Does God Change His Thoughts?

Genesis 6:6–7 says that God “regretted” making humanity. This appears to indicate divine change, sorrow, and even error. However how can God remorse something if he’s all-knowing, unchanging, and completely sensible?

On this episode of What within the Phrase?, Kirk E. Miller is joined by Wyatt Graham to unpack the theological and interpretive challenges of Genesis 6:5–8. Collectively, they discover the function of anthropopathism in Scripture and reply questions like, Does God expertise emotion? Can he change his thoughts? And the way ought to pastors faithfully train such texts?

Observe the present on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and extra.

Join with us

Prepared to extend biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the additional mile, go away us a evaluate in your most popular platform. See all of our episodes.

Episode visitor: Wyatt Graham

Wyatt Graham (PhD) serves because the Educational Dean of Carey Theological School. You possibly can observe him at www.wyattgraham.com.

Episode synopsis

Kirk E. Miller welcomes Wyatt Graham to handle one among Scripture’s extra jarring moments: Genesis 6:6–7 describes God as “regretting” that he made humanity and being “grieved” in his coronary heart. This language seems to ascribe human-like emotional disturbance in God, potential modifications in his intentions or internal state, and an implicit admission that God had made a “mistake.” The passage raises theological questions:

• Does divine “repentance” battle with the doctrine of immutability (God doesn’t change)?
• Does remorse indicate God made an error?
• How can an all-knowing God remorse an motion he knew he would take?
• Does God’s grief battle with the doctrine of divine impassibility (God shouldn’t be topic to fluctuating emotional states)?

A pressure introduced by Scripture itself

Genesis 6:6–7 confronts us with two intense verbs to explain God’s motion: remorse (נחם) and grieve (עצב).

A pressure emerges as we study Scripture’s testimony. Some passages, like Genesis 6:6–7, appear to state that God modifications in some respect (e.g., Exod 32:14). But others assert God’s stability:

• “I the LORD don’t change” (Mal 3:6)
• “God shouldn’t be man … that he ought to change his thoughts” (Num 23:19)
• God is “the Father of lights, with whom there isn’t any variation or shadow because of change” (Jas 1:17)
• The heavens and earth change, however “you [God] are the identical” (Ps 102:27)

The truth is, inside 1 Samuel 15 itself, the identical Hebrew phrase for remorse (נחם) is utilized in two alternative ways:

• God “regrets” making Saul king (v. 11)
• But God “won’t … have remorse” (v. 29)

Thus, the Bible itself pushes us to ask: How ought to we learn these two sorts of statements in gentle of one another? Are they contradictory, or is one thing else taking place?

Use Logos’s Exegetical Guides to find necessary phrases and passages. Begin your free trial!

The connection between promise and judgment (Gen 5–6)

Earlier than resolving this theological pressure, Wyatt highlights the literary context, notably some lexical repetition within the Hebrew textual content of Genesis that proves foundational for correctly understanding Genesis 6.

Genesis 5:29 data Lamech naming his son Noah (נֹחַ) and explaining the title with a promise: this youngster “shall convey us aid (נחם) from our work (מַעֲשֶׂה) and from the painful toil (עִצָּבוֹן) of our arms” as a result of God had cursed “the floor (אֲדָמָה).” This language then reappears—fastidiously and deliberately—in Genesis 6:6–7, the place God regretted (נחם) and was grieved (עצב) that he had made (עשׂה) humanity (אָדָם). (Moreover, Noah’s title in Genesis 6:8 [נֹחַ] visually mirrors the Hebrew phrase for “favor” [חֵן], additionally present in Gen 6:8, creating one other potential wordplay.)

The deliberate replay of all this vocabulary indicators that Genesis 6 is narratively related to the promise about Noah in Genesis 5:29. Genesis 6 explains the success of the promise that God would convey aid and relaxation by way of Noah. However that “aid” is available in a stunning manner: by way of the flood. God’s judgment removes persistent evil and creates a contemporary starting by way of Noah. But there’s a component of substitution right here: If God guarantees aid from ache (עִצָּבוֹן), it’s attention-grabbing that God himself feels that ache (עצב).

This partly helps clarify the stunning vocabulary utilized in Genesis 6:6–7. The intentional parallels with Genesis 5:29 show that the selection of verbs in Genesis 6:6–7 shouldn’t be owing to a standalone theological assertion about God’s emotional life. It’s half of a bigger literary technique to attach these adjoining passages.

The flood as aid by way of God’s affected person judgment

It’s additionally necessary to watch that the world of Genesis 6 shouldn’t be a spot of minor misbehavior. It’s the climax of generations of escalating wickedness (Gen 4–5). Human violence and corruption saturate the earth. See particularly the sin of the “daughters of males” with the “sons of God” instantly previous the flood occasion. As Wyatt emphasizes, God shouldn’t be portrayed as having a brief fuse (see additionally Exod 34:6–7; 2 Pet 3:4–9). The family tree of chapter 5 reveals centuries of affected person restraint. This isn’t a portrait of an impulsive deity however of a morally critical God responding persistently to the entrenched evil of humanity.

Likewise, on this context, we see that Noah “discovered favor [grace]” in God’s eyes (Gen 6:8). God’s act of judgment—the flood—turns into concurrently an act of salvation, a theme echoed later in 1 Peter 3:18–22. God judges evil as a way to ship. Noah turns into God’s instrument by way of whom the promised “relaxation” arrives, however not by God ignoring evil. As a substitute, by decisively addressing it. Moreover, 2 Peter 2:5 could point out that God, by way of Noah, truly supplied salvation to others.

Thus, the flood reveals each the severity of God’s opposition to evil and the stunning manner God brings aid (salvation) by way of judgment.

Scripture speaks of God in several modes

God is spirit (John 4:24). God is invisible (John 1:18; Rom 1:20; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:16). Thus, based on classical Christian theism, Christians have traditionally affirmed that God is “easy,” not composed of components. He’s unchanging (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17), exterior of the order of creation and alter. So he’s impassible, that means he’s not internally disquieted or disordered by forces appearing upon him. As Wyatt explains elsewhere,

Traditionally, Christians affirmed impassibility to indicate how the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob differed from the Greek gods like Zeus, Hermes, and Poseidon. Our God doesn’t observe his lusts and passions because of his created flesh. He can not as a result of he’s the Creator, not the creature.

But different Scriptures communicate of God having nostrils (e.g., Exod 15:8), that he’s “lengthy of nostril” (Exod 34:6), his “arm” saves (Isa 59:1), his “eyes” study the world (2 Chron 16:9), his “toes” are on earth (Isa 66:1), and so on.

As Wyatt explains, evaluating these kinds of passages, we see that Scripture speaks of God in two modes:

1. Passages describing God’s nature as he’s
2. Passages describing God’s actions as if he have been human and creaturely

These former descriptions ought to be given theological precedence within the sense of talking extra instantly about God as he exists in himself. The latter passages ought to be interpreted as figural, since they lead to absurdity and contradict the previous set of passages if taken actually. We don’t truly assume God possesses literal fleshly organs.

That stated, these latter passages talk true issues about God, so we must always not discard them as in the event that they have been unfaithful. The figural language precisely communicates what God intends us to know (e.g., he actually opposes evil). However we should interpret it by way of the lens of divine lodging: God describes himself in methods which can be very human-like in order that we will higher perceive him. Traditionally, Christians haven’t handled these two units of passages as competing however as complementary, every revealing truths about God in several methods.

These interpretive sensibilities apply to passages that talk of divine remorse. This “remorse” tells us how God pertains to sinful humanity, not how God’s internal emotional life shifts.

Scripture’s use of anthropopathism

As an example, Scripture typically describes God in methods which can be:

• Anthropomorphic: Passages communicate of God with human bodily options (eyes, nostril, arm)
• Anthropopathic: Passages communicate of God with human emotional experiences (remorse, grief)

So John Calvin explains Genesis 6:6–7 as an example of anthropopathism:

The repentance which is right here ascribed to God doesn’t correctly belong to him, however has reference to our understanding of him. For since we can not comprehend him as he’s, it’s vital that, for our sake, he ought to, in a sure sense, rework himself. That repentance can not happen in God, simply seems from this single consideration, that nothing occurs which is by him surprising or unexpected.

The identical reasoning, and comment, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Definitely God shouldn’t be sorrowful or unhappy; however stays endlessly like himself in his celestial and comfortable repose: but, as a result of it couldn’t in any other case be recognized how nice is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, due to this fact the Spirit accommodates himself to our capability.

Wherefore … it’s apparent to what finish these phrases of repentance and grief are utilized; particularly, to show us … that God was so offended by the atrocious wickedness of males, as if they’d wounded his coronary heart with mortal grief. … God, so as extra effectually to pierce our hearts, garments himself with our affections.

God “garments himself with our affections” in order that we would perceive the incomprehensible: God.

The grief and remorse language in Genesis 6 thus expresses one thing actual: God’s ethical opposition to sin and his deep dedication to righteousness. Nevertheless it doesn’t counsel internal turmoil or divine instability. Somewhat, this “grief” is an accommodated expression of God’s constant holiness, justice, and dedicated love for his creation.

The change happens in humanity, not God

Take into account these passages that state that God relents of judgment (e.g., Jer 18:7–10; see additionally Jonah 3). The purpose of those passages shouldn’t be that God internally modifications. God is all the time (unchangingly) simply. What modifications is the individuals.

God speaks conditionally about judgment and blessing:

• When a individuals rebels, God points judgment.
• But when a individuals repents, God relents from the catastrophe he in any other case supposed to convey upon them.

God is all the time simply. God is all the time merciful. People transfer towards or away from these mounted facets of God’s character. Thus, the identical God seems in a different way relying on human habits, simply as the identical solar each hardens clay and melts wax.

Trendy alternate options: open theism and softened immutability

Wyatt briefly outlines fashionable proposals that diverge from classical theism.

First, open theism maintains that God genuinely undergoes emotional modifications and doesn’t possess exhaustive information of future free actions. Divine remorse is real-time disappointment. This view goals to protect real human freedom, a divine love that’s risk-taking, and theodicy—that man, and never God, is absolutely accountable for evil.

Second, some evangelicals keep that God’s being and functions are unchanging, however his “emotional life” can fluctuate in real-time relational response. These are sincere makes an attempt to take critically these components of Scripture that talk of God when it comes to feelings or change.

The pastoral significance of God’s immutability and impassibility

Wyatt gives two critiques to those views. First, traditionally, these views stand in stark distinction to the unanimous educating of the early church by way of the Reformation.

However second, and extra pastorally, based on Wyatt, the above fashions threat undermining the believer’s confidence that God is a steady refuge—all the time loving, all the time good, and by no means destabilized by shifting moods. In line with Wyatt, God’s impassibility and immutability are very important for Christian consolation. If God have been passible within the human sense, he would possibly react impulsively; his love may waver with our failures; his mercy may dry up below emotional pressure; his persistence would possibly put on skinny. However as a result of God is unchanging, believers have a rock-solid assurance:

• God’s love is unwavering.
• God’s mercy shouldn’t be fragile.
• God’s persistence shouldn’t be depleted by our sin.
• God isn’t moody, erratic, or unpredictable.
• God is all the time who he’s, eternally and completely.

Launch a tailor-made research on doctrines like God’s unchangingness with Logos’s Factbook. Begin your free trial!

Immutability and Christ’s incarnation

However does God change within the incarnation, whereby God turns into what he was not: human?

No. Orthodox Christology confesses that God the Son, whilst he takes on human nature, stays really God, i.e., unchanged with respect to his divine nature. The truth is, if God’s divine essence have been to vary, corresponding to a mixing of the human and divine natures, the incarnation would collapse into heresy and a Christ who couldn’t save. Just one who’s each really God and really man can save. Thus, solely an immutable God who takes on human nature with out ceasing to be God can save.

This reinforces why immutability and impassibility will not be summary philosophical concepts. They shield the reality that Jesus Christ is each really God and really man—and with it our salvation.

Easy methods to preach and train Genesis 6:6–7 responsibly

When Kirk asks learn how to preach this passage, Wyatt offers what is perhaps a stunning reply: Preach it the best way Scripture presents it. Let the textual content communicate with its full emotional drive. Genesis 6 is supposed to “pierce our hearts,” as Calvin says. Don’t soften the language of “grieve” and “remorse” a lot that it loses its software. We don’t wish to so clarify away a textual content that we “defang” it from with the ability to attain individuals’s hearts. Generally we will so qualify a troublesome a part of Scripture that our listeners stroll away realizing what it doesn’t imply however uncertain of what it does imply. We don’t wish to be so “theological” that we will now not train the Bible!

That stated, pastors ought to of their full educating ministry train on doctrines that safeguard God’s unchanging goodness. This is probably not vital in each sermon on the passage, however it will be significant over one’s ministry to show the church necessary doctrines like immutability and impassibility in order that they don’t seem to be susceptible to misunderstand a textual content like Genesis 6:6–7.

Lastly, present the circulate of the narrative: generations of evil immediate divine judgment, but God additionally preserves Noah and extends grace.

Logos values considerate and interesting discussions on necessary biblical subjects. Nonetheless, the views and interpretations introduced on this episode are these of the people talking and don’t essentially mirror the official place of Logos. We acknowledge that Christians could maintain completely different views on this passage, and we welcome numerous engagement and respectful dialogue.

Tell us what you assume

What do you make of Genesis 6:5–8? Be a part of us within the Phrase by Phrase group to share your ideas.

Wyatt Graham’s advisable books

• Weinandy, Thomas. Does God Change? Research in Historic Theology. St. Bede’s Press, 2002.
• Gavrilyuk, Paul L. The Struggling of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought. Oxford Early Christian Research. Oxford College Press, 2004. 

Saint Augustine: The Trinity (Fathers of the Church)

Add to cart

Theological assets

Associated content material