We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 15:35?
“…the Lord was sorry that he made Saul king over Israel.” (see 1 Sam. 15:12).
Once again, the Lord expresses his regret over having made Saul king of Israel, an emotion which is inconsistent with the classical view of God’s foreknowledge.
It’s important to note that Samuel had prayed all night trying to change the Lord’s mind regarding Saul’s dethronement (vs. 13) but in this instance it seems the Lord’s decision was final (cf. 1 Sam. 13:13–14). Hence, as Saul begged Samuel to try to change things (vs. 27), Samuel responded, “the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind” (vs. 29).
The verse does not say that God cannot change his mind (which is what the classical view requires), only that in this instance he will not change his mind. His mind is resolved on this matter and, unlike mortals, once God’s mind is truly resolved he does not change it. (There are other verses in which the Lord declares “I will not change my mind” [Ezek. 24:14; Zech. 8:14], but these exceptions prove the rule: ordinarily God is willing to change his mind if the situation calls for it [cf. Jer. 18:7–10; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:12–13]).
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: 1 Samuel 15
Related Reading
Isn’t God “changing his mind” an anthropomorphism?
Question: Traditionalists argue that passages that refer to God “changing his mind” are anthropomorphic, depicting God in human terms. Open Theists take these passages literally, however. But if you’re going to take these passages literally, it seems you should, for consistency’s sake, also interpret passages about God “coming down” from heaven literally (e.g. Gen. 11:5;…
What is the significance of Numbers 16:41–48?
The day following the Korah incident (see vs. 20–35), the Israelites rebelled against Moses again, this time because they blamed him for the death of those who were judged the day before (vs. 41). The Lord was very angry because of this and said to Moses and Aaron, “Get away from this congregation, so that…
How do you respond to Matthew 26:36?
At the last supper Jesus said to Peter, “Truly I tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” This is probably the most frequently quoted verse by defenders of the classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge against the open view. How, they ask, could Jesus have been certain Peter…
Is exhaustively settled foreknowledge essential to God’s identity
In this episode Greg discusses several passages in Isaiah that imply God’s foreknowledge is a primary differentiator between Isaiah’s God and all other gods. Links: Greg’s book: “God of the Possible“ http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0023.mp3
Does your “dispositional” ontology avoid substantival categories?
Question: In Trinity and Process you argue against a “substantival” ontology and instead advocate a “relational,” “process” and/or “dispositional” ontology in which being, being-in-relation and being-in-process are one and the same. In your view, entity x is its relation to entity y (and all other relations) and is the disposition to interact with y (and…
How do you respond to Ephesians 1:11?
“In Christ we have obtained an inheritance, having…been destined according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will.” This text has frequently been used to support the view that all things happen in accordance with God’s counsel and will. But this reads too much into the text. This…