God says, "I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments."

1 Samuel 15:28-29

And Samuel said to [Saul],"The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent for he is not a man, that he should repent."

1 Samuel 15:35

"And the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel"
 

Piper's Observations:

1. A natural reading of 1 Samuel 15 would seem to imply that there is a way that God does "repent" and a way that he does not. That is what I am arguing in the texts that Boyd puts forward. He insists that God repents in a way that implies lack of foreknowledge of what is coming. I think this is the kind of "repentance" that would fall under Samuel's criticism: "God is not a man that he should repent."

2. In other words, God does not have the human limitations of knowledge that would involve him in repenting that way. Rather his repentance is an expression of a resolve or an attitude that is fitting in view of new circumstances. That God is ignorant of what will call for that new resolve or attitude is not necessarily implied in the change.

3. So the repentance over Saul means not that he did not know what Saul would be like, but that he disapproves of what Saul has become and that he feels sorrow at this evil in his anointed king and that he looks back on his making him king with the same sorrow that he experienced at that moment when he made him king, foreknowing all the sorrow that would come.

For God to say, "I feel sorrow that I made Saul king," is not the same as saying, "I would not make him king if I had it to do over knowing what I know now." God is able to feel sorrow for an act that he does in view of foreknown evil and pain, and yet go ahead and will to do it for wise reasons. And so later when he looks back on the act he can feel the sorrow for the act that was leading to the sad conditions, such as Saul's disobedience.

The entirety of Piper's harmonisation hangs (rather precariously, I think) on his subordination of the 'pro-repentance' verses (vs.11 and 35) by the 'non-repentance' verse (vs.29).  You will notice that nowhere does he justify why he feels that: "God does not have the human limitations of knowledge that would involve him in repenting that way. Rather his repentance is an expression of a resolve or an attitude that is fitting in view of new circumstances."

But then again, from where is derived our understanding of divine knowledge such that we're sure that He knows every actuality in the future?  What manner of epistemology do we employ to so confidently state that 15:29 should be taken to mean 'just what it says', but that 15:11 and 15:35 refers only to, again, God's 'expression of a resolve' (see our response to Piper's harmonisation on Jeremiah for more detail on this)?  Why can't the meanings be switched, such that it is in fact vs.29 which refers to an expression of divine resolve (not to change His mind in that particular situation)?

Piper states that the repentance of the kind which implies limited knowledge is that which Samuel criticises with "God is not a man that He should repent" (vs.29).  However there is strong reason to believe that what is being denied here is not the capacity to change one's mind (which would be quite problematic for the character of a God who doesn't seem to mind saying very often that He changes His mind) but rather the possibility that God's integrity is like that of Man who often says one thing whilst intending another.

Again, I'd point the reader to the more detailed treatment of this passage.

In conclusion, Piper's harmonisations suffer heavily from a lack of integrity with respect to dealing with the texts.  His assumptions of exhaustive foreknowledge is the very thing he reads into these passages which should form the core data for his formulation of the doctrine of omniscience itself.  Yet the central Reformed doctrine of immutability is ironically based on such harmonisations - orthodoxy at the very least needs to look much harder at their exegetical foundations.

Most importantly theologians like Boyd should not be labelled as deviants if they see these passages as plainly showing a loving God who has sovereignly designed His favourite creatures with the awesome capacity to make choices which are in ways ex nihilo.  This willingness and courage to face an open future and handle the difficulties and frustrations and surprises and 'the unknown' as they occur and yet to promise ultimate victory for His Beloved...*phew*...don't try too hard to figure this out... and most of all, don't assume about God too much contrary to what He's revealed about Himself, *smile*.
 

AL