Did God really regret making us??

[Augusta]

[color=darkblue:25335e2668][b:25335e2668]Genesis 6:

5. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

This passage always freaks me out. Is it mistranslated or what? I can't see our sovereign Lord being surprised at our wickedness or regretting that he made us. He foreknew this surely. So what does this passage mean.[/b:25335e2668][/color:25335e2668]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This is one of those passages that speak of God in a way that mirrors human behavior or feeling. The actual terminology is expressed more literally in the old KJV or ASV versions that read "And it [i:45c5d77e2c]repented[/i:45c5d77e2c] Jehovah that he had made man..." But elsewhere in Scripture we read the Lord asking, "Am I a man, that I should repent?"

So we must understand the passage in such a way that God's attributes are not obscured or misunderstood. Being sovereign, God cannot be caught off guard, flustered, or frustrated in any way; or regretful in any human sense. So, we read verse 5 as it paints a picture for us of human degredation splaying itself out before God in all its grotesqueness. God means (as he intended from the first) to essentially wipe out everyone and everything in a catastrophic flood. He intends to save Noah and his faithful family as a kind of "new start" for the human race. God didn't just search around and finally find one fellow to save (verse 8). Noah was his ordained "preacher of righteousness" to call men to salvation until judgment Day.

But in Noah's case, and in the case of the host of abominable humanity, we are presented with the matter as if suddenly all this were brought up at once before the face of God. Why is this? I submit it has to do with the reasons God had for allowing men to so degrade themselves after the fall. In part (and perhaps principally) God was saying, "Fine. If you want to be "gods" and reject me, very well. See how you get along in a world with progressively less and less restraining grace; with fewer and fewer 'salt and light' believers." And so this age is presented to us as an age where at its final end, the wreck is so thorough, so absolute, that if God were a man, he might well express himself with regret at this ruin of his creation. "The experiment was a catastrophe!"

Imagine a world without a hope of salvation. Imagine a world where no Genisis 3:15 had ever been uttered. God might have cast Adam and Eve into hell right there. Or where he lets them live and have descendants but holds out no promises of redemption to them. God closes the door and turns out the lights. Then, he suddenly comes back in, turns on the lights, and sees the mess of that pre-flood world. If God were a man, he might well regret ever having created our race. God's "giving them up" in this age was practically that thorough.

But in mercy we know that Gen. 3:15 [i:45c5d77e2c]was[/i:45c5d77e2c] given, and not forgotten by God. He wasn't surprised at all by the course of events. And Noah was spared according to his divine plan of Salvation.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Another way to understand this "repenting" of God is how Calvin describes it, as a new revealed plan of action. Until this point God chose to endure with longsuffering, the sins of that wicked world. At this point in history, God decides it is time for judgment. Man has grown so hardened and sinful that there is nothing worth saving or admiring except Noah (by God's grace). God chose to wipe out the first generations of man in judgment and continue His plan of redemption through Noah.

 

[JohnV]

This is what the Canons of Dordt says, in Chapter 3-4:
[quote:d3a1eaf950]Article 16
But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; [b:d3a1eaf950]so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and its properties, or do violence thereto; but it spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it, that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign;[/b:d3a1eaf950] in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore, unless the admirable Author of every good work so deal with us, man can have no hope of being able to rise from his fall by his own free will, by which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin.[/quote:d3a1eaf950]
I added the emphasis by putting in bold lettering the part which speaks of God's way of dealing with man.

 

[Apologus]

I am not quite sure how secondary causes fit into this text, but it may appear (at least it is a valid way in which to see secondary causation) that God uses repentance as a seconday cause to accomplis His perfect will. So then "repentance" in the text becomes God's usage of secondary causation to fulfil his plans for humanity. A similar situation would be when he decides to spare Ninevah. That is, by nature all covenant -breakers will be destroyed, but God determined through secondary causation (their repentance) to spare Ninevah.
I do think there is a better way to examine these passages rather than simply appealing to "anthropomorphic" language.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

My answer is here:

http://www.puritanpublications.com/ReformedBooks.htm

 

[alwaysreforming]

Matthew,
That book looks GOOD! I can't wait to get a copy. (But 550 pages, wow!) How could you possibly have time to write all that you do? (You didn't clone yourself, did you?)

 

[Apologus]

Hey Christopher,
I live in Orlando. If you're PCA you should come and check out St. Paul's Presbyterian Church in Winter Park. Let me know. Are you coming for seminary or work?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
How could you possibly have time to write all that you do? (You didn't clone yourself, did you?)

I have five sets of "myself" in the back closet. But they are all "minnie me". They don't have the height, but so long as they are sitting on a phone book, boy can they type fast on the computer!

Actually, its been a work in progress. The actual book gets delivered to my house today for a final once over and proof by Fedex. Then it will be ready to go. I'll proof it this weekend. I'll send a newletter out for that when its ready.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But these verses are not dealing with second causes, but primary

Originally posted by Apologus
So then "repentance" in the text becomes God's usage of secondary causation to fulfil his plans for humanity. A similar situation would be when he decides to spare Ninevah. That is, by nature all covenant -breakers will be destroyed, but God determined through secondary causation (their repentance) to spare Ninevah.
I do think there is a better way to examine these passages rather than simply appealing to "anthropomorphic" language.

I cannot agree with this analysis, because the "repentance" spoken of is predicated upon God, not upon other individuals. This is the crux of the "difficulty" of this and other like passages (see linguistic discussion at http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7457#pid109878 ). The same Hebrew term is used in all of the foregoing passages including the link. And so I also disagree that anthropomorphic or accomodational language is inappropriate here

God, himself, is the one said to be doing the "repenting." Hence the (apparent) jarring incongruity with his unchangeable will and sovereignty. The term "repentance" is tied inextricably to the radical nature of the "change" that occurs in each instance. God is operating in one direction. His direction is so clearly indicated by previous revelation that, based purely on the principle of predicting future action by looking to the past, a definite conclusion seems predictable. But at a certain point the next "inevitable" step is not in fact taken. New revelation is introduced, and this departure can be utterly startling to the recipients--whether in the form of judgment or blessing!

With man this often (perhaps even ordinarily) indicates a corresponding mental shift. The more radical the change as especially indicated by behavior, the more apparently the mind has led the way with other or even contrary thinking (barring some mental disconnect that indicates problems of a different kind). God's purpose and decree, however, is so unifed and so unalterable as to preclude our thinking this of him. God is so immense that what appear to us as radical changes are no more than the smoothness of glass to him--utterly perfect and harmonious with his grand design.

But what good is it to us if God only describes the evident changes that happen to us by a constant, monotonous reference to his changeless decree? This, the Scripture obviously does not do. It very often describes our experience from the standpoint of our experience. Then it will interpret that experience, sometimes explicitly (less so in the history narratives, most often in the prophetic literature and epistles) and sometimes implicitly, in terms of God's intentions and designs both historical and moral, which in turn all relates to his one everlasting decree.

The Bible is a living book; its about LIFE. Stylistically it is nothing like any other religious literature on earth. And because it is written in the midst of life and about life, it is the perfect vehicle for relaying the Living God's revelation to subsequent generations, and maintains its incredible relevance to our daily lives. It is Theology for Living.