The Hebrew Bible contains explicit statements that God regretted creating humanity and regretted making Saul king of Israel.1, 2 The word "regret" in these passages translates the Hebrew nacham, which carries meanings of sorrow, grief, repentance, and changing one's mind.3 These texts present God as responding with regret to outcomes He did not desire or anticipate, raising difficult questions about divine foreknowledge and immutability. The problem is compounded by other passages that explicitly deny that God ever regrets or changes His mind, sometimes appearing in the same narrative context.4, 5
God regretted making humanity
The flood narrative in Genesis begins with God's assessment of human wickedness and His response to it. Genesis 6:5-6 states:
"The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart." Genesis 6:5-6 (English Standard Version)1
The following verse makes the consequence explicit: "So the LORD said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.'"6 The decision to destroy humanity through the flood is presented as a direct result of God's regret at having created them.
The Hebrew text uses two significant words in verse 6. The first is nacham (נָחַם), translated "regretted" or "repented," which literally means "to sigh" or "to breathe strongly," and carries the sense of being sorry, grieving, or changing one's mind.3 The second is atsab (עָצַב), translated "grieved," which means to be hurt, pained, or distressed.7 Together, these terms present God as experiencing profound emotional distress and regret over the outcome of His own creative act.
The text attributes God's regret to the wickedness of humanity, not to any error in the act of creation itself.8 However, the passage raises an immediate question: if God is all-knowing, why would He create beings whose future wickedness would cause Him such regret that He would destroy them? The narrative presents God as responding to an outcome He finds intolerable, but an omniscient God would have foreseen this outcome from the beginning.
God regretted making Saul king
The same Hebrew word nacham appears prominently in the narrative of Saul's rejection as king in 1 Samuel 15. After Saul fails to completely destroy the Amalekites as commanded, God speaks to the prophet Samuel:
"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." 1 Samuel 15:11 (English Standard Version)2
The chapter concludes with a repetition of the same theme: "And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel."9 The Hebrew nacham appears in both verses, explicitly stating that God regretted His own decision to make Saul king.10
The text attributes God's regret to Saul's disobedience and failure to follow divine commands.2 Samuel's initial response to God's statement is telling: "And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night."11 Samuel's distress suggests he understood the gravity of God changing His mind about the king He Himself had chosen and anointed.
The narrative presents a timeline in which God chose Saul, had him anointed as king through Samuel, and then later came to regret that choice based on Saul's subsequent behavior.12 This sequence implies that God's decision was contingent on Saul's actions—actions that God either did not foresee or chose not to prevent.
The meaning of nacham
The Hebrew word nacham appears over 100 times in the Hebrew Bible with a range of meanings depending on context.3 Biblical lexicons define it as meaning "to be sorry, to pity, to console, to rue, to repent, to change one's mind."3 The word properly means "to sigh" or "to breathe strongly," conveying emotional intensity, and by extension refers to the feelings and responses that accompany such sighing—sorrow, regret, comfort, or reconsideration.13
In many contexts, nacham clearly means repentance from sin or moral wrongdoing, as when humans are called to repent.14 When applied to God, the word takes on different connotations, since God by definition cannot repent from moral error. When the Bible states that God "repented" or "regretted," it signifies either grief and sorrow over an outcome, or a change in His course of action in response to changed circumstances.15
The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates nacham in Genesis 6:6 with the Greek enthumeomai, meaning "to reflect," "to ponder," or "to take to heart."16 Some later English translations soften the language: the New International Version uses "regretted," while the New Living Translation renders it "sorry he had ever made them."17, 18 The King James Version uses "repented," the most literal rendering of nacham, though this invites confusion with moral repentance from sin.19
Whatever translation is chosen, the core meaning remains: God experienced a negative emotional response to an outcome and determined to change His course of action. In Genesis 6, this led to the decision to destroy humanity. In 1 Samuel 15, it led to the rejection of Saul as king.
Occurrences of divine regret in the Hebrew Bible1, 2, 9, 20, 21
| Passage | What God regretted | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Genesis 6:6-7 | Making humanity | The flood |
| 1 Samuel 15:11 | Making Saul king | Saul's rejection |
| 1 Samuel 15:35 | Making Saul king | Samuel never saw Saul again |
| Exodus 32:14 | His plan to destroy Israel | Relented from judgment |
| Jonah 3:10 | His plan to destroy Nineveh | Did not carry out threatened disaster |
The internal contradiction
The passages stating that God regretted His actions stand in direct tension with other biblical texts that explicitly deny God ever regrets or changes His mind. Numbers 23:19 declares:
"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Numbers 23:19 (English Standard Version)4
The phrase "change his mind" in this verse translates the Hebrew nacham—the same word used in Genesis 6:6 and 1 Samuel 15:11 to say God did regret and change His mind.3 Numbers 23:19 asserts that God, unlike humans, does not engage in the very action (nacham) that other passages attribute to Him.
The contradiction becomes even more acute in 1 Samuel 15 itself. After stating twice that God regretted making Saul king (verses 11 and 35), the same chapter contains Samuel's declaration to Saul:
"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret." 1 Samuel 15:29 (English Standard Version)5
The word translated "regret" in verse 29 is nacham, the identical word used in verses 11 and 35 of the same chapter to say that God did regret making Saul king.10 Within the span of eighteen verses, the same text states both that God regretted making Saul king and that God does not have regret.
The juxtaposition is striking. Verse 11: "I regret (nacham) that I have made Saul king." Verse 29: God "will not have regret (nacham), for he is not a man, that he should have regret (nacham)." Verse 35: "The LORD regretted (nacham) that he had made Saul king over Israel." The text affirms and denies divine regret using the same Hebrew word in the same narrative context.
The problem of foreknowledge
If God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, the concept of divine regret becomes logically problematic. To regret an action is to wish one had chosen differently—to recognize that an outcome is undesirable and that a different choice would have been preferable. But an omniscient being who knew with certainty what would result from each possible action cannot coherently regret the action chosen, because the choice was made with full knowledge of all consequences.
When God created humanity, if He possessed complete foreknowledge, He knew that humanity would become so wicked that He would regret creating them and decide to destroy them.22 When God made Saul king, if He possessed complete foreknowledge, He knew Saul would disobey and that He would regret the appointment.23 In both cases, God chose to proceed despite knowing He would later regret the choice. This raises the question: why make a choice you know you will regret?
The biblical authors do not appear troubled by this question. The texts present God as genuinely responding to circumstances as they unfold, experiencing sorrow and regret when things do not go as desired, and changing His course of action accordingly. This portrait is consistent with a God who genuinely interacts with a dynamic world, but it sits uneasily with later theological formulations of divine immutability and exhaustive foreknowledge.
The doctrine of immutability
Classical Christian theology developed the doctrine of divine immutability—the teaching that God does not change in His being, attributes, will, or knowledge.24 This doctrine draws support from passages like Malachi 3:6 ("For I the LORD do not change"), James 1:17 (God "does not change like shifting shadows"), and Hebrews 13:8 ("Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever").25, 26, 27
Augustine of Hippo articulated the classical position that God's nature and will are eternally unchanging, and apparent changes in God's actions are actually changes in creation's relationship to God's unchanging will.28 Thomas Aquinas developed this further, arguing that God's will is absolutely immutable, though God can will that things change.29 On this view, when the Bible speaks of God changing His mind or relenting from judgment, it describes a change in God's actions toward humanity, not a change in God's eternal will or knowledge.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, representative of Reformed theology, states: "There is but one only living and true God... without body, parts, or passions, immutable."30 The phrase "without passions" (impassibility) is directly relevant to passages describing God's regret, which attribute emotional responses to God. Classical theology interprets such language as anthropopathism—attributing human emotions to God in order to communicate truths about His actions in terms humans can understand.31
Apologetic responses
Theologians and apologists have offered various explanations to reconcile the passages affirming divine regret with those denying it. Each response merits examination.
The anthropopathism explanation
The most common defense is that passages describing God's regret use anthropopathic language—attributing human emotions and responses to God as an accommodation to human understanding.31 On this view, God does not literally experience regret as humans do, but the language of regret communicates how God's actions appear from a human perspective or how they would be understood in human terms.
This explanation has merit as a general hermeneutical principle. The Bible frequently uses human metaphors for God—arms, eyes, ears, walking, sitting on a throne—that no one takes literally.32 Extending this principle to emotions like regret seems reasonable.
However, the anthropopathism defense faces challenges. First, the biblical authors do not signal that "regret" is being used any differently than the many factual statements about God's actions. The same narrative voice that says "God regretted" also says "God saw," "God said," and "God sent the flood."1 If "regretted" is merely anthropopathic accommodation while "saw," "said," and "sent" are literal, what textual indicators establish this distinction?
Second, the passages emphasize God's regret as the cause of His subsequent actions. Genesis 6:6-7 presents a causal chain: because God regretted making humanity, He decided to destroy them.1 If the regret is not real, the causal explanation becomes fictional—the text would be saying God destroyed humanity because of an emotion He didn't actually experience.
Third, the direct contradiction within 1 Samuel 15 becomes harder to explain. If both statements—that God regretted (v. 11, 35) and that God does not regret (v. 29)—are using the same word in the same way, they cannot both be literally true.10 At least one must be interpreted non-literally, but the text provides no clear indication which one.
The relational change explanation
Some interpreters argue that God's regret refers not to a change in God's eternal will or knowledge, but to a change in His relational posture toward humanity or individuals based on their actions.33 God's will from eternity may have been: "If humanity becomes wicked, I will respond with judgment." When humanity became wicked, God enacted the predetermined response, which appears as a change from the human perspective.
This view finds support in passages like Jeremiah 18:7-10, where God explicitly states that His declarations of judgment or blessing are conditional on how people respond.34 If a nation turns from evil, God will relent from the disaster He planned; if a nation turns to evil, God will reconsider the good He promised.
Applied to the regret passages, this interpretation suggests that God's "regret" means His relationship to humanity changed (from favor to judgment) because humanity's behavior changed (from obedience to wickedness). God's eternal will included this conditional response all along, but it is described in temporal, emotional language as "regret" because that captures how the change in relationship is experienced.
This explanation preserves divine immutability while taking the regret language seriously as describing something real, albeit from a creaturely temporal perspective. However, it requires reading a significant amount of theological sophistication into texts that appear much simpler on their face. Genesis 6:6 does not say "God enacted His pre-planned conditional judgment," it says "God regretted that he had made man on the earth."1
The contextual distinction explanation
Another approach focuses on the specific context of passages denying that God changes His mind. Some scholars argue that Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 are not making universal statements about God's nature, but rather specific declarations about particular decisions that God will not reverse.35
In Numbers 23:19, the context is Balaam's oracle that God has blessed Israel and will not curse them.4 The statement "God is not man, that he should change his mind" refers specifically to this blessing—God will not revoke His commitment to Israel regardless of external pressure. In 1 Samuel 15:29, Samuel tells Saul that God will not relent from the decision to reject him as king—this specific judgment is irrevocable, even though God regretted making Saul king in the first place.5
On this reading, the passages denying divine regret are not universal theological statements but contextual declarations: "God will not change His mind about this particular matter." This allows other passages to describe God changing His mind in other circumstances without contradiction.
This interpretation has the advantage of taking the immediate context seriously and not forcing every statement about God into a systematic theological framework. However, Numbers 23:19 grounds its specific claim (God will not revoke the blessing on Israel) in a general theological principle (God is not like humans who change their minds).4 The verse appears to be making a claim about God's nature, not just this particular decision.
Open theism's alternative
Open theism offers a different theological framework that takes the regret passages at face value. This view holds that God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of future free choices, that the future is genuinely open, and that God responds dynamically to how events unfold.36 On this view, God can genuinely regret decisions because He made them without complete knowledge of how they would turn out.
When God created humanity, He knew the possibilities but not the certainties of how humans would use their freedom. When humanity chose widespread wickedness, God genuinely regretted having created them—this was not the outcome God desired or expected.37 Similarly, when God made Saul king, He did so hoping Saul would be faithful, and when Saul proved unfaithful, God genuinely regretted the choice.
Open theism has the advantage of straightforward biblical interpretation—it reads the regret passages as they appear without extensive theological reinterpretation. It also addresses the logical problem of regret: a being with partial knowledge of the future can coherently regret decisions, while a being with exhaustive foreknowledge cannot.
However, open theism remains a minority position in Christian theology and is rejected by most traditional theologians as incompatible with divine omniscience and sovereignty.38 Critics argue that it limits God's knowledge and control, makes God's promises less certain, and contradicts biblical passages that appear to describe God's exhaustive foreknowledge of future events.
A literary perspective
From a literary and historical-critical perspective, the tensions in these texts may reflect different theological traditions and authorial perspectives within the Hebrew Bible. Genesis 6 belongs to the Yahwist (J) source, generally dated to the monarchic period and characterized by anthropomorphic descriptions of God.39 This source presents God as walking in the garden, personally forming Adam from dust, smelling Noah's sacrifice, and experiencing human-like emotions including regret.
The passages denying that God changes His mind may reflect different theological streams. Numbers 23:19, part of the Balaam oracles, emphasizes God's reliability and unchanging commitment to Israel.4 The tension in 1 Samuel 15 may reflect editorial layering, with verses 11 and 35 preserving an earlier tradition of God regretting Saul's kingship, while verse 29 represents a later theological gloss emphasizing divine immutability.
On this view, the biblical authors were not systematizing theologians attempting to present a perfectly consistent portrait of God's nature. They were preserving diverse traditions and perspectives, some presenting God as emotionally responsive and others emphasizing His unchanging reliability. Later readers, approaching the text as a unified theological system, encounter apparent contradictions that the original authors did not attempt to resolve.
What the text reveals
Whatever interpretive strategy one adopts, the regret passages reveal something significant about how the biblical authors conceived of God. At minimum, they thought it appropriate and meaningful to describe God as experiencing regret, even if modern readers debate whether this language should be taken literally.
The texts present a God who responds to circumstances, experiences emotional reactions to human choices, and changes His course of action when outcomes prove intolerable. Whether this represents God's actual nature or an anthropopathic accommodation, it reflects a fundamentally relational understanding of God—a deity who is affected by creation and who adjusts His approach based on creaturely response.
The passages also raise uncomfortable questions about divine decision-making. If God regretted creating humanity, would He do it differently if given another chance? If God regretted making Saul king, does that mean the choice was a mistake? The texts do not say God erred—His choices were responses to human sin, not errors in judgment. Yet "regret" implies recognition that a different choice would have been preferable, which sits uneasily with the concept of divine perfection.
For readers who hold to biblical inerrancy and divine immutability, these passages require interpretive work to reconcile them with those theological commitments. For readers approaching the text from a historical or literary perspective, they reveal the complexity and development of ancient Israelite theology. For readers who take the text at face value, they present a God who genuinely relates to creation with emotional investment and who can wish that past choices had been different.
What the text clearly does not support is the claim that God never regrets His actions. The Bible explicitly states, multiple times, that God regretted creating humanity and making Saul king. Whether that divine regret is literal or metaphorical, absolute or contextual, it is what the text says. Readers must decide what to make of that claim and how to reconcile it with other biblical statements about God's unchanging nature.