The dominant view in academic scholarship (from a theological/religious view) is that God cannot come to know something because God is omniscient. Open theism challenges the traditional account and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God exercises selective foreknowledge, that is to say, Jehovah chooses not to know some things. One verse that is invoked to support this belief is Genesis 22:12.
Here are some thoughts on the passage given from an open perspective:
"It might be suggested, I suppose, that God really did know, but that it was
necessary, for reasons unknown, for God to put the matter this way. But,
aside from this being a strained reading, with no justification in the text
itself, one then buys an absolute form of omniscience at the price of placing
the integrity and coherence of all God's words in jeopardy: does God really
mean what is said or not?" (Terence Fretheim, The Suffering of God, page 47).
"The flow of the narrative accomplishes something in the awareness of God. He
did not know. Now he knows" (Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, page 187).
"If one presupposes that God already 'knew' the results of the test
beforehand, then the text is at least worded poorly and at most simply false"
(John Sanders, The God Who Risks, page 71).
The writer of Gen. 22:12 evidently reports that God learned something new about Abraham. That is apparently how one should read the text.
However, one can read an attempted rebuttal of open theism in What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge, written by Millard J. Erickson.
2 comments:
The argument you present hinges on the interpretation of Genesis 22:12, where God says to Abraham, "Now I know that you fear God." Open theism and some scholars like Terence Fretheim and John Sanders suggest that this implies God came to know something new, challenging the traditional view of God's omniscience. However, from a classical theistic perspective, this reading introduces significant theological difficulties and misinterprets both the nature of biblical language and the doctrine of divine omniscience.
The first and most important point to consider is that much of the language used in Scripture about God is anthropomorphic and anthropopathic. This means that human traits and emotions are ascribed to God to make divine actions and intentions more understandable to humans. For example, when the Bible says God "repented" (as in Genesis 6:6) or "came to know" something (as in Genesis 22:12), these phrases reflect a human way of describing divine action, not a literal change in God's knowledge or emotions.
In the context of Genesis 22:12, God’s statement "Now I know" can be understood as an anthropomorphic expression to communicate the completion or fulfillment of Abraham’s test. God, being omniscient, already knew what Abraham would do, but He allowed Abraham to freely demonstrate his faith in action. From the human perspective, this is experienced in time and involves a process, but from God's eternal perspective, it is part of His unchanging knowledge.
Thus, God’s "knowing" in this context is relational and experiential rather than cognitive. It signifies that Abraham's obedience has been demonstrated in real time and not that God gained new information. The Church Fathers and theologians like Aquinas have consistently interpreted these passages in this way, distinguishing between God’s timeless knowledge and human experience within time.
The suggestion that God chooses not to know certain things (as some Jehovah’s Witnesses and open theists claim) introduces problems regarding God's nature and omniscience. The classical Christian understanding of God’s omniscience includes not only His knowledge of the past and present but also His knowledge of all possible future contingents. God knows all events—past, present, and future—as they are because He exists outside of time and sees all events in a single, eternal "now."
If we accept the idea that God chooses not to know certain future events, this implies a limit to God’s omniscience, which contradicts the biblical teaching that God is all-knowing. Scripture consistently affirms that God's knowledge is comprehensive:
Psalm 139:4: "Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, You know it altogether."
Isaiah 46:10: "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’"
In these verses, God clearly declares His knowledge of all things, including future events. To suggest that God does not know some future actions (or that He chooses not to know them) would not only conflict with these passages but also undermine the traditional understanding of God's nature as timeless and unchangeable.
The view that God’s knowledge is "selective" introduces significant theological consequences. If God can limit His foreknowledge, it implies that His will and plan are subject to contingencies beyond His control, making Him dependent on human decisions. This contradicts the traditional Christian belief in God’s sovereignty and providence.
Furthermore, this position diminishes God’s perfect wisdom and ability to govern creation. If God is unaware of future events, He cannot perfectly guide history or ensure that His purposes are accomplished. The doctrine of providence teaches that God not only knows the future but also guides creation according to His divine will, in such a way that human freedom is preserved without negating divine foreknowledge (see Romans 8:28 and Ephesians 1:11).
Boethius, in his Consolation of Philosophy, famously explained this dilemma by stating that God sees all time simultaneously—past, present, and future. Thus, His knowledge of future free acts does not cause or determine them. Human beings remain free, and God’s foreknowledge does not negate that freedom. As Aquinas later affirmed, God knows free human acts in their contingency, not as fixed necessities. This understanding preserves both God’s omniscience and human free will.
In Genesis 22, God tests Abraham to demonstrate the depth of his faith. When God says, "Now I know that you fear God," He is not gaining new information. Rather, this statement is addressed to Abraham and, by extension, to the reader, indicating that Abraham’s faith has been tested and proven. God’s words are relational and covenantal, showing Abraham’s faithfulness in action.
This episode is not about God discovering something He didn’t previously know; rather, it reveals to Abraham the extent of his own faith. God’s command and Abraham’s obedience serve a purpose in salvation history, foreshadowing Christ’s own sacrifice and the unfolding of God’s plan of redemption. It is about the manifestation of Abraham’s faith, not about God learning new information.
The idea of selective foreknowledge, as proposed by open theists and some Jehovah’s Witnesses, is not supported by Scripture or traditional Christian theology. While it attempts to preserve human free will, it does so at the expense of God’s omniscience and sovereignty. The traditional view, upheld by theologians like Augustine, Aquinas, and Boethius, offers a more coherent explanation: God knows all things timelessly and eternally, without diminishing human freedom.
Isaiah 42:9: "Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them."
God’s foreknowledge encompasses all things, not just those He chooses to know. His knowledge is perfect and complete, and any attempt to limit that knowledge contradicts the nature of the God revealed in Scripture.
In summary, Genesis 22:12 does not support the idea that God gained new knowledge about Abraham’s faith. Rather, it is an anthropomorphic expression of God’s approval of Abraham’s faith, demonstrated in real time. The idea of selective foreknowledge or open theism introduces significant theological difficulties by limiting God’s omniscience and sovereignty. The traditional Christian understanding, as articulated by thinkers like Boethius and Aquinas, affirms that God knows all things timelessly and perfectly, preserving both His foreknowledge and human free will.
Post a Comment