Matthew 11:20-24

[Patristic]

"20 Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you."

I have recently come to discover that traditional interpretations of this intriguing passage just do not hold up under intense scrutiny. The whole point of contention lies in the argument over exactly where the events being described fall under when applied to a particular temporal scheme. The traditional understanding of these particular verses are flawed because no one knows exactly where to place them, or where they fall in the scheme of things.

When it comes to God's knowledge of human events there are several individual theories that attempt to explain God's omniscience of human affairs. First, some argue that God simply knows what will happen in the future, and thus this is known as simple foreknowledge. Besides having absolute perfect and infallible of future events the simple foreknowledge proponent or (SFK) proponent also agrees that God has absolute knowledge of all past events as well. Besides this model, there is also the hypothesis that God has two forms of knowledge: namely natural and free knowledge. Now natural knowledge is logically anterior to free knowledge and states that God has knowledge of all possibilities. Thus, with natural knowledge God is dealing with hypotheticals, or what could be in a certain state of affairs. Logically posterior to natural free knowledge is natural knowledge where out of all possibilities God decides to instantiate a specific order of things according to His will. Therefore in natural knowledge God is dealing with what could be, and once free knowledge is added to the equation there is only simply what will be.

Pretty simple so far, yet here is where the twist comes in. Neither of these theories accounts for the events in the verses of Matthew 11 that are in question. The SFK supporter must say that since God has foreknowledge what He knows comes to pass, and therefore the events that take place were always foreknown by God. Yet, in Matthew 11 the passage isn't speaking of what will come to pass or what had come to pass, but what would have occurred. If the events didn't occur, and the ones being described by Jesus didn't, then they were not a component of God's foreknowledge because if they were they would have taken place. Therefore the Simple Foreknowledge model must be ruled out since it can't explain this passage.

Second, the natural/free knowledge theory must also be ruled out since the events being described were neither hypothetical nor what actually took place. If the events were a subject of God's natural knowledge then Jesus would have said the people could have repented, not that they would have done so. The whole point of natural knowledge is that it deals with open possibilities of what could happen, but never anything that's certain. Likewise, if the events being described were a subject of God's free knowledge then they would have absolutely, positively come to pass. Everything that God knows via His free knowledge comes to pass infallibly because that is what is known and willed by God. Therefore if this statement were made as a product of God's free knowledge then it would read that the miracles were done and the people repented. Yet, this isn't the case since the miralces weren't performed and thus the people didn't repent.

What one needs to understand is that in the Greek these verses contain two contrary-to-fact conditions, or what others have called in modern language, counterfactuals. The passage is saying that if the conditions described had been different then something else would have happened that was different than what actually happened. A counterfactual is composed of two elements dubbed the protasis, the first statement, describing the initial condition, and the apodosis, which is the second statement describing what would have followed if the first condition had been obtained.

The only position that ascribes counterfactual knowledge to God is the Molinist position, which states that posterior to natural to natural knowledge and anterior to free knowledge God possesses middle knowledge which allows Him to know what would have happened if events had been different. In this particular passage we are presented with such a situation. Jesus tells the residents of Chorazin and Bethsaida that if the miracles done in them were done in Tyre and Sidon(this is the protasis and is showing that Jesus is describing a state of events that didn't actually happen, but what would have happened if they did), then the people would have repented(this is the apodosis which is describing what would have happened if the events of the protasis were instantiated, but never did happen.)

Now Jesus is certain about these events. They would have happened if things were different. He isn't theorizing, speculating, or hypothesizing which would be the form this would take if it were produced by way of natural knowledge which describes open possibilities, or what could be. Yet, Jesus also isn't speaking by way of free knowledge since if He were then these events would have come to pass. If this were a product of free knowledge the verb in the apodosis should be rendered in the indicative mood in Greek, but it's not because the verb is actually rendered in the subjuctive mood. The subjunctive mood connotes what would happen, and in a contray-to-fact condition, what would happen had things prior been different.

This passage can only be explained adequately if one throws middle knowledge into the mix since simple knowledge, natural knowledge, and free knowledge can't compensate for the subjunctive mood. In this whole passage Jesus is describing something that would have definitely come to pass if things had turned out differently. The only framework that accounts for such a situation is the one provided by the middle knowledge framework.

 

[PatrickM]

God possesses middle knowledge which allows Him to know what would have happened if events had been different.

Excellent material. These vss. are a mix of past and present events. Jesus says if these miracles (He is performing present tense) were done centuries ago. God could even look at past events with alternative outcomes based on the interjection of alternate events.

 

[Patristic]

Excellent material. These vss. are a mix of past and present events. Jesus says if these miracles (He is performing present tense) were done centuries ago. God could even look at past events with alternative outcomes based on the interjection of alternate events.

Exactly! The mix of tenses in the Greek make the temporal locations of these events very specific, and the use of the articles with the verbs and the fact that the verb of the protasis in rendered in the subjunctive mood emphatically substantiates that this is a contrary-to-fact condition, and that Jesus is making known His knowledge of counterfactual events, which is nothing other than middle knowledge.

 

[PatrickM]

Exactly! The mix of tenses in the Greek make the temporal locations of these events very specific, and the use of the articles with the verbs and the fact that the verb of the protasis in rendered in the subjunctive mood emphatically substantiates that this is a contrary-to-fact condition, and that Jesus is making known His knowledge of counterfactual events, which is nothing other than middle knowledge.

Could you give a basic definition of "counter-factual"? I've read it many times, and can deduct it's meaning, but would like to have a "factual" definition.

 

[Patristic]

Could you give a basic definition of "counter-factual"? I've read it many times, and can deduct it's meaning, but would like to have a "factual" definition.

It's a hard term to define, but I would label it as such.

Couterfactual- it is a conditional statement that is true in other possible worlds including our own though the antecedent is not true in our own (thus it's antecedent is "counter" to the fact of the actual world), and therefore the events of the consequent were not actualized(although the events of the consequent are not able to be caused solely by the anteceedent condition).

It's a pretty wordy definition, I know! Remove the parts that parenthasized and I think it flows much better.

It is a conditional statement that is true in other possible worlds including our own though the antecedent is not true in our own, thus resulting in the events of the consequent not being actualized.

 

[Boanerge]

So God has knowledge on how things should be, but he placed His full trust in us, establishing a free will. In order for Him not to force His will upon us. That is why some of us pray for God to teach us His will so we can do things according to how He wants and there are some who do not call on God for help and do things according to how they want. So we are God's tools to shape this world, but some of us abused of this privilage because of our sinful nature which blocks out the will of God. Therefore God sent His redeemer. God knows that we could do better, if only we would turn to Him. And it is not that He is unable, but that we are unwilling to allow Him to change us. Because what we see influence how we feel, so we end up rejecting before we understand.

And there we have Middle knowledge, that God is capable of knowing that we could do better, and that we have the potential to do better, but when we choose not to allow Him to help us, and Allow Him to work through us, that we often end up doing what we want to do, usually ending up with negative outcomes, of which God will keep pulling us out from, until we understand.

But understanding can only be reached through the Law to The son. through Him, God ensured a path for unlocking that potential, the ability to do better, the ability to do His will, which can only be achieved in Him.

And therefore God is Loving by making a path way, and Just by allowing us to choose between Him and ourselves.

 

[PatrickM]

And therefore God is Loving by making a path way, and Just by allowing us to choose between Him and ourselves.

Indeed. God allowing us our freedom is the only way to explain the evils in this world, wouldn't you say?

but when we choose not to allow Him to help us, and Allow Him to work through us, that we often end up doing what we want to do, usually ending up with negative outcomes, of which God will keep pulling us out from, until we understand.

I resemble that remark!

 

[Patristic]

So God has knowledge on how things should be, but he placed His full trust in us, establishing a free will

This is sort of correct, but middle knowledge doesn't exactly imply God knows how things should be, but how things would be if circumstances were different. I think everyone would agree that God knows how the world should be, in that it should be a perfect place, but because of Adam's and Eve's free choice they corrupted that order.

What middle knowledge states is that God knows how things would be given different circumstances, or how a free being would react placed in a given set of circumstances. For instance, God knows that in situation a I choose 1, and that given a different set of circumstances I do not choose 1. Either way God knows how I will choose, but it is up to Him to decide which situation He will create leading to my free choice. Nevertheless, God knows how I would react in a situation contrary to a and that's why we say He posseses counterfactual knowledge, because He knows I will act in a situation contrary to a. It's a bit confusing, but once you look over the idea it makes a lot of sense.

 

[PatrickM]

It's a bit confusing, but once you look over the idea it makes a lot of sense.

Agreed. But, at least for me, once I took the time, in a quiet non distracting place, it has given me both an intellectual, and spiritual peace. It answers all the difficult questions, i.e. reconcilliation of free-will and God's providence, and of course the problem with evil.

 

[Curt]

Prov 3:5-8
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
(KJV)

 

[Patristic]

Agreed. But, at least for me, once I took the time, in a quiet non distracting place, it has given me both an intellectual, and spiritual peace. It answers all the difficult questions, i.e. reconcilliation of free-will and God's providence, and of course the problem with evil.

I agree. I can't remember the title of the book, but it was written by William Lane Craig. In this particular book he goes through the various philosophies of different theologians when they dealt with God's foreknowledge and providence. He interacts with Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, Molina, and Suarez, and others. I thought his chapter on Molina was very interesting because it is in that chapter that he methodically shows how middle knowledge reconciled the free-will/providence problem, and also accounts well for the presence of evil in this world.