Judicial Hardening: God’s sinless use of sinful actions
There is no small debate when it comes to understanding God’s sovereign control over moral evil. There are typically three main examples referenced from scripture in this discussion:
- Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” Gen. 50:20
- Pharaoh hardened by God to accomplish the Passover: “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.” Ex. 9:12
- The Crucifixion of Jesus: “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross…They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Acts 2:23; 4:28
All Christian scholars can agree that God at least allowed these sinful actions to take place for a greater plan and purpose. We can also all agree that God’s involvement was completely sinless. We could simply stop there and appeal to the mystery as to how God works in such instances, but philosophers are going to do what philosophers are going to do: philosophize.
Some have theorized that God is “meticulously deterministic” in his involvement of such instances. For example, John Hendryx, from monergism.com, speculates:
“In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism. For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son, and yet evil men willfully and voluntarily crucify Him (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). This act of evil is not free from God’s decree, but it is voluntary, and these men are thus responsible for the act, according to these Texts. Or when Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery in Egypt, Joseph later recounted that what his brothers intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). God determines and ordains that these events will take place (that Joseph will be sold into slavery), yet the brothers voluntarily make the evil choice that beings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to Joseph’s brothers for the wicked act, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. Nothing occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure…
Our choices are our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures, nor separately from God’s meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise…” (emphasis added)
In this theory, God is involved at the level of determining men’s evil desires in such a manner that they could not have refrained from the given moral action (see the underlined portions above). In other words, Hendryx supposes that God brings these evil events about by meticulously determining all the circumstances and the evil desires of man. Hendryx denies that people ever have the ability of contra-causal choice (the ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action). Instead, Hendryx is arguing that man is acting in accordance with the desires and circumstances that God has meticulously determined.
Hendryx intentions are noble because he clearly strives to maintain that God remains sinless in all His dealings, but I believe the compatibilist’s theory falls short in accomplishing that goal. James 1:13 teaches, “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.” Yet, would Hendryx have us believe that God refrains from tempting but somehow determines the very desires of the temper and the tempted so as to necessitate the sinful action in every circumstance? This theory simply cannot be supported from the whole counsel of scripture.
Please allow me to propose another theory.
[SIDE NOTE: Notice that I call it a theory and refrain from speaking with dogmatism and authoritative certainty about matters where scripture is not abundantly clear. Also notice that Hendryx and I share the same exact goal. We both desire to explain, from scripture, how God works in relation to moral evil while remaining sinless. Hendryx is not a heretic. I’m not upset with him. He is working with good intentions to best reflect what he believes scripture is revealing. He should be admired for such effort. I simply believe his speculations go too far and thus do not adequately reflect the revelation of God in scripture.]
I believe at times throughout history God does intervene to determine some things. That is what makes these things “of God” and uniquely supernatural. I also believe God uses means similar to what the compatibilist speculates in these instances. I do not believe, however, these unique determinations prove God’s meticulous determination of all things, especially man’s evil intentions. In fact, in every one of the instances listed above the purpose of God’s unique intervention is clearly redemptive. I refuse to believe God is merely seeking to redeem the very evil intentions and actions that He Himself determined.
How does God bring about these purposes while remaining sinless if not in the manner the Compatibilist supposes?
HARDENING
To be clear on this point there are two kinds of hardening taught in scripture.
- Self-hardening: This is where a morally accountable person, who is able to refrain or not refrain from given moral actions (contra-causally free), grows stubborn or calloused in his own ways.*
- Judicial-hardening: This is God’s active role in blinding an already rebellious person in their rebellion so as to prevent their repentance for a time. God’s motive is ALWAYS to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through their rebellious actions (often including the potential redemption even of those being judicially blinded).*
(*see footnote for biblical citations and further explanation)
In my view, judicial hardening is simply hiding or confusing the revelation of truth that could otherwise lead to repentance (Mark 4:11-12; Rom. 11:8). So God is not said to have caused or enticed anyone. He simply lets them continue down their already contra-causally free, self hardened path and makes sure no revelation convinces them to repent prior to His redemptive purpose being served.
Consider this analogy: When a police officer sets up a speed trap he has one ultimate desire: to stop speeders for the safety of all. However, by hiding the truth of his presence he is ensuring that those who want to speed will continue to do so. Thus, in one sense he wants the speeders to continue to speed so as to catch them speeding, but his ultimate purpose is the same: to stop speeders for the safety of all. The police officer does not determine the speeders desire to speed in any way, he simply hides the truth so as to ensure the speeder will continue to speed, something they have contra-causally chosen to do.
Let’s look at another analogy. Suppose my 4 year old daughter was told that she is not to take cookies from the cookie jar. In another room, out of sight, I see into the kitchen that my daughter is looking at the cookie jar. She looks around the room to see if anyone is watching. As a parent, I can tell what she is thinking. She is about to steal a cookie and she knows she is not supposed to.
Now, I could step into the room so that she sees me prior to her committing this sin. Upon seeing me she would forego her evil plot and give up the idea of getting the cookie (at least until the next time she was alone). However, suppose I decide to not step into the room. I remain out of sight to allow her to be tempted and then pounce into action to catch her with her hand in the cookie jar.
Now, by not stepping in at the moment I saw she was being tempted did I cause the temptation? No. I allowed it to continue, but I did not cause it. I did not determine for her to desire to steal. I could have prevented the action by simply showing myself, but I chose not to do so.
This is like judicial hardening. By simply hiding the truth (i.e. that I was present and watching) I allowed my daughter to be tempted and to act in sin. Am I in any way culpable for that sin? No. I merely allowed it though I could have stopped it.
Could God have stepped into the 1st century and clearly shown Himself in Christ to make all the Jews of that time believe Him? Of course. He could have ordained a “Damascus road experience” with all the Jews if He wanted to. He didn’t.
Instead we see Christ telling his disciples to keep things quite until the right time (Matt. 16:20). We see him hiding the truth in parables (Mark 4:11). WHY? If all people are born deaf, blind and unable to understand to the truth why would he need to do this? He did it because He did not want them to come to repentance YET (not until after he is crucified and raised up does he draw all men to himself). This PROVES that Jesus knew the truth was more than sufficient to draw the lost to repentance. He had a bigger redemptive purpose to accomplish through them first, so he blinded them from that enabling truth.
KEY POINT: Don’t allow the context of that judicial hardening of the Jews cloud your view of men’s inherent nature. Men are very much capable of hearing, seeing and repenting when confronted by the powerful gospel truth if they have not been judicially blinded to that truth (see Acts 28:27-28).
Application
- Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” Gen. 50:20
God’s ultimate purpose, like that of police officer, is only good. The brothers intention, like that of the speeders, is not good. God’s sovereign plan is to use their (contra-causally free) evil choices to accomplish His redemptive purpose, much like the officer’s plan to accomplish his purpose through the free choice of speeders. God’s intention is ONLY to redeem, save, and restore throughout this entire event yet to do so he must permit evil men to fulfill their own evil desires. There is no reason to suggest God determines the desires of the brothers anymore so than there is to suggest the police officer determines the desires of the speeder.
- Pharaoh hardened by God to accomplish the Passover: “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.” Ex. 9:12
Pharaoh contra-causally chose to rebel against God. God chose to blind Pharaoh from the truth so as to ensure he would remain in that rebellious condition until the redemptive purpose of the Passover was accomplish (a foreshadowing of Israel’s hardening to accomplish the true Passover with Christ). The text never suggests that God refuses Pharaoh the ability to refrain or not refrain from his morally evil actions.
- The Crucifixion of Jesus: “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross…They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Acts 2:23; 4:28
Hendryx points people to God’s determination of the crucifixion, “the worse evil of all time,” to prove his perspective of meticulous providence. His argument goes something like this: If God determined the worse evil of all time without blame then we should be able to accept that God can determine all evil events without blame. First, I have no problem ‘blaming,’ or should I say ‘crediting,’ God with the redemption of sin as accomplished through the crucifixion. While I agree that God did determine the cross by actively intervening in our fallen world to ensure it came to pass, by means of judicial hardening, I fail to see how that proves God likewise determined and actively worked to bring about all the sin that needed redemption on that cross. Are we to believe God determined to redeem his very own determinations?
Foreknowing that someone will contra-causally choose to sin, as I did with my daughter standing in front of the cookie jar, does not in any way imply such knowledge causes, determines or necessitates the desire of the sinner to sin. There is no reason we cannot merely accept that God is able to foreknow contra-causally free choices even though an element of mystery remains in the infinite nature of the one who knows.
In short, I believe God knows the choices of His creatures because He is omniscient, not because He is omni-deterministic.
*Notes taken from study of various systematic theologies and commentaries:
- Self-Hardening of the heart goes beyond the tragic obtuseness of our inherited condition in the Fall of man. Working on the fertile soul of our innately immoral hearts, the act of sinning hardens the heart into a stubborn rebellion against all that is good. So, people may harden their own hearts, in sinful rebellion, in bitterness, or in sheer self-will. (Ex. 9:34-35; 2 Chron. 36:13; Zech. 7:12; Dan. 5:20; Eph. 4:18; Heb. 3:12-15)
This type of self-hardening is most clearly seen in Zech. 7:11-13:
“Your ancestors would not listen to this message. They turned stubbornly away and put their fingers in their ears to keep from hearing. They made their hearts as hard as stone, so they could not hear the law or the messages that the LORD Almighty had sent them by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. That is why the LORD Almighty was so angry with them. ‘Since they refused to listen when I called to them, I would not listen when they called to me,’ says the LORD Almighty.”
- Judicial Hardening — In a few instances such as Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Ex. 7:3; 9:12), Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut. 2:30), and the Hivites living in Gibeon (John 11:19-20), it is said that God hardened their hearts. Apparently these people were so irremediable in their rebellion against God that God entered into the hardening process so that he could accomplish his purposes in spite of, and yet in and through, that hardenness. It is God’s prerogative, as God, to do this (Rom. 9:18-21). That they are morally responsible for their condition is a theological given, and we are warned not to harden our hearts as they did, a command that would make no sense if hardening were simply God’s act (1 Sam. 6:6).
Israel’s hardening as a nation was an act of self-hardening followed by God’s act of judicial hardening as clearly portrayed in the scripture (Matt. 23:37; Rom. 10-11).
God tells Isaiah that Israel, with its calloused heart, will reject him as God’s messenger when he goes to them (Isa. 6:9-10). The event was taken as prophetic by Jesus (Matt. 13:14-15) and Paul (Acts 28:25-27) as referring to Israel’s rejection of Jesus as God’s Messiah. For Paul, Israel’s hardening paved the way to a ministry of ingrafting the Gentiles (Rom. 10-11; Acts 28:28) and was not intended by God to be final, but only until the fullness of the Gentile’s ingrafting was accomplished.
Only the Word of God has the power to cut or pierce a hardened heart (Heb. 4:12) and he has given that word through his Son, the Apostles, the scriptures and by his Spirit all of which can be resisted and ignored as seen throughout the Bible as the hardenness and callousness of the heart only grows thicker with each act of rebellion.
According to scripture only those in a hardened state are unable to see, hear, understand and believe (Acts 28:26-28: John 12:39-40). Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity teaches that everyone is essentially born in this condition due to the Fall of Man. The doctrine of Original Sin can clearly be seen in the scripture, but the Calvinistic system takes this foundational truth one step further by teaching that after the Fall God removed man’s capacity to willingly respond to the call of the gospel, yet God, according to Calvinism, still holds men responsible for that response. I can no longer see this as being a biblical position.
Bibliography. B. S. Childs, Exodus, pp. 170-75; L. J. Kuyper, SJT (1974): 459-74; H. Rä sä en, The Idea of Divorce Hardening; K. L. Schmidt, TDNT 5:1028-31.