These verses indicate that God isn't the sort to flip sides. But what, it is asked, of these verses?

So what is the answer? It comes by stages:

1. The attribute of omniscience, of knowing all things, must be clarified. Judeo-Christian belief holds that God is timeless. Past, present and future for God can be seen as a whole. This much is commonly asserted. What is sometimes not asserted as a corollary is that God also knows how things would turn out if differently had a different path been taken at every potential choice-making nexus. God knew you would turn left at Main Street this morning; but He also knows what would have happened had you turned right.
2. Thomas Paine was not particularly bright, but he rightly perceived that "prophet" in the Bible meant more than simply "a predictor of the future". A prophet was also a messenger and an exhorter. His words were never set in stone. A key verse for this is Jer. 18:7-10 --

   If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

   With this verse, and the fact that the role of a prophet was more than just as a predictor, it is quite clear why it is pointless to object when, for example, God withholds judgment upon Nineveh (Jonah 3:10). We may read it as a definitive prophecy, but it would be understood by the hearers as exhortation allowing for the disaster to be avoided. Following ancient rules of rhetoric and the constraints of oral communication, as well as the nature of the Semitic mindset which, as we note here, typically expressed itself in extremes, it would be less appropriate for a prophet making a popular declaration to delineate possible exceptions in his general proclamation. Such side-tracking would make his message less memorable and effective in an era when retention and effect was far more important in the short term than detailed analysis. (G. B. Caird in The Language and Imagery of the Bible [112ff] uses several passages cited typically by Skeptics in this context as examples of "prophetic hyperbole" intended to express matters in an unqualified way, yet hardly meaning that there was no chance to escape judgment.)

3. Finally, let us make it clear what it means to say that God does not "change". I do not think any skeptic or critic is so naive as to think that this means that God is static, never does anything, or never says anything. Nor can it be asserted to mean that God does not alter stated plans in reaction to human freewill choices. Our quote from Jeremiah shows that well enough. We will find that the references to God not "changing" cannot hold up such a narrow interpretation.

Let's go now to an examination of verses that have been used in this argument.

• Gen. 6:6-7 -- This (along with another, 1 Sam 15:11, regarding God "repenting" over the choice of Saul) is the primary hinge point of the skeptical argument alleging contradiction. But let's look at that word "repent" more closely. Strong's gives this definition:

  5162. nacham, naw-kham'; a prim. root; prop. to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by impl. to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console, or (reflex.) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): --comfort (self), ease [one's self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

  Now here is a question: Is it not possible to grieve and feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen? Of course it is. And there is no reason why this cannot also apply to God, as we shall see.

• Gen. 18:23-33. We won't quote this passage in entirety; suffice to say: It is the incident in which Abraham intercedes with God on behalf of Sodom, asking Him to spare the city in a classic ANE "marketplace bartering" conversation which probably served to give Abraham some idea what this new God of "his" was like!

  Did God here offer to change His mind? Let's put it this way. The story, and Jeremiah above, indicates that with intercession and/or change, God will make a change in an announced plan. But if God is omniscient, then He knew in advance what Abraham would ask for -- and knew also what the end result would be. (Note that God asks, clearly rhetorically [18:17], whether He should tell Abraham what His plans are, and that the number of possible righteous goes only to 10 -- the next logical increment, 5, would have been less than the number of Lot's family of 6: Lot, his wife, his two daughters, and their prospective grooms. In essence Abraham is pleading for Lot's safety here!) God dealt with Abraham in human terms for his own sake; but even before the conversation started, the matter was decided. God did not change nor compromise, but in fact, in feigning ignorance (v. 21), dropped a very strong hint that intercession on Abraham's part was desired. This incident was more than a typical ANE barter-exchange, then: It was also a tone-setting meeting laying down the terms upon which God would relate to His covenant people. He knew what they would do; but He also wanted them to come to Him in their need. (And in any event, since all 6 members of Lot's family eventually fouled up, it was proven that there were no righteous people in Sodom on that day!)

  This general principle of intercession -- which of course was always foreknown -- can be seen in other cites commonly used in this argument: Exodus 32:10-14; Numbers 16:20-35 and 44-50; 2 Kings 20:1-7, and Amos 7:3, 6. But let's look at some other key cites.

• Numbers 23:19 -- The oracle of Balaam needs to be looked at it two ways. First, what of this word repent? I think it is obvious that it must be read in a different sense here -- "grieve" just doesn't fit the bill! Second, the oracle itself notes that there were conditions for the blessing (v. 21). This pretty obviously indicates that if the conditions change, a "Jeremiah 18 reversal" will follow! (cf. also 1 Sam. 15:29, Ezek. 24:14. Moreover, keep in mind that this is said by Balaam, who is trying to keep himself out of trouble with Balak for giving out a prophecy blessing Israel rather than cursing it!)
• Malachi 3:6 -- This is a "no change" verse, and we should immediately remember what we have said above about such things. "Change" does not refer to simply any possible change, but has specific contexts. Here, it is said in the context of maintaining the covenant promise of preservation to the Israelites in spite of their sins. A covenant agreement is a serious thing -- it is a written contract! This was an unconditional promise, unlike those under the Jeremiah 18 clause, and God will not break it, and has not (though the Israelites did).
• James 1:17 -- Finally, there is this reach into the NT. But again, context makes for clear: James is discussing the ways of men and their fickle, changing morals and treasures (1:2-16). This is the regard in which he asserts that there is neither turning or variation in God, and we are not justified in reading more than that into it. It is not a statement of "ontological immutability" but one concerned with "the unwavering character of God's faithfulness." (See Donald J. Versput, "James 1:17 and the Jewish Morning Prayers." Novum Testamentum 35, 1997, 177-191.)

And now a response in reply to a criticism from the "Ebon Musings" site. Ebon burbles forth:

God specifically states that he spared Nineveh because of their repentance (Jonah 3:10). So what about 4:11?

What about it? Jonah 4:11 simply reflects an expression of concern for the people and animals of Nineveh. It has virtually nothing to do with God's ultimate reason for withholding destruction as related in 3:10. If God had no concern for them, then presumably he wouldn't have given two flips whether or not they repented and Jonah would not have even been sent in the first place. It gives the reason why God warned the Ninevites in the first place, not why they were spared.

There are occasions in which God withholds a promised judgment even when those he had threatened did not change their ways at all.

The "Ebon"ic example given is Exodus 32:9-14. So, is this a "promised judgment" as Ebon claims? "Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them." The judgment here is conditional, and not conditional on the Israelites as a whole, but on their human representative Moses. If Moses leaves God alone, then the Israelites will taste judgment. Moses intercedes, as God (no doubt) expected him to. Adding a minor point, Ebon suggests that God plans to destroy the Israelites "for being" stiff-necked. That claim sweeps quite a bit of dust under the rug. Contextually (beyond the reference offered by Ebon), we find that the reason is given in Exodus 32:7,8 where the Israelites not only worship an idol in the shape of a calf, but misplace credit for their deliverance from Egypt. Yes, this is stiff-necked behavior, but it is a particular variety of stiff-necked behavior. They could have been stiff-necked in their adoration of Yahweh with no problem.

Ebon tacks on the following summary of his complaint against Christian apologists: "Apologists such as Mr. Holding wish to conclude that the Bible is consistent based only on their assumption that it is consistent, and this is a severe logical fallacy." Well, a fallacy is a fallacy, severe or not; they all have the same effect - but are we really guilty of a fallacy? If we are, so are professional historians who give texts the benefit of the doubt. Granting the presumption of accuracy to a text is simply the pragmatic way to evaluate the text objectively. This approach permits such probing questions as "If the text were true, shouldn't we expect X"? It also serves as the foundation for the normal practice of harmonization, even in secular texts. In effect, the presumption that the text is true is granted for the sake of argument. Coincidentally, it is also a doctrine held by Christians. Thus the argument is not the fallacious construction suggested by Ebon (the Bible is true because it is true), but "The Bible is true for the sake of argument" followed (doctrinally) by "The Bible is true because it passes the tests of authenticity." There will always be a new test, of course. The doctrine guides the approach to the latest test; it need not dictate the response to the test regardless of the particulars of the case.

Next, utterly ignoring my points from i.e., Caird about Semitic style (other than simply mentioning them) Ebon claims that the text contradicts this because:

Jonah himself apparently understood his warnings as absolute statements, because when God fails to destroy the city as promised, he becomes very angry and frustrated (4:1,4) and asks God to take his life (4:3,8). Why would he have done this if he meant his warnings to be conditional statements as Mr. Holding suggests? Why would he not have been overjoyed about his success? The only reasonable conclusion is that Jonah became angry because he understood God as having gone back on his word, after all the suffering God put him through to make him a prophet.

Simply put, even without the Semitic context, the conclusion reached does not follow from the evidence. Jonah from the first had a bad attitude about his role in preaching to the Ninevites. As Jonah himself says (Jonah 4:2,3): "That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity." Curiously, the portion that Ebon wants us to read picks up directly after the portion just quoted. Ebon trims the context of the text which allegedly supports his view. It is clear from Jonah's "attitude" that his bitterness was the result of God sparing the city even though the Ninevites had repented. In other words his response (as exemplified by 4:2-3) is, "This has been a big waste of time, and I resent it." He didn't care for the Ninevites as persons (a human reaction most likely induced by the Assyrians being the Jews' political enemies).

We also have a pretty clear contextual clue that the Ninevites took the prophecy of doom as conditional. The text affirms that they believed Jonah. So why not move away or get out of town? They don't move away, however; they fast, don sackcloth, repent, and then they wait. Resigned to their fate, or hoping for mercy?

As far as grieving being possible even if we know something will happen, Ebon plays a childish card of expecting God to change things -- against human free will -- to make Himself happy and not have to grieve! None of this answers the primary point, which is that the word does not indicate that God repents (as we understand the word) or changes His mind. Nor does it do to posit in reply, "Well, God could have been more imaginative and done X or Y." This merely begs the same question, that one has the omniscience to know that any other course of action would have been better beyond the myopically-glimpsed presumptive short-term.

Ebon finds it unbelievable that such could be the case with respect to an omnipotent deity: "[God] can, by definition, cause things to turn out any way he wishes; again by definition, he can never be forced to choose a course of action with substandard results." Can an omnipotent being, by definition, cause things to turn out any way it wishes? Actually, no. An omnipotent being cannot alter a free will choice to obtain a desired result (this results in both A and not-A being true at the same time and in the same sense, which is a contradiction). Can an omnipotent being be forced to choose a course of action with substandard results? No, and what of it? It is incumbent on Ebon to establish that our omnipotent being (God) chose a course of action which obtained comparatively substandard results. Ebon has attempted to circle the enemy's defenses, and finding no actual gap in the defense, ends up where he started. Seemingly oblivious to this, Ebon continues for some lines with a roundabout argument from incredulity. He does not edge anywhere near the task of actually demonstrating an improvement on a particular decision that God made. And until he gets the wiles of a Harry Turtledove, he won't even begin to come close.