Does The Immutable God Regret?

Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands." And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night. (1 Samuel 15:10-11 NASB)

As Samuel turned to go, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore.  So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you. Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." (1 Samuel 15:27-29 NASB)

Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel. (1 Samuel 15:35 NASB)

One of the peculiar things about the story of Saul in the Bible is that while Israel asks for a king, it is God who chooses Saul, not the people.  I find it difficult to believe that God would choose an inferior product, one that had no chance of success.  But there are qualities of God that make this questionable.

For instance, I believe Scripture teaches that God is Master of time (Rev 22:13, Psa 90:4, 2 Pe 3:8, Isa 44:7) and He is Master of all knowledge (Isa 40:13,28, 55:8-9).  So, if He is Master of time and knowledge, then He would know that Saul would fail even before He chose him to be king.  He chose him anyway.

But there is a difference between choosing someone in order for them to fail, and choosing someone who you believe will fail.  I choose to believe that God chose Saul knowing he would fail, but also that Saul had the capacity to succeed.  He knew where Saul's choices would lead, but He chose him anyway.

But there is another quality of God known as immutability.  It means that He doesn't change (see 1 Sam 15:29 above, Psa 55:19, 110:4, Mal 3:6).  But there is a problem with human understanding of this quality.  For instance, if God cannot change, He has limited power.  Something external to Him would have power over Him if He could not change.  That is unacceptable so I go with He chooses not to change.  But is that always true?

In this chapter is an excellent example of when this may not be the case.  It seems that the unchangeable God changes, and changes His mind.  There is a contrast (contradiction?) inherent in the presentation as well.  If you read the three passages above there is a consistent word used but it is translated differently.  In verse 11, it is translated as "regret", in verse 29 it is translated as "change His mind", and in verse 35 it is translated again as "regret".  They are the same word, but in two cases (translated as 'regret') God does do this, and the third case (translated as 'change His mind') He does not do this.  So which is it?

Well, consider that the two positives refer to God's regret over His choice of Saul as king.  The one negative refers to God's rejection of Saul as king.  Unfortunately we can't simply select the 'negative' option and say that God never regrets rejection or punishment.  We have times in Jeremiah where God clearly says that's not the case.

I suppose that I have to rest in faith that my Master changes whatever decision He wants whenever He wants for whatever reason.  And that my Master chooses to not change whatever decision He makes for whatever reason.  It sounds like my Master is capricious, random, whimsical, and unreliable.  But those terms only mean that we don't understand the reasoning behind something.  Even when we use these terms with people this is true.

So, going back to His mastery of knowledge, I believe that as His thoughts are higher than mine, I can trust that what doesn't make sense to me about His changeability makes perfect sense to Him.  What I don't get about His choices He understands completely.  When things change, He's still working His purpose.  But where do I find my route, my purpose, within a 'changeable' framework of my Master's decisions?

In the family I grew up with, I was taught to 'go with the flow'.  In a sense this is the answer here as well.  I will have to let my Master be Master of all things, and simply obey, faithfully trusting that He has it all under control.  If He seems to change His mind, I will simply go with it.  It is a challenge to submission, but really should be expected that I do this, behave this way, and believe this way if He is truly my Master.  He commands me to raise my sail, and let Him take care of the wind.  If I have to tack, I'll tack; if I don't, I won't, but I'll keep the course He chooses.  Random as that may seem.

So does the Master of all knowledge regret?  Yes.  And I suspect that it has more to do with the sinful nature of His human creatures wounding His heart than that He chooses to use them.  So, will I wound the heart of my Master with disobedience, with doubt in His knowledge and power?  I certainly hope not.  Not today.  I wish not ever.  But I have less trust in myself than in my Master's knowledge and faithfulness.

You Were Serious About That?

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.  Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel 15:2 NASB)

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.  Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying,  11 "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands." And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night. (1 Samuel 15:9-11 NASB)

There are several things here on which I could spend several entries. This is one of the richest chapters for theology and life with my Master in Scripture.  But one in particular is one I have been quick to judge and slow to really appreciate.  Because of that, I have missed that I make the same mistake Saul and the people make.

Essentially God gives a command that was not carried out during the time Israel was in the desert and coming into Canaan.  Since the Amalekites weren't destroyed in the desert, they continued to harass the people after they entered the land.  They would sweep in, plunder, and sweep back out again.  Rather than produce anything other than sheep and goats in the desert, they stole from other nations who had farming.

In chapter 14, they are referred to as the ones plundering Israel.  So consider what the people find when they attack Amalek.  They find all sorts of things, some which they may have owned at one time.  This has to incite anger.  In obedience, they devote most of it to God; but in disobedience they keep the best, they plunder the ones having plundered them.  They intend to bring it back and offer it in sacrifice to God, so they'll use in worship, and that should make up for having kept it.

The problem is that in sacrifice of the type they describe, the people share in the sacrifice, it's not wholly consumed in the fire.  They intend to share with God what they plundered, even give Him the good parts, but not all of it.  God required all of it.  In fact it was supposed to be considered so holy, no one was to touch it at all, but it was to be completely destroyed in place.  No herding, no trading, and certainly no eating.

Would it have seemed a waste to them?  Would it have seemed "excessive" to them?  Would it have seemed unreasonable to them?  It probably would have to people today.  In fact, I believe such a sin is committed by people professing faith in Jesus today, in church, all the time.  We tend to have a dysfunctional concept of holiness today.  This dysfunctional holiness means we find it easy to disobey.  The two go hand-in-hand.

My last entry was about being terrified of my Master.  This terror, I claim, leads to obedience.  I believe this is true partly because the wrath of God punctuates His holiness.  He is 'other' than us, inexplicable, powerful beyond measure, and with unimaginable thoughts and reasoning.  We cannot see from His perspective unless He shows us a part of it.  All we have of Him is what He shares with us, and those parts are pretty peculiar, and sometimes very scary.

But when believers, such as myself, make the Master of the universe a warm fuzzy 'nice guy', or loving kind sweet old man, we've set up an idol of our own making.  This idol we can disobey, this idol looks a lot like the god of the world, the god of atheism, the god projected out of the sinful selfishness of frail faulty human creatures.  This is not the same as the God having spoken the universe into existence. 

To the degree that this sort of distorted image of God exists in our minds, we are able to easily disregard certain rules asked of us by God.  Certain Scriptures can be taken lightly or ignored all together.  But there is a price for such a profane view of the Master of galaxies and quarks.

It is not easy, once having setup such an idol, to then go back and change it.  We set expectations of continued comfort when we begin with such an idol.  I have.  When I realize what I've done and try to change it, it get's thrown back in my face.  My failures, my mistakes, and sin are dredged up, and shown to me for what they are.  So how then can I judge who have done the same things?  How can I teach Scripture who have lived my life deviated from the teachings of Scripture?

I can be honest about both the failures and the consequences, the most common of which is the dredging up and resulting shame.  It's both a failure and a consequence (you have to love a double whammy like that).  The reality is that I have to teach that Scripture reveals that God does not tolerate fornication; but that I have been guilty of it, and have paid a price for it (and will continue to pay I'm sure).  I have to teach that God reveals through Scripture that He desires me to be a good diligent worker; but I am guilty of poor work quality, and sometimes really struggle with giving a good days work for a days pay.

It's not excusable that others do the same thing. It's not okay that I'm not alone in this.  Those are the same things said by Saul.  He blamed the people, but he was their leader.  It was on him to lead well and in obedience.  I'm not a king (thank you, my Master, for that!), but to the extent that I have leadership responsibilities, I too have the responsibility to lead people in obedience.  I must teach the truth of Scripture, not just the comfortable ones I like and I know others will like, but all of them.  And I must do so, knowing and owning that I am a "law breaker" just as all the rest.

So the answer is to worship my Master as holy and powerful beyond measure.  A certain degree of absolute terror is in order.  To honor Him in Scripture is to consider Him 'heavy', His words 'weighty', and in practice, myself as crushed by His presence and His words.

Now, the obvious error here is to run to the other direction and become so focused on the "laws" of Scripture that I judge on legalistic grounds.  What Scripture also teaches is that the holiness of my Master is transferred by Him to me.  I don't get it by working for it, as part of His grace, He gives it.  He is able to transform the ignoble, the common, and the profane into objects and acts of holiness.  So, He can use my failures to redeem others.  I can become an example of His grace and redemption as people see what I was and what He has made me. 

I can't be as I was and expect Him to use me.  In fact, in the example of Saul, it was his unwillingness to change that brought on his eventual rejection by God.  So, even then he was used by God, but as a bad example.  God redeemed Saul's mistakes within His divine purpose, but the man was lost.  So my failure to submit to my Master's commands will not thwart my Master, but may thwart my usefulness in His Kingdom.  In fact it has.  The continued submission to my addiction meant that I have been sidelined from ministry.  As I have emerged from this idolatrous submission to my selfish passions, He is able to use me more.  Yet His use of me always has the requirement to own that life I lived, and the different life I live now; as long as it is different.

So, today, I will walk as a crushed man before my Master.  I will walk as an example of His grace and mercy, and also His wrath.  I will live my life with the understanding that my life is not really mine and never has been.  I will obey partly out of fear of Who I obey and the consequences of disobedience.  And I will teach what He reveals to me in Scripture, owning my own failures to live it out, but striving to obey.

The Terrifying Extremes of God

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.  Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NASB)

There are many theological statements about the Maker of the universe, statements about His character, His characteristics, His divine qualities.  In Biblical Theology, the 'categories' used to describe the Master of all things that are derived from Scripture rather than 'systematic' categories from philosophy.  Whichever set of categories is used, this passage falls into one of the most uncomfortable.

In Genesis 19, God destroys two cities and those around them on the valley floor by the Dead Sea.  It's a dramatic display of the destructive forces used by the Maker of stars to punish His human creatures.  While that is a brutal display of His wrath, it's also a display of mercy (Lot and his family).  It's also something the Master does Himself.  This passage of Scripture is different.

This Creator of all matter now delegates the complete destruction of a people to people He has chosen as His own.  It is an amazing unimaginable demonstration of grace and mercy for a people to be chosen by their Creator.  It is an amazing unimaginable act of brutality to completely wipe out an entire people from before their Creator.  I suppose it just goes with the benefits of being chosen.

This command is part of what is known as the ban, or "kharam".  It is a Hebrew word related to the Middle Eastern concept of a herem, a king's personal collection of women to which only he has access (or at least that's the most popular image).  It refers to something (anything really) completely devoted to one person.  In order for this to be accomplished with the One having chosen Israel, the 'thing' must be destroyed, thereby preventing anyone from having access to it.  It was completely 'devoted' to God.

This is done in the sacrificial system of the Hebrews when they conducted a 'whole burnt offer' which completely consumed what was being offered and no one partook of it.  It was not an uncommon sacrifice, but it was only done on special occasions for special reasons.  The kharam was sort of like doing that but in warfare and it included people, all the people.

As the People of Israel traveled through the desert east of the Jordan river, they conducted several of these sorts of attacks on the kingdoms they encountered. Others they spared entirely.  When they entered the land of Canaan, they conducted many of these attacks on the people in the land.  It sounds horrific, and it was, if you were involved, on either side.

So why the horror?  Why command such a thing?  What sort of "Maker of humanity" commands that these human creatures treat each other in this way?  To say that it is difficult to reconcile the God who is Love in 1 John with this same Destroyer is a wild understatement.  These bracket the immense range of character of the One about Whom we make any sort of theological statement. 

So, I will step back, and not attempt to justify or apologize for my Master.  I will not attempt to make the connection between the two extremes of character.  The one extreme means that I enjoy His attention, the other extreme means that His attention is not always pleasant for me.  In order to be in the presence of One so magnificent as to completely overwhelm and crush the words used to describe Him, I will endure the uncomfortable extreme.

My rationale for such a position is really simple.  I should expect that One capable of creating such a universe that I can only just barely grasp, barely see, characterized by the detail of quarks and stars, to be inexplicable.  I think that these two extremes should, instead of confusing me, lead me to watch my step in His presence; to consider carefully as I speak to Him; to easily bow myself before Him; and above all else, obey Him.  Perhaps only as often as I allow myself to wander among these two extremes of my Master will obedience really begin to characterize my life.

Why should I be afraid of One Who sacrifices Himself on my behalf?  Why should I feel horror or terror from the One having made my relationship with Him possible?  Why, if He has chosen me along with His people should I tremble in His presence?  Because He causes both life and death.  It doesn't make me feel "warm and fuzzy", it causes me to tremble; these extremes define His grace and mercy.  And it is a terrifying thing to behold.  That's one of the ways I know I'm beholding more of the truth of my Master, I tremble.