Middle Knowledge

Middle Knowledge or Hypothetical Knowledge is God’s knowledge of subjunctive conditional statements like “If someone else had been in Pilate’s place, would that person have condemned Jesus?” How would someone have acted had that person been in that situation? That is not foreknowledge because that person never is in that situation. What this is called is middle knowledge or knowledge of subjunctive conditionals or hypothetical knowledge.

This kind of knowledge is beautifully illustrated in Charles Dickens’ classic story, A Christmas Carol. At the end of that story Scrooge is confronted by the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come. He is shown horrifying visions of his own death and the death of Tiny Tim and people laughing about Scrooge’s death. Horrified by these visions that Scrooge sees, he implores the Spirit, “are these shadows of things that will be or shadows of things that might be only?” The Spirit does not answer Scrooge. Why? Well, obviously from the story’s end it is known that the Spirit was not showing Scrooge visions of things that will be. Tiny Tim does not die. Scrooge reforms and repents. As a result, the horrible things that the Spirit showed him did not actually happen. So it was not foreknowledge. But the Spirit was not showing him merely things that might be – mere possibilities. After all, Scrooge might sell his business and become a florist in Covent Garden. That is possible. But why worry about that sort of eventuality? No, what the Spirit was showing Scrooge is what would happen if Scrooge were not to repent. He was imparting to Scrooge knowledge of subjunctive conditionals. Scrooge’s question did not take that into account, so the Spirit does not answer Scrooge.

The question then is: does God have this kind of knowledge? Does he have knowledge of these subjunctive conditionals? In particular, does he have this kind of knowledge prior to his decree to create a world? Does he have hypothetical knowledge logically or explanatorily prior to his decree of a world of what creatures in that world would freely do if they were in various circumstances, or what those same creatures would do if they were in other circumstances, or what would happen in still another possible world in which different creatures were created in different circumstances. Does God have this kind of knowledge logically or explanatorily prior to his decree to create a world?

Theological Controversy
This is a subject of considerable theological controversy. Proponents of middle knowledge follow the Catholic Counter-Reformer Luis Molina in the late 16th, early 17th century in maintaining that God does have this kind of knowledge. But a good many contemporary theologians would say no – God does not have this kind of knowledge. So for these theologians God did not know what someone would do if he were to have them born at this time and place in history. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for someone’s ultimate destiny because he does not have middle knowledge. For these theologians, God is in no sense responsible for having created such a messed up world as this one – he did not see it coming so to speak! Granted, he has simple foreknowledge of the future. He does foreknow whatever will happen, but it is not as though logically prior to that he knew, If I were to create these people in these circumstances this is the way the world would turn out. He would just have simple foreknowledge of what will happen, but he did not have this kind of middle knowledge and therefore cannot be held responsible for why the world is so messed up, or why there is so much evil, and so forth.

Theological Reasons For Affirming God’s Middle Knowledge
There are powerful theological reasons for affirming that God does have this sort of knowledge. The Bible teaches divine sovereignty and providence over the whole of human history. The Bible says that nothing happens simply by accident outside of the plan and providence of God. There is a relevant passage in Acts 4 in which the church in Jerusalem is gathered together in prayer. In Acts 4:27-28, this is how they pray:

For truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place.

According to this verse specific persons are named – King Herod, the procurator Pontius Pilate, as well as all the Gentiles that were there, the Jews that were there. This all unfolded according to God’s plan and providence. God is over everything that happens. Everything that happens does so either by God’s direct will or at least his permission in the case of sinful actions.

This kind of providential planning requires middle knowledge. Even the opponents of middle knowledge recognize that it is impossible to have a robust doctrine of divine providence and sovereignty along with human freedom without middle knowledge. But according to middle knowledge, God knew what every free creature would do under any circumstances in which that creature might be placed. That includes freedom-permitting circumstances. People are not determined by their circumstances to do what they do. In certain circumstances people have a measure of freedom within those same circumstances to act in different ways. By creating certain persons in certain circumstances God can bring it about that his ultimate ends are achieved through the free decisions that people make.

This would be unimaginably complex. Only an infinite mind could direct a world of free creatures toward his provisioned ends. For example, what would it take to providentially arrange the success of the Allied invasion on D-Day without abusing or abridging the freedom of the people involved? There would need to have a Winston Churchill on the scene. In order for that to happen that means that Lord and Lady Churchill had to have sexual intercourse at just a certain time and place so that that sperm would unite with that egg that would eventually be Winston Churchill. There were innumerable contingencies that went into that single event – whether Lady Churchill turned her ankle on a clod in the flower garden that day and so maybe would not have been in the mood for sex, and whether that clod was there was due to whether the gardener did a faithful job in hoeing and raking the garden that morning, and maybe he did not do that because he was feeling depressed and did not do his work as energetically. That is just one thing – that is just Churchill. There are all of the rest of the people – the free agents – involved, and the multitude of circumstances on both the Allied and Axis sides in order to engineer such an event. Truly only an infinite, omniscient mind could employ his knowledge of subjunctive conditionals to bring about even a single event in human history.

Middle knowledge therefore provides the key to the mystery of divine sovereignty and human freedom. By knowing how creatures would freely behave in certain circumstances and putting them in those circumstances, God can ultimately bring about his ends without abridging the freedom of persons but actually allowing them to do as they please knowing that ultimately despite their freedom his ends will be accomplished.

Obviously, creatures (free persons) will make a lot of bad decisions that God does not directly will. In any moral situation God always wills that people do the good. He never wills that people should sin. Sin is contrary to the will of God. So God knows that creatures will often not do what he directly wills. Instead they will rebel against him. They will sin. They will choose to act immorally. But given his middle knowledge, even allowing these sins and evils to occur ultimately in this infinitely complex scenario, God’s ultimate purposes will be accomplished.

When looking at the messed up world and wondering how could God have created such a messed up world as this with so much suffering and evil, the proponent of middle knowledge could say God’s options may have been limited. It may be that given human freedom and given God’s desire that creatures are free, it may be that they would have messed up any world of free creatures that God might have created. Perhaps in any world that was feasible for God to actualize or realize which involves this much good as the actual world, there would have also been this much suffering and this much evil. So God’s options may be significantly limited by human freedom to worlds that involve a good deal of suffering and evil. God would, in every circumstance, will that people do the right thing but he will permit them to sin if that is what they will to do.

On the Molinist view, one needs to make a distinction between possible worlds (worlds that are possible for God to actualize) and what it is called feasible or realizable or actualizable worlds. For example, a world of free creatures involving this much good in which everybody always does the right thing (no one ever sins) is a possible world. That would not be a robot world. This would be a world in which everybody has freedom, but they all always do the right thing. They always freely do the moral thing. So there would be no sin in that world. But given human freedom, it may be the case that such a world is not feasible for God because if God were to create those creatures in those circumstances, even though it is possible for them to do the right thing, they would not. They would go wrong, and they would mess up the world. So God’s options of feasible worlds may be limited in the suffering and the evil that must be permitted in order to accomplish his will.

Nevertheless, as a good God in his providence he has selected a world which on balance has more good than evil. Ultimately his will will be accomplished. It will win out. His purpose will be achieved. There will be a multitude of persons in heaven from every tribe and tongue and people and nation who have come to know God and his salvation and have freely come into a relationship with him.

God’s choice of a world is the best. Despite the evil and the suffering in the world, people can have trust and confidence in God that he has chosen a world which was a wise choice and a good choice. The onus for messing up the world is on humans. It is not on God. It is people who, through their free choices, turned the world into such a decadent and evil place. God allows that, but only with the view toward accomplishing his ultimately good purpose.

That would be a defense of the doctrine of middle knowledge. It is the only way to give a reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom which affirms libertarian freedom but also God’s providence over everything that happens in the world. That gives powerful theological motivation for adopting a doctrine of middle knowledge.