“God, of course, assigns callings according to his
foreknowledge. But although Jesus may have known the hearts and reactions of
those he chose, nevertheless his choice of Judas was no different than his
choice of John. He said that he knew a disciple would betray him, but he did
not cause Judas to fall.”
This quote
comes from a section in Forster and Marston on the biblical concept of
election. They argue that the primary use of election in the New Testament is
in regards to God choosing someone for an office, which office has a certain
task to be done. A person appointed to some office does not have the power to do the task and so such an appointed person must meet a
condition given by God in order for him (God) to give them the power to
do the work. The condition is merely that one is willing to do the task
appointed to the office. There are several cases of this and one is Jesus’ and
God’s appointing of the apostles.
With this
backdrop let us look at what is being said here. So God assigns callings or
offices on the basis of his foreknowledge. Although God may have known the
hearts of those he chose, “nevertheless his choice of Judas was no different
than his choice of John. He said that he knew a disciple would betray him, but
he did not cause Judas to fall.”
Okay, so God assigns his calling to Judas to be an apostle knowing that Judas
would betray Jesus and fall, but merely by knowing God did not cause Judas to
betray Jesus or to fall.
But what
was God’s purpose in calling Judas since he knew that he would do these things?
Was it that God hoped that Judas would end up not betraying Jesus and falling
away even though he knew for certain
that Judas would do these things? Surely if the answer is yes to the last two
questions, then God is acting irrationally. But if God acts irrationally then
God is not perfect. But perfection comes with the job description of being God,
and so we know this way of understanding why God appointed Judas though he knew
he would fail isn’t a satisfactory way out.
Perhaps,
one might answer, God elected Judas even though he knew that Judas would fall
so that God could use Judas’ willful misfortune for other people’s benefit.
This says that God uses a person’s misfortune for his own ends. How nice!
This means that even if God isn’t the cause of Judas’
misfortune, and Judas’ own willful choice is the cause of his downfall, yet God
elects Judas to an office that God knows Judas will not fulfill (even though
God knows that potentially Judas could). Further, perhaps we could say that in
one sense God elects Judas to his office because
he knows Judas will fail and because God
will use that failure to accomplish his own personal ends. In fact Forster and
Marston later on suggest something similar when they say, “The great thing
about God is that he is able, in his foreknowledge, to make use even of those who rebel against him. Thus, although
Judas rejected him, God used this
rejection to set in motion the events leading up to Christ’s atoning death”
(emphasis added).
Last night,
10/3/2012, there was a presidential debate between Mitt Romney and President Barack
Obama. Let us suppose that there was some president or other leader who
appointed a person to some office knowing
that that person would fail, because that president or leader wanted to use
that appointee’s failure to accomplish his own personal program. I want to
suggest that even if the program that comes about through the president’s or
leader’s appointee’s failure benefits or helps other people, there still seems
to be something that is intuitively fishy with how the leader accomplishes his/her
program. If one shares with me this intuition, the idea of why this is
intuitively fishy seems to be that it is not completely morally acceptable to
appoint someone to some office, knowing they are going to fail, in order to use
that failure to accomplish one’s own ends. Even if the ends are beneficial to
many people, it seems that even in those cases, ends don’t necessarily justify
means, and don’t massage shady means.
So if this
is the case for some leader, what gets God off the hook of this objection? I am
not sure. There may be some nuanced explanation, but I will leave that to
someone else to explain. What I want to suggest is what the case is if God
can’t get off the hook to an objection like this. This is a hypothetical, and I
am asking my readers here to just assume the objection of moral shadiness
applies to Forster and Marston’s analysis of God’s appointing Judas (or similar
analyses) for the sake of argument. Well if it is shady for a great leader,
then it seems shady for God. Someone might say, rightly, that the person who
failed did so because of their own neglect or abuse or character. So if this
leader does this, though it is intuitively shady to us, well, he didn’t cause
the appointee’s failure he merely used the appointees failure to accomplish the
ends he so desires. In doing so, he is not acting completely, and in an out and
out fashion, immoral. Rather it just seems to us, intuitively, to be shady.
Here is the thing, God is purported
to be omnibenevolent. That means that God always lives up to the highest moral
standards, and if our shared intuition (given that someone does share this
intuition with me) suggest anything, it suggest that there is a better way to
go about accomplishing one’s purposes than to set someone up, or appoint them
to some position that you know that the person will fail at, (even if it is
because of the appointee’s own will that the failure takes place) and then use
that failure for one’s own ends. Surely, intuitively, we don’t think that this
is the ideally right or moral way to
go about establishing one’s plans and goals. But if it is not the ideal, then
by definition it is not the best; and if it is not the best or most moral way,
then by the definition of omnibenevolent suggested above, God could not do it. Or,
worse yet, God is not omnibenevolent.
I think
what someone has to do is either show that the leader case does not really
apply to God in the Judas situation. Say that it would apply if God so
appointed Judas to the office of an apostle, but that God doesn’t in fact elect
or appoint Judas to the office of an apostle (and thus reject Forster and
Marston’s analysis). Show that I have not defined my terms correctly, or that
my dilemma has no intuitive force to it. Or to just accept God is not
omnibenevolent.