Introduction: The Controversial Nature of Divine Regret
Genesis 6:6 is one of the most theologically and linguistically significant verses in the Hebrew Bible. The verse reveals Jehovah’s emotional reaction to the pervasive wickedness of humankind shortly before the judgment of the flood. At the center of interpretive and translational debates are two key Hebrew verbs: yinnaḥēm (וַיִּנָּחֶם) and yitʿaṣṣēb (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב). These terms convey a dual expression of Jehovah’s divine sorrow—regret and grief—which are often diluted or conflated in various English translations. A literal, faithful rendering is essential for accurately conveying the theological weight and emotional depth of this pivotal moment in redemptive history.
In a high view of Scripture that emphasizes inerrancy and the authority of the original text, the task of the translator is to represent what God said through His inspired writers—not what we think He meant. Thus, we approach this passage with a commitment to literal translation principles, lexical integrity, contextual analysis, and doctrinal faithfulness, avoiding theological bias or the temptation to smooth over difficult truths.
UASV Translation: “And Jehovah regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.”
This translation stands as an exemplary rendering based on lexical, syntactical, and contextual considerations. It avoids theological compromise while preserving the emotional and volitional force found in the original Hebrew.
The Lexical and Grammatical Force of yinnaḥēm (וַיִּנָּחֶם)
The verb yinnaḥēm comes from the root נחם (nāḥam), and in this form (niphal), it typically communicates the ideas of being sorry, regretting, or relenting. It occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, often in contexts where a change of disposition or course is involved. In many cases, it is applied to Jehovah, and yet not in a way that contradicts His immutability (Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19). Rather, it reflects a shift in disposition toward an object or action in light of new circumstances—often moral corruption or repentance.
Key usages of nāḥam in the niphal form include:
Exodus 32:14 – “And Jehovah changed his mind [wayyinaḥem] about the harm that he said he would do to his people.” 1 Samuel 15:35 – “And Jehovah regretted [niḥam] that he had made Saul king over Israel.”
In these instances, nāḥam conveys not fickleness or unpredictability in God but a consistent moral character that responds differently to changed human behavior. The Hebrew grammar supports an interpretation where Jehovah’s sorrow results from the direction humanity has taken, not from any flaw in divine foreknowledge.
In Genesis 6:6, yinnaḥēm expresses Jehovah’s emotional and volitional sorrow over what His creation had become, not over the act of creation itself. The context of Genesis 6:5, which highlights the total moral collapse of mankind (“every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”), sets the stage for this divine reaction.
To substitute “was sorry” (NASB) or “was grieved” (NIV) for yinnaḥēm is to compromise the full volitional and emotional force the term carries. “Was sorry” can be construed as casual or passive in English, while “grieved” confuses yinnaḥēm with ʿāṣab (the second verb). The term “regretted” is the most fitting and faithful rendering, capturing both the sorrow and reconsideration implied in the Hebrew.
The Lexical Nuance of wayyitʿaṣṣēb (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב)
The second verb in Genesis 6:6, wayyitʿaṣṣēb, stems from the root עצב (ʿāṣab), meaning to be pained, hurt, or grieved. This verb occurs in other passages describing deep emotional pain, particularly in interpersonal or covenantal contexts. Its focus is on interior distress—a heart-level anguish.
Relevant examples include:
Genesis 34:7 – “The sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it, and the men were grieved [wayyitʿaṣṣēbû]…” 1 Samuel 20:34 – “Jonathan got up from the table in fierce anger. On that second day of the month, he did not eat, because he was grieved [niʿṣab] at his father’s shameful treatment of David.”
In Genesis 6:6, the phrase “and it grieved him to his heart” (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל־לִבּוֹ) communicates a profound emotional burden within Jehovah. Unlike nāḥam, which focuses on a reconsideration of an action or attitude, ʿāṣab centers on the emotional suffering that accompanies such reflection. The prepositional phrase ʾel-libbô (to his heart) emphasizes the depth of this distress. Jehovah’s grief is not distant or abstract; it is deeply personal and internal.
Translations that render ʿāṣab idiomatically—such as “his heart was filled with pain” (NIV) or “it broke his heart” (NLT)—sacrifice literal clarity for poeticism. While such renderings may evoke emotional resonance for modern readers, they do so at the expense of exegetical fidelity.
Why “Regretted” and “Grieved” Must Be Kept Distinct
The coupling of yinnaḥēm and yitʿaṣṣēb is not redundant but intentionally complementary. The former denotes reconsideration and divine regret; the latter reveals emotional grief and sorrow. Merging these concepts in translation either weakens the semantic force or obscures the dual aspect of God’s reaction.
In context, Genesis 6:6 functions as a bridge between the assessment of mankind’s wickedness (6:5) and the divine resolution to judge and destroy the earth (6:7). This regret is not repentance from wrongdoing (as if God had erred), but sorrow that the outcome of creation, due to human free will and moral decay, required such drastic judgment.
Theologically, this preserves divine holiness, justice, and emotional integrity without conceding to the flawed interpretations that accuse the verse of promoting divine fallibility.
Theological Objections to Divine Regret and the Biblical Answer
Some theologians are uncomfortable with the idea of Jehovah expressing “regret,” fearing it implies a change in divine knowledge or perfection. This concern often leads to softening yinnaḥēm into “was sorry” or “was grieved,” subtly masking the strong meaning to protect theological presuppositions about divine immutability.
However, the Scripture never suggests that divine regret equals divine imperfection. Rather, Jehovah’s regret is portrayed as the righteous sorrow of a holy Creator witnessing the moral collapse of His creation. It is a personal, moral, and consistent response to wickedness, not a failure of divine foresight or purpose.
Jehovah does not change in essence (Malachi 3:6), but He does respond to human behavior. To deny this is to ignore the consistent witness of Scripture and to read philosophical concerns into the text.
Translation Comparison and Evaluation
UASV: “And Jehovah regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” Evaluation: Literal, clear, and faithful to Hebrew syntax and lexical nuance. Superior rendering.
ESV: “And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” Evaluation: Essentially identical to UASV, though uses “the LORD” instead of “Jehovah.” Otherwise, maintains proper distinction.
LEB: “And Yahweh regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.” Evaluation: Faithful rendering. “Humankind” is accurate. “Regretted” and “grieved” are properly distinguished.
CSB: “The LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and he was deeply grieved.” Evaluation: “Regretted” is strong. “Deeply grieved” is interpretive but remains faithful in tone and sense.
NASB (1995/2020): “The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” Evaluation: “Was sorry” is a weaker rendering of yinnaḥēm, but still within the semantic range. “Grieved” is correct.
NIV: “The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” Evaluation: Incorrect. “Was grieved” merges yinnaḥēm and ʿāṣab, eliminating the distinction. The phrase “heart filled with pain” is paraphrastic.
NLT: “The LORD was sorry he had ever made them and put them on the earth. It broke his heart.” Evaluation: Casual and paraphrased. “Was sorry” and “broke his heart” weaken the emotional gravity and lexical accuracy of the original.
Conclusion: Preserving the Full Force of Divine Emotion
Genesis 6:6 stands as a crucial passage demonstrating the profound emotional and moral character of Jehovah. To render yinnaḥēm as “regretted” and yitʿaṣṣēb as “grieved” is not only a matter of lexical accuracy but of theological honesty. Any attempt to soften or merge these verbs—whether out of doctrinal discomfort or stylistic preference—risks misrepresenting the inspired text and obscuring the solemn moment leading up to the global judgment of the Flood in 2370 B.C.E.
Jehovah regretted—He experienced a reconsiderative sorrow in response to human evil. Jehovah was grieved—He was emotionally pained in His heart by the corruption of His creation.
Together, these truths form the dual foundation for understanding the divine motivation behind the cataclysmic judgment that follows in Genesis 6–8.
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
