.and God Repented

Enquiry into a perplexing subject

The assertion, some eight times repeated, that God “repented” of something that He had done has often given rise to the question what is implied. Common sense dictates that it is impossible for the Creator of all things, having all knowledge and foresight, to regret his action in some specific instance and wish it had not been so done. “With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,” is James’ comment on God’s ways. (James 1:17) The fact that we cannot think of this “repentance” of God in just the same way as we understand the term—which nowadays has for the most part a theological significance and signifies repentance for past sin—is evidenced by the words of Balaam in Num.23:19 “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it?” God is all-wise and omniscient; He is in full control of the creation He has brought into being. It is inconceivable that He can ever be in the position of wishing that He had not done something which He has done.

If this be conceded, it remains to consider what is implied by the several occasions on which it is said that God “repented.” The foremost example—and the first—is at the time of the Flood, when “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth...and it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” (Gen.6:5-6) The common view of this text is that God regretted having created mankind and resolved to destroy them as unfit for further life. That this view cannot possibly be true is evidenced by the fact that at a much earlier period, in the days of Eden, God had told the first human pair that He proposed eventually to undo the harm that had been done by the advent of sin, that there would be a saviour from among those yet to be born of their descendants. This presupposes that God envisaged the presence of mankind on the earth long after the Flood had come and gone.

In these circumstances, the first thing to do is look at the word for which the A.V. (and earlier) translators selected “repent” as the English equivalent. “Nacham,” like many Hebrew words, has a variety of meanings, largely determined by the grammatical class, whether passive, active, intensive, and so on, most of which is beyond the comprehension of any but competent Hebrew scholars and will not be enlarged upon here. Suffice to say that the general use of the word in all the Scriptures, with whatever English words it is translated, is the best guide. In this particular case the word is derived from the idea of drawing in the breath in order to contain one’s grief. Hence in the O.T. its meaning is to lament or grieve over something that has happened, (48 times), to grieve on account of a person or persons—to pity (twice) to comfort others or oneself (45 times), to be comforted (8 times). Of all these the A.V. translates the word by “repent” 41 times and “comfort” 61 times, and on one occasion (Isa.1:24) “I will ease me of mine adversaries.”

That such divergent ideas as repentance and comfort can be presented as the meaning of the same Hebrew word only underlines the difficulties faced by translators. To some extent, of course, theological beliefs and human standards of conduct must have their influence. It could be very difficult to see how God could take comfort in the state of affairs before the Flood; much more understandable to think that God, in his grief, was sorry He had ever made man and wished He had not done so, which is how the N.E.B. puts it “He was sorry that he had made man on earth....I am sorry that I ever made them.” But when in the account of Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah, it is said (Gen.24:67) that “Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death,” where “comforted” is the same word “nacham” it is obviously incongruous to suggest that he repented of his action in marrying Rebekah, so “comfort” was the English word used. Likewise Judah was “comforted” in Gen.38:12, David in 2 Sam.13:39, Rachel “refused to be comforted” for her lost children in Jer.31:15. All these and other examples are in the same passive form of the verb as in Gen.6:5-6. Many more in the active sense include Gen.5:29 where Lamech says of Noah “this same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil...” which hardly includes the idea of repentance; Gen.37:35 where Jacob’s sons “rose up to comfort him” at the loss of Joseph; Job 2:11, Job’s three friends came “to mourn with him and to comfort him”; Psa.23:4 “thy rod and thy staff they comfort me:” Isa.61:2 “to comfort all that mourn:” Zech.1:17 “the LORD shall yet comfort Zion.” There are many more examples; these are sufficient.

From all this it would appear that the Divine “repentance” at the time of the Flood was a deep personal grief at the fact of human sin because He himself was man’s Creator and Father. God grieved at the consequence of his making man, not regretting that He had made man, but regretting the sorry state of affairs which had resulted. The Septuagint says that “God laid it to heart that he had made man on the earth, and he pondered it deeply.” There is a small grammatical point here; “chay” is a relative conjunction “that” and also a relative causal particle “because.” The translators have to choose which meaning best fits the sense. If, instead of “that” we say “God repented because he had made man...it repenteth me, because I made them” the emphasis changes. God grieved for the sinful state of man because He had been responsible for their creation in the first place, and so, to bring in the New Testament, was in the position of the father in the parable of the prodigal son. There was no suggestion of reversing his plans for this earth and destroying it for ever, but there is the plain statement of what God would do to deal with the situation. He declared, in short, that He would alter the course of history, for man’s own sake. The human society upon earth was altogether corrupt; if tradition be true, the terse words of Genesis 6 constitute a masterly understatement of the position. Violence and murder were the order of the day; in the expressive words of the Book of Enoch, “as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven.” (Enoch 8:4) So God determined to take away all that generation and make a new start.

It was a merciful decision. There is a future for all of them. They will come back in the resurrection to a far happier state of society than the one they knew, and be able to hear of the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Much later on, God acted similarly in the case of the perhaps equally corrupt people of Sodom and Gomorrah. “I took them away as I saw good (fit)” He said. (Ezek.16:50)

On a subsequent occasion God told Samuel “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me.” (1 Sam.15:11) The decision grieved Samuel “and he cried unto the LORD all night.” Could it have been a matter of less grief to God himself? He had chosen Saul and presented him to the people, and Saul, at first so full of promise, had defected and shown himself unworthy. Here surely is another case where God was compelled to change the course of events but did so with grief.

A different aspect is presented by a number of texts in which God is said to repent “of the evil which he thought to do to his people.” (Exod.32:14) In each of these cases, about nine or ten in all, the position is that the people of Israel had violated their covenant and apostasised from God, and in accordance with the terms of that covenant they were due in consequence to reap trouble and disaster of all kinds—failure of crops, famine, invasion of enemies, and so on. But Israel repented and came back to God so that He lifted the threatened retribution. Perhaps the English word “relent” would be the best to employ in such cases. God relented, not capriciously in an irresponsible fashion, but because the people had fulfilled the conditions necessary for the lifting of the sentence. “It repented the LORD because of their groanigs” says Judg.2:18. “If that nation…turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” (Jer.18:8) When the inhabitants of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” (Jonah 3:10).

A rather striking usage of the word is found in Ezek.5:13. The Lord is talking to Ezekiel about the grave unfaithfulness of Israel and warning of the consequences that must follow. After detailing with some of these consequences the Lord says “Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause my fury to rest upon them, and I will be comforted.” The word nacham, here rendered “comforted,” has the implication that God is both sympathetic towards and solicitous for his erring people coupled with satisfaction that the right thing has been done. They have received the treatment which at the last will effect their final reconciliation with God. The same idea occurs in Isa.40:1-2 “Comfort , comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her...that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received at the LORD’s hand double for all her sins.” The same word, nacham, certainly not meaning repentance, for her iniquity is now pardoned, but a message of comfort and hope for the future, because God has turned from his chastening and is now commencing to bless.

It has been said that these references to God “repenting” should be understood as his changing his course of action in view of changed circumstances, but not his ultimate intention. Saint Augustine, commenting on Gen.6:6-7, says that the Divine action was “an unchanged ordering of changeable things. For God repents not of anything He does, as man does” (“City of God” Bk.15 chap.23). The reverse of this idea, a change in the direction of action, is indicated in such expressions as Hos.13:14 “O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes”: Psa.110:4 “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”; Ezek.24:14. “I the LORD have spoken...I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent.” In such instances the fixity of Divine intention is indicated and probably “relent” is the best word to use.

All in all, it seems that the repentance of God defines his concern at a condition of things existing out of harmony with his will, and his determination to change it, allied with feeling of pity or grief for those affected, yet combined with satisfaction or comfort in the knowledge that in the onward progress of his overall plan all things will yet be well.