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 Jeremiah 18:7–11?
The Lord states that “if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.” But if a nation which he has declared he will bless “does evil in my sight…I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.”
If the Lord exhaustively foreknows what will definitely transpire in the future, it is impossible for him to genuinely intend to curse or bless a nation and then later genuinely reverse his plan. In other words, it’s difficult to avoid denying the premise of this entire passage, and all passages like it. If the classical understanding of God’s foreknowledge is correct, God eternally knows exactly what he will and will not do and what every nation will and will not do. There can be no authentic reversal.
Yet the Bible depicts God’s willingness to change his mind as one of his attributes of greatness (Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:12–13). And, as we have seen, there are a wealth of biblical examples in which the Lord demonstrates this attribute. Dare we hold any view which requires us to conclude that such a magnificent aspect of the biblical portrait of God is merely anthropomorphic and not depicting God as he actually is?
We should also note that the fundamental error in the Israelites’ thinking which Jeremiah is confronting in this passage is their conclusion that since God has prophesied against them, “It is no use!” (vs. 12). Yet this is exactly the conclusion the classical view encourages. If the future is eternally unalterable and known by God as such, then it is appropriate to conclude when he tells us of something coming, “It is no use!” How could we possibly change what is already certain to God?
In contrast to this, if we agree with Scripture that this fatalistic attitude is wrong, then shouldn’t we conclude that the future is not exhaustively settled? Shouldn’t we conclude that it is, to some degree, open to our decisions as free agents? Shouldn’t we conclude that, to some extent, the future is not definitely this way or definitely that way, but rather possibly this way or possibly that way? And since God knows reality perfectly, shouldn’t we conclude that God knows the future as being, in part, a realm of possibilities, not only definite certainties?
Only when we accept this, I submit, can passages like Jeremiah 18:7–11 be cleared of any hint of disingenuousness. The verse speaks about God as he truly is: He plans, he responds, he changes.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Jeremiah 18
Related Reading
Scientific Support for the Open View
If a position is true, every avenue of reflection ought to point in its direction. What follows are two more “pointers” to the view that the future is at least partly open (indefinite, composed of possibilities). I’ll first consider an argument from quantum physics, followed by a pragmatic argument regarding what we ordinarily assume to…
Terror in the Night
I’ll never forget the night it first happened to me. I was thirteen, sharing a bedroom with my older brother. I woke up in the middle of the night and felt as if something was pinning me to the bed, choking me, and electrocuting me, all at the same time. The wind was blowing through…
What do you think of the “Penal Substitution” view of the atonement?
If asked what Jesus came to do and how he did it, most contemporary western Christians would automatically say something like, “Jesus took the punishment from God that I deserved.” This is what’s usually called “Penal Substitution” view of the atonement, for it emphasizes that Jesus was punished by God in our place. His sacrifice…
Hearing and Responding to God: Part 1
A reader contacted Greg asking about making “right decisions” assuming an open future and in light of the fact that God seems to rarely speak clearly. In this first response, Greg acknowledges that even with the best of intentions, our decisions can have outcomes that are unexpected even to God! How can we move forward…
What is the significance of Exodus 13:17?
The Lord didn’t lead Israel along the shortest route to Canaan because Israel would have had to fight the Philistines. The Lord wanted to avoid this, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” [NIV: “If they face war they might change their minds and return to Egypt”].…
Why do you argue that discipleship and politics are rooted in opposite attitudes?
Question. At a recent conference I heard you argue against the idea that there could ever be a distinctly “Christian” political position by contending that political disputes are premised on a claim to superiority while discipleship is fundamentally rooted in humility. I don’t think I get what you mean. Can you explain this? Answer: In…