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

[Rdr. Arsenios]

If Judas had suddenly truly believed before the cup dipping episode, Jesus would have known and God would have used someone else to betray Jesus. There was no guessing involved.

Speaking of guessing... how can you know such a thing? Whatever mechanism Judas would use to disqualify himself could disqualify everyone else too.

This passage shows the power of Holy Communion which Paul later remarked that those who receive of the cup unworthily, not discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord, have become ill or died... It can result in an increase of sins for the unrepentant, as happened with Judas...

Christ was not guessing, but was showing for all the consequences of partaking unworthily... For those who do so, He will THEN say: "What you are about to do, be doing it more quickly!"

A sharp contrast with Peter...

Arsenios

[yxboom]

This passage shows the power of Holy Communion which Paul later remarked that those who receive of the cup unworthily, not discerning the Body and Blood of our Lord, have become ill or died... It can result in an increase of sins for the unrepentant, as happened with Judas...

Christ was not guessing, but was showing for all the consequences of partaking unworthily... For those who do so, He will THEN say: "What you are about to do, be doing it more quickly!"

A sharp contrast with Peter...

Arsenios

That is a pretty fascinating insight, thank you for that.

I have a question about unworthily partaking, didn't Peter (and all the disciples as well) deny Christ later that evening?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

That is a pretty fascinating insight, thank you for that.

I have a question about unworthily partaking, didn't Peter (and all the disciples as well) deny Christ later that evening?

Indeed, they scattered - Except for the women disciples and John, who were the only ones to remain to the end... It was not the denying of Christ that condemned Judas, but that he was "a devil", and that he kept on his devilish ways of stealing from the treasury in his love of silver, and had decided to betray Christ after the anointing of our Savior's feet with the expensive oils in the alabaster flask, and in this frame of mind, he partook of the Body and Blood of the Master, and received his 32 piece reward...

The other disciples were in no such condition whatsoever, for they all were faithful and thought they could overcome what was coming - their first stumble was falling asleep as Christ prayed...

This is part of the Mystery of Evil... Even evil is turned to good, but woe to the evil doer... Without Judas, there was no betrayal, for he was the betrayer of Christ... And without the betrayal, there was no crucifixion... Christ foreknew what Judas would do of his own free will, and warned him, knowing he would do it anyway... And that by this Christ would ascend the Cross and overcome Death, as do we in Him...

Arsenios

[RBerman]

I subscribe to the opinion that the future is partly open and God foreknows it as such. If I were to subscribe to a position of EDF, it is that God exhaustively foreknows that the future is partly open.

The part that's closed is the part I was concerned about. Are there any choices of men in that part? And if so, does God hold men guilty for sins in that part?

[yxboom]

The part that's closed is the part I was concerned about. Are there any choices of men in that part? And if so, does God hold men guilty for sins in that part?

It seems we view sin, God's influence and persuasion entirely different. The presuppositions underlying those questions are so foreign to the position, and only confound the issue the way I see it. This is a freewill debate rather than an open theism one imo. To offer you an answer the best I know how, God does not hold men guilty of sin (although we are), Satan does (rightly so), and he would hold men's sin against them regardless (but God justifies).

Now, if the actual question is, does God override an individual's freewill to accomplish His purpose or require that all freewill actions must be exhaustively foreknown to assure completion, no I find that proposal unnecessary. God did not have to exhaustively foreknow Judas would betray Jesus for God to know Jesus would die. To further illustrate my point, God would rather use a fish to persuade Jonah or offer a virgin to bear her Messiah than accomplish these things without their freedom to choose otherwise, so Jesus' birth may have been settled, who would bear Him did not have to be. Finally, I would suggest, right now a settled part of the future is Jesus will return. How we influence that or alter the time or manner in which He comes poses no threat or uncertainty to the settled reality that Jesus will return.

[yxboom]

Indeed, they scattered - Except for the women disciples and John, who were the only ones to remain to the end... It was not the denying of Christ that condemned Judas, but that he was "a devil", and that he kept on his devilish ways of stealing from the treasury in his love of silver, and had decided to betray Christ after the anointing of our Savior's feet with the expensive oils in the alabaster flask, and in this frame of mind, he partook of the Body and Blood of the Master, and received his 32 piece reward...

The other disciples were in no such condition whatsoever, for they all were faithful and thought they could overcome what was coming - their first stumble was falling asleep as Christ prayed...

I appreciate your insights and find such a wealth of knowledge from them.

There is evidence the other disciples shared in Judas' view of the Messiah and would not see Judas in the same light that we do. We know he betrayed Jesus because we know the outcome

Matthew26:20

When it was evening, Jesus sat down at the tablec with the twelve disciples.d 21While they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.”

22Greatly distressed, each one asked in turn, “Am I the one, Lord?”

Each disciple thought it was him, so I still have reservations on how they were considered worthy or faithful, and I would question that the idea that they could overcome even entered into their minds. I am persuaded they had no expectation that any harm or trouble was about to come their way (hence why they slept without urgency).

This is part of the Mystery of Evil... Even evil is turned to good, but woe to the evil doer... Without Judas, there was no betrayal, for he was the betrayer of Christ... And without the betrayal, there was no crucifixion... Christ foreknew what Judas would do of his own free will, and warned him, knowing he would do it anyway... And that by this Christ would ascend the Cross and overcome Death, as do we in Him...

Arsenios

I have stated I believe Jesus had high hopes for Judas and did expect His fall but do not find it necessary to conclude his fall was determined or foreknown exhaustively before creation.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

There is evidence the other disciples shared in Judas' view of the Messiah and would not see Judas in the same light that we do. We know he betrayed Jesus because we know the outcome...

We know that Judas was a thief, that he loved silver, and that he had been regularly stealing from the money box of the disciples, and Christ knew that he was stealing... No other disciple was blatantly [yes, even if concealed from the eyes of most men] sinning in this manner... Judas was chosen precisely because he was the one who God foreknew would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver... It was foreknown and prophesized by the Prophets, and especially in the Psalms of David...

Matthew26:20

When it was evening, Jesus sat down at the tablec with the twelve disciples.d 21While they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.”

22Greatly distressed, each one asked in turn, “Am I the one, Lord?”

And each was distressed that it might be him, except Judas, who was perhaps distressed that he had been found out...

Each disciple thought it was him, so I still have reservations on how they were considered worthy or faithful,

They were simply not overtly sinning in concealment like Judas was... And that's a lot...

and I would question that the idea that they could overcome even entered into their minds.

Oh, you remember Peter, saying how HE would not be scattered in fear, but would DIE with Christ if that came to be... And the others said the same... Until the time came, and they fled...

I am persuaded they had no expectation that any harm or trouble was about to come their way (hence why they slept without urgency).

This is a great teaching on the need for vigilance, and for keeping awake in prayer even when one is extremely tired... They were benumbed into sleep because of the evil approaching them, and Christ had warned them to stay awake lest they stumble, and stumble they did...

I have stated I believe Jesus had high hopes for Judas and did expect His fall but do not find it necessary to conclude his fall was determined or foreknown exhaustively before creation.

And in this we simply disagree - He repeatedly warned Judas,and to no avail, because He knew what he would do, and Judas, as Christ foreknew, only took counsel of him SELF... He even tells us:

Joh_6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Arsenios

[yxboom]

We know that Judas was a thief, that he loved silver, and that he had been regularly stealing from the money box of the disciples, and Christ knew that he was stealing... No other disciple was blatantly [yes, even if concealed from the eyes of most men] sinning in this manner... Judas was chosen precisely because he was the one who God foreknew would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver... It was foreknown and prophesized by the Prophets, and especially in the Psalms of David...

And each was distressed that it might be him, except Judas, who was perhaps distressed that he had been found out...

They were simply not overtly sinning in concealment like Judas was... And that's a lot...

Oh, you remember Peter, saying how HE would not be scattered in fear, but would DIE with Christ if that came to be... And the others said the same... Until the time came, and they fled...

This is a great teaching on the need for vigilance, and for keeping awake in prayer even when one is extremely tired... They were benumbed into sleep because of the evil approaching them, and Christ had warned them to stay awake lest they stumble, and stumble they did...

And in this we simply disagree - He repeatedly warned Judas,and to no avail, because He knew what he would do, and Judas, as Christ foreknew, only took counsel of him SELF... He even tells us:

Joh_6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Arsenios

Thank you for responding to my questions, very insightful and thought provoking. So not to continue to deviate from the thread and we simply disagree regarding Jesus' foreknowledge regarding Judas, I will leave it at that.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Thank you for responding to my questions, very insightful and thought provoking. So not to continue to deviate from the thread and we simply disagree regarding Jesus' foreknowledge regarding Judas, I will leave it at that.

A.

[themuzicman]

Isaiah 46 (like the whole book) is loaded with symbolic language: Nebo stoops, God has carried Israel, putting salvation in Zion, and so forth. Besides which, the examples given (making a bird fly to a certain place, causing a man to go to a certain place) seem like examples of things happening "in the middle," not the beginning or the end. The whole "beginning and end" metaphor is intended to highlight God's consistency, which is totally lost by inserting "but not in the middle" into the text. But I can see why you wish the text meant that.

I want you to take note of a few things in this passage:

Isa 46

and from ancient times things not yet done

I will accomplish

and I will bring it to pass

I have purposed, and I will do it.

This passage isn't about consistency. This passage is about God's will and His power. God doesn't say here that He knows every detail of what will happen from beginning to end. Indeed, He introduces the idea of effort on His part to bring this about. It isn't accomplished yet, in spite of the Calvinist claim that the future is already fixed. God hasn't finished doing the work of bringing about His will, as He says that He WILL (future) do it.

So, what's clear from your claims of God knowing (and predestining) all the details in between is that you don't bother to read the passage for what it says. For this to be Calvinist, we would need to see that God declares that He has already made all of this stuff happen, and we're all just waiting for what was predestined to happen.

Plenty of non-Calvinists will say that when God declares that something happens, it means that it actually happens. The Hebrew would immediately and inevitably think of passages like Genesis 1. The NT has a lot to say about the power of God's speech as well.

In general, I agree. Except when it doesn't. I go back to Exodus 32 and Numbers 14 as examples where God declares He will do something, and then changes His mind when Moses refuses to go along with it.

Thus, since there are clear and direct counterexamples to your claim, I should think you'd want to re-think this claim.

Your belief in "the element of possibility" in Ephesians 1 is something you systematically bring to the text. It's not found in the Greek and is hardly the best reading even of the English translations which use "might" at all. I guess you didn't look up the way KJV uses "might" in subjunctive mood.

I wasn't even using the KJV. And, in case you've forgotten, I have an M.Div that includes studying Koine Greek. I know how the subjunctive works.

You have backwards which of us is making the argument from silence. The text gives no indication that any of the other disciples had the slightest inclination to get Jesus arrested. There's no evidence of a "Plan B if Judas flakes out is for one of the other disciples (but not any particular one of them) to suddenly turn traitor."

I don't make that claim. You're the one making the charge regarding Judas, and I've pointed out that it is an argument from silence to claim that Judas had to be the one to betray Christ from the beginning.

So, your argument from silence is obvious.

So is the strawman.

Such a thing would be totally out of character from the discussion that goes on in the Upper Room for several chapters in the book of John, and yet by your report God couldn't have been certain that Judas was really going to betray Jesus until he actually did the deed in Gethsemane.

Actually, that's untrue. The betrayal came when Judas accepted the silver. How it worked itself out was simply a matter of when and not if.

So, once again, you build a strawman.

[RBerman]

I want you to take note of a few things in this passage:

Isa 46

and from ancient times things not yet done

I will accomplish

and I will bring it to pass

I have purposed, and I will do it.

This passage isn't about consistency. This passage is about God's will and His power. God doesn't say here that He knows every detail of what will happen from beginning to end. Indeed, He introduces the idea of effort on His part to bring this about. It isn't accomplished yet, in spite of the Calvinist claim that the future is already fixed. God hasn't finished doing the work of bringing about His will, as He says that He WILL (future) do it.

So, what's clear from your claims of God knowing (and predestining) all the details in between is that you don't bother to read the passage for what it says. For this to be Calvinist, we would need to see that God declares that He has already made all of this stuff happen, and we're all just waiting for what was predestined to happen.

"For the Calvinists, God has already made it happen, and we're all just waiting for it to happen"? Well, which is it? Has it already been made to happen, or are we still waiting? I don't know how you can say this passage is about God's will and power but not consistency. What good are God's will and power if he doesn't exercise them consistently? Is he like the Hulk, sometimes superpowered and sometimes not? Of course not! Every passage about God's power, wisdom, and knowledge is about the universality of those attributes. That's why the Christological debates of the early church were so heated. How can a God who's always invincible and omniscient and omnipotent become a man? Those arguments never would have happened if they though God's omniscience were only occasional.

In general, I agree. Except when it doesn't. I go back to Exodus 32 and Numbers 14 as examples where God declares He will do something, and then changes His mind when Moses refuses to go along with it. Thus, since there are clear and direct counterexamples to your claim, I should think you'd want to re-think this claim.

Those passages have never posed a problem for the orthodox doctrine of God's omniscience. God's acts of judgment upon men often involve him giving instructions and making threats precisely to achieve some human reaction, after which he revokes the threat. That's why Jonah didn't want to go to Ninevah: He knew that God would revoke the threat upon the people's repentance. God lays out his m.o. explicitly here:

Jeremiah 18:7-10

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

I wasn't even using the KJV. And, in case you've forgotten, I have an M.Div that includes studying Koine Greek. I know how the subjunctive works.

I did not know you had an M.Div, nor is the quality of your exegesis consistent with the possession of those letters. I didn't say you were using KJV. But I bet whichever Bible you were using (ESV perhaps?) owes the use of "might" to KJV. But you're straining a gnat; your argument hinges on (a) the presence of "might" there instead of some other subjunctive helping verb, and (b) one particular meaning of "might." If you're familiar with Koine, then you should know why both of those are a bad idea in general, and in this text particularly.

I don't make that claim. You're the one making the charge regarding Judas, and I've pointed out that it is an argument from silence to claim that Judas had to be the one to betray Christ from the beginning...Actually, that's untrue. The betrayal came when Judas accepted the silver. How it worked itself out was simply a matter of when and not if.

Never mind "from the beginning." The moment of Judas' betrayal was not the moment he accepted the payment, but rather the moment he actually did the deed for which he was paid. If he had accepted the silver and then not followed through, it would be the Pharisees he was betraying, not Jesus. According to you (correct me if I'm wrong), God could not and did not know whether Judas would betray Jesus until the very moment it happened. Am I to understand that, in your view, if Judas had an eleventh hour change of heart on the way to Gethsemane, one of the other Eleven would have suddenly gone traitor?

[themuzicman]

"For the Calvinists, God has already made it happen, and we're all just waiting for it to happen"? Well, which is it? Has it already been made to happen, or are we still waiting?

Thank you for detailing the problem with Calvinism. You've articulated that quite clearly. In Calvinism, God's already done it, yet in Scripture God has yet to do things. You need to ask yourself this question. I find it to be a problem with Calvinism, not Scripture.

I don't know how you can say this passage is about God's will and power but not consistency. What good are God's will and power if he doesn't exercise them consistently?

So, you're limiting God to acting in a way that you think is consistent with some standard you've created?

God will act in the way that accomplishes His purpose. He doesn't have subject Himself to any "consistency" standard, and He isn't assuring anyone of any "consistency standard", here. He is declaring that He alone is God and He is going to accomplish His purpose in His way, and we'd better not be in His way.

Isa 46:9

5 “To whom will you liken me and make me equal,
and compare me, that we may be alike?
6 Those who lavish gold from the purse,
and weigh out silver in the scales,
hire a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god;
then they fall down and worship!
7 They lift it to their shoulders, they carry it,
they set it in its place, and it stands there;
it cannot move from its place.
If one cries to it, it does not answer
or save him from his trouble.
8 “Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,

God isn't giving some comforting speech of consistency, here. He's giving warning to transgressors and idol worshipers. God isn't looking to give the comfort of consistency. God is looking to remind Israel of His power and His ability to bring about His purposes, above all other gods.

And God's message isn't that the future is already settled, but rather that God calls the shots, and God WILL being them to pass, and we ought not be living in transgression or worshiping an idol.

Is he like the Hulk, sometimes superpowered and sometimes not? Of course not! Every passage about God's power, wisdom, and knowledge is about the universality of those attributes. That's why the Christological debates of the early church were so heated. How can a God who's always invincible and omniscient and omnipotent become a man? Those arguments never would have happened if they though God's omniscience were only occasional.

But that isn't the discussion, here. God is laying down the challenge. He declares how things will end from the beginning, and how things will come about even from ancient times. And He will bring them all to pass. God is leaving no doubt that no idol is able to do what He can do, that there is none more powerful, none more capable than He, and no other god will stand in His way.

Those passages have never posed a problem for the orthodox doctrine of God's omniscience.

But it does present a problem when those same people try to use it to prove God's omniscience when this is clearly about His omnipotence.

God's acts of judgment upon men often involve him giving instructions and making threats precisely to achieve some human reaction, after which he revokes the threat. That's why Jonah didn't want to go to Ninevah:

Gee, you mean that God acts in ways to cause men to turn to Him? How did that work out in Jer 3:6-7?

He knew that God would revoke the threat upon the people's repentance. God lays out his m.o. explicitly here:

Jeremiah 18:7-10

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

Sounds like you're becoming more and more Open View by the hour.

I did not know you had an M.Div, nor is the quality of your exegesis consistent with the possession of those letters.

Since I'm not a Calvinist, I'll take that as a compliment.

I didn't say you were using KJV. But I bet whichever Bible you were using (ESV perhaps?) owes the use of "might" to KJV. But you're straining a gnat; your argument hinges on (a) the presence of "might" there instead of some other subjunctive helping verb, and (b) one particular meaning of "might." If you're familiar with Koine, then you should know why both of those are a bad idea in general, and in this text particularly.

Um.. this is your proof text. I'm simply pointing out why one need not read this as the Calvinists wish us to.

Never mind "from the beginning." The moment of Judas' betrayal was not the moment he accepted the payment, but rather the moment he actually did the deed for which he was paid. If he had accepted the silver and then not followed through, it would be the Pharisees he was betraying, not Jesus. According to you (correct me if I'm wrong), God could not and did not know whether Judas would betray Jesus until the very moment it happened. Am I to understand that, in your view, if Judas had an eleventh hour change of heart on the way to Gethsemane, one of the other Eleven would have suddenly gone traitor?

Gee... can you recall possibly some point when Jesus may have said something to Judas to initiate the final events, and where Satan may have re-entered the story?

[RBerman]

Due to the subdivision of my post, your reply is very disjointed, Muz, so I'm going to try to re-collate it. If I miss anything you think is important, let me know.

1) Regarding Judas, you have not made a positive argument as to what you believe happened. It's my understanding that you group all human actions into two categories: (i) Those which could go either way, and God doesn't know which way they're going until they happen; (ii) Those which God knows certainly will happen, and for which men are not held accountable.

You may believe that that second group of actions is an empty set; some of your OVT colleagues have expressed that belief in this thread. My understanding is that you group each of Judas' individual actions under heading (i). It doesn't matter that Satan was involved; by your lights, Judas' individual decisions were still up in the air until they actually occured, else he would not be morally culpable for them. Every step Judas took toward Gethsemane was a separate choice, a separate opportunity to betray or not betray Jesus.

2) As you know, my comments about Jeremiah 18 are perfectly in line with orthodox views on omniscience and have nothing to do with the OVT's Socinian deviations, so I don't appreciate your suggestions to the contrary.

3) Your comments about how Ephesians 1:12 "need not be read" are not helpful. If you're not willing or able to take a firm stance on the text, then there's no point in bringing it up; as you may recall, I was not the one who brought it into our discussion in the first place. My comments were about the preceding verse.

4) I don't know what you mean by God's "impotence." Did you mean "omnipotence"?

[theblueprint_Ni]

ok. Could God sustain time without having to create it moment by moment?

I don't see any qualitative difference between the two regarding knowledge. Whether he sustains it or creates it he is the fundamental power from which everything else springs forth. Unless he is the author and founder of every operation of time and set of circumstances, there can be no possibility. It's impossible for God to be informed, be it choices or circumstances. Unless you're willing to say that there are things that happen or exist ex nihilo and outside of God, it's impossible.

This is why I think framing the question in regards to God's knowledge tends to complicate things, at least for me. God could have created without risk so that all things are determined and the future would be exhaustively known, but chose not to. God could have created with risk, so that all things are undetermined and the future remains open and could only be exhaustively known as possibilities.

I know it's hard but its a duty and an obligation, else it's a whimsical theology, so I appreciate the effort.

So that beings outside of Himself could freely reciprocate love and to exercise their own liberty, freedom and free wills I believe God created with risk.

God knew that someone would betray Christ, but you think that He didn't know for sure it was Judas until he actually did it, correct? Do you believe it was necessary that someone betray Christ?

[maudman]

well it's really hard to get a handle on this thing for sure... But I have some points to ponders..

Why would Judas Commit suicide after the events? Oh what Have I done? Suddenly he sees his place in things? I mean at what point does God feel the compassion to keep a person from such a fate? Jesus Chose Judas but maybe not for the reasons most think? It all seems that this is all predestined as Judas became the Man to fill the Role pivotal in the Plan of mankind's salvation through a sacrificial system.. But why the Guilt of hanging himself if he was so selfish? If he objected to Jesus being who he Claimed to be? But none of this answers why Judas Commits suicide? Why he can't bear to live with himself.. Why would he be so ashamed of what he has just done?

Maybe Judas was believing a Lie? Maybe he was acting on what he thought was the truth and had been taught or lead to believe to some degree?

I mean if Christ had done the works in Sodom he had done in Capernaum that city would have existed until Christ.... Yet Capernaum wasn't convinced to some degree... So why doesn't Christ do the things that brings to change Judas's Heart? Obviously Judas had seen the works? Nothing says Judas doesn't believe Jesus is who he said he is.. It really helps to know what is Judas thinking or what is wrong with his thinking? Why commit suicide if you really don't believe what he is witnessing? And Why is it that his act of bedrail only goes forward when Christ commands him to do it? Strange indeed...

Truly partaking of the body and Blood of Christ unworthily, leads to such misery as Paul Warns... But nobody is committing suicide accept Judas for such a thing.. Was Judas chosen because he's a devil?
Is Judas worse than a serial killer? People have stolen money from the treasury of the Church throughout history and have been punished in various ways, but did they go an commit suicide and become a son of Perdition in the way as Judas?
Devil means slander... It means one who distorts the truth with the facts to do Harm to another party... It doesn't mean they do it intentionally or knowingly how it is truly seen by God.. It's just what one is when it does such a things in relation to God.. A devil is that thing maybe? So a devil bares false witness with the facts in a way a slander or an accuser does..

Why commit suicide? I mean if he's a devil or a accuser or slanderer... If Christ Prayed Father forgive them they no not what they do? Trying to determine who wasn't a devil
might be worth while...