One verse that might
be cited by proponents of strong immutability is Malachi 3:6 which says, “For I
the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.”
However, one might just as easily interpret this verse as referencing God’s
unchanging moral character and steadfastness in his covenantal relationships.
This interpretation is to be preferred over strong immutability, as in the very
next verse God says, “Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of
hosts.” In his commentary on this verse, Pieter Verhoef remarks:
If the people return
to God, then he will surely remain to them. This aspect of promise is expressed
in the syntactical structure. The cohortative with waw-copulative is
dependent on the preceding imperative and denotes a consequence: “in order that
I may turn to you,” or “then I will turn to you.” The transgressions of the
people were the cause of God’s turning away from them, the reason why he was no
longer pleased with them (1:8, 10; 2:13). If they repent, he is eager to
confirm by his own turning to them that he still loves them and that he has not
changed in his covenant relationship to them. (Pieter Verhoef, The Book of
Haggai and Malachi [William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1987], 231)
Malachi 3:6 thus
appears to be a poor candidate for supporting strong immutability, as it is immediately
followed by a verse that is inconsistent with strong immutability.
Other potential
texts for strong immutability are James 1:17 “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 due to change,” and Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ is the
same yesterday and today and forever.” However, as with the verse from Malachi,
strong immutability is not a concept found in these verses. Rather, strong immutability
is being read into these verses. The context of James 1:17 appears to be about God’s
consistency in his moral character, which results in our confidence that he will
give us good gifts.
Similarly, there
is nothing in Hebrews 13:8 that can be read as conveying strong immutability,
and Hebrews 1:3 says regarding Christ that “After making purification for sins,
he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” This implies some form
of change on the part of Christ, as there was a before and an after he purified
sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” This implies some
form of change on the part of Christ, as there was a before and an after he
purified sins which entails he gained and lost properties. Hebrews 1:13 has God
saying to the Son “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool
for your feet.” If there is a moment in which Christ’s enemies are not a
footstool for his feet, and then another moment when they are, this violates
strong immutability. We are told in Hebrews 2:17 that “He had to be made like
his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful
high priest in the service of God.” There is a change in these verses regarding
Christ becoming like his brothers in every respect and regarding Christ
becoming a high priest. To insist that Hebrews 13:8 supports strong immutability
is to ignore the entirety of the book of Hebrews.
While there is no scriptural support for strong immutability, there
seems to be sustained testimony against it. God makes conditional statements,
such as in 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says, “If my people who are called by my
name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked
ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their
land.” God hearing his people and healing the land implies that God will change
in a way that is incompatible with strong immutability.
We are told the actions of humans can positively and negatively affect
God’s emotions. Judges 10:16 says that God “became impatient” over the misery
of Israel, while Deuteronomy 9:7 describes God as being provoked to wrath.
Zechariah 1:15 has God saying, “I am exceedingly angry with the nations that
are at ease; for while I was angry but a little, they furthered the disaster. If
God changed in his level of anger, that constitutes a change inconsistent with
strong immutability. In Hosea 11:8, God says that his heart recoils with him,
and that his compassion grows warm. Psalm 30:5 says that God’s anger is “But
for a moment.” An entire book could be filled discussing examples like the ones
above, but this should be sufficient to show that one cannot use strong immutability
to reject kenotic Christology, as strong immutability is itself biblically
unjustifiable. (James Agnew, What Jesus Didn’t Know: A Defense of
Kenotic Christology [2025], 25-27)
