"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent (= repent) concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it."

Piper's Observations:

1. It is entirely possible to see the "plan" of God here to be the thought or intention of his mind that went something like this: "I will bring calamity against a people that is evil and unrepentant." This is true and sincere. In other words, God's "plan" or "intention" or "thought" or "mind" may simply be such a fixed resolve in his mind.  His resolve to punish correlates with the evil presently in the people when he expresses the resolve. If the people repent, God's resolve or "plan" or intention toward that people changes, that is what is meant by his "relenting" or his "repenting." This does not necessarily mean he has not foreknown this change in his "plan."  In fact, the expression of his resolve to punish the kind of people he sees may be the means he uses to bring about the change in them that he foreknows so that his own change of resolve will accord with their new condition.

2. Boyd says that people have tried to evade the meaning of these texts by saying that God is speaking "anthropomorphically." Moreover the only reason one would argue this way, he says, is that one brings to the text a philosophical presupposition that God cannot literally change his mind.

3. But I do not argue this way. I say that there is a real change in God's mind, but that this does not imply a lack of foreknowledge. God can express an intention or a resolve toward a people that accords with what is true now, all the while knowing that this condition will not be true in the future, and that his resolve will also be different when their condition is different. That an future-knowing God speaks this way is owing to the fact that he really means for his word to be the means of bringing about changes in people to which he himself responds in a way that he knows he will.

4. The kind of change of mind Boyd wants to see, namely, a change owing to unforeseen future developments, is resisted perhaps not out of philosophical presuppositions, but out of exegetical insights from other relevant texts which make us hesitant to affirm that God changes his mind without qualification. (See 1 Samuel 15 and the issue of God's repenting that he made Saul king.)

Piper’s interpretation is a very creative variation on the classical approach.  It’s also a bolder one in that he tackles the phrase ‘change of mind’ head-on.  As such it is very worth examining in detail his view of what the texts say.

First, it’s always good to reestablish what classical doctrine teaches.  According to this view, there can be no change in God’s knowledge nor His intentions.  By definition, what is permanently fixed cannot be modified and thus God could not have changed any of His intentions i.e. they were fixed from eternity.

Interestingly enough, Piper seems to be loosening his classical convictions with some of his opening remarks:

“God's ‘plan’ or ‘intention’ or ‘thought’ or ‘mind’ may simply be such a fixed resolve in his mind.  His resolve to punish correlates with the evil presently in the people when he expresses the resolve. If the people repent, God's resolve or ‘plan’ or intention toward that people changes, that is what is meant by his ‘relenting’ or his ‘repenting’.”

I would imagine that no open theists would vehemently disagree with Piper’s comments here.  Except for the quotation marks being spread all over the place, there ought to be no suspicion that Piper’s understanding of God’s repentance defers from the open theism's.

But then comes the classical qualification and along with it no small amount of confusion:

“This does not necessarily mean he has not foreknown this change in his ‘plan’.  In fact, the expression of his resolve to punish the kind of people he sees may be the means he uses to bring about the change in them that he foreknows so that his own change of resolve will accord with their new condition.”

The careful reader should be instantly alerted here as to what Piper meant when he initially said, “If the people repent, God's resolve or ‘plan’ or intention toward that people changes…” (emphasis mine), given his statement now that God foreknew that He would change His own intention or resolve.

Were we speaking all along about a genuine intention or merely a stated but non-existent one?  (And we all know there is a huge difference, don’t we?).  Piper's explanation that, "...the expression of (God's) resolve..." be the means to create change in the people, seems to be drifting towards the latter idea.  He seems to be discussing merely God's expressions of His intentions as opposed to His actual intentions.

But more on this later.  Let's move on and see if we can garner a clearer understanding of what Piper is referring to.  However, his next statement on the matter surely doesn't further the interests of clarity and coherency.

“I say that there is a real change in God's mind, but that this does not imply a lack of foreknowledge.”

Just think about what Piper is saying:  God really changed His mind but foreknew all along that He would.

But if God knows everything (including the future and all actualities), then would this not include the actual circumstances or situation which would cause Him to change His mind?  And if God knew that these later conditions were going to occur for CERTAIN, then what sense does it make (except in a non-literal and frankly non-imaginable one) to say that there was a real change in God's mind?  A change from what?

How can someone genuinely intend to do something he knew for sure he would not do?

Logically the only way he can avoid the charge of nonsense is to hold that God’s initial expressed resolves were just that: mere statements which don’t correspond to anything in God’s mind.

He makes this partially clear (though not clear enough, IMO) in his next comments:

“God can express an intention or a resolve toward a people that accords with what is true now, all the while knowing that this condition will not be true in the future, and that his resolve will also be different when their condition is different.”

What he’s proposing is that God merely expressed a resolve as a means of getting the people to change thereby resulting in Him actualising something different from what He initially said He would do.

But did the original resolve reflect a genuine resolution in the divine mind to act one way given present circumstances AFTER WHICH God experienced a change within His mind when those circumstances changed?

If not then wouldn't the original resolve be simply something which God merely spoke but never actually intended?  (And all open theists will ask, “Does this not represent some kind of duplicity/insincerity?”)

Does Piper’s analysis deal in any way with the actual experiences and thoughts of God at all or was God's declarations just a dramatic way of restating details and options within a divine-human contract?

It's almost certain that Piper was aiming for the latter.  In this case, the divine ‘change of mind’ is simply the activation of one particular ‘clause’ in a contract as a result of a change in Man.  The declarations of God’s intentions/plan/resolve are hence nothing more than a repeating of what the contract says and does not refer to what’s actually truly really going on in the mind of God (because again, how can a permanently fixed mind with permanently fixed intentions ever change its intentions?).

If this is the interpretation we’re going to adopt, then of course it becomes easy to also believe that God knows everything in the future because we were never really talking about what God actually knew or intended anyway!

God never really changed His mind, because His mind was never the issue in Piper’s harmonisation.  According to him, it simply cannot be the case that Prophet Jerry was making true and literal references to the mind of God when he wrote his prophecies.

We’re back to ‘non-literal-ism’ and ‘anthropomorphism’ all over again.  This compels the open theist to (yet again) ask on what basis we can blockade the true nature and mind of God from the scope of Jeremiah’s writings.

“That an future-knowing God speaks this way is owing to the fact that he really means for his word to be the means of bringing about changes in people to which he himself responds in a way that he knows he will.”

Maybe an all-wise God spoke this way because He really meant to let His people know that His mind isn’t fixed on all things and that He can be moved to changed His plans according to their behaviour.

And maybe an all-loving God wishes His people to know how genuinely responsive He is to them and gracious He is in providing the ability to determine the future to a certain extent.
 

In summary, Piper’s interpretation of Jer18, though novel, is merely a repackaging of the classical thesis that the prophet was never referring to the actual state of God’s thinking.  This ingeniously forms a barrier around the true nature of God, shielding it from any exegetical attempts to impute genuine change (all but screaming out from Jeremiah’s texts) to God.

Piper’s novelty lies in his attempts at redefining God’s actual intentions to mean God’s declared intentions.  That there is a huge difference between these two terms (and that the word ‘repentance’ refers to actual changes of mind) will not disturb Piper's theological convictions and hence his exegetical presentations.  Still less will our Reformed theologian revise his interpretation becauseof implications that in his view God declares intentions - for certain people at a certain time - which He has never held and knows He will never hold.

Somehow this is preferable to open theism’s view that when God said He intended to do one thing He really meant it.  Given the people’s present behaviour, He had no actual intention whatsoever to change His course of action.  But when the people repented, then so did God.  What could be simpler than that?

Piper backs up his preference by linking it to ‘exegetical insights’ from other sources in Scripture, specifically 1Sam 15.  This verse is one of only two in the Bible declaring that God does not repent.  Putting aside the issue of us having 30-odd ‘pro-repentance’ verses being decided and reinterpreted on the basis of only two ‘non-repentance’ ones, let’s continue our exploration of Piper’s harmonisations.

And since 1Samuel 15 forms the primary basis of his exegetical views, then it’s probably time that we go there.
 

AL