神的后悔Divine Repentance
作者：R.C. Sproul 译者/校对者:
唐兴/诚之
神会改变祂的心意吗？如果神是不变的（immutable），如果祂不会有任何的改变，是否意味着祂从来都不会改变祂的心意呢？这是一个棘手的问题。圣经中似乎有时候讲到神改变了祂的心意。例如，让我们看看以下发生在摩西时代的事件：
11 摩西便恳求耶和华－他的上帝说：「耶和华啊，你为甚么向你的百姓发烈怒呢？这百姓是你用大力和大能的手从埃及地领出来的。12 为甚么使埃及人议论说『他领他们出去，是要降祸与他们，把他们杀在山中，将他们从地上除灭』？求你转意，不发你的烈怒，后悔，不降祸与你的百姓。13 求你记念你的仆人亚伯拉罕、以撒、以色列。你曾指着自己起誓说：『我必使你们的后裔像天上的星那样多，并且我所应许的这全地，必给你们的后裔，他们要永远承受为业。』」14 于是耶和华后悔，不把所说的祸降与他的百姓。（出32：11-14）
神会“后悔”（relented）？其他的翻译本把这个字译为“改变祂的心意” 。此段的叙述文似乎非常清楚地讲到，神有时的确会改变祂的心意。也许神的本质没有改变，但祂的心意是否在某些时候，会有些微的犹豫呢？当我们读到其他经文时，这个问题就更加令人困扰了：
上帝非人，必不致说谎，也非人子，必不致后悔。他说话岂不照着行呢？他发言岂不要成就呢？ （民23：19-20）
同样的概念也在其他地方重复出现：
以色列的大能者必不致说谎，也不致后悔；因为他迥非世人，决不后悔。」（撒上15：29）
圣经是否有矛盾呢？我们要如何来理解这个问题呢？
我们可以举手投降，并且同意圣经的批判者所坚持的，认为圣经的确具有明显的错误或矛盾。然而，更明智的做法，乃是去设法解决“现象性语言”（phenomenological language）的问题。（所谓的“现象性语言”是说：事物的外貌或幻觉，取决于我们的视角，“我们看事情的方式”。我们所看到的事物的外貌，未必是事物的真相。）圣经作者的目的，是提出神学的论述，关于神和人以及其世界的真理，祂并没有使用现代科学式的精准和技术性的语言。
圣经经常从观查者的角度来描述一些事件。圣经没有“教导”太阳绕着地球运行，但却讲到日出和日落。（就连现代的科学家，使用普通的语言时也这样说。听听地方电视台的气象学家，他们如何讲到太阳的“升起”和“落下”。）
圣经中，最明显使用现象性语言的地方，就是用人类的语言来描述神。圣经讲到神的来去，神的愤怒，和神的转意、不发怒气。神被描述为具有膀臂、手、脸、和脚。然而，这些许多借着人类的外貌来描述神的经文，也受到其他经文清晰的警告和提醒，这些经文平衡合理的告诉我们：神不是人。值得注意的是，在这些“棘手”的信息中，那平衡合理的论述精确地讲到：神“并非世人，决不后悔（改变祂的心意）”（撒上15：29）。
如果我们采用了摩西与神之间的对话，并且把其明显的意义推展至极限的话，它会怎样地教导我们认识神呢？我们不但会认为神会后悔，而且神后悔是因为摩西向祂指出了一个更好的方法。我们难道会认为，神的意念竟然可以被堕落的受造物所纠正吗？如果我们接受这种想法，它所带来的分歧，是非常严重的。
例如，在出埃及的事件中，摩西向神请求，他认为如果神按其心意而行，在埃及人的眼中会被看为是不好的。然后，神就改变了祂的心意？让我们从人的角度来思想其意义：如果神起初决定要处罚祂的百姓，祂必定是忽略了此行动的后果会影响到祂的声誉。祂的推理是有缺失的，祂的抉择是冲动的。幸好，摩西的敏锐看出此抉择的愚昧，并且说服了这位短视的神，从而提出一个更佳的方案。神很幸运，获益于一位优秀参谋的指引。若不是摩西的帮助，神就犯了愚蠢的错误。
即使只是在谈论此事，我们都已经走在亵渎的边缘。神会受到摩西或任何其他受造物的纠正，是完全不可想象的。然而，这似乎是这段叙述所暗示的。一个非常重要的原因，就是我们必须以说教性或“教导性”的经文，来解释圣经中叙事性的经文。如果我们试图在叙述性的经文中，寻找过多的神学论题，我们很容易会超越叙述文本身的观点，造成严重的错误。
当圣经的叙述文中讲到神好像后悔，或是改变祂的心意时，通常总是在描述神审判和惩罚的威胁。在这些威胁之后，神的百姓会忏悔，或是他们的首领会提出代祷。神并非被说服“改变祂的心意” 。神，出自其心中的恩典，乃是做出祂一直所应许要做的事——不处罚那些悔改和从恶行回转的罪人。虽然祂处罚那些罪人是正当的，祂却选择饶恕悔改的罪人。
这些叙述文是要鼓励我们祷告。我们应该要代祷。神惩处的威胁是有条件的，我们若是悔改，我们就会逃过那些惩罚。有时候，这些条件是说得清清楚楚的，有时候仅仅是暗示。当我们悔改时，神就会除去惩罚的威胁。问题是，最终是谁在这里后悔？神的后悔转意，与我们从罪或错误中回转，是绝不相同的。
神不是世人。祂并非真正的、字面上的有臂膀和脚。祂不会像世人一样地后悔。祂听我们的祷告，当却不会被这些祷告所纠正。祂是不改变的——不论是祂完全的本质，或是祂完全的心思，都是不会改变的。
Divine
Repentance by R.C. Sproul
Does
God Change His Mind? If God is immutable, if He does not change at all, does
that mean He never changes His mind either? This is a very thorny problem. The
Bible appears to say at times that God changed His mind. Consider, for example,
the following episode that took place in the time of Moses:
Then
Moses pleaded with the LORD his God, and said: "LORD, why does Your wrath
burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt
with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians speak, and
say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to
consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and
relent from this harm to Your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your
servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, 'I will
multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have
spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever."
So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people. (Exod. 32:11-14)
God
"relented"? Other translations render the words here, "changed
His mind." This narrative seems to make it absolutely clear that God does,
in fact, change His mind from time to time. Maybe His being doesn't change, but
does His mind cast a shadow every once in awhile? The problem becomes more
vexing when we read elsewhere in Scripture:
"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 it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
Behold, I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot
reverse it. (Num. 23:19-20)
This
same concept is repeated elsewhere: "And also the Strength of Israel will
not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent" (1 Sam.
15:29).
Is
this a contradiction in Scripture? How are we to understand this?
We
could throw up our hands and agree with the Bible's critics who insist that
this is a blatant error or contradiction. A more judicious approach would be to
grapple with the problem of what is called phenomenological language. (The
illusion or appearance of something, "the way we see it" from our
perspective. As they appear to us, not necessarily as they really are. The aim
of the writer is to make a theological statement, a truth about God and man and
his world, he's not using modern scientific precision and technical terminology.
Scripture
frequently describes events in terms of how they appear to the observer. The
Bible does not "teach" that the sun revolves around the earth, but it
does speak about sunrises and sunsets. (Even modern scientists do this when
they are using ordinary language. Listen to what the meteorologist on your
local TV station says about the sun's "rising" and
"setting.")
The
most obvious use of phenomenological language in the Bible is its use of human
terms to describe God. The Bible speaks of His coming and of His going, of His
becoming angry, of His turning from wrath. He is described as having arms,
hands, a face, and feet. Yet this multitude of references to God via human
imagery is qualified by sober biblical warnings and reminders that God is not a
man. It is noteworthy that in these "troubling" passages the
qualifier is spelled out precisely in these terms: God "is not a man that
He should relent [change His mind]" (1 Sam. 15:29).
If
we took the discussion between Moses and God in Exodus and pressed the apparent
meaning to the ultimate, what would it teach us about God? Not only would we
think that God relented, but we would think that He relented because Moses
showed God a more excellent way. Is it even thinkable to us that God should
have an idea that is corrected by a fallible creature? If we entertain such a
thought the ramifications are sobering.
For
example, in the Exodus incident Moses pleaded with God, arguing that God would
look bad to the Egyptians if He carried out His threat. Then God changed His
mind? Think of the meaning of this in human terms: If God first thought about
punishing His people, He must have overlooked the consequence of that action on
His reputation. His reasoning was flawed. His decision was impulsive.
Fortunately, Moses was astute enough to see the folly of this decision and
persuaded the shortsighted Deity to come up with a better plan. Fortunately for
God, He was helped by a superior guidance counselor. Without the help of Moses,
God would have made a foolish mistake!
Even
to talk like this is to border on blasphemy. That God could be corrected by
Moses or any other creature is utterly unthinkable. Yet, that seems to be the
implication of the narrative. This is a major reason why we must interpret the
narrative passages of Scripture by the didactic or "teaching"
portions. If we try to find too much theology in narrative passages, we can
easily go beyond the point of the narrative into serious errors.
The
biblical narratives in which God appears to repent, or change His mind, are
almost always narratives that deal with His threats of judgment and punishment.
These threats are then followed by the repentance of the people or by the
intercessory petitions of their leaders. God is not talked into "changing
His mind." Out of His gracious heart He only does what He has promised to
do all along - not punish sinners who repent and turn from their evil ways. He
chooses not to do what He has every right to do.
The
point of these narratives is to encourage us to pray. We are to make
intercession. The promised threats of divine punishment are given with the
condition attached that if we repent, we ~vi1l escape those punishments.
Sometimes that condition is spelled out explicitly, while at other times it is
merely implied. When we repent, then God removes the threat of punishment. The
question is, Who is ultimately repenting here? God never repents in the sense
that He turns away from sin or from error.
God
is not a man. He does not ultimately or literally have arms or legs. He does
not repent as men repent. He listens to our prayers but is never corrected by
them. He changes not- neither in the perfection of His being nor in the
perfection of His thoughts.