Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

P1 Jesus is God.
P2 God is unchangeable.
P3 To become something is to change
C: Jesus cannot become anything.

How is this syllogism wrong?

It presumes that the unchangeableness of God is absolute in all ways. It would appear that God decided on creating man. But unless he was always planning it and then finally did it, then he probably changed in that he decided at some point to do it.

But the nature by which he operates is consistent and constant.

Yet he has a righteousness that demands purity, holiness, etc. at the same time that he has love that allows us to be outside of those standards without being immediately obliterated. I think we went through this kind of thinking a couple of years ago when discussing Job and someone said that there was a God of righteousness, a God of justice, a God of love, etc., and treated them as if they were different beings that were, by definition at odds with each other.

This is one of the realms in which we struggle to understand God. It is like the juxtaposition of omniscience, holiness, and the free will of man. What we do with free will must create a situation in which the love of God is strong to keep his righteousness and justice in check. Otherwise we would be consumed.

But even without all of that, just like 1 Cor 15:45, the unchangeability of God is mentioned in a context. And while I do not claim omniscience, I expect that the context would suggest that the character and nature of God us unchangeable. And the promises of God will be kept. But just like the record of God being argued out of simply destroying the Israelites and starting over, he has an unchangeable side that demands righteousness and purity and it is being held in check by his promise and love.

Besides, do we declare that when circumstances cause someone to change their mind on something that it is simply them changing? Or do we properly understand that, assuming nothing else changing, the expectation is that God would also not change? I think it is the latter. Once a covenant is broken by one party, the other is not held by it and is not seen as in violation (or as being the one to cause the change) if they choose to set it aside. That is not the change of God because what he agreed to is not able to be continued without a change on the part of the other party (the Israelites). (And when I say "the Israelites, I suddenly thing of a song from probably the late 60s in which almost every line in either the verses of chorus — or both — ended with the phrase "Ah . . . . the Israelites.")

But all things being equal, God, by his nature, will not simply change his mind. That is the reason that the guy on the other forum seems so foolish because he follows a reading of scripture that makes God whimsical and changing. At one point he says one thing, then at another, he declares something different and partly contradictory. (Sort of like reading the Koran. Are alcoholic beverages bad? Depends on whether you are reading the early parts or the later parts. Mohammed's prophecies kept changing.)

Do I think this is the only way to consider it? Absolutely not. But it is reasonable to me and is consistent with how I see the references to his constancy and faithfulness and to the situations where he either did, or considered to take a different course of action than previously declared/promised. And it does not cause me to consider God a liar to have said their is not changing in him. As with other discussions, context is part of the equation. Context provides an understanding of "changing" actions that make them not the result of fault in God, but in his created beings who have overwhelmingly rejected his ways and broken covenant with him. Much worse than the iron skillet calling the copper kettle black. More like the iron skillet calling the porcelain sink black. (Well, we actually have a black porcelain sink, so that may not be the best example. )

Anyway, that is my initial take on it.