Some impassibilists argue, conversely, that passages appearing to describe divine possibility should be interpreted in light of other texts that assert divine immutability . . .the primary texts typically offered to prove divine immutability (e.g., Mal 3:6 and Num 23:19) themselves contextually suggest divine responsiveness, contra the kind of immutability needed to ground impassability. For example, the proclamation “I, the Lord do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed” (Mal 3:6) appears within the context of responsive relationship, evident in the following verse where God states, “Return to Me, and I will return to you” (Mal 3:7).[47] The statement that God does “not change,” then, does not exclude relational responsiveness but appears to express the constancy of God’s character, undergirding his appropriate wrath against evil.[48]
Notes for the Above
[47] Both Num 23:19 and 1 Sam 15:29 differentiate God’s repenting (נחם) from that of man's, but neither rules out divine repenting altogether, lest they contradict the many other passages in which God is the subject of the verb נחם, including twice within 1 Sam 15 itself (e.g., Exod 32:14; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; Jer 18:7-10; Jo 3:9-10; 4:2). See Peckham, Love of God, 153-55, 185.
[48] James 1:17 likewise refers to God’s ethical immutability but makes no mention of ontological imperviousness to affect.
(John C. Peckham, Canonical Theology: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura, and Theological Method [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 235-36)
