And I Was Grieved
I’m preaching through the book of Genesis on Sunday mornings right now and aside from being a very long-term commitment, we’re in chapter 6, which presents several interesting points of discussion. For example, Genesis 6:5 forces a discussion of the doctrine known as “total depravity” (what does it mean that “every intention of the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually”) while verses 6 and 7 have sometimes been referred to in discussions of open theism. The verses in question read:
And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.
Many have referred to these verses and others as support for the idea that God somehow changes His mind. Combined with the account of Jonah’s message to Nineveh and their subsequent repentance or Hezekiah’s prayer for longer life, many have argued that God may not be in control the same way we have always thought. While some disagree, I’ve come to believe that open theism is the logical conclusion of most Arminianism, for any stress on the free-will of man over the sovereignty of God (we must hold both, so any stress on the sovereignty of God over the free will of man is also dangerous) must somehow argue that God merely reacts to man’s free agency.
Regardless, these verses in Genesis present an interesting concept. We know that any unclear or hard to understand verses must be read and understood in light of more clear verses, so Malachi 3:6 rules out any idea that God changes 1 Samuel 15:29 reminds us that God does not regret things the same way a man does. So we know that whatever Genesis 6:6-7 means, it does not mean those things.
The key to understanding these verses is the fact that God was “grieved” over the sin of man, which is portrayed in verses 1-5 of chapter 6 as well as everything from chapter 3 to this point. The text goes to great lengths to portray the downward spiral of man’s heart and the spread of sin and its consequences. What Genesis 6:6-7 do not say is that God changed His mind, or that He would do things differently were He given the chance (which of course He has that chance, He’s God!). Rather, it says that God was grieved.
Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology says that it is
“analogous to a human father who allows his child to embark on a course he knows will bring much sorrow, both to the parent and to the child, but who allows it nonetheless, because he knows that greater long-term good will come from it.”
Grudem draws on the obvious parent/child relationship. There are times when it grieves me to discipline my children. That does not mean I would not do it again, it simply means that, though it is right, it might hurt. The key to these verses is not questioning whether or not God changes, but rather, acknowledging that God grieves over human sin and praying that we would begin to share even a bit of God’s grief over our sin.
These verses remind us that God takes sin seriously and we do not. These verses remind us that God is intimately involved with our lives and cares for His people as only a father can (and even more than our fathers ever could). These verses also remind us that God’s mercy eventually gives way to His justice but that even His justice flows from His love, for we discipline our children out of love.
There is much more to say about the glorious truth of God’s immutability, but not now. May we be reminded that God’s compassions, “they fail not,” and they are ever “strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow.”
Brent:
Good post. Genesis does indeed raise a lot of interesting questions. I have two questions as well, and I am asking, not because I have the answer, but rather cause I am curious.
1. How applicable do you think it is to make an analogy between a human parent and child interaction/relationship when speaking of God? I know that scripture lends itself to that, but I’m just curious if we tend to draw certain conclusions from that that maybe aren’t applicable, especially in 2006 in America.
2. Can you rule out certain verses because others seem more clear, or, since they are both scripture, do we need to hold both of them in tension…sort of as an antinomy.
curious…
rhett
Rhett,
Good thoughts/questions.
For the parent/child analogy, we must remember that all analogies break down, especially when trying to move from finite to infinite. However, the idea of disciplining our children is one that the writer to the Hebrews uses (Hebrews 12), so we at least know that we’re within the bounds of Scripture itself. The key becomes not to press it more than intended (which is the difficult part, isn’t it?)
As for the “cultural divide” of 2006, I would say that that is where the burden falls on pastors/teachers to hold the line for the way things were meant to be and that we must understand reality through that perspective rther than understanding the way things ought to be through the way they are, does that make sense? In other words, if someone had a poor relationship with their dad, they are not free to read that onto God because He is Father, they must rather understand their earthly father’s shortcomings in light of the way God intended things to be. I’m not sure if that’s even what you’re asking or not, just some initial thoughts.
Then, as for “ruling out certain verses,” again, this can be tricky. But, for example, when we read that “The Lord does not change” (Mal. 3:6), it seems to set fairly clear parameters. When coupled with “he is not a man, that he should have regret” (1 Sam. 15:29) and other verses, it seems that Scripture has already laid the parameters of the discussion. The problem come in too often when we ignore those already-set parameters and try to redefine them. When we read of God “repenting,” Scripture has already informed us that it is not the same as a man “repenting,” so we must work to understand it as such; we cannot ignore Scripture’s boundaries, which is too often exactly what we want to do.
We must absolutely hold tension when appropriate for example, Scripture clearly teaches God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility. However, even in tension, Scripture does not contradict, so we cannot argue that it teaches God changes/God does not change.
Good stuff on which I probably (definitely) need to ponder a bit/a lot more!
Thanks Rhett. Your thoughts?
Being the “Bible Answer Man” and the pilgrimage of theology…….
Last Tuesday night I went out to Brentwood to attend one of the guy’s Bible studies that meets in our college ministry. It is getting near the end of the school year and they had me out so that……
Brent,
Thanks for commenting. I agree that all analogies break down, but they are still helpful metaphors. I used the father/child relationship metaphor the other night in talking about sovereignty and free-will. But ultimately it breaks down after a certain point.
I still have questions about ruling out certain passages of Scripture though. I understand the method and it makes sense. We have all been trained that way. But I’m just wondering about the idea that all Scripture is God inspired, and if that being the case, how do we rule parts of it out, rather than holding it all in tension? Just wondering.
Obviously, someone murders in the Bible, we don’t embrace that or hold that in tension with “Thou Shall Not Murder.” So I understand something like that. But it seems to get trick in other instances.
rhett
I guess one thing I would say here is that no one (that I know of) is arguing that we “rule out certain passages of Scripture” as though we accept some and not others. All I’ve ever said is that we understand harder to understand passages in light of more clear passages.
In light of that, all I’ve tried to do is interpret passages which say that God was “sorry” or that that He was “grieved.” These passages don’t say that He changed, so I don’t see a difficulty there unless I’m missing something (which is certainly possible!).
Then with the murder instance, you’ve got a whole lot of worms on the plate there! For example narrative vs. declarative passages, etc, but that’s probably another post at another time!
Thanks Rhett! I always enjoy your comments and the thoughts they provoke!
Brent,
I would love to hear your treatment of Genesis 6:5 when you get the chance.
Thanks for your helpful remarks on verses 6-7.
Mark,
Verse 5 = teaches that we’re all totally depraved.
Sorry, attempts at dry humor don’t come across as well in type do they? I’d love to expand on that verse some time; I do think it’s a critical verse in understanding the effects (noetic and otherwise) of the Fall, but that’s obviously more than this little textbox was designed for!
hey interesting.. you said..We know that any unclear or hard to understand verses must be read and understood in light of more clear verses.. hmm I’v heard that before… makes sense