Does God Change His Mind? | Wyatt Graham on Genesis 6:5–8

Genesis 6:6–7 says that God “regretted” making humanity. This seems to imply divine change, sorrow, or even error. But how can God regret anything if he is all-knowing, unchanging, and perfectly wise?

In this episode of What in the Word?, Kirk E. Miller is joined by Wyatt Graham to unpack the theological and interpretive challenges of Genesis 6:5–8. Together, they explore the role of anthropopathism in Scripture and answer questions like, Does God experience emotion? Can he change his mind? And how should pastors faithfully teach such texts?

Follow the show on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more.

Connect with us

Ready to increase biblical literacy? Like and share. To go the extra mile, leave us a review on your preferred platform. See all of our episodes.

Episode guest: Wyatt Graham

Wyatt Graham (PhD) serves as the Academic Dean of Carey Theological College. You can follow him at www.wyattgraham.com.

• X
• Link

Episode synopsis

Kirk E. Miller welcomes Wyatt Graham to address one of Scripture’s more jarring moments: Genesis 6:6–7 describes God as “regretting” that he made humanity and being “grieved” in his heart. This language appears to ascribe human-like emotional disturbance in God, possible changes in his intentions or inner state, and an implicit admission that God had made a “mistake.” The passage raises theological questions:

• Does divine “repentance” conflict with the doctrine of immutability (God does not change)?
• Does regret imply God made an error?
• How can an all-knowing God regret an action he knew he would take?
• Does God’s grief conflict with the doctrine of divine impassibility (God is not subject to fluctuating emotional states)?

A tension presented by Scripture itself

Genesis 6:6–7 confronts us with two intense verbs to describe God’s action: regret (נחם) and grieve (עצב).

A tension emerges as we examine Scripture’s testimony. Some passages, like Genesis 6:6–7, seem to state that God changes in some respect (e.g., Exod 32:14). Yet others assert God’s stability:

• “I the LORD do not change” (Mal 3:6)
• “God is not man … that he should change his mind” (Num 23:19)
• God is “the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (Jas 1:17)
• The heavens and earth change, but “you [God] are the same” (Ps 102:27)

In fact, within 1 Samuel 15 itself, the same Hebrew word for regret (נחם) is used in two different ways:

• God “regrets” making Saul king (v. 11)
• Yet God “will not … have regret” (v. 29)

Thus, the Bible itself pushes us to ask: How should we read these two kinds of statements in light of each other? Are they contradictory, or is something else happening?

Use Logos’s Exegetical Guides to locate important words and passages. Start your free trial!

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

Before resolving this theological tension, Wyatt highlights the literary context, particularly some lexical repetition in the Hebrew text of Genesis that proves foundational for properly understanding Genesis 6.

Genesis 5:29 records Lamech naming his son Noah (נֹחַ) and explaining the name with a promise: this child “shall bring us relief (נחם)¹ from our work (מַעֲשֶׂה) and from the painful toil (עִצָּבוֹן) of our hands” because God had cursed “the ground (אֲדָמָה).” This language then reappears—carefully and intentionally—in Genesis 6:6–7, where God regretted (נחם) and was grieved (עצב) that he had made (עשׂה) humanity (אָדָם).² (Additionally, Noah’s name in Genesis 6:8 [נֹחַ] visually mirrors the Hebrew word for “favor” [חֵן], also found in Gen 6:8, creating another possible wordplay.)

Genesis 5:29	Genesis 6:6–8
Noah (נֹחַ) and relief (נחם)	regretted (נחם)
ground (אֲדָמָה)	humanity (אָדָם)
work (מַעֲשֶׂה)	had made (עשׂה)
painful toil (עִצָּבוֹן)	grieved (עצב)

The deliberate replay of all this vocabulary signals that Genesis 6 is narratively connected to the promise about Noah in Genesis 5:29. Genesis 6 explains the fulfillment of the promise that God would bring relief and rest through Noah. But that “relief” comes in a surprising way: through the flood. God’s judgment removes persistent evil and creates a fresh beginning through Noah. Yet there’s an element of substitution here: If God promises relief from pain (עִצָּבוֹן), it’s interesting that God himself feels that pain (עצב).

This in part helps explain the shocking vocabulary used in Genesis 6:6–7. The intentional parallels with Genesis 5:29 demonstrate that the choice of verbs in Genesis 6:6–7 is not owing to a standalone theological statement about God’s emotional life. It is part of a larger literary strategy to connect these adjacent passages.

The flood as relief through God’s patient judgment

It’s also important to observe that the world of Genesis 6 is not a place of minor misbehavior. It is the climax of generations of escalating wickedness (Gen 4–5). Human violence and corruption saturate the earth. See especially the sin of the “daughters of men” with the “sons of God” immediately preceding the flood event. As Wyatt emphasizes, God is not portrayed as having a short fuse (see also Exod 34:6–7; 2 Pet 3:4–9). The genealogy of chapter 5 shows centuries of patient restraint. This is not a portrait of an impulsive deity but of a morally serious God responding consistently to the entrenched evil of humanity.

Likewise, in this context, we see that Noah “found favor [grace]” in God’s eyes (Gen 6:8). God’s act of judgment—the flood—becomes simultaneously an act of salvation, a theme echoed later in 1 Peter 3:18–22. God judges evil in order to deliver. Noah becomes God’s instrument through whom the promised “rest” arrives, but not by God ignoring evil. Instead, by decisively addressing it. Additionally, 2 Peter 2:5 may indicate that God, through Noah, actually offered salvation to others.

Thus, the flood reveals both the severity of God’s opposition to evil and the surprising way God brings relief (salvation) through judgment.

Scripture speaks of God in different 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, according to classical Christian theism, Christians have historically affirmed that God is “simple,” not composed of parts. He is unchanging (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17), outside of the order of creation and change. So he is impassible, meaning he is not internally disquieted or disordered by forces acting upon him. As Wyatt explains elsewhere,

Historically, Christians affirmed impassibility to show how the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob differed from the Greek gods like Zeus, Hermes, and Poseidon. Our God does not follow his lusts and passions due to his created flesh. He cannot because he is the Creator, not the creature.³

Yet other Scriptures speak of God having nostrils (e.g., Exod 15:8), that he is “long of nose” (Exod 34:6), his “arm” saves (Isa 59:1), his “eyes” examine the world (2 Chron 16:9), his “feet” are on earth (Isa 66:1), etc.

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

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

These former descriptions should be given theological priority in the sense of speaking more directly about God as he exists in himself. The latter passages should be interpreted as figural, since they result in absurdity and contradict the former set of passages if taken literally. We do not actually think God possesses literal fleshly organs.

God describes himself in ways that are very human-like so that we can better understand him.

That said, these latter passages communicate true things about God, so we should not discard them as if they were untrue. The figural language accurately communicates what God intends us to know (e.g., he really opposes evil). But we must interpret it through the lens of divine accommodation: God describes himself in ways that are very human-like so that we can better understand him. Historically, Christians have not treated these two sets of passages as competing but as complementary, each revealing truths about God in different ways.

These interpretive sensibilities apply to passages that speak of divine regret. This “regret” tells us how God relates to sinful humanity, not how God’s inner emotional life shifts.

Scripture’s use of anthropopathism

For instance, Scripture often describes God in ways that are:

• Anthropomorphic: Passages speak of God with human bodily features (eyes, nose, arm)
• Anthropopathic: Passages speak of God with human emotional experiences (regret, grief)

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

The repentance which is here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him. For since we cannot comprehend him as he is, it is necessary that, for our sake, he should, in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot take place in God, easily appears from this single consideration, that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen.

The same reasoning, and remark, applies to what follows, that God was affected with grief. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains forever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity.

Wherefore … it is obvious to what end these words of repentance and grief are applied; namely, to teach us … that God was so offended by the atrocious wickedness of men, as if they had wounded his heart with mortal grief. … God, in order more effectually to pierce our hearts, clothes himself with our affections.⁴

God “clothes himself with our affections” so that we might understand the incomprehensible: God.

The grief and regret language in Genesis 6 thus expresses something real: God’s moral opposition to sin and his deep commitment to righteousness. But it does not suggest inner turmoil or divine instability. Rather, this “grief” is an accommodated expression of God’s consistent holiness, justice, and committed love for his creation.

The change occurs in humanity, not God

Consider those passages that state that God relents of judgment (e.g., Jer 18:7–10; see also Jonah 3). The point of these passages is not that God internally changes. God is always (unchangingly) just. What changes is the people.

God speaks conditionally about judgment and blessing:

• When a people rebels, God issues judgment.
• But if a people repents, God relents from the disaster he otherwise intended to bring upon them.

God is always just. God is always merciful. Humans move toward or away from these fixed aspects of God’s character. Thus, the same God appears differently depending on human behavior, just as the same sun both hardens clay and melts wax.

Modern alternatives: open theism and softened immutability

Wyatt briefly outlines modern proposals that diverge from classical theism.

First, open theism maintains that God genuinely undergoes emotional changes and does not possess exhaustive knowledge of future free actions. Divine regret is real-time disappointment. This view aims to preserve genuine human freedom, a divine love that is risk-taking, and theodicy—that man, and not God, is fully to blame for evil.

Second, some evangelicals maintain that God’s being and purposes are unchanging, but his “emotional life” can fluctuate in real-time relational response. These are honest attempts to take seriously those parts of Scripture that speak of God in terms of emotions or change.

The pastoral importance of God’s immutability and impassibility

Wyatt offers two critiques to these views. First, historically, these views stand in stark contrast to the unanimous teaching of the early church through the Reformation.

But second, and more pastorally, according to Wyatt, the above models risk undermining the believer’s confidence that God is a stable refuge—always loving, always good, and never destabilized by shifting moods. According to Wyatt, God’s impassibility and immutability are vital for Christian comfort. If God were passible in the human sense, he might react impulsively; his love could waver with our failures; his mercy could dry up under emotional strain; his patience might wear thin. But because God is unchanging, believers have a rock-solid assurance:

• God’s love is unwavering.
• God’s mercy is not fragile.
• God’s patience is not depleted by our sin.
• God is never moody, erratic, or unpredictable.
• God is always who he is, eternally and perfectly.

Launch a tailored study on doctrines like God’s unchangingness with Logos’s Factbook. Start your free trial!

Immutability and Christ’s incarnation

But does God change in the incarnation, wherein God becomes what he was not: human?

No. Orthodox Christology confesses that God the Son, even as he takes on human nature, remains truly God, i.e., unchanged with respect to his divine nature. In fact, if God’s divine essence were to change, such as a mixing of the human and divine natures, the incarnation would collapse into heresy and a Christ who could not save. Only one who is both truly God and truly man can save. Thus, only an immutable God who takes on human nature without ceasing to be God can save.

Only an immutable God who takes on human nature without ceasing to be God can save.

This reinforces why immutability and impassibility are not abstract philosophical ideas. They protect the truth that Jesus Christ is both truly God and truly man—and with it our salvation.

How to preach and teach Genesis 6:6–7 responsibly

When Kirk asks how to preach this passage, Wyatt gives what might be a surprising answer: Preach it the way Scripture presents it. Let the text speak with its full emotional force. Genesis 6 is meant to “pierce our hearts,” as Calvin says. Do not soften the language of “grieve” and “regret” so much that it loses its application. We don’t want to so explain away a text that we “defang” it from being able to reach people’s hearts. Sometimes we can so qualify a difficult part of Scripture that our listeners walk away knowing what it doesn’t mean but unsure of what it does mean. We don’t want to be so “theological” that we can no longer teach the Bible!

That said, pastors should in their full teaching ministry teach on doctrines that safeguard God’s unchanging goodness. This may not be necessary in every sermon on the passage, but it is important over one’s ministry to teach the church important doctrines like immutability and impassibility so that they are not prone to misunderstand a text like Genesis 6:6–7.

Finally, show the flow of the narrative: generations of evil prompt divine judgment, yet God also preserves Noah and extends grace.

---

Logos values thoughtful and engaging discussions on important biblical topics. However, the views and interpretations presented in this episode are those of the individuals speaking and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Logos. We recognize that Christians may hold different perspectives on this passage, and we welcome diverse engagement and respectful dialogue.

Let us know what you think

What do you make of Genesis 6:5–8? Join us in the Word by Word group to share your thoughts.

Wyatt Graham’s recommended books

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

Theological resources

Suggested Genesis commentaries

Related content

• Divine Impassibility: Does God Feel Emotions Like We Do?
• Classical Theism & the Ongoing Trinity Wars: An Overview
• The Attributes of God: Who God Is & Why It Matters
• Who Are the “Sons of God” and Nephilim? | James Hamilton on Genesis 6
• From Genesis to Judgment: Original Sin Fully Explained

1. The Hebrew word for “relief” here sounds like “Noah,” making them a play on words.
2. This Hebrew word for “Adam” (or “humanity”) also means “ground.”
3. Wyatt Graham, “Divine Impassibility: Does God Feel Emotions Like We Do?” Word by Word, February 18, 2025, https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-divine-impassibility/.
4. John Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1, trans. John King (Logos Bible Software, 2010), 248–49.