Grace in Focus — Episode Summary

Episode Title: Why Does the Old Testament Say That God Repented?
Hosts: Bob Wilkin and Ken Yates
Date: September 26, 2025
Duration: 13 minutes

Overview

In this episode, hosts Bob Wilkin and Ken Yates tackle a thought-provoking listener question: Why does the Old Testament say that God repented? The discussion centers on how the concept of "repentance" applies when scripture uses it in reference to God, especially since traditional evangelical definitions equate repentance with turning from sin—a concept that clearly cannot apply to God. They explore the linguistic, theological, and contextual nuances of the term both in the Old and New Testaments, aiming to bring clarity to how believers should approach "repentance" in biblical interpretation.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Question: God “Repenting” in the Old Testament

• Listener “John” asks why the OT says God repented, given God cannot sin, and what this means for interpreting the concept of repentance.
• The hosts explain that in the Septuagint (Greek OT), the word used for God “repenting” is metanoeo, the same Greek word for repentance in the New Testament. (01:12–01:53)

2. Defining Repentance: Is It Always Turning from Sin?

• Common evangelical teaching (citing Zane Hodges) is that repentance means turning from sin to restore fellowship with God.
• John’s challenge: In the OT, when God “repents,” it obviously cannot mean turning from sin—so does it simply mean a “change of mind?” (01:53–03:05)
• Ken suggests: “Doesn't that mean that the context determines it?...it means more of a change of mind.” (02:50, A)

3. Anthropomorphism and God’s Unchanging Nature

• Bob affirms his dissertation argument: the language of God “relenting” or “repenting” is anthropomorphic—a figurative way of speaking as though God were human.
• Bob: “Obviously, God can't change his mind because God is omniscient…How could God change his mind if he already knew everything he's going to do forever?” (03:05–03:45, C)
• Ken concurs: “He knows everything.” (03:30, A)
• These passages, then, describe God’s interactions in human terms, not literal divine instability or ignorance.

4. Repentance in Context: Old Testament vs. New Testament Usage

• Bob acknowledges, “The context is key.” Repentance could, theoretically, mean any change of mind.
• Yet, in the New Testament (NT), Bob asserts the word is not used neutrally (as in “changed my mind about where to travel”) but always with a moral component—turning from sin. (04:49–05:37, C)
• Cites Revelation 9:20–21 and 16:9,11, where people “did not repent” of specific sinful deeds, not just attitude adjustments. (05:37–07:36)

5. Repentance: Mental and Volitional Components

• Ken clarifies: “You mean turn from those things.” (06:06, A)
• Bob: “There is a mental element to it…It's not just the decision, but it’s the actual turning.” (07:16–08:44, C)
• If one only changes internal attitude without corresponding action, it is not biblical repentance.

6. Word Studies and Meaning Over Time

• Ken introduces the diachronic (historical) perspective: “Could metanoia…500 years before the NT have meant a change of mind? But then over time…changed its meaning?” (10:59–11:21, A)
• Bob agrees this happens with words (e.g., “cupboard” or “gay”), but in the case of metanoeo in the NT, repentance always has the sense of turning from sin, despite possible semantic shifts over centuries. (11:21–11:50)
• Bob welcomes further scriptural examples from the listener to explore exceptions. “I would love John…send me some examples of actual verses…where it uses [metanoeo] of God and none of them are obviously him…turning from a sinful action, but it is turning from an action to a different action.” (11:50–12:32, C)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On anthropomorphism:

  “It's a figure of speech called an anthropomorphism. It's a figure of speech as though God were a man. Obviously, God can't change his mind because God is omniscient.”
  (03:05–03:30, C)

• On context and meaning:

  “The context is key. Hypothetically, in the NT, it could say Paul was planning on going to Damascus, but he changed his mind and decided to go to Rome. You could use metanoeo there. But it never is like that.”
  (04:49–05:22, C)

• About word evolution:

  “Even in English, the word ‘gay,’ if you use…100 years ago, would have absolutely no connotation of a homosexual…A word changes time.”
  (10:46–11:21, A)

• On mental vs. volitional nature of repentance:

  “There is a mental component to repentance…but the repentance itself is turning. So…there is a mental component to it, but the repentance itself is turning.”
  (08:05–08:44, C)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:04: Listener Question Introduced: God Repenting in the OT
• 03:05: Anthropomorphism Explained; God’s Omniscience
• 05:37: Examination of Repentance Passages in Revelation
• 07:12: Repentance as More than Mental Change
• 10:46: Diachronic Approach: Word Meaning Changes Over Time
• 11:50: Call for Listener's Scriptural Examples / Summary of Discussion

Conclusion

Bob and Ken conclude that “repentance,” when applied to God in the Old Testament, is a figurative expression reflecting a change in His course of action, not a change of mind from sin. In the New Testament, repentance always includes both a mental and volitional element—a real turning away from sin, not a mere change in thought. They encourage listeners to always let context determine meaning and acknowledge the evolving nature of language in biblical interpretation.

For further reading and questions:
Visit faithalone.org and explore thousands of free articles, as well as previous episodes and resources from the Grace Evangelical Society.

(Ads, credits, and non-content sections omitted as per guidelines)