Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback
Get Your 2025 Catholic Answers Calendar Today...Limited Copies Available

Does God Ever Change?

Episode 61: Year B – 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time

In this episode, we’re going to focus on three details that are relevant to apologetics. The first comes from the first reading, which is taken from Jonah 3:1-5, 10. The related apologetical topic is God’s immutability (the doctrine that God can’t change). The other two details are in the Gospel reading, which is taken from Mark 1:14-20. The related apologetical topics are Jesus’ divinity and Messiahship.

Readings: Click Here

Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here

 

Hey everyone,

 

Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.

 

I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.

 

In this episode, we’re going to focus on three details that are relevant to apologetics. The first comes from the first reading, which is taken from Jonah 3:1-5, 10. The related apologetical topic is God’s immutability (the doctrine that God can’t change). The other two details are in the Gospel reading, which is taken from Mark 1:14-20. The related apologetical topics are Jesus’ divinity and Messiahship.

 

Let’s start with the detail from the first reading. After we’re told that the people of Nineveh repented of their evil ways, we’re told the following, “When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.”

 

There are two questions that arise here: 1) Is the Bible affirming that God directly causes evil? 2) Is the Bible affirming that God changes?

 

Concerning the question of whether the Bible is affirming that God directly causes evil, it depends on which kind of evil we’re talking about. If the question pertains to moral evil, or sin, then the answer is no. In no way can God cause moral evil; otherwise, he’d fail to love himself, which is metaphysically impossible. For further details on this, see my article, “God does not cause us to sin.”

 

If the “evil” is natural evil, or suffering, then I would argue that God can and does directly cause such “evil.” The key, however, for reconciling this with God’s goodness is to see that such caused evil takes on the form of punishment and thus is taken up into the order of the good.

 

Imposed suffering in and of itself is an evil. But when such suffering is imposed on account of a proportionate crime, then such suffering takes on the character of a good. Punishment is good because it rectifies that which is disordered. It puts things right by associating displeasure with bad behavior, which is the order that should have been present in the first place. Moreover, punishment manifests the truth of such an order.

 

Now, in the case of the people of Nineveh, the Bible is revealing that their evil ways were meritorious of a proportionate imposed suffering, or punishment. This being the case, such imposed suffering, or evil, caused by God wouldn’t have been inconsistent with his goodness.

 

What about the question of whether this passage affirms that God changes? This is an important question because philosophy tells us that God can’t change. Are we to believe that the God of the philosophers is incompatible with the God of the Bible?

 

The answer is no. And the key is that the author is employing anthropomorphic speech, which is speech that attributes to God human characteristics to help humans relate to God but are not meant to be taken literally.

 

Aquinas addresses the same sort of question when he deals with an objection that arises from the language of God repenting that he made wicked men during the days of Noah (Gen. 6:7). Here’s his response:

 

These words of the Lord are to be understood metaphorically, and according to the likeness of our nature. For when we repent, we destroy what we have made; although we may even do so without change of will; as, when a man wills to make a thing, at the same time intending to destroy it later. Therefore, God is said to have repented, by way of comparison with our mode of acting, in so far as by the deluge He destroyed from the face of the earth man whom He had made.

 

For Aquinas, describing God as repenting is simply a way of describing God’s actions according to our mode of acting, which is an anthropomorphism. The ascription is justified because there is a similarity. The similarity, as Aquinas explains, is that what was made is destroyed. Insofar as this is present in our mode of repenting and in God’s providential plan, the Bible describes God as repenting.

 

But due to the greater dissimilarity, the ascription is metaphorical. The difference is that when we repent it involves a change of will whereas for God there is no change of will because the order of cause and effects is determined from eternity in a single act of will.

 

Now, Aquinas is addressing God repenting in the case of destroying wicked men. In the passage from Jonah, there is no destruction of anything. Rather, such destruction is not brought about when, so it seems, God intended for it to be brought about. So, it seems a bit more difficult to explain.

 

Again, the ascription can be described as an anthropomorphism. The similarity would be that no destruction would result on account of the Ninevites’ repentance. The dissimilarity, however, would be that our intention to destroy would change to an intention to not destroy whereas for God no such change of intention is involved. God simply wills from all eternity that the Ninevites do not experience destruction on account of their repentance and the biblical authors describe that reality according to our mode of changing intention.

 

So, there’s no conflict between what we know about God’s immutability by way of philosophy and the Bible’s language of God repenting of destroying the Ninevites.

 

Let’s now turn to the Gospel reading and the two details present there. Here’s the Gospel passage from Mark 1:14-20:

 

After John had been arrested,
Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God:
“This is the time of fulfillment.
The kingdom of God is at hand.
Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

As he passed by the Sea of Galilee,
he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea;
they were fishermen.
Jesus said to them,
“Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
Then they abandoned their nets and followed him.
He walked along a little farther
and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John.
They too were in a boat mending their nets.
Then he called them.
So they left their father Zebedee in the boat
along with the hired men and followed him.

 

There are two details that I want to focus on here. The first is the content of Jesus’ preaching: “the kingdom of God” and “the gospel.” Both can only be appreciated against the backdrop of the Jewish prophetical tradition.

 

Consider, for example, “the gospel,” or euangelion. Isaiah 40:9-11 states, “

 

 “[9] Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings [Gk., euangelizomenos]; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, fear not; say to the Cities of Judah, “Behold your God!”… the Lord GOD comes with might, and his arm rules….[11] He will feed his flock like a shepherd, he will gather the lambs in his arms, he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.”

 

Jesus is proclaiming the fulfillment of this “good tidings”: God is in their midst, God is coming with might in judgment on the enemies of God’s people, and God is gathering his sheep.

 

But more specifically, Jesus is proclaiming that he is God in their midst, he is bringing victory over the enemies of God’s people—sin and death, and he is gathering his sheep. Recall, Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd . . . I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:14, 16).

 

The “kingdom of God” signifies the fulfillment of God’s promise of his servant David to rule over the reunited Israel. Ezekiel 37:24-28 reads,

 

24 “My servant David shall be king over them…25 They shall dwell in the land where your fathers dwelt that I gave to my servant Jacob…and David my servant shall be their prince for ever. 26* I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them… will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore… 27* My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people… when my sanctuary is in the midst of them for evermore.”

 

Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom is a proclamation of his Messiahship.

 

The last detail that I want to focus on is James and John’s immediate leaving of their father to follow Jesus. Recall, “Then [Jesus] called them. So they left their father Zebedee in the boat

along with the hired men and followed him.”

 

Scripture scholar Mary Healy, in her book The Gospel of Mark, explains,

 

[I]n response to Jesus’ call, there is a complete abandonment of both occupation and father. To part so suddenly with their father would have been shocking in the social context of the day, where family obligations were paramount (see Sir 3:16). It illustrates the absoluteness of Jesus’ claim, taking precedence over even the closest human bonds (Mark 10:29–30).

 

In other words, Jesus’ call for them to leave their father and follow him hints to his self-understanding of being divine. How could Jesus make such a claim unless he believed himself to be God?

 

So, the first reading and the Gospel for this upcoming 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B, doesn’t disappoint when it comes to apologetical topics. We have opportunity to reflect on

 

  • God’s causality in relation to evil,
  • God’s immutability,
  • Jesus’ Messiahship, and
  • Jesus’ divinity

 

As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.

 

One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.

 

I hope you have a blessed 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time. Peace!

 

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!Donatewww.catholic.com/support-us