I said: The direct context of the repenting passages is often that God repented. Therefore just saying that they are a figure of speech doesn’t solve your problem because the figure of speech appears to mean the exact same thing as the definition of the word.
Jerry Shugart responded: Yes,it appears to man that God is repenting.That is the meaning of the word "repent" when it applies to God and is used phenomenally.For example,let us examine the following verse: "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun"(Mk.16:2). Do you understand that the words "rising of the sun" is being used phenomenally?That the sun is not really rising but instead that is the way that it appears to man.Now I will use the same arguments that you use: "The direct context of the 'sun rising' passages is often that the sun rose. Therefore just saying that they are a figure of speech doesn’t solve your problem because the figure of speech appears to mean the exact same thing as the definition of the word."
Jerry,
Sorry about the delay in responding, we’ve been rather buzy. You’ve made a few statements and comparisons, and missed some rather big points that I’ve been explaining because you think figures of speech are somehow “special cases”. Let me do, a I’ve done before, one more time and see if you can understand.
“And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came to the sepulcher
anatei-Lontos ton eliou” (Mark 16:2)
Now, if this was left untranslated as I’ve left it, then how would you know what the phrase (lat alone, meaning of the figure of speech) “anatei-Lontos ton eliou” was? Well, you could look at the context around the phrase and the meaning would be somewhat clear. Clues like “very early” and “morning” give us some clue as to what the meaning is. Further, in this passage, even if we never figured out the meaning, it wouldn’t change the story.
In the repentance passages, even if the part you say is a figure of speech is left out, you still would understand that God repented because unlike the “run rising” passage, it is central to the story. You get the idea of repentence, not just from the word repent,
but that the entire story tells of God’s repentance. So not just the word would have to be a figure of speech, but we must now allegorize the
entire story to hold to your pagan concept of Fatalism.
I’ll give you another example to seal the deal. I’ll pick a repentence passage that doesn’t use the words “God repented”. Look at the next chapter of Exodus!
[Exodus 33]
[vv. 1-3] And the Lord said to Moses, “Go forward… and I will send at the same time and angel before thy face, and he shall cast out .. for I will not go up with thee, because thou art a stiff-necked people…”
[vv. 12-16] And Moses said unto the Lord “… If thou go not up with us thyself, bring me not hence. And how shall it be surely known, that both I and this people have found favour with thee, except only if thou go with us?”
[vv. 17] And the Lord said to Moses, “I will also do for thee this thing…”
And God does lead them, despite what he said in verses 1 through 3. No “repent” word is used, but the overall context is that God repent. The story falls apart if God did not repent. The same as the story from Exodus 32 falls apart if God didn’t repent. If the sun didn’t “rise” in Mark 16, the story doesn’t fall apart.
Jery Shugart said:
If we are to take this literally then we must believe that the Lord decided to destroy the children of Israel without considering the consequences.However,when Moses points out the consequences to the Lord ( that the Egyptians would say that He brought them out just so that he could slay them and therefore His Name would be profaned before the Gentiles) the Lord reconsiders and changes His mind. In other words,Moses had more wisdom that did the Lord.The Lord didn't even have the wisdom to even consider the consequences of his his proposed actions,but Moses did. That is the ridiculous conclusion that is arrived at if the word "repent" is taken literally .
Do you really think God cares what the Gentiles thought? Do you believe God is so unassured of Himself that He cares if someone sets up false ideas about Him and begins to slander him? I put to you that God din’t care about those things, but Moses was the one who cared!
Moses pleads with the Lord not to destroy the Israelites. For Moses sake, God says he did not destroy them. That Moses brought up a concern doesn’t mean God hadn’t thought it out. God could well have been prepared to deal with those insignificant consequences, but for Moses sake (and because Moses’ fear of what the Gentiles think) God changed His mind.
So what is the opinion of the Settled View here? God knew He would never destroy the Israelites, but told Moses to “leave him” (a command) and let Him destroy Israel, obviously for the purpose of testing Moses in order to see if he would grovel. Moses who didn’t sin, God toyed with and threatened.
Jerry Shugart said:
The Lord is attempting to convey a truth in regard to the nation of Israel.And that is the fact that they deserved to be destroyed,and it was not because of anything that they did that spared them from this deserved puishment.And in order to teach this truth the Lord employed "figurative" language.It appears to man that God did repent,but he did not actually repent.Just as the Scriptures speak of the "sun rising" does not mean that it actally rises.
So you believe that God is lying to Moses when he says that he will destroy Israel? And while I have already revealed that it is not sinful to lie to the wicked … to lie to someone you want to have a relationship with is a very bad thing.
So obviously (based on your presumption that “I repent” is just an appearance to man), the problem with this verse is still there but transferred to God saying to Moses, “Go away and I will destroy them.” Because if this part is truth, and not a lie on God’s part, then like Exodus 33, it doesn’t matter if the word “repent” appears or not, because the purpose of the context is that God repented.
Jerry Shugart said:
I am not aware of any verses where it can be said that God lied.There might be instances where He allowed demons to influence others by deceit,but that is not the same thing as God actally lying. And if He did lie to the wicked,how do you explain Paul's word where He says that God cannot lie (Titus1:2)?
It is the rule of thumb statement, not a character trait. It does not mean in every instance without exception, but as a general rule God doesn’t lie. Just like the Bible says to obey the governing authorities. As a general rule we should always do that. If they come into conflict with God’s rules should obey God rather than man.
In a normal situation God will not tell a lie, however God does lie to the wicked. God deceived Ahab (1 King 22:20-23). He deceives false prophets (Ez. 14:9). And He deceives the determinedly sinful (Thess 2:9-12; Ez 20:24-26). When giving battle plans against the city if Ai, God recommended a “feint”, an attack method in which you deceive your enemy that you are running away and that he is winning. So also, in war, is it okay to deceive your opponent (so long as yours is the righteous side).
