DOES GOD CHANGE HIS MIND?

This question is posed by a Bible critic who points out the contrast between God's statement in Genesis 6:6 regarding God repenting that He had made mankind and passages such as Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 which state that God does not change his mind. In all three cases the operative Hebrew verb is the same: nhm. Let us start with two quotations from the scholarly literature regarding the meaning of that Hebrew root:

“The word is used to express two apparently contrasting sentiments in 1 Sam 15, where God says, 'I am grieved (nhm) that I have made Saul king' (v. 11; cf. v. 35), but where Samuel also announces that 'the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind (nhm), for he is not a man, that he should change his mind (nhm)' (v. 29). The explanation seems to be that God does not capriciously change his intentions or ways of acting. It is the change in Saul's behavior that leads to this expression of regret. The reference is notable as being one of the rare occasions when God is said to repent or change his mind concerning something intended as good (cf. Gen 6:6).” (Butterworth)

Kaiser mentions the above scriptural uses of nhm and others besides and agrees that “many are legitimately startled when they read that the Lord 'was grieved' or 'repented' that he had ever made man and woman upon the earth (Gen 6:6). How can both the immutability and the changeableness of God be taught in the same canon of Scripture?”

Kaiser's answer to such concerns is for us to keep in mind that basically anthropomorphic language (using human emotions and passions to explain the actions of God) is being utilized which can never adequately describe His character.

He goes on to say, “When the Bible says that God repented, the idea is that his feelings toward some person or group of persons changed in response to some change on the part of the objects of his action or some mediator who intervened (often by God's own direction and plan)...In Genesis 6:6 the repentance of God is his proper reaction to continued and unrequited sin and evil in the world. The parallel clause says that sin filled his heart with pain. This denotes no change in his purpose or character. It only demonstrates that God has emotions and passions and that he can and does respond to us for good or ill when we deserve it. The point is that unchangeableness must not be thought of as if it were some type of frozen immobility. God is not some impervious being who cannot respond when circumstances or individuals change...He does not change in his character, person or plan. But he can and does respond to our changes.”

Let us next consider what some commentators say regarding the three specific passages quoted by our critic:

Genesis 6:6

Hamilton, in discussing this verse, explains that nhm is related to the noun nehama, which means “breath.” The verb can have six distinct meanings, including such things as suffering emotional pain, being comforted, executing wrath, retracting punishment or blessing, and retracting a sinful life. So obviously, much depends on the specific context. Hamilton also notes that “only a few passages that speak of God's repentance refer to God repenting over something already done. The vast majority of the instances of Yahweh's nhm have to do with this possible change of will concerning a future plan of action. This is one significant difference between God's repentance and man's. Still, the fact that the OT affirms that God does repent, even over a fait accompli, forces us to make room in our theology for the concepts of both the unchangeability of God and his changeability.”

“'Regret' or 'repent' may suggest a mere change of attitude, but when God 'repents,' he starts to act differently...That God should change his mind might lead to his being accused of capriciousness, which Scripture firmly denies: 'God is not a son of man that he should repent' (Num 23:19; cf. 1 Sam 15:29). Such remarks obviously raise various questions for the doctrine of divine sovereignty and its correlate human responsibility, but theological systemization is hardly the concern of the biblical narrators. For them divine repentance is a response to man's changes of heart, whether for better or worse.” (Wenham)

Numbers 23:19

Ashley also notes the anthropomorphic language in this verse and warns us that it is “only an analogy.” He next reviews some of the Old and New Testament verses expressing the idea that God never changes. Regarding this, he says that “one must be careful to read in these an invariability in purpose rather than a modern, pseudoscientific kind of unapproachable immutability, which in the end denies God any real relationship with his creation. It is important for a biblical doctrine of God's constancy that both these kinds of affirmations be held simultaneously. Although God's larger purposes do not change, as a Being in relationship his ways of dealing with others in that relationship will vary in specific cases. People are unreliable and fickle; Yahweh is neither.”

Carson cites Edersheim as saying that God's repentance is His "unmovedness while others move and change. The divine finger ever points to the same spot but man has moved from it to the opposite pole.”

Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29

Andersen and Freedman point out the similarity in thought between these two passages and then state:
“The conclusion would be in both cases that God is different from man in that he is faithful and just; he does what he says he will do. He does not say one thing and do another, neither does he change his mind for frivolous reasons or no reason. He is not capricious or arbitrary but is truthful, consistent, and reliable. In that sense he does not repent: he does not change his mind and then change it again without cause...Whether in words or prayers, repentance may be, as it often is, a sham. Divine repentance, on the contrary, has nothing in common with this sort of activity. When Yahweh repents, it is always for cause and is never deceptive or false. The reality is that there is an important difference between divine repentance and the human variety; at the same time, there is a significant similarity, for otherwise the same word would not be used....In the end, it may be truer to affirm both statements and risk contradiction instead of asserting one and explaining away the other, in order to achieve a false or superficial consistency.”

Poetic Parallelism

All three quoted passages are poetic or semi-poetic in nature. Thus, the two lines in each can be used to explain one another since they should express the same basic thought.

Genesis 6:6

    “And the LORD repented that he had made humankind on the earth,

    and it grieved him to his heart.”

This is roughly cast in the form of introverted parallelism in which “repent” in the first line expresses a similar idea to “grieve” in the second one.

Numbers 23:19a and I Samuel 15:29

    Moreover the Glory of Israel will not deceive (or recant) or change his mind,

    for he is                                        not a mortal that he should change his mind.”

In these parallel verses, it becomes obvious that God's actions are to be contrasted to those of mankind, not compared to them. Also, depending on which original text you adopt, this verse defines “changing his mind” as the same as deceiving or recanting.