Genesis 6:6

Morbert

Seeking another set of opinions on the interpretation of Genesis 6:6 and God's immutability.

"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." --Genesis 6:6

Below are a couple of paragraphs by OT scholar John Goldingay.

"The first is regret at having created humanity. This is extraordinary because you cannot regret something unless you had not foreseen it, which implies that the developments we have been reading about in Genesis have taken God by surprise. Once again, Genesis raises a question about our assumption that God knows everything, so that there is nothing God has not foreseen. The Old Testament implies that God quite often has surprises, usually unpleasant ones. It also makes clear that God is able to know what will happen in the future (and is thus able to reveal it to people), but God seems not always to exercise that capacity and instead lives in linear time with us. God is eternal in the sense of living through all time, but God is not timeless. God mostly lives in the present and thus can be taken aback by things, but God is not caught by events in such a way as not to be able to cope with things. God has infinite capacity to handle whatever happens, and God is involved in a responsive relationship with the world."

"Does the Bible simply speak of God having surprises and regretting things only because that is how it looks to us? Is God simply portrayed as if God were a human being? This seems to involve deciding what must be true of God on the basis of what we think must be true, rather than on the basis of what the Bible says. If the Bible does not mean it when it says God regrets things, why should we assume it means it when it says other human-like things about God, such as that God loves us?"

totus tuus

I'm no theologian but this reply from a poster in another forum pretty much sums it up!

Any passage of the Bible that attributes "human feelings" to God must be taken as analogy, that is expressing a divine reality in human terms. God does not get "angry"; he has no "regrets" or any of those human emotions. God is one, eternal and unchangeable. It was decreed from all eternity that should men behave in such and such a way, there would be these and these consequences.

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2530199&postcount=4

Slav

Morbert wrote: »

Seeking another set of opinions on the interpretation of Genesis 6:6 and God's immutability.

"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." --Genesis 6:6

Below are a couple of paragraphs by OT scholar John Goldingay.

"The first is regret at having created humanity. This is extraordinary because you cannot regret something unless you had not foreseen it, which implies that the developments we have been reading about in Genesis have taken God by surprise. Once again, Genesis raises a question about our assumption that God knows everything, so that there is nothing God has not foreseen. The Old Testament implies that God quite often has surprises, usually unpleasant ones. It also makes clear that God is able to know what will happen in the future (and is thus able to reveal it to people), but God seems not always to exercise that capacity and instead lives in linear time with us. God is eternal in the sense of living through all time, but God is not timeless. God mostly lives in the present and thus can be taken aback by things, but God is not caught by events in such a way as not to be able to cope with things. God has infinite capacity to handle whatever happens, and God is involved in a responsive relationship with the world."

"Does the Bible simply speak of God having surprises and regretting things only because that is how it looks to us? Is God simply portrayed as if God were a human being? This seems to involve deciding what must be true of God on the basis of what we think must be true, rather than on the basis of what the Bible says. If the Bible does not mean it when it says God regrets things, why should we assume it means it when it says other human-like things about God, such as that God loves us?"

Judging by those quotes, it's not clear whether Dr.Goldingay ever heard the terms theologia and economia and if he did what struggles is he having with the later. Christian theology does not have much trouble with the idea of God being both transcendent and immanent at least for a few hundred years (since Thomas Aquinas in the West and Gregory Palamas in the East).

totus tuus wrote: »

I'm no theologian but this reply from a poster in another forum pretty much sums it up!

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2530199&postcount=4

I'm not sure how exactly the quoted post sums it up as the author is actually making the very point that Goldingay objects to (the last quote in the OP). I'm not sure what they said is even compatible with Catholicism.

santing

You have the "regret" statement and the "God cannot change his mind" close together in 1 Samuel 15:

1Sam 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
1Sam 15:35 And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

It is different though with "Love." Love is an integral part of who God is, so when God loves it is not an anthropopathy.

Mintoz

Morbert wrote: »

Seeking another set of opinions on the interpretation of Genesis 6:6 and God's immutability.

"The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." --Genesis 6:6

Below are a couple of paragraphs by OT scholar John Goldingay.

"The first is regret at having created humanity. This is extraordinary because you cannot regret something unless you had not foreseen it, which implies that the developments we have been reading about in Genesis have taken God by surprise. Once again, Genesis raises a question about our assumption that God knows everything, so that there is nothing God has not foreseen. The Old Testament implies that God quite often has surprises, usually unpleasant ones. It also makes clear that God is able to know what will happen in the future (and is thus able to reveal it to people), but God seems not always to exercise that capacity and instead lives in linear time with us. God is eternal in the sense of living through all time, but God is not timeless. God mostly lives in the present and thus can be taken aback by things, but God is not caught by events in such a way as not to be able to cope with things. God has infinite capacity to handle whatever happens, and God is involved in a responsive relationship with the world."

"Does the Bible simply speak of God having surprises and regretting things only because that is how it looks to us? Is God simply portrayed as if God were a human being? This seems to involve deciding what must be true of God on the basis of what we think must be true, rather than on the basis of what the Bible says. If the Bible does not mean it when it says God regrets things, why should we assume it means it when it says other human-like things about God, such as that God loves us?"

Your question is very similar in reference to Genesis, when God asks Adam, Where are you? After he had disobeyed him, by eating the fruit. It's not as if God didn't know where he was, he asks, so Adam will ask himself, Why am I hiding here, have I done something wrong? Oh..sh...

The bible is so deep and rich like that, it's very easy to overlook such things and conclude prematurely it doesn't make sense. But those who are truly seeking God will persist and eventually realise it does make sense. If they put their heart into it. "Seek and you shall find"..

Morbert

Mintoz wrote: »

Your question is very similar in reference to Genesis, when God asks Adam, Where are you? After he had disobeyed him, by eating the fruit. It's not as if God didn't know where he was, he asks, so Adam will ask himself, Why am I hiding here, have I done something wrong? Oh..sh...

The bible is so deep and rich like that, it's very easy to overlook such things and conclude prematurely it doesn't make sense. But those who are truly seeking God will persist and eventually realise it does make sense. If they put their heart into it. "Seek and you shall find"..

For posterity, I should point out I wasn't trying to tender a contradiction. Just trying to see how much of the conventionally held understanding of Christianity is Biblical.

Slav

But all conventionally held Christian beliefs are biblical by definition, are not they?

Fanny Cradock

Good question. I have no idea of the answer.

If by "conventional" you mean "traditional" then Goldingay's view would surely rest outside the purview of orthodox theology - though perhaps heterodox is too strong a word. My guess, based on the quote, is that he subscribes to something like open theism. While I'm tempted to dismiss this view out of hand because I think it makes God that little bit smaller, intelligent folks like John Polkinhorne would argue something similar (perhaps I do him a disservice there) so perhaps it is worth listening.

For my own part, I wonder if we can draw a distinction between God reacting to events (even if they are not a surprise) and his character remaining immutable.

Perhaps you would benefit from some Aquinas at this point.