Does Genesis 6:6 imply God made a mistake? Text and Immediate Context “Yahweh regretted that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with grief.” (Genesis 6:6) Verse 7 immediately clarifies the action that follows: “So Yahweh said, ‘I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth…’” (v. 7). The regret is framed within a judicial pronouncement against human wickedness (vv. 1-5) and sets the stage for Noah’s deliverance (v. 8). Anthropomorphism and Divine Accommodation Scripture frequently uses human language to convey God’s actions (Numbers 23:19; Isaiah 55:8-9). Statements of divine “regret” communicate in relational terms what an immutable, omniscient God eternally knows: sin provokes His personal displeasure (cf. Ephesians 4:30). The wording bridges the Creator-creature gap without compromising divine perfection. Immutability and Omniscience Affirmed Elsewhere • “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind” (Numbers 23:19). • “The Glory of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not a man who changes His mind” (1 Samuel 15:29). • “I, Yahweh, do not change” (Malachi 3:6). Genesis 6:6 must harmonize with these texts, not overturn them. Scripture’s consistent portrait is that God foreknows all (Isaiah 46:10), decrees wisely (Psalm 33:11), and experiences real—but not capricious—emotions. Regret Versus Mistake 1. A mistake involves lack of foresight or faulty judgment. 2. Regret, in biblical idiom, is sorrow over the object’s state, not ignorance of future outcomes. The Flood narrative shows that God’s grief arises from humanity’s chosen corruption, not from divine oversight. As a teacher disciplines while foreseeing possible rebellion, so God judges yet mourns (cf. Hosea 11:8-9). Parallel Biblical Examples • Saul’s kingship (1 Samuel 15:11): God “regrets” appointing Saul, yet Samuel reminds us God does not err. The language underscores moral displeasure, not a blunder in divine planning. • Nineveh (Jonah 3:10): God “relents” from disaster when people repent. The verb expresses covenantal responsiveness. Ancient Near Eastern Contrast Flood myths like the Gilgamesh Epic portray capricious gods regretting decisions out of ignorance or petty rivalry. Genesis stands apart: the sovereign Creator acts purposefully, morally, and justly. Even secular Assyriologists note the ethical elevation in Genesis over its Mesopotamian counterparts. Philosophical Coherence An infinite, omniscient being cannot miscalculate without ceasing to be God. Therefore, any theistic worldview that accepts biblical attributes must interpret Genesis 6:6 phenomenologically—language of appearance to finite observers—rather than ontologically—language of divine limitation. Harmonization with the New Testament The sorrow culminates in redemptive hope: “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:20). The Flood prefigures Christ’s atoning work, where divine justice and mercy meet (Romans 3:25-26). The God who grieved in Genesis ultimately bears grief in the flesh (Isaiah 53:4-5) and conquers it by resurrection. Conclusion Genesis 6:6 records God’s profound sorrow over human wickedness, expressed in accommodated human language. It does not depict a lapse in foreknowledge or wisdom. Instead, it affirms God’s holiness, relational nature, and unwavering purpose—consistent with the whole counsel of Scripture. |
    |