Concept

God Is Surprised Objection

Intro

Open the Bible and God looks like He gets caught out. He walks in the garden asking "Where are you?" He is sorry He made people. He tells Abraham to stop, "for now I know that you fear God," as though He had just found out. He says He never even thought of the thing Israel did. He announces destruction on Nineveh and then does not do it. He regrets making Saul king. He plants a vineyard and asks why it produced sour grapes when He expected good ones.

The objection writes itself. An all-knowing God does not learn, does not regret, and is not surprised. Either the God of the Bible is not all-knowing, or the Bible contradicts itself. Both conclusions are bad for the Christian.

This is one of the more interesting objections, for two reasons. First, the texts are real and there are dozens of them; anybody who has actually read the Old Testament knows they are there, and an answer that pretends otherwise loses immediately. Second, it is not only an atheist argument. Open theists, who are Christians, read these same passages as the plain sense and take them as evidence that God does not know the future exhaustively. So the question is genuinely live inside the household, not only at the door.

The reply is not "those are just figures of speech." It is that the same writers, sometimes in the same chapter, deny exactly what the objection has them affirming, and they do it with the same word. Whatever those authors were doing, they were not reporting that God got a surprise, because they say twenty-four verses later that He does not.

◎ See this page's graph and discover linked topics →

In full

The objection holds that the Old Testament portrays God as acquiring information, revising plans, and experiencing regret, and that this portrayal is incompatible with the exhaustive omniscience that classical theism ascribes to Him. It is deployed in three distinct forms, which are usually run together and which need separate answers:

1. The contradiction form (atheist / skeptical): the Bible affirms both exhaustive foreknowledge (Isaiah 46:9-10) and divine surprise (Genesis 22:12), so it contradicts itself and cannot be a reliable revelation.
2. The limited-God form (atheist / process): the surprise texts are the honest ones and the omniscience texts are later theological inflation, so the real biblical God is a finite deity.
3. The open-theist form (Christian): the surprise texts are true and the omniscience texts are true, because future free acts are not there to be known; God knows all that is knowable, and the future is partly open. See Open Theism.

The defense turns on four things: the internal juxtaposition of the two kinds of statement by the same authors, often in one passage; the semantics of the Hebrew verbs, which are affective and volitional rather than cognitive; the announced conditionality of prophetic judgment at Jeremiah 18:7-10; and the fact that Isaiah makes foreknowledge the criterion of deity, so a God without it fails His own published test. The structured debate-prep version is God Is Surprised Objection Defeater.

The texts, stated fairly

A defense that shrinks the list is not a defense. These are the passages, grouped by what they appear to show.

God asks questions.

• Genesis 3:9, "Where are you?"
• Genesis 4:9, "Where is Abel your brother?"
• Genesis 18:9, "Where is Sarah your wife?"
• Numbers 14:11, "How long will this people spurn Me?"

God goes to investigate.

• Genesis 11:5, the LORD came down to see the city and the tower.
• Genesis 18:20-21, "I will go down now and see whether they have done entirely according to its outcry... and if not, I will know."

God comes to know through a test.

• Genesis 22:12, "now I know that you fear God."
• Deuteronomy 8:2, led forty years in the wilderness "to know what was in your heart."
• Deuteronomy 13:3, the LORD is testing you "to find out if you love the LORD your God."

God regrets and relents.

• Genesis 6:6, the LORD was sorry that He had made man.
• Exodus 32:14, the LORD changed His mind about the harm.
• 1 Samuel 15:11 and 15:35, I regret that I have made Saul king.
• Jonah 3:10, God relented concerning the calamity.
• Amos 7:3 and 7:6, the LORD changed His mind about this.

God expected something else.

• Isaiah 5:4, "Why did I expect it to produce good grapes when it produced worthless ones?"
• Jeremiah 3:7, "I thought, After she has done all these things she will return to Me; but she did not return."

God says it never entered His mind.

• Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35, child sacrifice at Topheth, "which I did not command and it did not come into My mind."

God's plan is altered by petition.

• Exodus 32:9-14, Moses intercedes and the threatened destruction does not happen.
• 2 Kings 20:1-6, Hezekiah is told he will die, prays, and is given fifteen years.

The counter-set the objection has to explain

The same canon, and often the same book, states the opposite at maximum strength.

• Isaiah 46:9-10, "declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done."
• Isaiah 41:21-23, the courtroom challenge to the idols: declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods. Foreknowledge is offered as the test of deity.
• Isaiah 44:7-8 and 48:3-5, predictions announced in advance precisely so that Israel cannot credit an idol.
• Psalm 139:4, "even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O LORD, You know it all."
• Psalm 139:16, the days ordained and written before one of them came to be.
• Numbers 23:19, God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should change His mind.
• 1 Samuel 15:29, the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind.
• Malachi 3:6, "I, the LORD, do not change."
• Acts 15:18, known from long ago.
• Hebrews 4:13, all things are open and laid bare to His eyes.

The Isaiah 41 point is the sharpest. The prophet does not merely assert that God knows the future; he makes the ability to declare the future the criterion by which a real god is distinguished from an idol. On the limited-God reading of the surprise texts, the God of Isaiah fails the test Isaiah wrote.

The four lines of reply

1. Internal juxtaposition

1 Samuel 15 is the decisive passage: verse 11 has God relenting over Saul, verse 29 has God denying that He relents because He is not a man, and verse 35 has Him relenting again. One chapter, one author, one Hebrew verb (nacham). No author writes that sequence while thinking the first statement reports a surprise. The chapter itself is telling the reader that the two statements operate at different levels. Balaam's oracle does the same thing in Numbers 23:19, and Jonah 4:2 has the prophet predicting the relenting of Jonah 3:10 as a settled feature of God's character, which is impossible if it was a change of mind.

2. The verbs are affective and volitional, not cognitive

Nacham covers grief, relief, consolation, and reversal of a declared course. It never means "to learn" or "to discover." Regret is not ignorance; a person can grieve over an outcome they saw coming. In Jeremiah 7:31, "nor did it come into My mind" translates the idiom alah al lev, "to come up upon the heart", which in Hebrew marks desire and intention rather than cognition, and stands in a parallel line with "which I did not command" and "which I did not speak." The claim is I never wanted this, not I never thought of it. Full treatment at H5162 - nacham and in the grammar section of the defeater.

3. Announced conditionality

Jeremiah 18:7-10 publishes the rule: when God announces judgment on a nation and that nation repents, He relents; when He announces blessing and the nation turns, He relents of the good. Every relenting text in the canon is this published rule operating as designed. Nineveh is the textbook case, and Jonah says explicitly that he ran away because he expected it. A policy that includes conditional responses is not a policy that changes when the conditions are met.

4. Accommodation and anthropomorphism, used carefully

Scripture describes God's arm, eyes, nostrils, and back, and no one infers that He has a body. The same accommodation governs the mental and emotional verbs. Calvin: God "lisps with us as nurses do with infants" (Institutes I.13.1). The care needed is not to let the principle become a solvent: if every divine emotion is dissolved into figure, the God of the Bible disappears into an abstraction, and the objector will fairly say the defense has saved omniscience by deleting the character. The disciplined version reads the affective language as really predicated of God and the epistemic implication as the accommodation.

The immutability form: "God relented, so God changed"

A second objection travels with the first and needs its own answer. It grants, for the sake of argument, that God was not surprised. It says the relenting texts still show God changing: He was going to do one thing, then He did another. And the Bible says, "For I, Jehovah, change not" (Malachi 3:6, ASV). So either God changes or the Bible contradicts itself.

The charge is ancient. In the pseudo-Clementine Homilies, the character Simon Magus lists the "defects" of the Creator from Scripture and says that "whereas it is written that 'God repented that he had made man,' this implies both repentance and ignorance" (Clementine Homilies III.39, Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 8, PDF p. 214). The modern version is the same argument.

The texts on both sides, in one place

• Relenting. "And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Genesis 6:6, ASV). "And Jehovah repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people" (Exodus 32:14, ASV). "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not" (Jonah 3:10, ASV). "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned back from following me" (1 Samuel 15:11, ASV).
• Not changing. "God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and will he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19, ASV). "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent" (1 Samuel 15:29, ASV). "For I, Jehovah, change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed" (Malachi 3:6, ASV).
• The rule that connects them. "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation ... to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation ... to build and to plant it; if they do that which is evil in my sight ... then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them" (Jeremiah 18:7-10, ASV).

Five lines of reply

1. Ask what changed: the subject or the object. In every relenting text the narrative names the change, and it is on the human side. Genesis 6 follows "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5). Saul "is turned back from following me" (1 Samuel 15:11). Nineveh "turned from their evil way" (Jonah 3:10). The people changed; God's response to them changed because His character did not. A holy God who responded the same way to repentance and to rebellion would be the inconstant one.
2. The verbs are different. The verb in Malachi 3:6 is shanah (Strong's H8138), "to change, alter, repeat"; the relenting texts all use nacham. Malachi's claim is that God does not become something other than He is. The relenting texts describe God turning from an announced course in response to people. There is no verbal contradiction to resolve, because the two sets of texts are not using the same word for the same thing.
3. The denials say what kind of repenting God does not do. Numbers 23:19 explains itself: God does not repent "as a man," the way a man goes back on his word: "Hath he said, and will he not do it?" 1 Samuel 15:29 is spoken right after Samuel announces that the kingdom has been torn from Saul, and it means that this verdict will not be reversed. Both denials are about God reneging on His word. Neither denies that God responds to people under the conditions He has announced.
4. Relenting is the published policy working. Jeremiah 18:7-10 states the rule in advance, and it runs in both directions: judgment withdrawn when a nation repents, blessing withdrawn when it turns to evil. A rule that is applied consistently produces different outcomes for people who act differently. Jonah knew the rule before he preached: he fled because "I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness, and repentest thee of the evil" (Jonah 4:2, ASV). What a prophet can predict about God is not a change in God. A familiar illustration of the point is the sun, which melts wax and hardens clay with the same heat: one unchanging cause, different results in different materials.
5. Justice and mercy are one character, not two moods. God's constant desire is stated outright: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel 33:11, ASV; see also 18:23). When the wicked turn and God relents, that desire is being fulfilled, not revised. Genesis 6 shows both sides in one paragraph: the same God who grieves and judges in verses 6-7 shows favor in verse 8, "But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah." The cross is where the two meet without either giving way: God is "just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26, ASV). The flood and the cross are not a God who changed between them; they are the same holiness and the same mercy, met in two different moments.

What the classical tradition said

• Origen answered Celsus on the flood narrative that "the supposed threatening has for its object the conversion of the hearers" (Against Celsus VI.58, Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 4, PDF p. 477). A warning meant to bring about repentance has succeeded when it is not carried out.
• Thomas Aquinas, on "It repenteth Me that I have made man," says "these words of the Lord are to be understood metaphorically, and according to the likeness of our nature" (Summa Theologiae I q.19 a.7, reply 1). On the conditional threats of Jeremiah 18 he cites Gregory the Great: "The sentence of God changes, but not His counsel" (same article, reply 2). The announced sentence can change; the eternal purpose that included the condition does not.
• The care noted under "Accommodation and anthropomorphism, used carefully" above applies here too. Calling the language metaphorical must not turn God's grief over sin into nothing. The text affirms that God's opposition to evil and His delight in repentance are real; what it denies is that they are fickle.

A short cross-examination

1. "When God relented over Nineveh, what changed: God's character, or Nineveh's behavior?" "Nineveh's behavior."
2. "Was Jeremiah's rule, judgment withdrawn when a nation repents, announced before or after Nineveh?" "Before, if Jeremiah 18 states a general rule."
3. "Then if God had destroyed a repentant Nineveh, would He have been keeping His word or breaking it?" "Breaking it, by that rule."
4. "So which would show a God who changes: relenting, or refusing to?"

The same distinction, between a change in the world and a change in God, answers the related charge that creating the world changed God: see God Changed When He Created Objection Defeater.

Spread of positions

Tensions

• The accommodation reply and the doctrine of immutability can be pushed to a point where God has no genuine relation to His creatures at all, which is not what Scripture depicts and not what the doctrine originally claimed. Holding accommodation and real divine responsiveness together is the harder and more honest position.
• The open-theist reading has the advantage of taking the surprise texts at face value. The reply that it does not take the foreknowledge texts at face value is fair, but it is a trade, not a clean win, and pretending otherwise is not honest apologetics.
• The Genesis 22:12 test formula is the hardest single text for the classical position, harder than the relenting texts, because it is explicitly epistemic. The best readings are that the test establishes what was known, and that the narrative's interest is in what Abraham and the reader come to know. Neither reading is effortless.

See also

• God Is Surprised Objection Defeater, the structured debate-prep reply
• H5162 - nacham, the relenting verb the whole objection runs on
• Divine Immutability, the attribute under dispute, with the anthropopathism doctrine
• Open Theism, the Christian position that reads these texts as decisive
• God Is Not a Man Objection Defeater, the counter-missionary use of Numbers 23:19
• Theological Fatalism, the philosophical problem on the other side of exhaustive foreknowledge
• Foreknowledge vs Causation, the epistemic-versus-causal distinction
• Molinism, conditional responses eternally known
• Hardening Pharaohs Heart, a neighboring OT difficulty about divine action and human will
• Bible Contradictions Objection Defeater, the general treatment of the contradiction form
• H3045 - yada, the knowing verb in the test texts
• Prayer, why petition matters if God already knows
• God Changed When He Created Objection Defeater, the same subject-versus-object distinction applied to creation
• Malachi 3.6, "I, Jehovah, change not," the text the immutability form of the objection quotes