← Back to sermon library

Samuel chapter 15, I mentioned. Prior to everybody showing up 
tonight, this is going to be a little bit of a different message 
this evening. It's going to be more theological 
in nature. I had mentioned last week that 
there are three passages in chapter 15. that indicate, two indicate 
that God relents, and another one indicates that God does not 
relent. So we need to address that particular 
issue. Interestingly enough, it is the 
issue that ARBCA's been dealing with over the last year and will 
be discussed and probably debated on next week. So in many respects, 
this is a help to me to be able to articulate these things, and 
hopefully in a way that people can understand I don't want to 
dumb down the material in such a way that we can't understand 
it or don't appreciate it in its theological context. So any 
words that I use that perhaps you haven't heard before, I will 
try and define them, just so that we can be singing off the 
same theological page. So basically, verses 11, 29, 
and 35 are the passages in question. And for the sake of time, I'll 
just pick up reading in chapter 15 at verse 10. We covered verses 1 to 9 last 
week. We took some time to consider 
the ethical challenge. Remember, God commands Israel 
to go in and utterly destroy the Amalekites, people outside 
the church and, unfortunately, sometimes people inside the church 
struggle with these sorts of commands, they think it renders 
God as an ethical meanie or as a capricious, vicious judge that 
just inflicts pain and punishment on people. We sought to deal 
with that ethical challenge last week. Tonight, as I said, we're 
going to take up the theological challenge of verses 11, 35, and 
29. Let's read beginning in verse 10. Now the word of the Lord came 
to Samuel saying, I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, 
for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel, and he 
cried out to the Lord all night. So when Samuel rose early in 
the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel saying, Saul 
went to Carmel. And indeed, he set up a monument 
for himself. And he has gone on around, passed 
by, and gone down to Gilgal. Then Samuel went to Saul, and 
Saul said to him, blessed are you of the Lord. I have performed 
the commandment of the Lord. But Samuel said, what then is 
this bleeding of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the 
oxen which I hear? And Saul said, they have brought 
them from the Amalekites. For the people spared the best 
of the sheep and the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God, 
and the rest we have utterly destroyed. And Samuel said to 
Saul, be quiet, and I will tell you what the Lord said to me 
last night. And he said to him, speak on. 
So Samuel said, when you were little in your own eyes, were 
you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the Lord 
anoint you king over Israel? Now the Lord sent you on a mission 
and said, go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, 
and fight against them until they are consumed. Why then did 
you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you swoop down 
on the spoil and do evil in the sight of the Lord? And Saul said 
to Samuel, but I have obeyed the voice of the Lord and gone 
on the mission on which the Lord sent me and brought back Agag, 
king of Amalek. I have utterly destroyed the 
Amalekites. But the people took of the plunder, 
sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been 
utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal. 
So Samuel said, has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings 
and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, 
to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. 
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness 
is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the 
word of the Lord, he also has rejected you from being king. 
Then Saul said to Samuel, I have sinned, for I have transgressed 
the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared 
the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please pardon 
my sin and return with me, that I may worship the Lord.' Samuel 
said to Saul, I will not return with you, for you have rejected 
the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being 
king over Israel. And as Samuel turned around to 
go away, Saul sees 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 a neighbor of yours who is better than you. 
And also the strength of Israel will not lie nor relent, for 
he is not a man that he should relent. Then he said, I have 
sinned, yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people 
and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the 
Lord your God. So Samuel turned back after Saul, 
and Saul worshiped the Lord. And Samuel said, bring Agag, 
king of the Amalekites, here to me. So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, surely the bitterness 
of death has passed. But Samuel said, as your sword 
has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless 
among women. And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces 
before the Lord in Gilgal. And Samuel went to Ramah, and 
Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. And Samuel went 
no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless, 
Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that he had 
made Saul king over Israel." Amen. Well, if we do not get 
to all of the text this evening, we will get to it in two weeks' 
time. Next week, Wednesday night, there 
is no Bible study. So please don't show up next 
Wednesday evening at 730. If you do, you're going to be 
here all alone, and you'll have to conduct the Bible study by 
yourself in the parking lot. As I said, having dealt with 
the ethical challenge of verses 1 to 9 last week, we need to 
deal with this theological challenge. Notice verse 11, God says, I 
greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king." And then in 
verse 35, it says, nevertheless, Samuel mourned for Saul, and 
the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel. But 
right in the middle, in verse 29, Samuel reports, and also 
the strength of Israel will not lie nor relent, for he is not 
a man that he should relent. The Bible uses this language 
of relenting or repenting of God, not just here in 1 Samuel 
chapter 15. It's also found in the book of 
Genesis, in Genesis 6, verses 6 and 7. It's found in the prophet 
Jonah. You'll see it throughout the 
scripture. And on the one hand, we have these texts that say 
God does not repent, God does not relent. And on the other 
hand, we have texts that say God does relent or God does repent. I want to submit to you that 
we do not have a contradiction, that we do not have a paradox, 
that we do not have a problem. But what we have is something 
that the doctrine of divine impassibility addresses. Now, the word impassibility 
simply means that God cannot undergo emotional changes. There's 
a lot that we learn about God by negatives. We say God is infinite. That's a negative. That means 
he's not finite. We say God is invisible. That's 
another negative. That means he's not visible. We say that God is impassable. That means that God is not passable 
or one that undergoes emotional changes. or has these affections 
that move him or sway him in one shape or another. Our confession 
of faith describes God as without body, parts, or passions. That's in the Second London Confession 
of Faith, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1. It was previously found in 
the 39 Articles of the Church of England. It is also found 
in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Savoy Declaration 
of Faith. It has been the consistent testimony 
of the church from the earliest days. It started to be modified 
in about the 1800s. Some good men started 
retooling the particular doctrine. By the time we get into the 20th 
century, it's been modified, and it's been pretty much stripped 
of its classical Christian confessional status. So it is important that 
we understand what impassibility is all about. As I said, it teaches 
quite simply that God cannot undergo emotional changes. In 
its narrower sense, it emphasizes that God cannot suffer. We speak 
of the passion of Christ. That means the sufferings of 
Jesus Christ. So impassibility means narrowly 
defined that God does not suffer. Now certainly Christ, according 
to his humanity, suffered. but we do not argue from the 
humanity of Jesus to the essence of God. That is simply a fallacious 
way to go. We will not have time to deal 
with all of that tonight, but just suffice it to say that throughout 
the history of the Church, the Church has always seen Jesus 
Christ as being one person in two natures, human and divine. The Son of God suffered according 
to his humanity. The deity did not suffer. The 
divinity does not bleed. God does not die. That is an impossibility for 
divinity. So when we say that Jesus suffered, 
Jesus died, Jesus was buried, those are all referring to the 
humanity of our Lord Jesus. So that is something, again, 
that the church has consistently seen. throughout the ages. The 
doctrine of impassibility refers to the divine essence, to God's 
divine nature, to God as God is, and that's what's most important. James Dolezal says that the term 
passion is derived from a late Latin word, passio, which means 
to suffer, to submit, or to undergo. And this is the rub. The idea 
is that God does not undergo emotional changes. Impassibility 
secures for us the doctrine of God wherein He does not change, 
He is not affected, He does not increase, He does not diminish. 
Now if it's rising up in your head, does that mean he's just 
a static rock somewhere out there that has no emotion or no feeling 
toward his creation? It doesn't mean that at all. 
We'll try and clarify as we go along. But I want to just do 
this in steps. So the definition of impassibility. Another definition is that divine 
attribute whereby God has said not to experience inner emotional 
changes. God does not experience inner 
emotional changes. I mean, if you think about it, 
the fact that he's omnipotent, that means all-powerful, he's 
omniscient, that means he knows everything, the fact that he 
has decreed all things whatsoever comes to pass, it cannot be the 
case that he would undergo these sort of emotional fluxes. He's 
never caught by surprise. He's never taken unawares. He 
never has to react to a new contingency. We have passions. We are affected. We have these emotional ups and 
downs because we don't know what a day brings. We are creatures 
and we're limited and we are acted upon. God is not acted 
upon. God is pure act. He is not acted upon and so it 
follows that God is impassable. So that divine attribute where 
God has said not to experience inner emotional changes, whether 
enacted freely from within. Some today have said that God 
decrees these changes in himself. That is simply outlandish. That 
is not the way that we are to treat the scripture. Imagine 
if God decreed that tomorrow he would feel sorrow. How genuine 
would that be? How legitimate would that be? Would it be legitimate to you 
if I said, tomorrow morning, I'm going to cry for you at 8 
o'clock? And that's going to be an expression 
of great love and sorrow and affection. You'd say, that's 
an odd way to approach things. So you see this definition protects 
us from that sort of a reality that God decrees these emotional 
changes. Because they want to have their 
cake and they want to eat it too. They don't want to fall off into 
the waters of what's called open theism. But at the same time, 
they reject classical impassability. And so they try to navigate this 
sort of center place, but it's riddled with problems and obstacles 
and difficulties. So whether enacted freely from 
within, that's called ad intra. Whenever you see that. I'm supposing 
you read theology books. If you ever see ad intra, that's 
the Latin phrase for something internal. God does not have internal 
sort of things going on in him. There's no sort of war. You know, 
on the one hand, sometimes you want to do this, and on the other 
hand, you want to have this. Those are ad intra. That's something 
going on in you. So impassibility says that there 
is no ad intra effect upon the emotional life of God. But as 
well, it's not affected by his relationships to and interaction 
with human beings in the created order. In other words, add extra. 
Those things outside of God do not so affect God or move God 
to this emotional recoil. God, rather, is impassable. There's no fluctuation, there's 
no up and down, there's no this way one day and this way the 
other day. God is not like us. That is fundamental 
and crucial to the doctrine of impassibility, the creator-creature 
distinction. That is fundamental in all of 
theology. God is God, and we are not. God is in a different order of 
being than we are. It's not like it's, you know, 
slug, and then dog, and then man, and then angel, and then 
God. God is not in that order of being. It's slug and dog and man and 
angel. That's it. In the created realm. Now there's a lot of other creatures 
I'm representing from slug to dog and, you know, to man and 
to angel. I'm just kind of giving you a 
representation of the created order. God's outside of that. 
God is God. He is the creator. He is not 
like us. He loves to be sure, and we love 
to be sure. But God is love. That can't be said of you and 
I. That is very essential to the being of God. We either love, 
or we don't, or we increase. or we diminish. We need to understand 
God is in his own category of being. Now secondly, we look 
at the definition of impassibility. What is the relationship to immutability? You've probably heard that word. 
That's probably the more familiar word. Again, it's another negation. We learn something about God 
by what he is not. Immutability means he cannot 
change, right? He cannot change. Isn't this 
what scripture tells us? Malachi 3.16, I, the Lord, do 
not change. Isn't that a blessing? Isn't 
that wonderful? Isn't that amazing? James 1.17, 
every good and perfect gift comes from our Father, our Father in 
heaven, in whom there is no shadow of turning. There is no deviation 
in our God. He is always the same. He is 
rock solid. Well, if you have immutability, 
then it necessarily follows that God is impassible. If He cannot 
change, He certainly does not change in terms of His emotional 
life. So impassibility is a subset 
of immutability. So listen now, if you mess with 
impassibility, guess what you're going to mess with? you're going 
to mess with immutability. It is absolutely impossible to 
rework or retool impassibility and not affect immutability. You're going to end up with a 
god of open theism, a god who doesn't know what's going to 
happen tomorrow, a god who's hoping and rooting for you to 
make it above all hopes and odds. So we need to understand there 
is a very intimate and close relationship between immutability 
and impassibility. Listen to the theologian Hermann 
Baving. He said, those who predicate 
any change, that word predicate is going to come out again. I'm 
going to define it right now. If I were to take any human being 
and I was to predicate concerning them, all it means is to describe 
them. I'm predicating of this person 
that he has blue eyes, and he has gray hair, and he wears glasses, 
and he walks with a limp. But predication is simply a description 
about a subject. That's all predication means. 
Predication is a description about a subject. Okay? That's 
it. So this is what Baving says. 
Those who predicate. That means ascribe or describe. Those who predicate any change 
whatsoever of God, whether with respect to his essence, knowledge, 
or will, diminish all his attributes. This is the case. There was a 
man by the name of Clark Pinnock, and this man at one time was 
a very orthodox Reformed theologian. Clark Pinnock did not end well. 
He ended up as an open theist, denying just about everything 
that was intrinsic to the character of God. Do you know what started 
his downfall? It was the denial of the doctrine 
of impassibility. And other theologians have described 
it. It's like a sweater. If you see a thread hanging off 
the sweater, do you just pull the thread? What happens? The 
whole sweater starts to be affected, doesn't it? I think we all do 
this as kids, right? You know, you go and you pull 
that thing and then your sweater kind of bunches up and your mom 
says, what are you doing? You knucklehead, you don't pull 
strings from a sweater because it affects the whole sweater. 
Well, when you take the doctrine of impassibility and you wrench 
it from the sweater, you're going to affect the entirety of God. 
You see, this is no small thing. Some of the people in Arbca are 
saying, what's the big deal? We ought to just agree to disagree. 
No, we ought to agree to disagree on eschatology, we ought to agree 
to disagree on what color hymn books we use, but we don't agree 
to disagree on the doctrine of our God. And when we affect, 
or when we deal with impassibility, I believe that Bavinck is right. We diminish all his attributes. Independence. God is independent. He is singular. He is alone. He is not dependent upon us. We are always dependent on God 
all the time. God is not dependent upon His 
creation. God is not dependent on anything 
outside of God. There is nothing that gives God 
encouragement or meaning or life or sustenance or anything like 
that. The Bhavink says, those who predicate any change whatsoever 
of God, whether with respect to his essence, knowledge, or 
will, diminish all his attributes. Which attributes? Independence, 
simplicity. Now the doctrine of divine simplicity 
is what the confession is referring to when it says he's without 
parts. We are made up of parts, aren't 
we? We are composite beings. God isn't like that. There's 
not a bunch of God parts that are put together to make God. 
See, we are flesh, we are bone, we are blood, we are mind, we 
are will, we are affection, we're a conglomeration of all kinds 
of things. When the Bible, or when the Confession 
speaks of God as being without parts, And theologians call this 
divine simplicity. It doesn't mean simple like foolish 
or ignorant. It means not composite. God is 
all that he is all the time. God is identical with his attributes. When we talk about the attributes 
of God, it's not like you've got God who's a 30% love and 
30% wrath and 30% mercy. God is everything he is all the 
time, always, without diminishing and without increasing. That's 
the doctrine of divine simplicity. Inevitably, when you mess with 
impassibility, guess what topples? Simplicity. This idea that God 
is simple. Bavi then says, eternity. Eternity is messed with when 
you deny impassibility. Omniscience. I mean, in the very 
text tonight, God relents over what had happened. Now if you 
just think for a moment, This happened according to God's decree, 
didn't it? Doesn't God decree all things 
whatsoever comes to pass? So if impassibility is wrong 
and God really does have these emotional convulsions, who ultimately 
should God be upset with according to 1 Samuel 15, 11? God! Saul's just doing what he was 
supposed to do according to the decree. So if God is relenting, 
and God is sorrowful, and God is feeling this emotional angst, 
it has to be over what he's done, right? That seems to follow, 
unless we can understand the text. in its proper sense, which 
I hope, hopefully, we'll argue with later, argue for, and omnipotence. And then this is what Boving 
says, because sometimes it comes up, well, what practical benefit 
is this? Come on, what's the benefit? How many times have 
you heard a sermon on impassibility? Brethren, there is no practical 
benefit without impassibility. If your God changes today, or 
He changes tomorrow, or He's going to change next March, you're 
in big trouble. Here's what Bovink says, this 
robs God of His divine nature and religion of its firm foundation 
and assured comfort. Amen, a hundredfold. We could 
just stop there and pray and thank the Lord that Bavinck wrote 
these words because it's so fitting. But a third observation, you're 
probably thinking, why doesn't he just pray? I hope everybody's 
with me. You're trafficking, trying to 
define the terms, everything's clear. Thirdly, the doctrine 
of divine impassibility does not mean that God has no affections 
or relatability to his creation. Of course God relates to his 
creation. Of course God undertakes and 
does mighty miracles for his people. Of course God manifests 
himself. in the preaching of the word, 
in the prayers of the saints, in the providence of God, in 
the life of His people. Certainly there is a relatability 
that God affords to His people. We will never walk alone because 
God is with us. We have the benefit. of the presence 
and the power of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of divine impassibility 
has been misrepresented to teach that it's just this cold, static, 
and inert God. Nothing could be farther from 
the truth. It does not yield that particular 
view. What, fourthly, the doctrine 
of divine impassibility does mean is that God does not increase 
nor diminish in the perfections that He has. He does not increase 
or diminish in the perfections that he has. Our confession goes 
on to describe God. After speaking of him without 
body, parts, or passions, it's then able to say this, most loving. Isn't that beautiful? What does 
most loving mean? It means he can't get more loving. Most loving is as good as it 
gets. So the doctrine of divine impassibility 
means that he'll never be less than most loving to you. It actually 
secures God's relatability. It actually secures the fact 
that he has affections, and he pours them out abundantly upon 
his people. The confession says most loving, 
and I think the most qualifies everything that follows. most 
loving, most gracious, most merciful, most long-suffering, most abundant 
in goodness and truth." You see, the same confession, the same 
paragraph that affirms that God is without passions is able to 
affirm this reality. Excuse me. Because of the doctrine 
of divine impassibility. Take, for instance, 1 John 4a. I've already referred to this. God is love. That's his essence. That's, you know, the attributes 
of God. If, as I said before, they don't 
make up God. It's not like a little part of 
this, a little part of that, a little part of this, and we 
have a God. You see, then God would be dependent upon those 
parts. And God's not dependent, remember? 
He's independent. God is not dependent on God parts 
that make him up. With God, we need to understand 
that all that is in God is God. So that God is his essence, his 
existence, and his attributes. Not that God has love, but God 
is love. And in saying that, we need to 
realize, again, that man loves, but it is not the case that man 
is love. Could anyone describe you that 
way? Jim is love. I doubt my wife would describe 
me that way. I doubt any of you would describe 
me that way. Jim is love. That is not essential 
to Jim. It is essential, however, to 
God. You see, God is love. Now, we need to follow this for 
a moment. We can grow in love. We can diminish in our love. 
This is not the case with God. He is his attributes. If God 
increases in his love, what does that mean? It means he wasn't 
perfect before the increase. If God decreases in his love, 
what does that mean? It means he leaves the place 
of perfection. You see, if he's most loving, 
he gets better, and he wasn't most, so he wasn't perfect in 
this mode, so now he's become perfect. If he's most loving 
and he decreases, what does that mean? He's no longer at the status 
of perfection. Stephen Charnock made this observation. If God does change, it must be 
either to a greater perfection than he had before or to a less, 
right? If you posit change of God, there's 
only one of two ways he can go. He can either get better or he 
can get worse. Now I hope you see the ludicrous, 
what's the word, ludicracy? Is that the word? I think so. 
The foolishness of saying such a thing. Does the God of the 
Bible have the potential to be better at God? Does the God of 
the Bible have the potential to be less than better at God? You see, the very asking of the 
question makes one smile, because it's so not what the scripture 
sets forth. Charnot says, if God does change, 
it must be either to a greater perfection than he had before 
or to a less, if to the better He was not perfect, and so was 
not God. If to the worse, he will not 
be perfect, and so be no longer God after that change." You see, 
there's a lot riding on this particular doctrine of divine 
impassibility. Two simple words without passions 
can affect the entirety of chapter 2, which is the doctrine of God. 
But then chapters 3 to 32 in our Confession of Faith all are 
founded upon that are grounded upon that foundation. You see, 
if that's not the God of the Bible, then the rest of that 
theology is up for grabs. When we get to God's covenantal 
dealings with his people, how do we know that he's going to 
actually save us? Like he says, how do we know 
he's not going to change on a whim? How do we know he's not going 
to say, you know what? Forget about it. I just don't 
want you anymore. It is the doctrine of immutability, 
the doctrine of impassibility, that secures for us the fact 
that the God who has covenanted, the God who has promised, the 
God that has revealed himself to be faithful to his people 
will, in fact, be faithful to them day in and day out, come 
whatever may. This is the foundation for comfort, 
for joy, and I believe that Bavinck is right. If we deny this, it 
robs God of his divine nature and religion of its firm foundation 
and assured comfort. Now let's look at verse 11. Remember 
the scene. Soon as Saul becomes king, it's 
downhill from there. Right? I mean, Saul You just 
kind of want to say Saul. Come on, dude. Like, what's going 
on here? The people clamor for a king. 
They want a king. They want to be like the other 
nations. God tells Samuel, tell them this is the kind of king 
they're going to get. They want the king. God sends them Saul. 
Soon as Saul takes the position, things start going bad for Saul. 
Chapter 15 is certainly no exception to that particular rule. So we 
see, God tells Saul, go in, kill the Amalekites. Go in, kill the 
Amalekites. Go in, kill the Amalekites. What 
did Saul do? He went in, and he didn't kill 
all the Amalekites. He spared Agag, and he spared 
livestock. Because Saul, you see, is a pious 
man, right? He's a very religious sort. He 
wants to have animals so he can sacrifice to the Lord. And probably 
because he wants to have animals, because he likes more animals, 
you see. But Saul goes in, he disobeys God. Verse 10, we see, 
now the word of the Lord came to Samuel saying, I greatly regret 
that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following 
me and has not performed my commandments. So everything I've just said 
concerning the doctrine of divine impassibility is undone because 
we see here that God greatly regrets something that he has 
done. As I mentioned, the word that is used here is used also 
in Genesis chapter 6, verses 6 and 7, where the Lord was sorry 
or grieved the Lord when he saw the wickedness of man on the 
earth. It's also used in Numbers 23, 19, which seems to be a bit 
of backdrop for this particular text. You can turn there for 
a moment. Numbers 23, 19. God is not a man that he should 
lie, nor a son of man that he should repent. Has he said and 
will he not do? Or has he spoken and will he 
not make it good? This is the expression used in 
numbers. This is what? Samuel says in 
verse 29 specifically, but here God says, I greatly regret that 
I have set up Saul as king. So everybody feel the pressure. 
We got this statement in 11. We got the statement in 35. God 
says, I regret. And then in verse 29, we have 
this statement from Samuel that says, God won't relent. God's 
not a man that he should relent. I mean, anybody would at least, 
if they never heard the issues, they never had the idea, you'd 
probably scratch your melon and wonder, what's going on here? 
Or when you get to the prophet Jonah, and God says he repents, 
some of those things probably have caused you to stop and think 
at least a little bit along the way. Or Genesis 6, when God is 
sorry and grieved. You just heard in Sunday school 
that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and he decrees whatsoever comes 
to pass, and then he says he's grieved over this. Well, what's 
going on? Well, we need to be able to answer 
these particular questions. So the word is used, as I said 
here, Genesis numbers. The priority, or what we ought 
to do with reference to Bible interpretation, is take the priority 
of the essence of God texts. Texts that teach us who God is 
come before texts that teach us what God does. Priority there 
does not mean more important necessarily. It means first in 
order of interpretation. Isn't this what Samuel does in 
the passage before us? Samuel does this very thing. 
Sometimes people say, well, that's arbitrary. You've got to take 
those texts that tell us what God is like, and how he reacts, 
and how he responds, and how he emotes. You've got to take 
those texts and help those, or make those help you understand 
the essence of God's text. That's not what Samuel does. 
When Samuel speaks specifically concerning the nature, the essence, 
the character of God, he tells us verse 29. The strength of 
Israel will not lie nor relent, for he is not a man that he should 
relent." So in spite of the fact that God tells Samuel, I greatly 
regret that I made Saul. Samuel does not abandon his doctrine 
of God. Samuel does not embrace open 
theism. Samuel does not deny impassibility 
or immutability. Samuel holds fast to the classical, 
confessional, biblical doctrine of divine impassibility. When 
he comes to speak concerning the essence of God, Samuel says, 
the strength of Israel will not lie nor relent, for he is not 
a man that he should relent. We give priority to essence of 
God texts. Exodus 3.14, I am who I am. That's a passage that probably 
deals with the doctrine of independence. God is independent. He is not 
dependent upon us. He is not dependent upon this 
creation. There may be overtones or hidden 
notes of simplicity and a lot of other things going on in Exodus 
3.14 when God reveals himself through that divine name. Numbers 
23, 1 Samuel 15, 29, Malachi 3, I the Lord do not change. 
We look at texts that describe God in his essence, in his being, 
who he is. That takes priority. Again, not 
that it's not important, but it takes priority in terms of 
who God is, and then we understand what does he do toward men. A 
third thing we need to understand is that the Bible uses what's 
called figurative language. You all know what this means. 
Jesus said, I am the true vine. Jesus does not tell us or nothing 
in us has the thought that there are grapes growing off of Jesus. 
We know this to be a figure of speech. When Jesus says, I am 
the door, we do not suppose for a minute that Jesus has hinges. When Jesus says those things, 
He is speaking figuratively. He is using a metaphor, a figure 
of speech, to reveal certain truth about himself to his people. Is everybody with me? This isn't 
new. When Jesus says, I am the door, 
or I am the vine, or I am the bread of life, This is not a 
new convention in scripture. The Bible everywhere uses figures 
of speech or metaphor. There's two primary types that 
you need to understand. One is called anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism simply means 
that we ascribe human characteristics to God, right? How does Jesus 
define God for us in John 4, 24? God is spirit, isn't he? We all would agree with that 
reality that God is spirit. Spirits don't have eyes. Spirits 
don't have hands. Spirits don't have feet, right? 
Of course not. They're spirits. The very nature 
of spirit means not extended into space. There is nothing 
in a spirit in terms of space, you know, occupying a particular 
part of space. So when the Bible tells us that 
the eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the good and 
the evil. Do we actually believe for a 
moment that there's a spirit being that has eyes? No, it's 
a figure that we're all very commonly aware of. Second Chronicles 
16, the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole 
earth. I hope you don't actually envision 
There's somehow eyes with feet, and they're running throughout. 
No, it's a figure of speech. And when the prophet Isaiah specifically, 
or God through the prophet Isaiah, said that I will demonstrate 
my power, my powerful right arm. That doesn't mean that God has 
an arm. In fact, in Exodus 6-6, in the New King James, it talks 
about God and His powerful arm, or His outstretched arm. And 
the margin actually says mighty power. The margin doesn't need 
to say that because I think we all intrinsically get it. When 
a spirit reflects or says that I'm going to do this with my 
outstretched arm, we just automatically know it's talking about mighty 
power. We don't think there's a spirit with an arm. We think 
that means that God is exercising power and might and strength 
in the salvation of his people. So anthropomorphism, just to 
show a hint, who's heard that word before? Okay, fair, good. Now the second one that is very 
important for the doctrine of impassibility is anthropopathism. Anthropopathism, as you might 
suspect, it's just like anthropomorphism. But if anthropomorphism is the 
ascribing of bodily parts to God, anthropopathism is ascribing 
emotions or human sort of affections to God. Ascribing human emotions 
to God is something that the Bible does. In fact, go to Genesis 
6, you see both anthropomorphism and anthropopathism used in this 
particular passage. Genesis 6, 6. Man, it is cooking in here. Can 
I open this window? Sorry. That's it. No more heat on Wednesday 
nights. Bring a jacket if you think it 
might be cold. Genesis, I'm just kidding. I'll 
still turn the heat on. It killed me to turn the heat 
on today, but I thought, you know, somebody's going to come. 
They're going to be cold. And then I'm the big bad meanie. 
All right, notice in Genesis 6, 5, then the Lord saw that 
the wickedness of man was great in the earth. I mean, even that 
convention there, God saw. I mean, who of us actually thinks 
there's a spirit up there kind of looking to see what... It's 
speaking to us in the manner of man. Right? God is wholly 
other. He's in a different category 
than us. In order for him to effectively 
communicate to us, he has to use our language, or we're not 
going to get it. The confession also says in 2.1 
that he's known only by himself. That doesn't mean we can't know 
truth about God, but it means that the one who only knows God 
is God. ultimately, right? But he does 
reveal himself to us. So just look at the convention 
that the biblical authors use here. Then the Lord saw. Then, 
the whole idea that, oh, all of a sudden God now sees. God 
is eternal. God is over all. God sees everything 
all the time, all at once. There's no sort of gradation 
of thought with God. There's no sort of deduction 
or induction with God. There's no learning process with 
God. There's no getting more information. When God says to Adam and Eve, 
who told you? The question isn't for God. The 
question is for them. You see, God is not devoid of 
knowledge. God is not absent of any understanding. He speaks to us in the manner 
of men. Keep that little phrase in your 
head. In the manner of men. Notice 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. And the Lord was sorry that he 
had made man on the earth and he was grieved in his heart. 
How come we take heart anthropomorphically and we realize that the spirit 
being doesn't have a heart, it's speaking in the manner of man, 
trying to communicate something to us at our level. How come 
we don't apply that to the preceding statement that he was grieved, 
right? It's not not teaching us anything. It's still teaching us that God 
hates sin, God is a holy being, God is righteous and just, and 
God's view of sin is in this particular order. But to say 
that he was grieved or sorrowful in the sense that you and I grieve 
in sorrow? That's simply not true of God 
Most High. So when we talk about anthropomorphism 
and anthropopathism, what these things relate are in fact true. There's been those who have said, 
when you reduce things to anthropopathism, you say there's no truth value 
there. No, there is truth value. We're learning what sin looks 
like. We're learning about the holiness of God. We're learning 
about the character of God. Just like when we say, God really 
doesn't have a right arm, we still understand that he's full 
of power, might, and strength. You see, the truth is communicated 
regardless of the figure, but the figure doesn't have to be 
taken literally. You see that? It's very important. 
So when we come to this whole idea of the use of figurative 
language in the fourth place, there is what's called proper 
and improper predication. Remember that word predication? 
That's when you ascribe or describe or say something about God. The 
Bible does that properly and improperly. Just get out of your 
head what you think properly and improperly means there. Properly 
means something that is proper to God. When we say God is love, 
that is proper to God. That is a proper predication. When we say God is spirit, that's 
a proper predication. That is actually true of God 
in his essence, in his essential being. But an improper predication 
is when we say God has an arm, when we say God has eyes. It is saying something about 
God that is improper for the purpose of teaching us something. There's a purpose that God has 
in using these improper predications, because you remember, it's not 
like slug, dog, man, angel, God, so he's just talking down to 
those lower in the food chain. No, it is slug, dog, man, angel, 
God. For him to communicate with us, 
there are times he has to use these improper predications so 
that we'll get it. You see? We don't understand 
things about God unless, the way Calvin says, he lisps to 
us. In fact, let me quote Calvin 
from the Institutes. He says, the anthropomorphites. What do you think the anthropomorphites 
did? The anthropomorphites, we just 
said anthropomorphism, is ascribing human features to God. There was a group called the 
anthropomorphites that believed that God had human features. 
There are those today who think that God has human features. 
If God appears to men and he has feet, well therefore God 
must have feet. These are improper predications. They're designed to teach us 
something, but not that God has feet. So listen to Calvin. The 
anthropomorphites also who imagined a corporeal or a human or bodily 
God from the fact that scripture often ascribes to him a mouth, 
ears, eyes, hands, and feet are easily refuted. For who even 
of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly 
do with infants, God is wont in a measure to lisp in speaking 
to us? When you talk to your one-year-old, 
you don't talk to him or her the way we're talking now. You 
say goo-goo-goo-goo. You say funny things, goofy things. You make faces at them. You do 
some shenanigans so you can connect with them. You see, that's what 
Calvin's saying. The nurse lisps to the infant. Because if you say, infant, I 
want you to eat your banana. I want you to lay down. I want 
you to pull the blanket over, put your head down, and have 
a nice eight hour nap, the infant's going to look at you like you're 
a bug. They're not going to know what you're talking about. So 
you've got to guide them and say funny things and put them 
in their place. I love the way he says this, 
who even of slight intelligence does not understand that as nurses 
commonly do with infants, God is want and a measure to list 
in speaking to us. Thus, such forms of speaking 
do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate 
the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. You see, he's saying 
that this does not describe God in his essence, It's not that 
God has hands, God has feet, God has eyes, God has ears. It's 
not describing him in his likeness, but rather it is accommodating 
the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this, he must 
descend far beneath his loftiness. In order for him to talk to us, 
he has to use our language, or we're not going to get it. It is that simple. Calvin then 
applies this principle. For my money, Gil and Calvin 
is as good as it gets in terms of theologians. They both wrote 
systematic theologies, and they both wrote Bible commentaries. 
You see, sometimes you have guys that are strong in Bible, but 
they're not too good in systematic theology. Sometimes you have 
guys that are strong in systematic theology, but not so strong in 
Bible. You see, Calvin and Gil both 
did Bible commentary, and systematic theology. So when you see in 
the institutes Calvin give principles, you can read them in the commentaries 
being fleshed out. The same with Gill. You see the 
principles of interpretation that he uses in his systematic 
theology. You read his commentaries, and 
you see it fleshed out. You see it applied. You see it 
put into practice. So listen to how Calvin deals 
with Genesis 6.6. He says, the repentance, this 
is what it says, the Lord was sorry that he had made man on 
the earth and he was grieved in his heart. The repentance, 
which is here ascribed to God, does not properly belong to him. Remember, proper predication 
and improper. Proper is God is love, God is 
holy, God is righteous. But improper is God is grieved, 
or God relents, or God repents, or God has hair, or God has feet, 
or God has eyes. Those are improper predications. So he says, the repentance which 
is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but 
has reference to our understanding of him. It is for us that this 
language is in the scripture. We go to the nature of God text. He does not change. That means 
he doesn't have emotional flux. He doesn't react. He doesn't 
respond. He doesn't have a bad day. He 
never has a case of the Mondays. He never feels icky. He's always 
the same. He is God. He is lisping to us 
to teach us truly what he thinks about sin. what he thinks about 
man in sin, what he says concerning his own holiness and his uprightness, 
and the expression of his judgment and righteousness that is to 
follow when he pours out the flood upon an apostate race. Calvin says, that repentance 
cannot take place in God easily appears from this single consideration, 
that nothing happens which is by Him unexpected or unforeseen. You see Calvin says there's no 
repentance because there's nothing that's unforeseen, there's nothing 
unexpected. God doesn't ever look down upon 
the creation and say, wow, I can't believe they're actually doing 
that. How can it possibly be in light 
of the fact that Paul the Apostle tells us that he predetermines 
and purposes all things that come to pass? You see, it's Ephesians 
1.11. It's not Westminster Shorter 
Catechism that teaches us concerning God's eternal decree of whatsoever 
comes to pass. So you see, he knows what's coming. 
He sees what's happening. He's not caught unawares. He's 
not caught off guard. He doesn't react. He doesn't 
respond. He uses this language to teach 
his creatures what we ought to think concerning his holiness, 
what we ought to think concerning man's sinfulness, and what we 
ought to appreciate in terms of his redemptive course and 
how he's going to remedy this situation. Many of the commentators, 
the old boys, with reference to 1 Samuel 15, they say, to 
will a change is not a change in the will. To will a change, 
God's decree, God's purpose, God's plan all along. envisioned 
the fall of Saul for the installment of the Davidic dynasty. I mean, 
that goes back to Genesis 3.15. So to will a change does not 
mean a change in the will. This is how Gil describes verse 
11 in 1 Samuel 15. We're going to be finished in 
just a minute. Which is not to be understood. The text again, I greatly regret 
that I have set up Saul as king. Gil says, which is not to be 
understood of any change of mind, counsel, purpose, or decree in 
God, which is not consistent with his unchangeable nature. 
You see, the Bible says, I, the Lord, do not change. James tells 
us there is no shadow of turning. There's no variation in our God. He is the same constant, consistent, 
faithful, rock-solid being upon whom we can cast our anchor and 
never be frustrated. He goes on to say, but a change 
of dispensation and outward dealings and is spoken after The manner 
of men. You see, this is commonplace 
in the older theologians when they deal with this doctrine, 
because they understand there are things that are spoken to 
us that are after the manner of men. Hands, feet, all these 
things ascribed to God are after the manner of men. So is emotional 
turmoil. So are these fluxes. So are these 
changes. These are after the manner of 
men. who, when they repent of anything, change the course of 
their conduct and behavior. And so the Lord does without 
any change of his mind and will, which alters not. And though 
he changes the outward dispensations of his providence, yet he never 
changes and alters in the matters and methods of his grace. It is the sinner that changes. It's not God. It's our relation 
to him that changes. God does not change. That is 
settled through and through in the scripture. And just in conclusion, 
if ever there were a candidate to modify the doctrine of divine 
impassibility, one would think it would be Samuel. Right? I mean, verse 11. Does it get 
any clearer? God says to Samuel. That's what 10 says. The word 
of Yahweh came to Samuel saying, I greatly regret that I have 
set up Saul as king. Of anybody in the world that 
could have taken that and said, well, wait a minute. Maybe that 
means God does change. Maybe that means there is flux. 
Maybe that means there is increase. Or there is decrease, or there 
is this turmoil, or there is emotivity, or there is relational 
affectability. No. What we find in verse 29, 
Samuel maintains the consistent testimony of Scripture concerning 
the essence and being of God, and also the strength of Israel, 
will not lie nor relent. For he is not a man that he should 
relent. Remember I told you that creator-creature 
distinction is most important. The Bible everywhere upholds 
it. He is not a man. See implication. He's in a different 
category. Men relent. Men change. Men are 
full of emotional flocks, but not God. Not God ever. It's interesting. In this very passage, what happens? 
Samuel changes. Samuel says that he's not going 
to go with Saul, and he ends up going with Saul. Samuel's 
a man. Men change. Men do this sort 
of a thing, but not God. God's will and decree and purpose 
was always for the installment of the Davidic dynasty. Along 
the way, when there's sin and there's evil and there's wickedness, 
God says these things. He speaks in the manner of man 
so that we see the rupture and the breach that sin does bring. 
We see the holiness and the righteousness and the goodness of our God. 
And we see what rebellion ultimately does deserve the judgment and 
the punishment of God. So there is truth revealed to 
us in these figures of speech, but the truth is not that God 
has hands, God has feet, and God has bad days, where God fluctuates 
or expresses emotivity that is somehow inconsistent with the 
essence of God as it is revealed in Holy Scripture. All right, 
well, I'll close in prayer, and if anybody has a question, we 
can take that. Our Father, we thank you for your word. We thank 
you for theology and for the ability to take scripture and 
to compare it with other scripture and to be able to hopefully bring 
it together and synthesize it. to show and to demonstrate and 
to see that there are no contradictions, there is no paradox, there is 
no conflict in holy writ. All that it reveals to us concerning 
God is clear, it is concise, it is for the benefit of your 
preachers. I pray that we would receive these things, and they 
would be of benefit and help to us, that each and every day 
that we flocks and that we emote and that we have all this turmoil, 
our God changes not. Our God is glorious, and our 
God is always most loving and most gracious to us. Go with 
us now, we pray, in Jesus' name. Amen.