Overall, repentance on God’s part occur under
the following conditions:
1. It can be a reaction to certain events or
developments in the human scene.
2. Specifically, it can occur in response to
an intervention or intercession on the part of a prophetic figure (e.g., Moses,
Samuel, Amos, etc.), although it is significant that in the story of Abraham’s
intercession for Sodom and Gomorrah, the term nḥm does not occur, perhaps because there is no real change of mind
on the part of the deity in the account. It seem clear that God never intended
to sweep the innocent away with the guilty but would find a way to save the
innocent (Lot) while punishing the guilty.
3. It can be a response to a showing of genuine
repentance in word and deed on the part of people.
Divine repentance can move in either of two
directions: from judgment to clemency or the other way around. It can also move
in both directions sequentially . . . Throughout
and in every case, it should be understood that the divine repentance is real;
that the meaning and value of the story depend on the transaction between God
and prophet, or God and people; and that if it is not real on the part of God
(i.e., that he does not and cannot change his mind), then the story is a
charade without significance. Admittedly we are using a metaphor, involving
stories and persons that include God and humans; but within the metaphor—and we
believe that nobody can get closer to the reality behind the metaphor—we must
be faithful to the data. Once it is understood that Yahweh enters into the
drama as fully and wholeheartedly as the other participants, then we can
proceed with the analysis . . . 2 Samuel
24:16 = 1 Chronicles 21:15. The passage in question is substantially the
same in both texts and reads as follows: “Then the angel stretched forth his
hand at Jerusalem to destroy it, and Yahweh repented concerning the evil and he
said to the angel who had been attacking the people: ‘It is enough now. Lower
your arm.’”
Yahweh’s repentance here is not the result of
prophetic intercession or of any act of repentance on the part of the people.
It is spontaneous in that he sees the effect of the judgement he himself
pronounced on Israel, because of King David’s sin, and suspends further
punishment. The specific punishment itself was the result of a choice on David’s
part. He was told to choose among three disastrous consequences: seven years of
drought and famine, or three months of military defeats at the hands of his
enemies, or three days of pestilence and plague. He chose the last, with the
interesting remark that it was better to all into the hands of Yahweh, because
his mercy is great, than to fall into the hands of human (v 14) . . . On the
first day, seventy thousand are said to have fallen (v 15). Then presumably on
the next day (or possibly at the end of the first, for the plague continued
until the minḥā, the late afternoon
sacrifice, which leaves only a short time until the beginning of the new day at
sundown), when the angel stretched out his arm against Jerusalem to devastate
it by a new attack of the same plague, Yahweh repented (changed his mind,
reversed the decision) and stated the plague. As far as we are aware it was not
resumed. (Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 24A; New
York: Doubleday, 1989], 644-45, 656-57)