In my humble opinion, the so-called Idiom of Permission as an explanation for Yahweh's behavior in the Old Testament does not survive Occam's Razor, which is "the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one."
The Old Testament writers told us who Yahweh was. His character changed over time. Different writers gave him different attributes, depending on the point they were making for the story they were telling. When God needed to be limited, he was. When he needed to be omni-everything, he was. When an explanation was needed for why Israel did not prevail in a military conflict, God had a problem seeing through lead overcoming chariots of iron.
The Idiom of Permission provides a way to explain away that which was never intended to be dismissed in the first place. God sent the Flood. He didn't allow it to be sent. Genesis is clear. He did it. The angel of death in Egypt (which, it must be said, never happened)? That was Yahweh too. Exodus is explicit.
But He's LOVE! He couldn't have! So we invent an explanation to retroactively absolve him of responsibility for that which he explicitly wanted credit!
What happened? This is not hard. The people worshipping God changed. Their values changed. Their God (who cannot change) changed with them. Suddenly he never would have done any such thing. But he said he did? Hmmm. It was a figure of speech! Get it?
Anyway, that's my nickel. I know, it's supposed to be two cents. But inflation's a bitch.
