Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
The provided text addresses a significant and recurring theological dilemma within biblical hermeneutics: the apparent contradiction in scriptural passages concerning God’s capacity for “repenting” or “regretting” His actions. The author notes that this issue has been a frequent subject of discussion, with various attempts at harmonization, particularly citing examples from 1 Samuel, Numbers, and Exodus. The core of the problem lies in the juxtaposition of verses that explicitly state God does not repent because He is not a man, with others that describe Him as doing so. Specifically, 1 Samuel 15:29 declares, “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.” This is echoed in Numbers 23:19, which states, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.” These verses strongly emphasize divine immutability and consistency, asserting that God’s character and intentions are fundamentally distinct from fallible human nature. However, these affirmations stand in stark contrast to passages like 1 Samuel 15:35, which records, “And the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.” Similarly, Exodus 32:14 describes God “repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” These instances portray God as responsive to circumstances and human actions, seemingly altering a previous decision or intent, thus appearing to exhibit a form of “regret” or “change of mind” that the other verses explicitly deny. The author proposes an interpretive approach centered on literary criticism, questioning whether this apparent contradiction could be reconciled through the understanding of biblical texts employing literary devices such as hyperbole or figures of speech. The central hypothesis is that the declaration in 1 Samuel 15:29 – that God “will not lie nor repent” – might serve as an emphatic statement. This perspective suggests that for God to “repent” or “regret” is so profoundly antithetical to His divine nature and constancy that Samuel’s declaration functions as a forceful rhetorical device, underscoring the exceptional and disturbing nature of such an occurrence from a human perspective, rather than an absolute theological prohibition of any divine alteration of course. This proposed reading invites a deeper exegetical inquiry into how divine attributes are expressed through human language, particularly when depicting God’s interactions with His creation. By considering the rhetorical intent behind these seemingly contradictory statements, interpreters might find a path to harmonize them, not by forcing a direct logical equivalence, but by appreciating the layered meaning conveyed through the Bible’s diverse literary forms. This approach offers a means to uphold both God’s consistent character and His dynamic engagement with humanity without necessitating a fundamental contradiction in the divine essence.
