Open theism and Jesus's prediction of Judas's betrayal

[KingsGambit]

Just a brief preface: I am not an open theist, and am not considering "switching" to the position, but I have become interested in the debate and figure it would be worth my while to understand the respective cases.

In regards to OT, the most obvious "objection", to me, is predictive prophecy in Scripture, and the response that I've seen is that God knew He would later cause these events to happen. This answer would seem okay for some prophecies in the Bible, but would still raise questions for others (such as Jesus's predictions of Peter's denials and of Judas's actions). On opentheism.info, there's a short discussion on the issue of Peter, and a couple possibilities are given (that God knew Peter would be unable to avoid cracking under the strain, or that it was a contingent prophecy, perhaps akin to Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh). While I don't find these too satisfying, I suppose they're plausible; however, I don't think these explanations would work for the issue of Judas.

Jesus stated that "one of you is a devil" in John 6:70, which clearly seems sequentially set well before Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3). The one way I could see this being compatible with OT is if Jesus was referring to Judas's actions at that time such as stealing money from the disciples, and not to what he would later do. Later, after Satan entered Judas, Jesus makes his famous prediction/accusation at the Passover table. Although Satan had entered Judas at this time, I don't think the "first possibility" is too strong because it would still seem to conflict with Judas's free will, almost as if he were fated to do so. (I take "Satan entering him" as not literally involving the devil physically inhabiting his body, but more as a figure of stating that he under the power of the evil one). Although one can come under the power of Satan (and I believe do even today through witchcraft, etc.), I would think people still have a choice as to whether to commit individual sins or not. I also don't think the "second possibility", of it being a contingent prophecy, is plausible because of the messianic prophecies littered throughout the OT, and the weight of these prophecies would seem to make the "first possibility" unlikely as well.

The only OT resources I've looked at are the above mentioned website and a Greg Boyd book on OT that I was skimming through at the local library, and neither seem to really touch on the issue I've mentioned above. I am curious how an OT would respond, because I'm sure the issue has been thought of before.

[theblueprint_Ni]

The Calvin/Arminian debate on the subject of prophecy is much more interesting, and it doesn't compromise the omniscience of God. Why the interest in the OVT perspective?

[KingsGambit]

The Calvin/Arminian debate on the subject of prophecy is much more interesting, and it doesn't compromise the omniscience of God. Why the interest in the OVT perspective?

Because I've already read extensively on Calvinism/Arminianism, and I'm just honestly curious how this would be responded to.

[yxboom]

Just a brief preface: I am not an open theist, and am not considering "switching" to the position, but I have become interested in the debate and figure it would be worth my while to understand the respective cases.

In regards to OT, the most obvious "objection", to me, is predictive prophecy in Scripture, and the response that I've seen is that God knew He would later cause these events to happen. This answer would seem okay for some prophecies in the Bible, but would still raise questions for others (such as Jesus's predictions of Peter's denials and of Judas's actions). On opentheism.info, there's a short discussion on the issue of Peter, and a couple possibilities are given (that God knew Peter would be unable to avoid cracking under the strain, or that it was a contingent prophecy, perhaps akin to Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh). While I don't find these too satisfying, I suppose they're plausible; however, I don't think these explanations would work for the issue of Judas.

Jesus stated that "one of you is a devil" in John 6:70, which clearly seems sequentially set well before Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3). The one way I could see this being compatible with OT is if Jesus was referring to Judas's actions at that time such as stealing money from the disciples, and not to what he would later do. Later, after Satan entered Judas, Jesus makes his famous prediction/accusation at the Passover table. Although Satan had entered Judas at this time, I don't think the "first possibility" is too strong because it would still seem to conflict with Judas's free will, almost as if he were fated to do so. (I take "Satan entering him" as not literally involving the devil physically inhabiting his body, but more as a figure of stating that he under the power of the evil one). Although one can come under the power of Satan (and I believe do even today through witchcraft, etc.), I would think people still have a choice as to whether to commit individual sins or not. I also don't think the "second possibility", of it being a contingent prophecy, is plausible because of the messianic prophecies littered throughout the OT, and the weight of these prophecies would seem to make the "first possibility" unlikely as well.

The only OT resources I've looked at are the above mentioned website and a Greg Boyd book on OT that I was skimming through at the local library, and neither seem to really touch on the issue I've mentioned above. I am curious how an OT would respond, because I'm sure the issue has been thought of before.

Im not going to pretend to be an open theist scholar but I will try the best I know to address your question. Is there anything in particular you have in mind?

[KingsGambit]

Im not going to pretend to be an open theist scholar but I will try the best I know to address your question. Is there anything in particular you have in mind?

Just basically, in short, how Jesus could have known about Judas's betrayal.

As for the above comment about how this topic is "less interesting" than others, I respectfully disagree, but it's a subjective deal.

[yxboom]

Just basically, in short, how Jesus could have known about Judas's betrayal.

Jesus is God and knows all things including Judas' agenda. Whether this was deterministic I would argue, no.

I don't think Jesus' statement that one of the disciples was a devil determined Judas' (or anyone's) betrayal just as Jesus calling Peter, Satan (Mark 8:33) did not determine Peter's fate. I think Jesus had higher hopes for Judas when He includes Judas as one of the 12 who would judge Israel.

Matt 19:28-29

Jesus replied, “I assure you that when the world is made new and the Son of Man sits upon his glorious throne, you who have been my followers will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or property, for my sake, will receive a hundred times as much in return and will inherit eternal life.

[footwasher]

Baptism isn't a contract, its an admission ticket. Walk in, browse around, walk out if the manifesto contradicts your own philosophy of life! Many did. No sweat.

John 15:64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 “We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.


Don't plod on regardless. It can be counterproductive. Your fate can be worse than if you had not believed. It would have been better if you had not been born.

Mark 14:21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.

2 Peter 2:20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

Stay on if you want some more exposure to the culture, if you intuit that you haven't still wrapped your mind around the core...

He wants us to be honest about our feelings, wants us to be brave, to reason it out, mano a mano...

[KingsGambit]

While I don't really disagree with anything you posted, footwasher, I don't really see how it really relates to what I posted...

[KingsGambit]

Jesus is God and knows all things including Judas' agenda. Whether this was deterministic I would argue, no.

I don't think Jesus' statement that one of the disciples was a devil determined Judas' (or anyone's) betrayal just as Jesus calling Peter, Satan (Mark 8:33) did not determine Peter's fate. I think Jesus had higher hopes for Judas when He includes Judas as one of the 12 who would judge Israel.

Matt 19:28-29

Jesus replied, “I assure you that when the world is made new and the Son of Man sits upon his glorious throne, you who have been my followers will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or property, for my sake, will receive a hundred times as much in return and will inherit eternal life.

Thanks for your response. Looking back at when Jesus directly told the disciples that one would betray him, that was after Judas had entered into the plot to betray Jesus, which seems to be a plausible interpretation from the OT perspective.

[footwasher]

I mean many were amazed at Jesus words and deeds, believed and were baptised. They did not realize the wedding banquet is only for those who seek righteousness and peace in the Holy Spirit. It was not a matter of meat and drink.

They should have made peace terms and exited. No person sets out on battle unless he knows what is involved. The opponent will not accept terms once the battle is engaged.

[yxboom]

Thanks for your response. Looking back at when Jesus directly told the disciples that one would betray him, that was after Judas had entered into the plot to betray Jesus, which seems to be a plausible interpretation from the OT perspective.

I hope I was able to offer a clear enough explanation whether you agree or not.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Because I've already read extensively on Calvinism/Arminianism, and I'm just honestly curious how this would be responded to.

I see. I suppose it doesn't hurt to know how to respond to these things. I don't think I would be much help though. I wouldn't be able to get past discussing Scripture from the view of an OvT. It would turn evangelistic before getting far. So I guess my contribution isn't very helpful to you! Hope you get a good discussion out of this with others.

[Littlejoe]

To build a little bit on what Xyboom said, in John 6, John reiterates what we already know from many scriptures, that God know man's hearts, already knew who Judas was...what kind of man he was. John tell us that Jesus knew who believed and who didn't. I don't think Judas ever really believe Jesus was the Christ, which made it easy for his greed to be exploited at the right time, and later at the last supper, he knew that Judas had already been in talks with the sanhedrin on the betrayal...

[RBerman]

Just a brief preface: I am not an open theist, and am not considering "switching" to the position, but I have become interested in the debate and figure it would be worth my while to understand the respective cases.

In regards to OT, the most obvious "objection", to me, is predictive prophecy in Scripture, and the response that I've seen is that God knew He would later cause these events to happen. This answer would seem okay for some prophecies in the Bible, but would still raise questions for others (such as Jesus's predictions of Peter's denials and of Judas's actions). On opentheism.info, there's a short discussion on the issue of Peter, and a couple possibilities are given (that God knew Peter would be unable to avoid cracking under the strain, or that it was a contingent prophecy, perhaps akin to Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh). While I don't find these too satisfying, I suppose they're plausible; however, I don't think these explanations would work for the issue of Judas.

Jesus stated that "one of you is a devil" in John 6:70, which clearly seems sequentially set well before Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3). The one way I could see this being compatible with OT is if Jesus was referring to Judas's actions at that time such as stealing money from the disciples, and not to what he would later do. Later, after Satan entered Judas, Jesus makes his famous prediction/accusation at the Passover table. Although Satan had entered Judas at this time, I don't think the "first possibility" is too strong because it would still seem to conflict with Judas's free will, almost as if he were fated to do so. (I take "Satan entering him" as not literally involving the devil physically inhabiting his body, but more as a figure of stating that he under the power of the evil one). Although one can come under the power of Satan (and I believe do even today through witchcraft, etc.), I would think people still have a choice as to whether to commit individual sins or not. I also don't think the "second possibility", of it being a contingent prophecy, is plausible because of the messianic prophecies littered throughout the OT, and the weight of these prophecies would seem to make the "first possibility" unlikely as well.

The only OT resources I've looked at are the above mentioned website and a Greg Boyd book on OT that I was skimming through at the local library, and neither seem to really touch on the issue I've mentioned above. I am curious how an OT would respond, because I'm sure the issue has been thought of before.

This is one of hundreds of Biblical examples where the premeses of Open Theism throw God's sovereignty into confusion. OVT teaches that we can't be morally accountable for things that happen necessarily, and that if God has exhaustive, definitive foreknowledge (EDF) of some particular sin, then it happens necessarily, and therefore we are not morally accountable for any sin of which God has EDF. OVT proponents are quick to point out that they don't require all human actions to be exempt from EDF. But they're still left with the Biblically problematic notion that God doesn't hold us responsible for things that he knew (with EDF) we would do.

[Xmansmommy]

Just a brief preface: I am not an open theist, and am not considering "switching" to the position, but I have become interested in the debate and figure it would be worth my while to understand the respective cases.

I think it's awesome that you are examining things from a different perspective than your own.

In regards to OT, the most obvious "objection", to me, is predictive prophecy in Scripture, and the response that I've seen is that God knew He would later cause these events to happen. This answer would seem okay for some prophecies in the Bible, but would still raise questions for others (such as Jesus's predictions of Peter's denials and of Judas's actions). On opentheism.info, there's a short discussion on the issue of Peter, and a couple possibilities are given (that God knew Peter would be unable to avoid cracking under the strain, or that it was a contingent prophecy, perhaps akin to Jonah's prophecy to Nineveh). While I don't find these too satisfying, I suppose they're plausible; however, I don't think these explanations would work for the issue of Judas.

Jesus stated that "one of you is a devil" in John 6:70, which clearly seems sequentially set well before Satan entered Judas (Luke 22:3). The one way I could see this being compatible with OT is if Jesus was referring to Judas's actions at that time such as stealing money from the disciples, and not to what he would later do. Later, after Satan entered Judas, Jesus makes his famous prediction/accusation at the Passover table. Although Satan had entered Judas at this time, I don't think the "first possibility" is too strong because it would still seem to conflict with Judas's free will, almost as if he were fated to do so. (I take "Satan entering him" as not literally involving the devil physically inhabiting his body, but more as a figure of stating that he under the power of the evil one). Although one can come under the power of Satan (and I believe do even today through witchcraft, etc.), I would think people still have a choice as to whether to commit individual sins or not. I also don't think the "second possibility", of it being a contingent prophecy, is plausible because of the messianic prophecies littered throughout the OT, and the weight of these prophecies would seem to make the "first possibility" unlikely as well.

The only OT resources I've looked at are the above mentioned website and a Greg Boyd book on OT that I was skimming through at the local library, and neither seem to really touch on the issue I've mentioned above. I am curious how an OT would respond, because I'm sure the issue has been thought of before.

Matthew 26:24

The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."

Jesus knew that he was to be betrayed. He didn't reveal by which disciple it would be. He only revealed what circumstances would expose him. Now a few verses prior Judas had already gone to bargain with the chief priests and plotted to betray Jesus (verses 14-16). God knew the condition of Judas' heart and Jesus knew that there were unbelievers within the 12 and knew "from the beginning." The beginning of what? Before anything/anyone was created or perhaps from the beginning of his ministry? He was certainly aware of persecution as he had been facing it from the beginning of his ministry. Not to mention, he was a very perceptive guy according to the scriptures.