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 2 Chronicles 32:31?
“God left [Hezekiah] to himself, in order to test him and to know all that was in his heart.”
God tests his covenant partners to discover whether they will choose to remain faithful to him, an exercise that is absurd if God exhaustively foreknows exactly how faithful every person will choose to be. If the classical view of the future is correct, the biblical purpose for every “testing”—viz. “to know all that was in his heart”—is misleading at best.
Defenders of the classical view sometimes argue that verses such as this are meant to describe how things appear to us rather than how they truly are. But there are two problems with this interpretation.
First, the verse does not state or remotely suggest that it simply looked as though God tested Hezekiah to know his heart. It rather suggests that God was genuinely seeking to find this out.
Second, it is not at all clear how passages such as this which describe the motive behind God’s actions (viz. “in order to know”) can be explained away as an appearance. How does it appear to us (but not to God?) that God came to know Hezekiah’s heart through this testing? If God didn’t really come to know Hezekiah’s heart by the means which this verse says, the verse doesn’t seem to communicate much of anything.
However, once we accept that God is a God of the possible and not simply the God of eternally frozen facts, and once we accept that God can genuinely think and speak in terms of “maybes” and “ifs,” verses like this can be understood in a straightforward manner without extravagant theological explanations.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: Chronicles 32
Related Reading
Isn’t Faith Inherently Irrational?
Is Faith Inherently Irrational? Many people seem to assume that faith is giving credence to things that don’t make much sense and for which there is little or no evidence. Take the doctrine of the Incarnation, for example. This is the traditional Christian teaching that Jesus is “fully God and fully human.” Now, to many…
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;…
If God is already doing the most he can do, how does prayer increase his influence?
Question: If God always does the most that he can in every tragic situation, as you claim in Satan and the Problem of Evil, how can you believe that prayer increases his influence, as you also claim? It seems if you grant that prayer increases God’s influence, you have to deny God was previously doing…
How do you respond to Galatians 1:15–16?
“…when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me…I did not confer with any human being…” As with Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), John the Baptist (Luke 1:13–17) and other God-ordained prophets, Paul was aware that God had decided on a…
Isn’t it true that God doesn’t know the future in the open view?
This is the single most common misconception people have about the open view. Open Theists and Classical Theists disagree about the nature of the future, not about how much God knows about it. Both sides grant that God knows everything. He is omniscient. He knows everything there is to know about all of reality, including…
Lord Willing? Part 2
In Part 2 of Greg’s interview of Jessica Kelley about her book Lord Willing?, they discuss the theology that helped Jessica through her son Henry’s illness and death. You can find Part 1 of the interview here, and part 3 here.