The Controversy on Immutability and Divine Action in the History of Interpretation

The relationship between divine immutability and divine action has been a subject of recent exegetical and theological debate, reflecting a wide range of interpretative positions. Central to this discussion is the question of how an immutable God, whose essence is described in Scripture as unchanging, can also be depicted as dynamically involved in creation, history, and redemption.

Texts such as Malachi 3:6—“I, Yahweh, do not change”—and James 1:17—“with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning”—explicitly affirm God’s immutable nature, underscoring the theological conviction that God remains constant and unwavering in His being, will, and promises. However, these assertions of immutability stand in tension with numerous biblical narratives that depict God’s dynamic actions: the act of creation itself (Gen 1:1), divine regret over human sin (Gen 6:6), and God’s covenantal responses to Israel’s disobedience (Exod 32:14). These actions seem to suggest a movement or change in God’s dealings with the world, raising the question of whether such divine actions imply a shift in God’s nature or whether they are consistent with His immutability.

This tension has sparked significant theological controversy, as interpreters wrestle with the challenge of reconciling the biblical witness to God’s unchanging nature with the apparent dynamism of His interactions with creation. Some theologians have argued that divine action, though expressed in temporal terms, does not signify a change in God’s essence, but rather reflects His eternal purpose being worked out within time. Others, however, have questioned whether such an understanding adequately preserves the integrity of divine immutability, or whether it risks diminishing the real and relational nature of God’s engagement with His creation. As such, the question of whether divine action implies change or remains consistent with God’s unchanging nature continues to be a critical issue in systematic theology, bearing implications for our understanding of God’s transcendence, relationality, and sovereignty.

History of Interpretation

In the patristic era, early apologists like Justin Martyr and Origen grappled with Greek philosophical influences, particularly Plato’s immutable forms. Justin, in Dialogue with Trypho (4), affirmed God’s transcendence, yet his emphasis on divine interaction with humanity risked anthropomorphism. Origen, in On First Principles (1.2.6), posited an immutable God whose actions reflect eternal will, not temporal shift, influencing later orthodoxy. Augustine solidified this trajectory, arguing in City of God (11.10) that God’s simplicity precludes change, with actions flowing from His eternal essence—a view dominant in medieval theology.

The medieval period saw Thomas Aquinas refine this in Summa Theologiae (I, Q.9), rooting immutability in God’s pure actuality (actus purus), free of potentiality. Scholastic debates, however, emerged with Duns Scotus, who emphasized divine freedom, suggesting God’s will could “change” in relation to creation without altering His essence (Ordinatio I, dist. 8). This nuanced voluntarism hinted at flexibility, though still within immutability’s bounds.

The Reformation era reinforced classical views. John Calvin, in Institutes (1.13.1), upheld immutability as essential to God’s reliability, interpreting action texts as accommodations to human understanding. Francis Turretin, in Institutes of Elenctic Theology (3.7), echoed this, distinguishing God’s immutable essence from His free operations ad extra. Yet, Socinian critics like Faustus Socinus challenged this, arguing in De Jesu Christo Servatore (III.6) that an immutable God cannot genuinely interact, favoring a mutable deity responsive to human free will—a precursor to modern revisions.

The modern period intensified the controversy. Enlightenment rationalism and Hegelian process thought, via figures like Alfred North Whitehead (Process and Reality), recast God as evolving with creation, rejecting classical immutability. Twentieth-century open theism, led by Clark Pinnock (The Openness of God), amplified this, citing divine “regret” (Gen 6:6) to argue for a God who changes in response to creation. Conversely, Reformed thinkers like Herman Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:154) and contemporary scholars like James Dolezal (All That Is in God) defend immutability, rooted in aseity, as non-negotiable for divine perfection.

This historical survey reveals a spectrum: from the great tradition’s synthesis of immutability and action to modern rejections prioritizing divine responsiveness. Our task is to test these against Scripture, guided by the classical view of God’s aseity as pure actuality.

Divine Aseity as Pure Actuality: The Foundation of God’s Nature

Divine Aseity as Pure Actuality: The Foundation of God’s Nature

To properly understand the relationship between divine immutability and divine action, it is essential first to establish the doctrine of divine aseity—God’s self-existence—as the foundational theological lens. Divine aseity, derived from the Latin phrase a se (“from Himself”), indicates that God exists independently, without any need for external cause, sustenance, or contingency. This is not simply a philosophical abstraction; it is a crucial element in understanding God’s nature as both immutable and dynamic. Aseity undergirds the concept of actus purus—pure actuality—which describes God’s being as fully actualized and devoid of any potentiality. This idea was central to Thomas Aquinas’s theological system, particularly in his Summa Theologiae (I, Q.3, A.4), where he states: “God is pure act, without any admixture of potentiality.” Unlike creatures, who transition from potentiality to actuality—such as an acorn growing into an oak—God possesses no unrealized capacity, which makes Him immutable. He cannot change because His essence is complete, and yet His actions—creative and redemptive—flow freely from His intrinsic perfection, not as a response to any external cause.

Scripture richly affirms this understanding of God’s aseity, portraying God as the self-existent source of all life, joy, and being. The foundational revelation of God’s aseity is found in Exodus 3:14, where God reveals His name to Moses in the burning bush, asserting: “I AM WHO I AM”—a statement that not only affirms His self-existence but also signals the depth of His immutable nature. This self-revelation is expanded throughout Scripture and provides a robust framework for understanding the relationship between God’s nature and His actions in creation and redemption.

Exodus 3:14 – “I AM WHO I AM”

In Exodus 3:14, God’s declaration to Moses is profound: “I AM WHO I AM” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה). This phrase is grammatically constructed with the Qal imperfect first-person singular of הָיָה (“to be”) repeated, accompanied by the relative pronoun אֲשֶׁר (“who” or “that”). The use of the imperfect tense conveys a continuous, dynamic existence that transcends time, indicating that God’s being is unbound by temporal constraints. Unlike the perfect tense, which denotes completed action, the imperfect here suggests an eternal, unchanging reality. Scholars debate the nuances of this phrase, with Brevard Childs suggesting that it implies “I will be what I will be,” emphasizing God’s active presence in history. Bruce Waltke, on the other hand, favors the interpretation, “I am that I am,” highlighting God’s absolute self-existence. The repetition in this declaration intensifies the emphasis on aseity, marking God as self-derived and not contingent upon any external cause.

The Septuagint (LXX) renders this passage as ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (“I am the One who is”), with the Greek ὁ ὤν (the present participle of εἰμί) reinforcing an ontological understanding of God as the source of all being, over and against static Greek notions of existence such as those espoused by Parmenides.

Following this, God instructs Moses to tell the Israelites: “I AM has sent me to you” (אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם). The use of אֶהְיֶה here not only recalls God’s self-existent nature but also connects it to His active role in history. The verb שָׁלַח (“to send”) in the Qal perfect tense indicates that God’s self-existence is inherently tied to His sovereign initiative. This underscores the fundamental theological claim that divine action, including creation and redemption, flows from God’s unchanging nature rather than from any external necessity or contingent cause.

Reflection from Exodus 34:6-7: The Covenant God

This understanding of aseity is further developed in Exodus 34:6-7, where God declares His covenant name, YHWH, after the golden calf incident: “YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.” The repetition of YHWH highlights God’s eternal nature, aligning with the divine self-revelation of Exodus 3:14. Here, God’s self-existence is tied not merely to His impassible being, but also to His active, relational nature. The attributes described—mercy, grace, patience, steadfast love, and faithfulness—are not contingent upon the created order but flow from God’s immutable essence. Umberto Cassuto notes that the repetition of YHWH emphasizes the eternal “I AM,” suggesting that God’s relational actions, even when He responds to human sin, are grounded in His immutable self-existence.

Jesus’ Use of the Divine Name

In the New Testament, Jesus draws upon this divine name to affirm His own divine identity. In John 8:58, Jesus declares: “Before Abraham was, I am” (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι). This statement echoes the LXX rendering of Exodus 3:14, where Jesus identifies Himself with the eternal I AM, signifying His preexistence and timeless nature. The response of the Jewish leaders, who attempt to stone Him for blasphemy, indicates that they recognized the profound divine claim Jesus was making. As D. A. Carson notes, this statement directly identifies Jesus with the God of Exodus 3:14, asserting His self-existence and eternal nature (Carson, The Gospel According to John, 358). Jesus’ use of the divine name affirms that His actions, including His earthly ministry, flow from His eternal, self-sufficient nature, not from any temporal or contingent source.

Theological Reflection: Aseity and Pure Actuality

Taken together, these biblical texts—Exodus 3:14, Exodus 34:6-7, and John 8:58—reveal God as the self-sufficient source of all perfections. God’s aseity is not only a metaphysical reality but the basis for His actions within creation and history. Theologically, God’s aseity is understood as actus purus—pure actuality—meaning that God’s essence is fully actualized, without potentiality. As Thomas Aquinas affirms in his Summa Theologiae (I, Q.3, A.4), “God is His own existence… there is no potentiality in Him.” For creatures, existence is a process of moving from potentiality to actuality. But for God, there is no unrealized capacity, and thus He is immutable. His actions, such as creation and redemption, are not responses to change or external need but flow freely from His perfect, unchanging essence.

This is confirmed by the thought of Augustine, who reflects on God’s immutable being in Confessions (12.7): “You are what You are… unchangeable.” Similarly, Petrus van Mastricht emphasizes that God’s essence is the cause of all things and that He needs nothing outside Himself to act. Therefore, divine action, whether in creation or redemption, emanates from God’s intrinsic perfection and pure actuality. This understanding also aligns with the writings of John Owen, who insists that God’s will is exercised perfectly and immutably, not in response to any external influence.

Psalms: Aseity as Life and Joy

The Psalms further illuminate the theological implications of God’s aseity. In Psalm 36:9, we read: “For with You is the fountain of life; in Your light we see light.” The phrase מְקוֹר חַיִּים (“fountain of life”) emphasizes that God is the source of life in its fullest sense—self-existent and uncaused. This life is not derived from any other source but is intrinsic to God’s very nature. The imagery of light in the second part of the verse ties this life to divine illumination, suggesting that God’s self-existence also brings understanding and clarity to creation.

Psalm 16:11 further develops this theme: “You make known to me the path of life; fullness of joy is with Your presence, pleasures at Your right hand forever.” The path of life is the way of knowing God, and it leads to fullness of joy. This joy is not contingent or dependent on external circumstances but is rooted in God’s unchanging, self-existent being. Aquinas’s teaching that “God is happiness itself” reflects this understanding, where God’s nature is the fullness of joy and satisfaction, not susceptible to change or increase.

Summary

In summary, the biblical portrayal of God as the self-existent I AM establishes aseity as the bedrock of God’s nature. This self-existence, articulated in texts like Exodus 3:14 and affirmed in Jesus’ words in John 8:58, is not only the basis for divine immutability but also the source of God’s actions. Divine aseity, understood as actus purus, means that God is pure actuality—entirely actual, without potentiality. His creative and redemptive acts are not responses to external need or change but flow from His eternal, unchanging essence. As we have seen in both the Old and New Testaments, God’s aseity is the wellspring of all life, joy, and action, grounded in His intrinsic perfection and immutable nature.

Exegesis of Divine Immutability: Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17

Malachi 3:6 – “I, Yahweh, Do Not Change”

The Hebrew text of Malachi 3:6 reads: “כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה לֹא שָׁנִיתִי וְאַתֶּם בְּנֵי־יַעֲקֹב לֹא כְלִיתֶם” (“For I, Yahweh, do not change; therefore, you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed”). This statement, located within Malachi’s critique of Israel’s unfaithfulness (Mal 3:1-5), serves as a profound theological declaration, contrasting God’s divine constancy with the instability of human behavior. In its context, this verse underscores the contrast between divine immutability and human inconsistency, offering both a critique of Israel’s faithlessness and a reassurance of God’s enduring faithfulness to His covenant.

1. כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה (For I, Yahweh). The conjunction כִּי (“for”) introduces the causal relationship between God’s nature and the preservation of Israel. It grounds Israel’s ongoing existence in God’s own immutable nature. The name יְהוָה (YHWH) is significant here, evoking God’s self-existence, as revealed in Exodus 3:14, where God declares Himself to be “I AM WHO I AM.” This ties the name of God to His aseity—His absolute self-sufficiency and independence from all creation. The emphatic pronoun אֲנִי (“I”) further personalizes this declaration, emphasizing the uniqueness of God’s identity. It not only distinguishes Yahweh from the idols that Israel often turned to (Mal 2:10) but also asserts that God is unchanging and eternally present, a personal and faithful being who does not rely on anything external to Himself. This emphasis on personal identity reinforces the constancy of God as a relational and covenantal God.

2. לֹא שָׁנִיתִי (I do not change). The verb שָׁנָה in the Qal perfect form with the negation לֹא (“not”) asserts a permanent and enduring state of immutability. According to the HALOT lexicon, שָׁנָה means “to change” or “to be different,” but in this context, the perfect tense functions statively, emphasizing God’s unchanging nature. This tense denotes a timeless and ongoing consistency in God’s character and purpose. The phrase can be rendered as “I am not one who changes,” or more literally, “I have not changed,” which highlights that God’s essence and actions remain consistent without variation. This negation is absolute: it unequivocally rejects any idea that God might change in His essence, will, or purpose. The emphasis here is that God’s nature is not susceptible to external influence or internal fluctuation.

Theologically, this absolute immutability of God is foundational for understanding the reliability of His promises and actions. For God to change would imply a potential for imperfection or uncertainty, but as the perfect and complete being, God remains forever the same. This concept is echoed throughout Scripture, such as in James 1:17, where it is affirmed that “there is no variation or shadow of turning with God.”

3. וְאַתֶּם בְּנֵי־יַעֲקֹב לֹא כְלִיתֶם (Therefore, you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed)

The waw-consecutive (וְ) here links the statement of divine immutability to its practical consequence for Israel. The phrase “therefore, you… are not consumed” indicates that Israel’s preservation is directly tied to God’s unchanging nature. The verb כָּלָה (to be finished or consumed) in the Qal perfect form, negated by לֹא (“not”), stresses the ongoing and uninterrupted preservation of Israel. Despite Israel’s sin and unfaithfulness, God’s immutable covenant faithfulness ensures that they are not destroyed. This highlights the tension between divine justice and mercy: Israel deserves judgment, but God’s unchanging covenantal commitment to the descendants of Jacob ensures that they are not utterly consumed.

This dynamic resonates with the broader covenantal framework of Scripture, where God’s immutability guarantees the fulfillment of His promises, even when Israel fails to live up to their part of the covenant. The fact that Israel, despite their sin, is not “finished” reflects the enduring mercy of God, whose covenant faithfulness transcends human infidelity. As such, God’s immutability is not merely a static attribute, but an active assurance of the continuation of His covenant promises.

4. Theological and Historical Interpretations

John Goldingay, in his Old Testament Theology (2:45), interprets this verse as demonstrating God’s ontological reliability. For Goldingay, God’s immutability is an ontological reality that ensures the consistency of His being and actions. This reliability becomes a foundational element of faith and trust for the people of God, who can rely on God’s unchanging nature as the basis for their own survival and future hope.

Augustine, in City of God (11.10), offers a theological interpretation of this immutability in terms of divine simplicity, stating that in God there is “no variation… He is not changed by any accident.” For Augustine, immutability is closely tied to God’s aseity—His self-sufficiency and independence from all external influences. This is significant, as it underscores that God’s nature does not fluctuate based on external circumstances, emotions, or actions. It also reflects the foundational truth that God’s will and actions are always perfectly aligned with His essence and are therefore fully reliable and unchangeable.

Summary

Malachi 3:6 provides a profound statement about the nature of God as immutable, offering a contrast between the constancy of God and the instability of human beings. God’s declaration, “For I, Yahweh, do not change,” underlines the foundational theological truth that God’s essence and will remain fixed and unalterable. This immutability assures Israel (and the Church today) that despite human failure, God’s covenantal promises will not fail. God’s immutability ensures His faithfulness and reliability, providing a basis for trust, worship, and hope. This concept, expressed both in Malachi’s prophecy and throughout Scripture, is essential for understanding God’s covenantal faithfulness, His justice and mercy, and the consistency of His actions through all generations.

James 1:17 – “No Variation or Shadow of Turning”

Exegesis of James 1:17: The Immutable God as the Giver of All Good

Among the scriptural witnesses to divine immutability, James 1:17 stands as a profound declaration, not only of God’s unchangeable nature but also of His ceaseless generosity flowing from that very immutability. The Greek text reads: “Πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν, καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, παρ’ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα” (“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning”). Set within James’ exhortation against human instability (Jas 1:6-8), this verse contrasts the fickleness of human desires with the steadfastness of God, presenting Him as the immutable source of all blessings. Our task is to exegete this passage with precision, unpacking its linguistic nuances, and to draw upon the insights of classical theologians—Thomas Aquinas, John Owen, Petrus van Mastricht, and patristic voices like Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa—to illuminate how God’s pure actuality ensures that His giving is an eternal expression of His unchanging essence.

The verse begins with a bold assertion of divine generosity: “Πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν” (“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above”). The adjective πᾶσα (“every”) paired with δόσις (“gift,” from δίδωμι, “to give”; BDAG, 256) and πᾶν with δώρημα (“bestowal,” a rarer term emphasizing gratuitous giving; BDAG, 266) employs a rhetorical inclusivity, leaving no good gift outside God’s purview. The qualitative adjectives ἀγαθὴ (“good”) and τέλειον (“perfect”) further elevate these gifts, suggesting moral excellence and completeness, respectively. The present tense ἔστιν (“is”) and adverb ἄνωθεν (“from above”) establish God as the perpetual, transcendent source, echoing Johannine language (John 3:31, “He who comes from above”). This is reinforced by the present participle καταβαῖνον (“coming down”), which conveys continuous action—God’s giving is not a one-time event but an ongoing reality. Douglas Moo notes that this participle “suggests a steady stream of blessings” (James, 75), framing God as dynamically engaged yet unchanging in His generosity.

The source of these gifts is identified as “ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων” (“from the Father of lights”). The preposition ἀπό with the genitive indicates origin, while “Father of lights” (genitive of origin or relationship) is a striking metaphor. Scholars debate its referent: some, like Peter Davids, tie it to Genesis 1:3-5, where God creates light (James, 86), others, like Moo, suggest celestial bodies—sun, moon, stars—highlighting God’s sovereignty over the cosmos (James, 76). The plural φώτων (from φῶς, “light”; BDAG, 1072) may encompass both, symbolizing God’s creative and sustaining power. Unlike shifting heavenly lights, God’s fatherhood is constant, a point James develops in the immutability clause. Gregory of Nyssa, in Against Eunomius (1.36), interprets this as God’s “unoriginate light,” suggesting His self-existent radiance as the source of all illumination, both physical and spiritual.

The crux of the verse lies in its affirmation of immutability: “παρ’ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα” (“with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning”). The dative παρ’ ᾧ (“with whom”) personalizes this attribute, rooting it in God’s character rather than abstract principle. The negated present tense ἔνι (enclitic of εἰμί, “there is”) with παραλλαγή (“variation”) asserts an absolute denial of changeability. BDAG defines παραλλαγή as “difference” or “change,” often in astronomical contexts (BDAG, 770), contrasting God with the mutable patterns of stars. The phrase “ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα” (“or shadow of turning”) intensifies this. τροπή (“turning,” from τρέπω, “to turn”; BDAG, 1016) evokes celestial shifts, such as solstices, while ἀποσκίασμα (“shadow cast”), a hapax legomenon, likely derives from σκιά (“shadow”) with the prefix ἀπο- suggesting effect (BDAG, 124). The genitive construction “shadow of turning” implies a shadow caused by movement, an image of cosmic variability God transcends.

Moo highlights its “rhetorical force” (James, 76), a poetic flourish underscoring divine stability. This immutability is not mere stasis but the foundation of God’s giving. The classical tradition illuminates how His pure actuality ensures this. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologiae (I, Q.9, A.1), links immutability to God’s nature as actus purus: “God is pure act, without potentiality… change requires something potential to be actualized, which God lacks.” For Aquinas, God’s giving—every δόσις and δώρηma—flows from His fully actualized goodness, not a response to creation’s needs. In Summa (I, Q.21, A.1), he adds, “God gives because He is good, and His goodness is His essence,” unchanging and eternal. Thus, the “steady stream” of gifts (καταβαῖνον) reflects His actuality, not a shift in disposition.

John Owen, the Puritan theologian, deepens this in The Glory of Christ (Works, 1:317): “All that God gives us… proceeds from His unchangeable nature, wherein He is the fountain of all good.” Owen ties James 1:17 to God’s covenant faithfulness, arguing that His immutability guarantees the reliability of His gifts. He writes, “His giving is not an act added to His being, but the outworking of His eternal fullness,” resonating with pure actuality. For Owen, God’s fatherhood of lights signifies His self-sufficient glory, from which all blessings flow without diminution or variation.

Petrus van Mastricht, in Theoretical-Practical Theology (2.6.14), similarly asserts, “God’s immutability is the fountain of His liberality… His gifts are the effects of His eternal actuality, not motions of change.” Van Mastricht connects this to divine simplicity: God’s essence and will are one, so His giving—whether light in Genesis or grace in redemption—manifests His unchanging perfection. The absence of παραλλαγή ensures that His generosity is not contingent but intrinsic, a point James leverages against human double-mindedness.

Patristic voices enrich this synthesis. Augustine, in Confessions (7.1), marvels, “You are the giver of all good… unchangeable in Your bounty.” He interprets James 1:17 as evidence of God’s eternal plenitude, where giving reflects His “everlasting now” rather than temporal succession. Gregory of Nyssa, in On the Making of Man (16.1), sees the “Father of lights” as “the unchangeable source of all existence,” whose gifts flow from His “simple and immutable nature.” For Gregory, the lack of “shadow of turning” negates any eclipse in God’s actuality, ensuring His giving is as eternal as His being.

Theological reflection on James 1:17 thus reveals a profound truth: the immutable God gives by virtue of His pure actuality. His lack of παραλλαγή or τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα does not render Him static but positions Him as the ceaseless font of goodness. Aquinas’s actus purus, Owen’s “fountain of good,” van Mastricht’s “eternal liberality,” and the patristic vision of an unchanging giver converge here. Unlike celestial lights that wax and wane, God’s fatherhood radiates without shadow, His gifts descending (καταβαῖνον) as the natural overflow of His self-existent perfection. This establishes immutability not as a limitation but as the guarantee of His beneficence, a theme James contrasts with human instability and one that undergirds the broader scriptural witness to God’s nature.

Divine Action as the Outflow of Pure Actuality: Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3

Having established God’s immutability as intrinsic to His self-existent nature, we now turn to the realm of divine action, examining Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3 to demonstrate their harmony with this immutability through the lens of aseity and pure actuality. Far from suggesting a change in God’s nature or mind, these texts reveal His actions—creation and sustenance—as the effortless expressions of His eternal, fully actualized essence. Our exegesis will probe the Hebrew and Greek with precision, drawing on classical theologians such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Francis Turretin, and John Owen to affirm that God’s works ad extra flow from His unchanging actuality, not a shift in disposition or response to external contingency.

Genesis 1:1 – “In the Beginning, God Created”

The foundational verse of Scripture, Genesis 1:1, reads in Hebrew: “בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ” (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”). This terse declaration initiates the biblical narrative, presenting God’s creative act as the origin of all temporal reality, yet it does so in a manner that underscores His timeless actuality.

The opening word, בְּרֵאשִׁית, combines the preposition בְּ (“in”) with רֵאשִׁית (“beginning”), a construct form lacking the definite article, which suggests an absolute inception of time and space. Gordon Wenham argues that this phrase “encompasses all reality” (Genesis 1-15, 11), implying God’s preexistence and transcendence over the created order. The absence of an article, as noted in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (GKC, §130d), may signal a unique, unrepeatable act, positioning God as the uncaused cause antecedent to all else. This temporal marker does not imply a “beginning” for God Himself but rather the onset of creaturely existence, aligning with His eternal actuality.

The verb בָּרָא (“created”) is a Qal perfect, third-person masculine singular, exclusively predicated of God in the Old Testament (cf. Isa 45:18; 48:13 effortlessly distinguishes divine action from human making (עָשָׂה). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT, 153) defines בָּרָא as “to create anew,” connoting an ex nihilo act—creation from nothing—without preexistent material. The perfect tense denotes a completed action, yet its stative quality in this context carries a timeless resonance, suggesting an act inherent to God’s nature rather than a novel decision. John Walton emphasizes its “effortless fiat” (Genesis, 37), contrasting it with Near Eastern myths of chaotic cosmogonies. The subject, אֱלֹהִים, a plural form with a singular verb, conveys divine majesty and sovereignty, while the direct object, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ (“the heavens and the earth”), forms a merism encompassing all creation, from the celestial to the terrestrial.

Theological reflection reveals that this act flows from God’s actuality, not a change in His essence. Augustine, in Confessions (12.8), reconciles creation with immutability: “You created all things… not by any change in Yourself, but by Your eternal will, which is Your very nature.” For Augustine, God’s creative act is not a temporal shift but the external manifestation of His eternal decree, fully actualized in His essence. Thomas Aquinas amplifies this in Summa Theologiae (I, Q.45, A.1): “God’s act of creation does not imply a new perfection in Him… it proceeds from His eternal actuality.” The verb בָּרָא, with its unique divine usage, underscores this: creation is not a reaction or a development in God’s mind but an expression of His self-existent power, as Aquinas asserts, “God creates because He is being itself” (I, Q.3, A.4). John Owen, in The Glory of Christ (Works, 1:313), adds, “The world came forth from His will, which is His being… no change was wrought in Him thereby.” Thus, Genesis 1:1 portrays creation as the natural overflow of God’s unchanging actuality, not a departure from it.

Hebrews 1:3 – “Upholding All Things by His Word”

Turning to the New Testament, Hebrews 1:3 offers a complementary vision of divine action: “ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, δι’ ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος, ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς” (“Who, being the radiance of His glory and the exact imprint of His nature, upholds all things by the word of His power, having made purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”). This verse, describing the Son’s role in creation and redemption, bridges immutability and action through His eternal actuality.

The relative clause begins with ὃς ὢν (“who being”), where the present participle ὢν (from εἰμί) asserts the Son’s continuous, eternal existence, tied to His immutability (cf. Heb 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever”). The appositional phrases ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης (“radiance of His glory”) and χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ (“exact imprint of His nature”) define His identity. ἀπαύγασμα (BDAG, 98), a hapax legomenon, connotes “radiance” or “effulgence” (cf. Wis 7:26), with the genitive τῆς δόξης indicating the Son as the manifestation of God’s glory. χαρακτὴρ (BDAG, 1077), meaning “imprint” or “stamp” (as on a coin), paired with ὑποστάσεως (“substance” or “essence”), affirms ontological unity with the Father. Paul Ellingworth notes this as “a precise representation of divine essence” (Hebrews, 99), grounding the Son’s actions in His unchanging nature.

The participial phrase φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ (“upholding all things by the word of His power”) describes the action itself. φέρων, a present active participle from φέρω (“to bear, sustain”; BDAG, 1051), denotes ongoing preservation, not a new act but a continuous upholding of creation. τὰ πάντα (“all things”) is comprehensive, echoing Genesis 1’s scope. The dative τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως (“by the word of His power”) links this to the divine fiat of Genesis 1:3 (“Let there be light”), with ῥῆμα (“word”; BDAG, 905) emphasizing spoken efficacy and δύναμις (“power”; BDAG, 262) as inherent potency. F. F. Bruce interprets this as “the effortless exercise of divine authority” (Hebrews, 47), sustained without alteration in the Son’s essence.

Theological reflection confirms this flows from actuality. Francis Turretin, in Institutes of Elenctic Theology (3.7.5), asserts, “God’s actions ad extra… proceed from His immutable will, not necessitating change in His nature.” The present tense φέρων reflects this: sustenance is not a reaction to creation’s needs but an eternal act inherent to the Son’s being. Aquinas, in Summa Theologiae (I, Q.34, A.3), ties this to the Word’s role: “The Son, as the Word, is the perfect expression of the Father’s actuality… all things are upheld by His eternal power.” Owen adds, “The upholding of all things is no labor to Him… it is the expression of His unchangeable nature” (Works, 1:405). Augustine, in On the Trinity (5.2), concurs: “God acts not by changing, but by His eternal will being executed in time.” Thus, Hebrews 1:3 portrays the Son’s preservation as the timeless outworking of His actuality, not a shift in mind or essence.

Synthesis of Divine Action and Actuality

Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3 together reveal divine action as the natural extension of God’s pure actuality, not a modification of His nature. The exegesis of בָּרָא and φέρων highlights effortless, sovereign acts—creation ex nihilo and continuous sustenance—rooted in God’s self-existent power. Classical theologians—Augustine, Aquinas, Turretin, and Owen—unanimously affirm this: God’s eternal will, identical with His essence, effects creation and providence without change. Wenham’s “effortless fiat” and Ellingworth’s “ongoing preservation” align with Aquinas’s actus purus

Addressing Apparent Change in God: Exegesis of Texts on Divine Repentance and Relenting

Having affirmed God’s immutability, as expressed through texts such as Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, Genesis 1:1, and Hebrews 1:3, we must now engage with a potential challenge: passages that seem to depict change in God, particularly His “repentance” or “relenting.” Texts like Genesis 6:6 (“God regretted”), Exodus 32:14 (“the Lord relented”), and 1 Samuel 15:11 (“I regret”) have sparked debate, with some, such as open theists, arguing that they suggest mutability in God’s nature or will. However, careful exegesis of these texts in their original languages, alongside theological reflection from the classical tradition, reveals that such language is anthropopathic—accommodating divine actions to human perception—rather than indicating ontological change. These passages do not contradict divine immutability; rather, they highlight that God’s responses in history flow from His unchanging actuality, consistent with His eternal purpose.

Genesis 6:6 – “God Regretted Making Man”

The Hebrew text of Genesis 6:6 reads: “וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה כִּי־עָשָׂה אֶת־הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל־לִבּוֹ” (“And YHWH regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved to His heart”). Situated within the context of humanity’s corruption before the flood (Gen 6:5), this verse seemingly suggests an emotional or volitional change in God.

• וַיִּנָּחֶם: The Niphal imperfect of נָחַם, with waw-consecutive, is typically translated as “He regretted” or “He repented.” The HALOT lexicon defines נָחַם in the Niphal as “to be sorry” or “to regret” (HALOT, 688), often implying a change of mind (e.g., Exod 13:17). In this context, it follows God’s observation of human wickedness, suggesting sorrow over creation. However, the imperfect tense conveys ongoing action, rather than a sudden shift. The Niphal can denote a reflexive state—”He was regretful”—rather than indicating a new decision. Gordon Wenham observes that this conveys an anthropomorphic tone, noting, “God is depicted as a grieving parent” (Genesis 1-15, 144).
• כִּי־עָשָׂה: The causal כִּי (“that”) with the Qal perfect עָשָׂה (“He had made”) links the regret to a prior action, rather than a change in intent. The verb contrasts with בָּרָא (Gen 1:1), indicating a focus on humanity’s formation rather than the original act of creation.
• וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל־לִבּוֹ: The Hithpael of עָצַב (“to grieve”) with אֶל־לִבּוֹ (“to His heart”) intensifies the emotional imagery, portraying divine sorrow. HALOT lists עָצַב as “to be pained” (HALOT, 865), but the Hithpael suggests internal reflection, not an external alteration.

Theological reflection elucidates that this language reflects anthropopathy. Augustine, in City of God (15.25), writes, “Scripture speaks of God’s repentance to suit human capacity… His nature remains unchangeable.” For Augustine, Genesis 6:6 expresses God’s eternal displeasure with sin, presented temporally. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologiae (I, Q.19, A.7), asserts, “Repentance in God is not a change of will, but the execution of His eternal decree against sin,” rooted in His actuality. John Walton concurs, observing, “This is covenantal language, not ontological” (Genesis, 304), aligning God’s “regret” with His unchanging justice.

Exodus 32:14 – “The Lord Relented”

Exodus 32:14 states: “וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה עַל־הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת לְעַמּוֹ” (“And YHWH relented from the evil which He had spoken to do to His people”). This follows Moses’ intercession after the golden calf incident (Exod 32:11-13) and appears to depict God altering His plan.

• וַיִּנָּחֶם: As in Genesis 6:6, the Niphal of נָחַם with waw-consecutive means “He relented” or “He repented.” The context—Moses’ appeal to God’s covenant (v. 13)—suggests a divine response, yet the verb’s reflexive nuance indicates a reconsideration within God’s unchanging purpose, not a shift in intent. Brevard Childs notes, “This is a relational shift, not a metaphysical one” (Exodus, 567).
• עַל־הָרָעָה: The preposition עַל with הָרָעָה (“the evil,” i.e., calamity) specifies the object of relenting—judgment, not any alteration in God’s essence.
• אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת: The relative clause with Piel perfect דִּבֶּר (“He had spoken”) and infinitive לַעֲשׂוֹת (“to do”) ties this to a prior declaration (Exod 32:10), suggesting that this was a fulfillment of God’s will rather than an abandonment of it.

Francis Turretin, in Institutes of Elenctic Theology (3.7.8), asserts that “God’s relenting is not a change of mind, but the execution of His eternal decree in response to human action.” This suggests that God’s actuality includes conditional purposes—judgment if unrepentant, mercy if interceded—which remain unchanged in His eternal decree. Aquinas concurs, stating, “Such changes are in creatures, not God” (Summa Theologiae, I, Q.13, A.7), framing this as anthropopathic accommodation.

1 Samuel 15:11 – “I Regret That I Have Made Saul King”

1 Samuel 15:11 reads: “נִחַמְתִּי כִּי־הִמְלַכְתִּי אֶת־שָׁאוּל לְמֶלֶךְ” (“I regret that I have made Saul king”), spoken to Samuel after Saul’s disobedience (v. 9). Yet, verse 29 clarifies: “God does not… repent” (לֹא יִנָּחֵם).

• נִחַמְתִּי: The Niphal perfect of נָחַם in the first-person form means “I regret,” with כִּי introducing the cause—Saul’s kingship. The perfect tense suggests a settled state, not a sudden change of mind.
• כִּי־הִמְלַכְתִּי: The Hiphil perfect of מָלַךְ (“to make king”) indicates God’s prior action (1 Sam 9:16), which is now regretted due to Saul’s failure.

Contrasting this with v. 29, “The Glory of Israel does not lie or repent, for He is not a man to repent” (1 Sam 15:29), the denial of human-like change emphasizes the distinction between God’s nature and human nature. The contrast with man (אָדָם) underscores that God’s essence is not subject to change.

Robert Chisholm interprets this as “rhetorical tension” (1 & 2 Samuel, 154), not contradiction. Petrus van Mastricht explains that “God’s regret is an anthropopathy… His eternal counsel includes such responses” (Theoretical-Practical Theology, 2.6.15). God’s “regret” reflects His unchanging displeasure with disobedience, enacted in time without altering His essence.

Summary

Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, and 1 Samuel 15:11 employ נָחַם to describe God’s interaction with humanity. However, texts such as Numbers 23:19 (“God is not a man… that He should repent”) and 1 Samuel 15:29 clarify that these expressions are figurative. Augustine, in On the Psalms (110.4), writes, “God’s repentance is spoken after the manner of men… His will remains fixed.” Aquinas distinguishes, “God’s will is immutable; what changes is the effect in creation” (Summa Theologiae, I, Q.19, A.7). Turretin adds, “These are acts of His justice or mercy, eternally willed” (Institutes, 3.7.9). Van Mastricht concludes, “God’s actuality comprehends all contingencies… His ‘changes’ are human perceptions of His eternal decree” (Theoretical-Practical Theology, 2.6.16).

Modern scholars, such as Terence Fretheim, argue for divine responsiveness (The Suffering of God, 47), but this perspective overlooks the ontological priority of passages like Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17. God’s “regret” or “relenting” reflects His eternal will—justice against sin and mercy upon repentance—unfolding in time, not as a reaction that alters His nature. His actuality fully encompasses these relational dynamics without compromising His immutability, consistent with the expressions of creation in Genesis 1:1 and the sustaining of all things in Hebrews 1:3.

Theological Synthesis and Practical Implications

The great theological tradition upholds a robust understanding of God’s immutability and active engagement with creation, rooted in the concept of God’s pure actuality. Augustine, for instance, eloquently states, “God does not change by doing… His will is His being” (On the Trinity, 5.2). This encapsulates the idea that God’s actions are not expressions of change or development within the divine essence, but rather manifestations of His unchanging will and essence. Thomas Aquinas builds on this foundation, asserting that “Creating adds no new perfection to God… it is an effect of His actuality” (Summa Theologiae, I, Q.9, A.2). Creation is not a sign of deficiency or need in God; instead, it is the outworking of His eternal and unchanging being. Thus, God’s activity is not a sign of change in Him, but rather the continual expression of His pure actuality, which is immutable by nature.

Francis Turretin further refines this understanding by distinguishing between God’s essence and His operations, asserting that while God’s essence is immutable, His actions in time are the expressions of His eternal will (Institutes, 3.7.6). Van Mastricht, too, emphasizes that immutability is the “fountain of actions,” a necessary precondition for the divine action in the world, as it ensures that God’s will is consistent and reliable across time and circumstances (Theoretical-Practical Theology, 2.6.12). In contrast to the views espoused by open theism, which posits a mutable and reactive God (see Pinnock, The Openness of God, 113), the Scriptures, as seen in texts such as Numbers 23:19, categorically affirm the ontological stability of God. These texts, along with those that describe God’s “relenting” or “repenting” (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14, and 1 Samuel 15:11), should be understood as anthropopathisms, where God’s actions are described in human terms to make them intelligible to finite minds (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, Q.13, A.7). Thus, the action of God in time is not evidence of change in His essence, but a condescension to human comprehension and perception.

This theological synthesis yields profound implications both for doctrine and practical living. Theologically, it provides several essential assurances. First, it guarantees the reliability of God’s promises, because His unchanging nature ensures that His will remains consistent through all ages. Second, it reinforces the unity of Christ’s work in salvation, because the same immutable God who worked through the prophets and the law continues to act in Christ’s person and work. Finally, it assures us of the eternal decree of God, that His plan for creation, redemption, and consummation is not subject to alteration, but rather is a singular and unchanging purpose that will surely come to fruition. This continuity is foundational for a sound Christology, which sees in Jesus the perfect and unchanging revelation of God.

From a practical standpoint, the immutability of God fosters deep trust in the believer’s relationship with God. Knowing that God does not change reassures the Christian that His promises are sure, His love is steadfast, and His will is ultimately for their good. This trust, in turn, leads to more robust worship, as believers can come before an unchanging God with confidence, knowing that His nature is both reliable and gracious. Furthermore, the unchanging nature of God provides a solid foundation for missionary confidence: as the gospel message remains consistent and unchanging in its truth, Christians can proclaim it with assurance, knowing that God’s will is actively at work in every generation, drawing people to Himself.

Conclusion

The theological controversy over God’s immutability and action, which has spanned from patristic debates to modern revisions, finds its resolution in the understanding of God’s aseity as pure actuality. Scriptures such as Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17 affirm God’s unchanging nature, while Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3 present His actions as the eternal outflow of His essence. This understanding, upheld by the great tradition of the Church, presents a God who is both immutable and active in history. The practical implications of this are profound, as it fosters trust, worship, and confidence in a God whose will is fixed, whose promises are certain, and whose work is consistent with His eternal nature.

Bibliography

• Augustine. City of God. Translated by H. Bettenson. London: Penguin, 2003.
• ———. Confessions. Translated by H. Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
• ———. On the Trinity. Translated by E. Hill. New York: New City Press, 1991.
• Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Westminster: Christian Classics, 1981.
• Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Translated by J. Vriend. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003-2008.
• Dolezal, James E. All That Is in God. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2017.
• Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
• Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. 3 vols. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003-2009.
• Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
• Origen. On First Principles. Translated by G. W. Butterworth. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1973.
• Pinnock, Clark, et al. The Openness of God. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994.
• Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Translated by G. M. Giger. Edited by J. T. Dennison Jr. 3 vols. Phillipsburg: P&R, 1992-1997.
• van Mastricht, Petrus. Theoretical-Practical Theology. Translated by T. Rester. 7 vols. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2018-.
• Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
• Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. WBC 1. Dallas: Word, 1987.
• Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT). Edited by L. Koehler et al. Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000.
• Bauer, Walter, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 (BDAG).
• Gesenius, H. F. W. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (GKC). Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.