it seems God could not have been forthright when he told…

Topics:

Why the 35W Bridge Collapsed – blog post 8/09/2007

As all of you know, I’m sure, a little over a week ago the 35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed. This is the most traveled bridge in Minnesota. It was a tragedy, though the fact that only 13 people died and/or are presumed dead is really amazing, especially given that this happened at the peak of…

What is the significance of Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 4–10; 4:2?

God “changed his mind” (3:10) about the destruction he planned to carry out on Nineveh. If all events in history are eternally settled and known by God as such, his word to Jonah that he planned to destroy Nineveh in forty days was insincere as was his inspired testimony that he in fact changed his…

Topics: