Matthew 11:21
Matthew 11:20-24 (see also Matthew 12:41-42; Luke 10:13)
Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
Luke 10:13 similarly states: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.”
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, but had they seen Jesus’ miracles, exactly like what was performed in Israel, what does Jesus say would have come of them?
This shows that these cities didn’t need an Unconditional Election or an Irresistible Grace in order to believe. After all, they had neither, and yet Jesus says that they “would have” repented anyway. Furthermore, if there had been a Limited Atonement, as 5-Point Calvinists teach, then what would their repentance have benefited them if Jesus allegedly, didn’t die for them? Thus, the atonement had to be unlimited in order to account for what they “would have” done. Therefore, this passage single handedly wipes out three of the five points of Calvinism.
This passage highlights the fact that the experience of witnessing Jesus’ miracles, first hand, is so powerful that it leaves the residents of Chorazin and Bethsaida with no excuse, in light of the fact that Jesus conclusively knows that had others, even the most depraved (Tyre and Sidon), had seen them, that it would have resulted in their sustained repentance. This passage, therefore, shoots a wide hole through the argument that man needs an irresistible grace in order to believe. Otherwise, Chorazin and Bethsaida could answer Jesus, “Forget your miracles, Jesus, since that obviously has nothing to do with it. We don’t believe simply because you didn’t give us the irresistible grace that you would obviously have to give to these others in order for them to repent. So what exactly does seeing your miracles have to do with anything?” So you see, Chorazin and Bethsaida cannot pin the blame on Total Depravity, because Jesus is saying that the MOST depraved people ever, had they been in their shoes, would have repented. So their lack of repentance was not due to what they couldn’t do, but what they wouldn’t do.
In other words, God is just as concerned about how one comes to salvation as whether one comes to salvation. God could rescue us without our consent: without our faith, but He declared that we shall be saved by faith, and whatever made Him put the condition on salvation, also causes Him to make revelation conditional as well.
To assume that because Tyre and Sidon could have been saved, had they seen Jesus’ miracles, that it somehow proves that God didn’t want them to be saved, is to assume that seeing Jesus’ miracles is the only way to be saved, when yet it is not. Otherwise, how do you explain the salvation of everyone who never saw His miracles?
“Salvation is from the Jews,” as Jesus told the Samaritan woman (John 4:22), and the Jews were commanded to witness (Ezekiel 33:7-11), and God did in fact send Jewish witnesses to heathen nations, such as God sending the prophet Jonah to Nineveh, the capital city of the marauding Assyrian empire. They didn’t see Jesus’ miracles, and yet, for a time, they indeed repented. Don’t forget the Sodom had the witness of Lot, however much a testimony it was, Lot bears some degree of responsibility for his own testimony.
Calvinist, James White, writes: “If you think about it, if God really knows what man’s going to do, is man really free?, and that’s why the Open Theists go the direction that they do.” (Arminianism: It Robs the Gospel of its Personal Nature)
White adds: “How God can know future events, for example, and yet not determine them, is an important point….” (Debating Calvinism, p.163, emphasis mine)
The logic that befuddles James White, befuddles an Atheist as well. I asked an Atheist how Jesus could know (with 100% absolute certainty) that the events concerning Tyre and Sidon “would have” taken place, and he responded:
An Atheist argues: “He didn’t. He’s just confident that he is right, and you trust his judgement, that’s all. How exactly does god know what a person’s choice will ultimately end up being, BEFORE they make that choice? This idea of yours that God can look into the future sounds pretty hocus pocus to me. God wouldn’t hardly be able to see the future, if the choices that it will contain are not settled yet somehow.”
The Atheist then appeals to the Law of Non-Contradiction: “...saying a human’s future choice is BOTH certain AND non-certain at the same time, a classic case of violating the law of non-contradiction, which says nothing can possibly be A and non-A at the same time. The choice of the human therefore can be only certain to occur or not certain to occur, but not both.”
The fact is that Jesus claimed to know, that which is incompatible with human limitations to know. However, once it is conceded that God has a capacity for knowledge that is greater than man’s, all such human projections upon God’s Foreknowledge and Middle Knowledge are overthrown.
Middle Knowledge teaches that, with respect to Tyre and Sidon, God “knows everything they would have done in all possible circumstances.” (Why I am Not a Calvinist, p.136) The Bible also teaches: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” (1st Corinthians 10:13) How does God know what you are able to handle, if He does not have Middle Knowledge? Psalm 147:5 states: “Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.” God knows the choices of every man, given an “infinite” number of changes in his environment, with an “infinite” number of variables interacting with him. “Thus, by knowing his own essential nature, he can know the created order through and through. This basic idea is intelligible enough and helps us understand how God can know the potentialities of his creatures and the range of possible choices they might make.” (Why I am Not a Calvinist, p.140) These things answer how God can know future events without predetermining them.
John Calvin comments: “Now lest anyone should raise difficult questions about the secret judgments of God, we must take it that this saying of the Lord’s was accommodated to the ordinary grasp of the human mind. In comparing the city of Bethsaida and its neighborhood with Tyre and Sidon, He is not concerned with what God will foresee as the future of the one or the other, but just what the facts show Him these others would have done.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol. II, p.15, emphasis mine)
How does Jesus know what they would have done if not for Middle Knowledge?
Calvin continues: “We have already said that Christ was speaking in a human way and not revealing the heavenly secret of what would have happened if a prophet had been sent to Sodom. If this explanation does not satisfy the contentious, there is one thing that will deprive them of any opportunity for cavil, that, although a remedy for the saving of the Sodomites lay in God’s hands, yet His vengeance in destroying them was righteous.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol. II, p.17, emphasis mine)
There is nothing like explaining a passage from the perspective of denying its substance, just as Calvin has done with this passage, by suggesting that “Christ was speaking in a human way.” Jesus says they “would have” believed. Calvin basically says: No not really; It’s just a matter of speaking. So who are you going to trust? Jesus, who is omniscient, or Calvin who is obstinate? Nevertheless, to address Calvin’s point, the fact that Tyre and Sidon had not received this ministry during their window of time on earth, does not mean that God didn’t care about them. Their blood will be found on the hands of Israel who had been elected for the purpose of blessing all of the families of the earth. (Genesis 12:3; 28:14) Thus Chorazin and Bethsaida, along with their forefathers, are twice-guilty:
Ezekiel 33:8: “When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” [KJV]
God throws accountability, not upon His alleged secret election, but upon His people who fail to warn the lost, and this is because God cares about the lost. However, according to Calvinism, God couldn’t care less since He “passed by” them in His alleged eternal decrees from before the foundation of the world. That’s Calvinism, but it’s not Jesus, since He repudiated such doctrine at Luke 10:30-37.
There is another question worth addressing: “Might there be persons who are damned in the actual world who, as God knows through middle knowledge, would have been saved if they had been placed in different circumstances?” (Why I am Not a Calvinist, p.141)
The answer is yes, as Tyre and Sidon are perfect examples. The result, though, is that they will receive a less severe punishment on Judgment Day than Chorazin and Bethsaida who had witnessed Jesus’ miracles (Matthew 11:22, 24), and who, by virtue of being the descendents of Abraham, were appointed to be a blessing to all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:3), whereby “salvation is from the Jews.” (John 4:22) Again, this is the principle that Jesus taught: “But the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.” (Luke 12:48)
Dave Hunt writes: “God exerts His influence upon men and events (exactly as He has foreknown He would from eternity past) in order to create the future for us that He desires and has willed.” (What Love is This?, p.184, emphasis mine)
This is a Molinistic perspective. In all of the worlds that God could have effectuated, the one that is, is the one that in some way represents the world that God had desired and willed, though this is speaking only in terms of God’s influence. In much of the world, God has permitted man to exercise his “own way” (Acts 14:16) according to his “own thoughts.” (Isaiah 65:2) Yet, in the midst, God has exerted His own way and His own thoughts, manifested in the form of such things as Calvary. (Acts 2:23)
Question: If God desires the salvation of all, and if Jesus knew that such miracles “would have” brought about an ensuing, sustained repentance by the residents of Tyre and Sidon, then why didn’t He carry out His supposed desire?
Answer: Experiencing the miracles of Jesus was the privilege of Israel, on account of Abraham, and also increases their accountability when Jesus says on Judgment Day: “‘The Queen of the South will rise up with the men of this generation at the judgment and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.’” (Luke 11:31) Speaking in reference to the queen of Sheba that traveled to hear the wisdom of Solomon (1st Kings 10:1), Jesus reveals that on Judgment Day, unbelieving Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum will receive condemnation from generations past. Ultimately, God could save every person who ever lived by their own Free Will. All God needs to do is simply to drop them into Hell for a brief time, and they will come out as evangelists. Just consider the “rich man” of Luke 16:19-31, who wanted Abraham to let him go back and warn his brothers. However, God typically does not use such force.
Question: How did Jesus know for certain that if Tyre and Sidon had seen His miracles, that they really would have repented and remained to this day?
Answer: The answer from Calvinism is Determinism, in that God knows absolutely everything that will ever come to pass because He has predetermined absolutely everything that will ever come to pass, like an author writing a book. However, Determinism doesn’t account for those things that the Lord knows would occur, though never does. Therefore, the correct answer is Middle Knowledge.
Question: Did what happened to Tyre and Sidon go against the plan that God had laid out for them?
Answer: What happened in Matthew 11:20-24 wasn’t even in the plan, and that’s the point. How can you say that God knows ONLY what actually happens, when yet clearly, we have an instance of God knowing what WOULD have happened. God knows all of the what-ifs, and governs the universe according to such omniscient Middle Knowledge. For instance, at Genesis 50:20, God knew all of the what-ifs of Joseph’s brothers, and God intervened accordingly. At Acts 2:23, in terms of Calvary, God knew all of the what-ifs of the Jews, and intervened accordingly, from which the plan of the Cross was formulated. Now some Calvinists try to oversimplify by insisting that life is a Divine Play, with man as its actors, which has been playing out since Genesis. That’s human philosophy, and such Calvinists force every verse in the Bible into subjection to that philosophy. Nevertheless, at Matthew 11:20-24, we can at least debunk the notion that God’s knowledge is restricted to only what actually occurs. God has Middle Knowledge and providentially governs accordingly.
Question: When Jesus said “would have,” did He mean, “might have”?
Answer: Jesus’ knowledge of what “would have” taken place is such an assurance that it is admissible evidence on Judgment Day, for which it will be “more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment.” What does that tell you about the certainty of Jesus’ statement?
Question: What is Middle Knowledge?
Answer: Middle Knowledge is simply the knowledge of contingencies.
If “X” occurs, then “Y” will follow.
“X” = personal experience of Jesus’ miracles.
“Y” = an ensuing, sustained repentance by the residents of Tyre & Sidon.
As an example of contingencies, consider 2 Kings 2:9-10: “When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, ‘Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from you.’ And Elisha said, ‘Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.’ He said, ‘You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so.’”
Middle Knowledge is simply a knowledge of the what-ifs. However, Jesus’ Middle Knowledge is so certain that it is admissible evidence on Judgment Day (rather than divine speculation or hearsay), which will be used against the unrepentant cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida. If it wasn’t certain, then it would have to be stricken as mere hearsay and speculation.
Question: The condemnation of Chorazin and Bethsaida would be so much greater than for the heathen nations because they had received so much more grace, by being permitted to see Jesus’ miracles, and yet did not repent (especially when the heathen nations, according to Jesus, had they seen the same miracles, would have repented). So how is it that by receiving a greater measure of grace, that they should somehow be made more accountable, since according to Calvinism, if they were not of the Calvinisticly elect, they couldn’t repent anyway?
Answer: If a greater measure of grace resulted in a greater opportunity to repent, then obviously accountability would increase with it, just as Jesus taught: “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.” (Luke 12:47-48)
Question: Why didn’t God put Tyre and Sidon in the most optimal circumstance for repentance?
Answer: Because God doesn’t always give optimal grace. He gives sufficient grace, and the greater measure of grace, the greater measure of accountability.
Question: Does this mean that God withholds optimal preceding grace because He has a greater desire to withhold it?
Answer: There is indeed a greater desire on God’s part, which is faith. The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17), and without faith, it is impossible to please Him. (Hebrews 11:6) Jesus told Thomas: “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” To provide the most optimal grace, Jesus could appear before everyone as He did with Saul of Tarsus along the road to Damascus, and yet He does not, and yet people become saved anyway. How? Although He may not provide the most optimal situation for everyone, He does provide sufficiency. So while Tyre and Sidon may not have had the most optimal grace, it is through the testimonies of the prophets that God had sent from time to time, that perhaps gave rise to a sufficient grace, at least sufficient enough for accountability and judgment. Chorazin and Bethsaida bear a greater degree of accountability for having received a greater degree of grace, and that’s why the heathen nations (in their own defense) will rise up against them at Judgment.
Question: Does Regeneration alone bring about repentance?
A. Yes
B. No
Question: What more would have brought Tyre, Sidon and Sodom to repentance?
A. Nothing
B. Regeneration
C. Christ’s miracles that were performed in Korazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.
Question: To a Calvinist, God foreknows nothing contingently, but that all life is scripted, in which God’s knowledge flows from such an alleged script, and if such divine knowledge of the future would necessarily make men less free, then based upon what Jesus said concerning Tyre and Sidon, would they have been less free in their would-be choices, concerning repentance, had they been under similar circumstances with respect the miracles performed among unbelieving Israel?
Answer: The first question needs to be answered, and that is, did Jesus “determine” in a potential, parallel script, what “would have” occurred with Tyre and Sidon, had they seen His miracles? First of all, He didn’t determine it because it didn’t happen, and second, if what He’s saying about Tyre and Sidon is only true because He would have determined it that way, then how is that going to trigger the conscience of unbelieving Israel for their failure to do the same under similar circumstances? Again, this is the basis for a future time in which Tyre and Sidon will rise up on Judgment Day against unbelieving Israel to defend itself, and perhaps to mitigate its own damages. So how would any of that make sense if their would-be actions were just part of a divinely determined script which could-have been written that way? The only way that this makes sense is if Jesus’ knowledge is of what they would have freely done, unscripted, under similar circumstances. Adding a script breaks it down.
Dialogue with a Calvinist:
Calvinist, Steve Hays, explains: “The future is known to God because it has been determined by the decree of His free will. … In the eternal decree, all that comes to pass has been foreordained. There is no place for chance or indeterminacy in the system of reality. … God determined, by the free decree of His sovereign will, which of the possible worlds should be actualized. ... God freely chose to bring about this world rather than any of the other infinite possibilities.” (My predestination is all freewill)
1) How do you, Steve, believe that God determines “infinite possibilities”?
2) By the force of reason, on what basis could Tyre and Sidon rise up on Judgment Day and say, “We’re better than you, Chorazin and Bethsaida!, because if we were under similar circumstances, unlike you, GOD would have determined us to repent. So there. We’re better. Wait. If God, ok, so then. (Ok, if we would have repented only because that was determined....) Oh well, Yeah, we’re better than you guys! See God, we deserve less punishment than them.”
The invitable Calvinist paraphrase of determined-contigencies would be:
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, [I would have determined that they] would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, [I would have determined that] it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
