Matthew 26:14-16; 47-56
This sermon focuses on the relationship between Judas and Jesus, and how it is that Jesus could call him friend.
In the sermon, I ask, but do not answer, the question as to why Judas did what he did, and whether or not he had any choice on the matter. The account of Judas raises these questions, and even more (questions related to suicide and repentance and eternal security). I do not intend to address all of these, but here are a few thoughts.
First of all, in regard to the eternal destiny of Judas, Jesus was rather clear in John 17:12, that he was lost. But since Judas was fulfilling a prophecy of scripture (John 13:18 and Psalm 41:9), some have wondered if he had any choice in the matter, and if not, what justice there was in God condemning him.
From the actions of Jesus toward Judas, from his calling him friend (albeit not philos--see sermon power point), to his placing Judas next to him at the Last Supper, to his reaching out his hand to dip the sop with him, Jesus seems to hold out grace and love to Judas, right up to the end. Was this the offer of repentance? If Judas would have changed his mind, could have God fulfilled the prophecy in some other way? Of course, this is all meaningless speculation, since what happened, happened, and there is no going back to change it.
In regard to the question related to Judas' choice in the matter, there are two biblical principles that come to bear. One is that there was destiny involved in this. There was a prophecy that had to be fulfilled. This was going to happen. Nothing could change it.
In respect to Judas specifically, along with teaching the sovereignty of God (Ehp. 1:3-14), the Bible also teaches the free will of humans to make real choices that impact their destiny (Revelation 22:17). These two truths occur side by side in the Bible, and create, for the human mind, an insurmountable obstacle. How can God know the actions of everyone in advance and yet allow each of us to make our own choice? I do not know how that can be, but then, I am not God.
It seems clear enough to me that in the realm of possibilities, naturally Judas, being a free moral agent, could have chosen another path for his life. But he did not, so in reality the question is mute. He made his choice and it played out toward certain consequences, as all of our choices do.
Why did Judas do it?
There has been a lot of speculation around this question. My guess is that it was not because Judas hated Jesus. A clue to motive might be found in Judas' remorse after the fact (Matt 27:1-10). Here is the way I work it out. The disciples were still thinking that Jesus came to overthrow the Romans and to again establish an earthly kingdom ruled by the Jews themselves (Acts 1:6-7). As the events of Holy Week worn on, it was obvious this was not happening. Jesus seemed uninterested in any kind of rebellion against Rome. Judas grew impatient and pondered how he might force Jesus to act. So he concocted a plan. He would betray Jesus to the Priests, who were plotting to kill him, and when He was arrested, certainly then Jesus would react and rise up with all his power and usher in his kingdom. After his arrest, when Jesus allowed himself to be condemned to death, Judas realized his plan went horribly wrong, and in despair committed suicide. (This view is held by a number of Bible scholars.)
On the question of suicide, the Bible nowhere teaches that to commit suicide automatically destines one to Hell. Let's leave it at that for now.
Thanks for digging deeper.
Very interesting. I appreciate the insight in the life of Judas. I have always been confused by his motives and whether or not he was condemned for his actions. I have been studying Romans for the past two months. Two things stick out to me: Predestination and God's Elect.
ReplyDeleteThere is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.
Is this a passage where the view of Calvinism draws its roots? In your blog you touched on Revelation and that humans can exercise free will. I am struggling with the above passage in Romans for obvious reasons. If no one seeks God, how then can we exercise free will and seek him? In my mind Free Will and Calvinism run counter to one another.
I recently finished a book called "Unformed and Unfilled" by Weston Fields. He summarizes that God is irrational the human mind. Do you agree with that statement?
Thanks Galen!
Ryan, good thinking and good questions. You are correct in understanding that Romans 3:10 is foundational to Calvinism, and to any form of biblical theology!
DeleteThe way I understand it is this--none of us will seek God on our own, we all need a touch of God's grace to awaken us to our need of him--every version of biblical theology agrees with that. The rub comes in these questions: What does that awakening look like, how does it happen, and when it comes, can it be resisted? Here is were different schools of thought separate.
Going back to Judas (my sermon and the blog), it certainly seems like Jesus was extending grace to Judas, even while Jesus seems to have understood what Judas would eventually choose to do. That is somewhat paradoxical.
John 1:9 suggests that Jesus sheds "light" on every one. What kind of light? Obviously, it is a light that can either be received (as John 1:12 says) or not. Without that light, we would not seek him; with the light we have opportunity. The choice we will make, God already knows, but it is a real choice.
I have meandered in the Arminian camp and the Calvinist one, being fully persuaded by the one or the other at one time or another in my life. Where I am now is thinking they are both right and both wrong. I have become content to hold a creative tension between equal truths that I cannot fully reconcile in my human mind--divine sovereignty (even choice) and human responsibility and freedom.
On your last question from the book by Fields, I'm not sure I get it--did you miss something in the quote or am I missing something?
I do not think of God as irrational; more like incomprehensible. I do think that God does not have to make sense to my rational mind. I think one of the mistakes Calvinism has made over the years is that they have tried to work out a rational system of theology that fits our rational way of thinking, and that sometimes leaves the mystery of God in the dust. I guess many systems of theology are like that. Again, I'm OK to live with tensions I do not fully understand.
Hope this helps,
keep the questions coming.
Galen,
DeleteThanks for sharing more on the topic. If I am understanding correctly, Judas was given the "light" when Christ extended grace to him; the grace offered to Judas could have changed his heart. Judas "chose" to reject the grace, exercising his own free-will and betraying Christ.
So, possibly we are all predestined to be with Christ? Paul says that no one seeks God; Christ offers the grace to us, we chose to accept or reject that grace. Bringing into play both schools of thought Arminianism and Calvinism?
In the book by Fields he critiques the Gap Theory and Day Age Theory, which is an entirely different topic that could fill several blogs from here until the end of time haha. I don't want to distract from the message that you have given on your blog in regards to Judas, however, I apologize for my lack of clarification in my previous post. Fields summarizes that as human beings, and in particular the scientific community and ancient Philosophers, we tend to rationalize away God. Subjecting his miracles to scientific evidences e.g., Genesis Flood only occurring in an isolated place, Parting of the Red Sea was actually a rare tidal occurrence, Turning the Nile River to blood was a rare phenomenon caused by various types of Algae. Using human rationale we take away from God's sovereignty. Fields suggests that God is irrational to the human mind, suggesting that the miracles of God are just that; irrational and incomprehensible to the human mind. Maybe his choice of words is incorrect. I agree with you; I am perfectly fine with not understanding all of God's ways. Who wants a God they can understand?
Thanks a lot Galen. Your wisdom is much appreciated!
Ryan, it was great to chat on Sunday. As I said then, I'm sometimes not sure if I am a Cal-minian or an Ar-vinist! Anyway, I've been thinking about our conversation around the book by Fields. The book I mentioned is James Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary. There were original three volumes, but I think it is not released in one volume. Boice was a full-blown Calvinist(deceased now, so maybe he has revamped his theology!) and an excellent preacher/teacher. In chapters 4-9 he reviews various views of creation. Been awhile since I read them, but remember it was a helpful read.
ReplyDeleteI concur with not wanting a God I can fully understand. I have said already that if I could fully comprehend and understand God then either He is no smarter than me or I am as smart as He. Contemplating both options is rather scary!
Thanks for the dialog.