Traditional Christian religions, which are based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, defend the vision of an anthropomorphic God, that is, a God who possesses emotional characteristics similar to human beings, and may also become offended, angry and even to repent of His deeds. In this chapter, we will analyze the illogicity in holding that an Infinitely Perfect being could, as well as a human being, repent of His actions.

​

If we study the meaning of the word "repentance", we will see that it means "regret" or "sadness" for having done a certain action that we later admitted was not the most correct. When we repent, if we could go back, we would act differently. In this way, we can say the action which generated "repentance" cannot be considered a perfect one, because if it were, we would never regret having practiced it. In this way, we come to the conclusion that "A perfect action can never bring repentance".

 

Therefore, to suppose that an Absolutely Perfect Being can repent of His actions is to place Him on a lower level of imperfection. If all God's actions are wise and perfect, it is inconsistent to say that He could come to repentance. It would only make sense for God to repent if He could commit imperfect actions, but, in this case, we would have to regard Him as "imperfect", which is absolutely contradictory.

​

The Bible, as we show in Part II of this work, in the chapter "Biblical Contradictions", presents a totally contradictory view on the subject. In some passages, it states that God "never repents":

 

• (1 Samuel 15:29) He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

• (Numbers 23:19) “God is not human, that he should lie,  not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

The above passages are very clear in stating that God is "not a man to repent", that is, He can never repent because,if He could, He would be as imperfect as a human being. ​However, in other passages, it clearly states that God repented, thus evidencing an unquestionable contradiction:

 

• “ Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” (Exodus 32:14)

• The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled (…) for I regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:6-7)

•  When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened. (Jonas 3:10)

• “And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.” (1 Samuel  15:35)

 

As we have already seen in the chapter "Logic Basics", the logical principle of "Non- Contradiction" demonstrates that something can not "BE" and "NOT TO BE" simultaneously. Therefore, saying that "God repents" and that "God does not repent" obviously represents a clear explicit logical contradiction.

​

On the other hand, passages that indicate situations where God would have "changed" or repented of having done or almost done something, go in direct contradiction to the attribute of God's immutability, expressed in the Bible itself: “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” (James 1.17). Now, if God does not change as "shifting shadows", He would not be able to change His mind or repent of anything at all.

​

Many fundamentalists, in order to justify such contradictions, try to "change" the meaning of the term "repentance", by presenting a "theory" where they say that God can repent, but the repentance of God, presented in the passages cited, is "different" from repentance of men. Men's repentance would be due to their errors, but God's repentance would have another meaning, that is, it would be an attitude derived from "compassion" and "mercy."

 

However, this theory is completely inconsistent since "Repentance" and "mercy" have two completely different meanings. We can see this clearly by analyzing the passages in which the term "repenting" was used in the Bible:

​

God repents having threatened to destroy the people of Israel 

 

“I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God…  Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.”  (Exodus 32)  

          

In the passage above, it is clearly stated that God would cast His "wrath" upon the people of Israel, but, due to the supplications and arguments of Moses, He decided to no longer destroy His people, that is, He clearly "changed His mind." Although it is "implied" in the text that God had mercy on the Israelites, the word "repent" is not associated with "the feeling of mercy", but rather with the Evil that He had threatened to do to the people". Then God "repented" of the action He was going to do and, by not doing it, He was merciful. Mercy was then a consequence of His repentance. If He had not repented, He would have had no mercy.

​

At the beginning of the text, we can see that God had already made the decision to destroy the people of Israel, but due to Moses' argument, he canceled His decision. In doing so, one deduces that what God was going to do would not be right, so He changed His mind and did what was right, that is, to forgive the Israelites. What is striking is that the text shows that God almost practiced an "evil" and therefore "repented" of the evil that He almost practiced.

​

Still according to the text, Moses "reminds" God of an oath that He Himself had made: “Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever”. Moses' argument was then "convincing", for if God had destroyed the Israelite people, as He had already said He would do, He would be in contradiction to an oath that He had made!

​

Also, let us remember that in the Bible itself we find a passage that says that God "would never do evil": “So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong”. (Job 34:10). Now, if God would never do what is evil, how could He threaten to do it? Amazing succession of contradictions!

​

Let us analyze the various illogicities below:

​

1. God, an infinitely good and peaceful being, was about to "cast his wrath" upon a people, destroying it.

• If God is infinitely good and peaceful, He would not cause death and destruction, nor revenge Himself upon innocents (children and animals)

 

2. A human being (Moses), through his supplications and his arguments, managed to cause God to change His mind and no longer destroy His people

• Immutability is one of the Divine attributes. If God is perfect, He is Immutable and would not be subject to change a decision He had already made. The Bible itself confirms the immutability of God: “I the Lord do not change”. (Malachi 3:6)

​

3. God, a perfect being, repents of the evil that He almost practiced

• If God is perfect, He would never even have the possibility of committing any kind of evil, so He could never repent of almost having committed a bad deed.

 

Fear has always been a powerful tool used by political-religious power to control the masses from antiquity. Therefore all the rulers always presented themselves with a "Divine" authority, saying that they received orders from God himself. This Divine grant gave them a totally unquestioned authority, and everyone obeyed them blindly, for they were obeying God Himself.

 

The above is an example of this. Moses was losing control over his people, who began to worship images and to yield to influences from other beliefs, who worshiped other gods. So telling the people that God would destroy them if they did not obey Him was a very strong argument for them to obey the religious laws that kept them together for so long. And this was the only argument the people of that time would understand: The fear of Divine Wrath!

 

 God repents having created man

​

“The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.  So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”   (Gênesis 6:6-7) .

​

In the above passage it is plainly stated that it is impossible to associate the verb "repent" with "mercy" or "compassion," as those who try to justify the incoherence of Divine repentance claim, when they say that "God has a different kind of repentance." Notice: In the text God is not expressing mercy, quite the contrary. He is saying that He "will wipe from the face of the Earth the human race." The passage “I regret that I have made them.”  indicates a "sorrow", that is, that God "mourns" having created man, showing that He "should not have created him", that is, His creation was an error.

​

So, the meaning of "repenting" is its real meaning, as we know it, that is "regret for an imperfect action". The text clearly shows that God was "annoyed" or "hurt" by man's inclination to evil and therefore repented of having created him, just as anyone can repent of having done a wrong action. The expression "I regret that I have made them" does not allow any other interpretation. In this way, no change of context is possible as an attempt to justify such contradiction.

​

 God repents having put Saul as king

​

“I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” (1 Samuel 15:11)

​

The above passage clearly shows God's repentance with the sense of "regret" of having done an action that proved to be imperfect, or a wrong one. Let us imagine a similar situation: The owner of a company places an employee responsible for the finances, but later finds that he began to steal money. So he regrets having put him in that position and dismisses him. The meaning is exactly the same as that found in the excerpt taken from the biblical text.

​

But advocates of "Divine repentance" say that, in God's case, we need to do a "different interpretation." According to them, repentance here would have to be interpreted as "sorrow." Then it would be as if God had said: "I am sad for Saul to have sinned; It's time to find another king. ". It is incredible how, in order to justify the illogicity of an argument, one tries at all costs to misrepresent the meaning of the text to "mask" the explicit contradiction in it. Now, even considering God was “sad”, the logical sense remains the same:

​

1. God placed Saul as king

2. Saul failed to obey Him

3. God had to remove Saul from the king's post.

 

The fundamental logical conclusion of the text is only one: "Putting Saul as a king was a mistake, an imperfect action"! If it were not so, there would be no need to remove him. And this logical conclusion is not absolutely altered whether we use the verb "repent" or "grieve." The fact is that, repenting or saddened, God, according to the text, did an action which He later realized was not a perfect action and had to do something to correct it. This demonstrates the illogicity of it, because we could never admit that a perfect God could practice an imperfect action, much less repent of it.

 

 Logical argument analysis: