What is the significance of Ezekiel 33:13–15?

“[W]hen I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered…he will die. But when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness, if a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statues which ensure life without committing iniquity, he will surely live; he shall not die.”

How are we to understand the Lord telling a righteous person “you shall surely live” or telling a wicked person “you shall surely die” if we also believe that at that very moment the Lord was perfectly certain that the righteous person he’s speaking to would not live (for he eternally foreknew they’d fall) and that the wicked person he’s speaking to would not die (for he eternally foreknew they’d repent)? Declarations are truthful only if they reflect sincere beliefs. But if God’s knowledge about a person’s fate is eternally settled, then any declaration he gives which goes against this knowledge is insincere.

If we grant that when the Bible depicts God as changing his mind it depicts him as he truly is and not simply as he appears to us, these problems disappear. In good faith, the Lord tells the righteous they shall live and the wicked they shall die, for this is what the Lord truly believes about them at the time of the declaration. If they change, however, his belief about them truly changes, and so his sincere declaration about them changes.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics:
Verse:

Related Reading

Podcast: If the Future is Open How Can We Know God Wins in the End?

Greg discusses the open future and speculates on how God can still be assured victory in the end. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0069.mp3

How do you respond to Acts 4:27–28?

The Christians in Jerusalem proclaim to the Lord, “…both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against our holy servant Jesus… to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” This passage tells us that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel…

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…

What is the significance of Acts 15:7?

At the Jerusalem council, “Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles should hear the message of the good news…’” The tense of the verb that locates God’s “choice” in “the…

Topics:

The Case for Including Open Theism Within Arminianism

Here is an excellent post by my good friend Roger Olson in which he makes the case that Open Theism should be embraced by Arminians as an orthodox, if somewhat non-traditional, form of their faith. In fact, Roger argues (rightly in my opinion) that Open Theism is much closer to the “heart” of Arminianism than…

Topics:

Process Theology & Open Theism: What’s the Difference?

Question: When ReKnew talks about Open Theism is it a mistake for people to equate it with Process theology, and if so what are the defining differences? I guess I am starting to lean toward Dr. Boyd’s thoughts for all things theologically egg-heady, so I thought I would ask the question. Your ministry has been freeing…