A God Who Changes
Text: Genesis 18:20-32
Genesis 18:20-32 is sandwiched between two other stories that tend to overshadow this text. The first story, Genesis 18:1-15 focuses on God telling Abraham and Sarah, that Sarah, in her old age, would give birth to a child. Thus, God would be fulling the promise made earlier to Abraham about creating a large and powerful nation from Abraham's descendants. This portion of chapter 18, centers around reinforcing the notion that nothing Is impossible for God.
The second story, the one that follows today’s lectionary reading, focuses on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. A story that has been misinterpreted and used by some Christians to condemn the LGBTQ+ community. (Hint: it does not). In chapter 19, the idea of a just and punishing God is reinforced. Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed because they were violent and oppressive.
Understandably, given the nature of the two texts that come before and after, Genesis 18:20-32 tends, to be overlooked and glossed over. It is often treated as nothing more than a prelude to chapter 19. (Fun fact; many scholars believe that chapter 19 predates this section). But Hebrew Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann argues in Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching that this section actually serves as a critique of the image of God presented in Genesis 19 (and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible).
Dr. Brueggemann argues that Abraham isn’t just timidly asking God to not destroy the cities if a handful of “righteous” people are found, but is instead challenging God to be and do better. Abraham is essentially saying to God, “Is this who you are? A God, with such a limited understanding of what justice looks like, that you would destroy even those who didn’t deserve it? Would a truly just God really do such a horrific thing?” This section presents an alternative vision of God. One who not only can handle being challenged by a human but who takes into account said critiques and changes their mind.
Dr. Brueggemann rejects interpretations of the text that are intent on making sure that this section fits smoothly with chapter 19. In an interpretation that seeks to harmonize the two texts, God is presented as placating Abraham while also knowing better. “oh sure, if there are 10 righteous people I won’t destroy Sodom and Gomorrah” but God ultimately knows there aren't 10 good people, so God destroys them anyway, except for Lot and his family. God is all-knowing while Abraham is presented as clueless.
Dr. Brueggemann instead invites us to embrace the idea that Abraham is directly challenging God and God takes Abraham’s arguments and says, “you know what, you are right. Maybe I should care more about protecting the innocent, rather than destroying the guilty.”
Growing up in a conservative tradition that had a rigid understanding of God-the idea of God changing their mind was heresy. God was the same yesterday, today, and forever. God was all powerful and all knowing and therefore, God can’t possibly change their mind. God does the challenging and we humans do the changing (if we know what’s good for us). The idea that God could change their mind was unthinkable.
And to be sure this idea brings some comfort: in a world where stability seems to be an illusion, the notion of a God that remains the same no matter what is going on can be reassuring. And yet such a concept, at least as interpreted by my childhood church, seemed in stark contradiction to another image of God they held dear: one so moved by the pain and suffering of the world, that they had to act and become human.
That image of God, which my childhood tradition, also held dear wasn’t necessarily some immutable being, unchanged by the affairs of humanity, but instead was deeply moved by our suffering. However, it seemed just a step too far to believe that God could change their mind. No, God was perfectly all-knowing and all-powerful, only imperfect beings had to change their minds.
There are lots of churches that hold a similar view to my childhood church. They argue that if God could change their mind, then this God would be unstable, untrustworthy, imperfect, and therefore not worthy of being worshipped. But what if changing one’s mind isn’t viewed as a sign of being flawed or imperfect, but simply as a reflection of what it means to truly be in a relationship with other people? Often when people imagine changing one’s mind, they think of someone (aka me) who can’t seem to make a decision and is vacillating between choices every five minutes. But that isn’t the only way to make a decision.
(And to be fair, there are some images of God in the Biblical text where God is portrayed in that way, or it seems like that especially when multiple traditions are mashed together into one text.) But changing one’s mind can look thoughtful and well-reasoned. If one says, God can change their mind, it need not look like the depiction of someone being indecisive and unsure.
Further, how would the idea of a God who changes their mind impact how theology is done? Instead of causing faith to fall apart, it might actually bolster it. Some forms of Christianity have turned faith into a test of certainty. They ask us to believe impossible things and also seek to prove with “evidence” that this singular version of Christianity is right and every other version and every other faith tradition is wrong. For instance, there are groups of Christians that dedicate their lives to proving, that evolution is not a scientific fact. They use the language of faith to justify a narrow, rigid faith that leaves little room for the movement of God.
But the idea of a God that can change their mind is representative of a fluid and dynamic faith. It also inspires humility. If God can change their mind, why can’t I? If God is willing to learn from their relationship with humans, why wouldn’t I do the same? If God can recognize, “hey maybe this person has a point,” perhaps we should let go of our need to be certain and to force others into a similar line of thinking and recognize that perhaps others have something valuable to teach us.
In this week’s lectionary reading, God is presented as being changed for the better by their relationship with Abraham. God is reminded and challenged to be compassionate and to rethink their understanding of justice. In some places in the Hebrew Bible, justice is tied to retribution and violence. We see that in the next chapter. But there are also hints, like in this week’s Genesis reading, that challenge us to rethink how we view justice and God.
Questions: (Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts. Just be respectful of others!)
Do you resonate with the idea of a God being changed by their relationship with humanity, why or why not?
How does Brueggeman's interpretation of this passage, challenge more “traditional” understandings of God and justice?
What practical, real-world implications might this understanding of God have?
How might this reading of Genesis illuminate our readings of other passages, such as this week’s (Luke 11:1-13) gospel reading
Image: Pink background. Clipart of a young child in a blue dress. Text: the idea of a God that can change their mind is representative of a fluid and dynamic faith. It also inspires humility. If God can change their mind, why can’t I? If God is willing to learn from their relationship with humans, why wouldn’t I do the same?