Does God Change His Mind? Divine Constancy and Contingency in the Old Testament

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction: The Puzzle of a Repenting God

The Bible does something rather unsettling. On one page it insists that God “is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent” (Num 23:19). Flip a few pages, and you find Him doing precisely that: “The Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people” (Exod 32:14). One verse portrays God’s purposes as unshakeable, another depicts Him as responsive, even reactive, to human behavior. Classical theologians from Augustine to Aquinas have leaned hard on the first set of texts to safeguard divine immutability. Yet the second set won’t go away. They stubbornly remain, unsettling neat systematic categories and demanding a more careful reading of Scripture itself.

Robert B. Chisholm Jr.’s 1995 study “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” remains one of the most incisive treatments of this tension, and it will serve as the backbone of our exploration here. Chisholm argues that the biblical answer to the question, “Does God change His mind?” is a qualified “it depends.” Everything turns on the nature of the divine statement in question. Some are decrees—formal, unconditional declarations that are by nature irrevocable. Others are announcements—statements of divine intent that remain contingent, open to alteration depending on human response. Once that distinction is grasped, the apparent contradiction largely dissolves.

Still, the problem is not merely lexical or exegetical. It cuts to the heart of how we speak about God: how an unchanging deity can interact meaningfully with a changing world. What follows is an extended engagement with the biblical material, with particular attention to the semantic range of the Hebrew verb nāḥam (נחם), the contexts of divine decrees and announcements, and the theological implications of a God who both “does not change” and yet sometimes “relents.”

The Semantics of Nāḥam: A Word with Layers

Everything begins with a word. The Hebrew root nāḥam, often rendered “repent” or “relent,” appears in two stems—Niphal and Hithpael—across a range of Old Testament texts. Its semantic field is surprisingly broad, encompassing at least four distinct senses.

First, nāḥam can describe emotional pain or sorrow, as in Genesis 6:6, where “the Lord was grieved that He had made man on the earth.” This is not about reversal of action but the divine pathos in response to human wickedness. Similarly, in 1 Samuel 15:11, God “regrets” making Saul king, signaling divine anguish, not fickleness.

Second, the term can mean to be comforted or to comfort oneself, sometimes through vengeance (cf. Isa 1:24; Ezek 5:13). This usage reflects an emotional resolution or satisfaction, not a reversal of course.

Third, it can indicate relenting from a course of action already underway. In 2 Samuel 24:16, for example, God “relents” from destroying Jerusalem after the angel of the Lord stretches out his hand against it. Here, nāḥam marks a change in divine action prompted by unfolding circumstances.

Finally—and most relevant to our question—nāḥam can mean to retract a statement, to change one’s mind concerning a declared course of action. This fourth category includes texts like Exodus 32:14, Jonah 3:10, and Amos 7:3, where God abandons or revises a previously stated intention. Interestingly, the same term appears in contexts where God emphatically refuses to change His mind (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4). In other words, the same verb can denote either divine constancy or contingency, depending on context.

This semantic flexibility is crucial. It suggests that nāḥam by itself does not signal a metaphysical change in God. Rather, it is a relational term, describing how God engages with His creatures and how He adjusts (or refuses to adjust) His stated intentions in light of their actions. The theological question, then, is not whether nāḥam occurs, but when and why.

Decrees and Announcements: A Key Distinction

Chisholm’s most illuminating contribution is his distinction between divine decrees and divine announcements. The former are unconditional and binding; once issued, they cannot be reversed. The latter are conditional, either explicitly or implicitly, and may be altered based on human response.

The difference is illustrated even at the human level in Genesis. When Esau rashly offers his birthright to Jacob (Gen 25:32–33), Jacob refuses to settle for mere words and demands an oath—transforming an informal statement into a binding commitment. Likewise, on his deathbed, Jacob requires Joseph to swear to bury him in Canaan (Gen 47:28–31), turning a promise into a formal decree. Words alone may be withdrawn; an oath binds the speaker irrevocably.

The same holds true in divine speech. Some statements are formalized as decrees, often accompanied by oaths or other markers of finality. Others are announcements of intention that, while serious, remain open to revision. Recognizing which is which is essential if we are to avoid misreading the biblical text.

Immutable Words: When God Will Not Change His Mind

Let us begin with the texts that deny divine change. These passages consistently occur in the context of decrees—unconditional divine commitments that, by their nature, admit no revocation.

Numbers 23:19 – The Irrevocable Blessing

When Balak hires Balaam to curse Israel, God intervenes, compelling the prophet to bless instead. Balaam prefaces his second oracle with a theological axiom: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent” (Num 23:19). This is not a general statement about divine immutability in all things; rather, it introduces a specific decree—God’s blessing of Israel. “I have received a command to bless,” Balaam declares, “when He has blessed, I cannot revoke it” (v. 20). The point is not that God never changes His mind about anything, but that He does not retract His decreed blessing. The connection to the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15:18; 17:8; 22:17) is deliberate. What God has sworn to do for Abraham’s descendants cannot be undone by human sorcery—or anything else.

1 Samuel 15:29 – Saul’s Rejection

A more complex case is Saul’s rejection. In 1 Samuel 13:13–14, after Saul’s impatience leads him to offer an unauthorized sacrifice, Samuel declares that Saul’s kingdom “shall not endure” and that God “has sought out a man after His own heart.” At this point, it is unclear whether this is a decree or a warning. Saul’s dynasty, perhaps, could still be spared if he repents.

But by chapter 15, the situation has changed. Saul’s failure to carry out the ḥerem against Amalek provokes a definitive divine judgment: “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today” (15:28). Samuel immediately adds, “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” (v. 29). Here, the language of irrevocability marks the statement as a decree. Whatever ambiguity may have lingered earlier is now gone: Saul’s kingship is over.

This episode also illustrates the semantic elasticity of nāḥam. In verse 11, God “regrets” making Saul king—language of divine sorrow. In verse 29, the same root, now negated, declares that God will not “change His mind” about Saul’s removal. The two uses are not contradictory. The first describes God’s grief over Saul’s sin; the second marks the decree’s unchangeable nature.

Psalm 110:4 – The Priest-King Oath

Psalm 110:4 presents another classic decree: “The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’” Here, divine constancy is explicitly linked to a sworn oath. The verse does not claim that God never changes His mind in any respect, but that He will not retract this specific, solemnly ratified promise.

Jeremiah 4:28; Ezekiel 24:14; Zechariah 8:14 – Decreed Judgment

Prophetic texts likewise use “I will not relent” language to signal decreed judgment. Jeremiah 4:28 declares, “I have spoken; I will not relent, nor will I turn back from it.” Ezekiel 24:14 insists, “I the Lord have spoken; it shall come to pass, I will do it; I will not go back.” Zechariah 8:14 recalls how God “purposed to bring disaster” and “did not relent.” In each case, the emphasis is on the fixed nature of a judgment that has moved from threat to decree. Once God has resolved upon judgment in this formal way, prophetic intercession—even from figures like Moses or Samuel—cannot overturn it (cf. Jer 15:1).

Conditional Words: When God Does Change His Mind

Other passages, equally prominent, portray God as altering His stated intentions in response to human action. In every case, these involve announcements, not decrees—conditional statements of intent that remain open-ended until human response either confirms or nullifies them.

Exodus 32:14 – The Golden Calf and Moses’ Intercession

When Israel worships the golden calf, God announces His intention to destroy them and start over with Moses (Exod 32:10). Yet the grammatical form—imperative + jussive + cohortatives—signals frustration rather than a formal decree. Moses takes the hint and intercedes, appealing to God’s reputation among the nations and to His covenant promises to the patriarchs. The result: “So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do” (v. 14). The same God who declared judgment now relents, not because He is capricious but because His announcement was designed to invite precisely this intercession.

Amos 7:3, 6 – Prophetic Intercession and Divine Patience

A similar dynamic plays out in Amos 7. God shows Amos visions of locusts and fire, each representing impending judgment. Twice Amos pleads, “O Lord God, forgive, I beseech You!” Twice God relents: “The Lord changed His mind about this. ‘It shall not be,’ said the Lord” (vv. 3, 6). Again, these were not decrees but warnings—announcements that could be averted through intercession. Only with the third vision, depicting a plumb line, does God declare, “I will spare them no longer” (v. 8), signaling a shift from announcement to decree.

Jeremiah 18:7–10 – The Potter’s Principle

Jeremiah articulates the theological principle behind such texts with memorable imagery. God, like a potter shaping clay, reserves the right to reshape His intentions in light of human response. “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted… but that nation repents, then I will relent and not inflict the disaster I had planned” (vv. 7–8). Conversely, if God announces blessing and the nation turns to evil, He may “reconsider” and withhold the blessing (v. 10). Divine announcements are inherently contingent.

The same principle underlies Jeremiah 26:3, where God expresses hope that Judah might repent so that He might “relent of the disaster” He planned. When elders recall how Hezekiah’s repentance averted the destruction predicted by Micah (Jer 26:17–19), they reaffirm the pattern: repentance invites divine relenting.

Joel 2:13–14 – “Who Knows?”

Joel 2 is a study in deliberate ambiguity. In the face of a devastating locust plague—“the day of the Lord” already in motion—Joel calls the people to repentance, grounding his appeal in God’s character: “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness” (v. 13). Then he adds, “Who knows whether He will turn and relent and leave a blessing behind Him?” (v. 14). The uncertainty is the point. God has not issued a decree; the door remains open. And indeed, when the people respond, “the Lord became jealous for His land and had pity on His people” (v. 18).

Jonah 3:10; 4:2 – Nineveh and the God Who Relents

The Nineveh episode in Jonah is perhaps the most famous example of divine relenting. Jonah’s message is stark and unconditional-sounding: “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jon 3:4). But the Ninevites instinctively sense its contingency. “Who knows,” the king muses, “God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish” (v. 9). They repent, and God indeed “relented concerning the calamity” (v. 10). Jonah, furious, complains that this is exactly what he feared: “I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God… and One who relents concerning calamity” (4:2). Jonah’s protest inadvertently underscores the point: God’s willingness to change His mind in such circumstances is not an exception to His nature but an expression of it.

Patterns and Principles: Bringing the Data Together

Surveying the evidence, a clear pattern emerges. When God issues a decree, He does not change His mind. When He makes an announcement, He often does. The two sets of passages do not contradict one another; they speak to different kinds of divine speech.

Several additional observations refine this conclusion.

First, even decrees can have conditional timing. Elijah’s pronouncement of doom on Ahab’s dynasty (1 Kgs 21:20–24) was unconditional in content, but Ahab’s repentance delayed its fulfillment (vv. 27–29). Likewise, God’s rejection of Saul was final, but the actual transition to Davidic rule unfolded gradually. God’s decrees are fixed in essence but sometimes flexible in execution.

Second, divine announcements are often designed precisely to invite repentance. Jonah’s threat against Nineveh was not an ironclad decree but a rhetorical device to bring the city to its knees. As Richard Rice notes, many warnings of judgment function less as forecasts than as calls to conversion, meant to make room for mercy.^1

Third, God’s willingness to relent is not a lapse in constancy but a facet of His covenantal character. Joel and Jonah both cite God’s self-revelation in Exodus 34:6–7, where His grace, patience, and steadfast love are foregrounded. God’s readiness to change His mind in response to repentance is not a sign of weakness but an expression of that enduring character. As Terence Fretheim observes, divine relenting is woven into Israel’s creedal understanding of who God is.^2

Finally, the semantic diversity of nāḥam reminds us that “change” language about God must be handled carefully. In some contexts, it signals divine sorrow (Gen 6:6), in others comfort (Isa 1:24), in others still a reversal of declared intent (Exod 32:14). To collapse these meanings into a single metaphysical claim about divine immutability—or its absence—is to flatten the rich texture of the biblical witness.

Theological Reflections: Immutability Revisited

What, then, becomes of the classical doctrine of divine immutability? Is it simply at odds with a God who “changes His mind”? Not necessarily. Much depends on what we mean by immutability.

If immutability is taken in the strong metaphysical sense of absolute unchangeability—no change in knowledge, will, or emotional response—then the biblical data pose a serious challenge. The God of the Old Testament not only reacts but invites response, adjusts His plans, and even grieves. Yet most theologians, including Augustine and Aquinas, have never denied all forms of change in God. They have distinguished between God’s essence, which is unchangeable, and His relations to the world, which vary as the world itself changes.

From this perspective, divine “relenting” does not entail an alteration in God’s nature or eternal purpose. It is rather the temporal expression of His consistent character—His mercy, justice, and faithfulness—in new historical circumstances. God’s essence remains immutable, but His dealings with creatures are responsive. As Bruce Ware has put it in a different context, “immutability does not mean immobility.”^3

The decree/announcement distinction reinforces this nuance. When God swears an oath or issues a decree, He binds Himself irrevocably; His unchangeable character underwrites His unchangeable word. But when He issues an announcement, He does so with relational contingency built in. His willingness to relent is itself an unchanging aspect of His covenantal love.

Conclusion: “It All Depends”

So, does God change His mind? The only honest answer is Chisholm’s: “It all depends.” If God has decreed a course of action—formally sworn by Himself or otherwise marked as unconditional—then no human plea, repentance, or rebellion can alter it. In those cases, texts like Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 hold fast: “The Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind.”

But if God has merely announced an intention—especially a threat or a promise unaccompanied by oath—then He may very well change His mind in response to human behavior. Indeed, Scripture suggests that He delights to do so. “Who knows?” becomes the refrain of prophets and kings alike (Joel 2:14; Jon 3:9). And again and again, God proves Himself “gracious and compassionate… and One who relents concerning calamity” (Jon 4:2).

Far from undermining God’s constancy, this interplay of decree and announcement reveals the depth of His covenantal faithfulness. The God who swears by Himself and does not repent is the same God who turns from wrath when sinners turn from sin. His unchanging character is displayed precisely in His dynamic responsiveness. In that sense, divine immutability and divine “repentance” are not enemies but allies, two sides of the same coin—the steadfast God whose mercies are new every morning.

---

Endnotes

1. Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985), 79–80.

2. Terence E. Fretheim, “The Repentance of God: A Key to Evaluating Old Testament God-Talk,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 10.

3. Bruce A. Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000), 84.