Keywords

7.1 Acts 2:23 and 4:27–28

[T]his Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 4:27–28: [T]here were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

The first passage here quoted, Acts 2:23, seems to say that God planned it that Jesus should be sinfully delivered up, and the second passage quoted, Acts 4:27–28, seems to say that Herod, Pontius Pilate, and so on were doing what God had predestined when they were sinfully gathering and acting against Jesus. So, we seem to have a proposition satisfying schema (P), that is to say:

  • (1) God chooses to bring it about that Jesus should be sinfully delivered up and sinfully put to death in order that God’s plan of redemption should be fulfilled.

Evaluation: Our opponent has a response here. It can be insisted that God intended the physical movements of the handing over of Jesus, and the hammering in of the nails into his hands and feet on the cross, but that he did not intend, and only foresaw, that these movements would be performed sinfully. How plausible is this response? The verse frankly affirms that Jesus’s being delivered up was part of God’s plan (2:23), and Jesus’s being delivered up was a sinful affair. It strikes us as forced to insist that the sinfulness involved in Jesus’s betrayal and his being delivered up was not part of God’s plan. (‘Plan’, of course, suggests intention.) It seems to us likewise forced to insist that the sinfulness involved in Jesus’s being killed by the hands of lawless people was not part of God’s plan. The moral failure involved in the story of Jesus’s betrayal and trial is, after all, one of the most striking features of those narratives in the gospels.

We also find the ‘whatever’ in 4:28 to be suggestive. It naturally suggests that, whatever Herod, Pilate, and the people ended up doing to Jesus, it was all part of God’s predestined plan. But sinful acts were performed on Jesus. Therefore, sins are part of God’s predestined plan. Our opponent might, however, insist that the ‘whatever’ is to be understood as communicating that whatever God predestined to take place in this context was done by Herod, Pilate, and so on, not that everything that they did in this context was predestined by God. Thus, on this suggestion, it is not clear that the sinful acts were part of God’s predestined plan.

We concede the possibility of this reading, but we find the first understanding of ‘whatever’ to be more plausible because the latter understanding has the strange consequence that perhaps very little at all of the affair was intended by God, for the second reading makes no comment on how much of the matter was intended by God—it says only that what God did intend in this matter came to pass. But surely what is meant here is something more substantive than that: that it was not possible for them to do something to Jesus that was outside what God had planned and predestined to occur—whatever they did to Jesus, it was part of God’s plan and predestination that it should be so.

Ranking: Moderate.

7.2 Romans 9:21–24

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honourable use and another for dishonourable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

In this chapter of Romans, Paul has asserted that God has the right both to have mercy as he sees fit, and to harden as he sees fit, and the case of Pharaoh is adduced as proof of the existence of the latter right. Paul then anticipates the response of an objector in v. 19, rendering it as follows: ‘Then why does God still find fault? For who resists his will?’. To this, Paul responds by introducing the metaphor of the potter and the clay—asserting that God has the right to create vessels for destruction as well as to create vessels for mercy—and then follows this with the quoted suggestion above that perhaps the reason why (or, as it seems to us, his intention in so doing) God creates vessels for destruction is so that God can, through a display of righteous wrath on these wicked vessels, make known the riches of his glory, that is, make it plain just what it is from which the vessels of mercy have been spared, and how great that mercy is in consequence. So, we think the following proposition can be derived satisfying (P*):

  • (2) God chooses to bring it about that there exist wicked people so that he might make known the riches of his glory through their punishment.

Evaluation: Someone might object that, since Paul prefixes the remarks of vv. 22–23 with a question beginning ‘what if’, it would not be germane to employ these verses as part of our case. But this would be a mistake. Paul, even though he is not committing himself to the truth of the explanation he gives, is surely offering it as adequate for all the Christian might know. But if we know that God cannot (or even does not) intend that sin occur, then it isn’t adequate for all the Christian knows. It might be responded that Paul is giving an a fortiori argument, that he is saying, ‘even if God had chosen to create you as a wicked person (which he couldn’t have done) you still would have had no grounds for complaint’. But v. 21 is not preceded by a ‘what if’, and that verse, by affirming that the potter, and therefore God, has the right to create vessels for either honourable or dishonourable use, suggests the actual permissibility of God’s acting in this way. Secondly, Paul is giving a quick sketch of a theodicy here, explaining why it is that God would harden some into unbelief, or why this would be morally permissible (namely, ‘to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy’). But the passage cannot function to present a theodicy if God cannot (or does not) possess the relevant intentions. Thirdly, v. 24 connects the theodicy to concrete fact: the hardening of the Jews so that the Gentiles might be brought in. Thus, God’s acting after this manner cannot be considered a pure hypothetical.

For all these reasons, it appears Paul has no qualms about suggesting that God uses (or may permissibly use)—and intends (or may permissibly intend)—that sin occur as a means, and so neither, we contend, should we have any qualms in this regard.

A significant point to note is that there is some controversy among commentators about whether to give the ‘desiring to show his wrath and power’ clause a concessive or a causative reading. The relevant portion might be rendered in one of two ways:

  • Concessive: ‘although desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power…’

  • Causative: ‘because desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power…’

An objector might insist on the former reading in an effort to argue that it is not the case that God created these vessels in order to destroy them; rather, God merely restrained himself from destroying them for a great while in order to display his great patience to the vessels of mercy. Against this reading, many things can be said.

  1. (1)

    Even if true, such reasoning doesn’t remove the force of the expressions ‘for dishonourable use’ and ‘prepared for destruction’.

  2. (2)

    The concessive reading doesn’t interact with the objector’s objection in v. 19. The objector was demanding to know why God was bringing about the existence of blameworthy persons. For Paul to offer in response the suggestion that God delays punishing them in order to display mercy is for him to fail to interact with the objector. It seems to switch the question from ‘why did you make or raise up these bad vessels?’ to ‘why have you not already destroyed these bad vessels?’.

  3. (3)

    The text does not say that God refrains from destroying the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction in order to display his patience. It says that God refrains from destroying them ‘in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy’. How would refraining from destroying them contribute to this end? On the face of it, it would go against this end, since if the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction were to fare in this life just as the vessels of mercy do, then that would seem to obscure, rather than make known, the riches of his glory to the latter. The riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy are surely made known in the contrast between the fates of the vessels: destruction for the vessels of wrath and glory for the vessels of mercy.

  4. (4)

    As Piper (1993, 207) points out, in the parallel displaying of power in v. 17 (‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you’) we clearly have a case in which God raised up Pharaoh because he desired to display his power, so, to adopt the concessive reading would be to break the obvious parity that exists between v. 17 and vv. 22–23.

  5. (5)

    The concessive reading is a minority reading among commentators.Footnote 1

Again, a difficulty with the substratum strategy is that it is the very sinfulness of the vessels prepared for destruction that God requires, else they could not be legitimate objects of his just wrath and destructive power. Our opponent might try to combine the Kamm-inspired strategy and the substratum strategy, holding that God prepares them in foreknowledge of the foreseen but unintended sins that they will commit, and prepares them because the opportunity to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy outweighs the evil of the sins. But, once more, God’s intention in allowing them to sin, on this view, is not in harmony with the text’s phrase ‘in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy’.

We conclude that these verses should strongly dispose one to believe that God is capable of intending that sin occur.

Ranking: Strong.

7.3 Romans 11:25–32

[A] partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved […] For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

In this passage, Paul explains that the partial hardening of Israel was brought upon the nation in order that salvation might go out to the Gentiles, and in order that, on account of this mercy shown to the Gentiles, the Jews might also seek after salvation and find it. In Romans 11:11, Paul suggests that this will be accomplished through envy: ‘through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.’ But Paul doesn’t assert merely that the Jews were made disobedient in order that mercy might be given to the Gentiles, he asserts also that all, both Jewish and Gentile, have been made disobedient in order that God might have mercy on all.

Therefore, from the passage from Romans 11 we derive the following proposition satisfying (P*):

  • (3) God chose to bring it about that the Jews (and indeed everyone) were sinfully disobedient in order that he might have mercy on them (and indeed everyone).

Evaluation: It seems that the substratum strategy will not bite, since the mercy that God wants to bestow is forgiveness of sins, and the occurrence of sin is a necessary condition of the occurrence of forgiveness. Again, the objector may combine the substratum strategy with the Kamm-inspired triple-effect strategy, and suggest that God intended merely to permit the Jews (and indeed everyone) to be disobedient, and merely foresaw that they actually would be disobedient, but thought his act of permission still worth it because of the foreseen good of the mercy he could then distribute.

As before, we don’t think that the language of ‘hardening’ in verse 25 can be read as merely permitting disobedience, and, as before, the text seems to hold out the having of mercy as God’s end. But if God does indeed intend that end, then, in order for it to be a real intention rather than just a hope or a wish, God surely has to intend some means, or part of a means, to his goal—and the hardening mentioned in the text fits the bill perfectly.

Ranking: Strong.

7.4 Galatians 3:19–22

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made […]. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

In this passage from Galatians, Paul is dealing with the objection that salvation through faith makes the advent of the law mysterious. Paul says that it was added because of, or for the sake of, transgressions. He goes on to say that ‘the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe’. We believe that both expressions here in the Galatians passage are making the same point: the purpose of the Scripture, or of the law, was to bring about transgressions. Paul noted this function of the law in Romans 7:9: ‘I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.’ So, the passage from Galatians shows that God gave the Scriptures, or the law, in order to bring it about that sin occur.

Therefore, from the passage in Galatians we derive the following proposition satisfying (Q):

  • (4) God chose to give the law in order that people should disobey it.

Evaluation: We acknowledge that there are ways out for objectors here. The expression ‘added because of transgressions’ from Galatians can be interpreted to mean ‘added in order to manage and halt transgressions’. The Message Bible gives that reading: ‘The purpose of the law was to keep a sinful people in the way of salvation until Christ (the descendant) came.’ The expression has also been interpreted to mean ‘to make aware of what counts as transgression’. Hence the Good News Translation: ‘What, then, was the purpose of the Law? It was added in order to show what wrongdoing is.’ Likewise, the expression ‘Scripture imprisoned everything under sin’ might be understood merely to mean that the Scriptures made people aware of their sins. So the New Living Translation: ‘But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin’. We concede that such interpretations are possible, and therefore hold this passage to be of limited use for our purposes.

Ranking: Weak.

7.5 2 Thessalonians 2:11–12

Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe in truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

In this passage, Paul speaks of the Antichrist and the effects he will have. Verse 11 relates the effects God desires to bring upon ‘those who are perishing’ (v. 10). One might think a proposition satisfying (P) can be derived:

  • (5) God chooses to bring it about that certain people believe what is false, in order that they may be condemned.

Evaluation: An objector has a couple of plausible responses here, however. For one thing, believing what is false is not a sin. Such a state of affairs can be arrived at in a manner in which no moral responsibility is violated. A decision to believe what is false might well be sinful, but it isn’t clear that God’s intentions here are concerned with decisions on the part of ‘those who are perishing’. For another thing, it looks as though the ‘strong delusion’ is responsive to the already sinful status of ‘those who are perishing’. So, God doesn’t need to bring about a sinful decision on their part to guarantee their condemnability—it looks as though they are guilty already, and God is concerned only to make sure that they stay that way. It can be maintained against us, then, that the strong delusion involves no sinful decision, and is the means God employs to ensure that sinful persons in a certain category remain sinful and condemnable.

We could try to respond by arguing that if God wants them to stay in the state of condemnability, then God intends that they should not repent. But it is a sin not to repent. So, we might say that God wants them to commit the sin of failing to repent in order that he may be able justly to condemn them. To this, the objector can counter, however, that God intends that they have the mere lack of repentance, a lack common to inanimate objects as well as to some moral agents, and merely foresees that this will amount to a sin in the circumstances. Although this doesn’t seem a natural reading of the text to us, we cannot refute it. We do, however, affirm that the text shows the weaker thesis that God intends, if not that sin occur, that there at least be sinful people.

Ranking: Weak.

7.6 2 Peter 2:12

But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction.

In this chapter of 2 Peter, Peter declaims at great length concerning the evil of certain false teachers that have crept into the believers’ assemblies. He describes them in this verse as akin to irrational animals ‘born to be caught and destroyed’. Such an expression naturally suggests that these false teachers were created and given their wicked lives by God precisely for the sake of being caught and destroyed by God’s wrath. We therefore derive the following, satisfying (P*):

  • (6) God chose to bring it about that there were wicked false teachers in order that they might be caught and destroyed by God’s wrath.

Evaluation: Unfortunately, it isn’t quite clear whether the ‘born to be caught and destroyed’ clause is to be considered as modifying the ‘irrational animals’/‘creatures of instinct’, or, on the other hand, ‘these’ false teachers. If the former, then there is a quick riposte available for our opponent. It can be suggested that ‘born to be caught and destroyed’ applies to the irrational animals that the false teachers resemble. But it doesn’t follow from ‘a is F’ and ‘b is like a’ that ‘b is F’—not every property is carried over. So, we don’t have to conclude that the false teachers were born to be caught and destroyed. We concede this point as a matter of logic, though we think that the fact that Peter should bother at all to introduce the property of being born to be caught and destroyed signifies that he wishes the property to be imputed to the false teachers—why should he mention properties that he doesn’t want to be considered as carrying across?

A more plausible response for the objector is to say that the expression ‘born to be caught and destroyed’ just means ‘born predestined to be caught and destroyed’, the idea being that predestination includes not merely what God intends but also the consequences of God’s intentions. Strong’s survey of the meaning of ‘eis’ would appear to bear out the possibility of the term’s being given such a construction (Strong 1890: ‘eis’, B.II.3.b). Alternatively, 2 Peter 2:12 might merely be expressing a relation of natural ‘fitness’ for eventual destruction, not divine intention. Against this, however, is the fact that, according to Ephesians 2:3, ‘we all once lived in the passions of our flesh […] and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind’, so this would arguably not be in any way a distinguishing characteristic of the false teachers. All in all, we consider this verse to give only weak evidence that God intends that sin occur.

Ranking: Weak.

7.7 Revelation 17:16–17

And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

Here, John describes the way in which the ten horns (symbolising ten rulers) will hand their power over to the beast and take it away from the whore of Babylon, and the way in which they will destroy her with fire. To hand power over to the beast as opposed to the prostitute is a wicked thing, for Revelation presents the beast as a greater evil than the prostitute, and it indicates how great the descent into wickedness will be in the later times. But God says they fulfilled his purpose in doing this. God doesn’t specify the end that he seeks here, but we nevertheless suggest the following proposition satisfying (P):

  • (7) God chooses to bring it about that the ten horns transfer their power to the beast, in order to achieve an unspecified purpose.

Evaluation: Although transferring their power to the beast is sinful, a transference of power by its nature is not sinful. Our opponent might point out, therefore, the possibility that God intended that they transfer their power to the beast, but did not intend (and merely foresaw) that they sinfully transfer their power to the beast. The text does, however, mention their ‘being of one mind’ as part of God’s purpose here, which suggests that God’s intentions also concerned the mental states involved here. We believe the natural suggestion of the passage is that God intended that they decide to transfer their power to the beast. Further, that decision was a sinful decision. But the question concerns whether God intended that sinful element, as opposed to merely foreseeing it.

We acknowledge that there is nothing in the passage compelling one to think that God intends the sinful aspects of the ten horns’ behavior. We plead only that introducing such subtleties goes counter to the prima facie reading of the text. This is not as forceful a piece of reasoning as we should like, however.

Ranking: Weak.

7.8 Revelation 22:10–11

And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy’.

Here, the angel to whom John is talking gives him a curious instruction: to let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy. Whatever the reason for it, the command surely represents God’s intentions. One might therefore derive a proposition satisfying (P):

  • (8) God gave a command to John to let the evildoer continue to do evil and the morally depraved to continue in their depravity in order that the evildoer would continue to do evil and the morally depraved would continue in their depravity.

Evaluation: We think there are too many ways to deal fairly with the passage while avoiding the derivation of (8). One might take God as making that command not in order that the evildoer continue in doing evil, but in order that John might not be unduly burdened about the intractability of the wicked. And even if God did have intentions with regard to the filthy and evildoers, they might be intentions not to bring about wicked decisions or even wicked states, but merely to refrain from preventing such things. Lastly, there is the general point that one does not always give a command with the intention that it be carried out.

For these reasons, we think that little weight can be placed on this passage for our purposes.

Ranking: Weak.

7.9 Conclusion

We rank the evidence we have provided to the effect that God intends that sin occur as follows:

  • Strong Evidence that God intends that sin occur: Exodus 4:21; Deuteronomy 2:26–30; Joshua 11:18–20; 1 Samuel 2:22–25; 2 Samuel 24:9–14; Ezekiel 20:25–26; Romans 9:22–23; Romans 11:30–32.

  • Moderate Evidence that God intends that sin occur: Genesis 50:20; Judges 14:3–4; 1 Kings 22:19–23; Job 1; Acts 2:23 & 4:27–28.

  • Weak Evidence that God intends that sin occur: Psalm 105:25; Proverbs 16:4; Isaiah 6:9–10; Galatians 3:19–22; 2 Thessalonians 2:11–12; 2 Peter 2:12; Revelation 17:17; Revelation 22:10–11.

Therefore, in the light of several strong proof texts and several moderate proof texts that God intends that sin occur, we affirm that the rational stance for the Christian to take in the face of these Scriptural texts is to affirm that God intends that sin occur.Footnote 2