We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to John 13:18–19; 17:12?
“I am not speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen. But it is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ I tell you this now, before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am he.’” Jesus prays to the Father, “I guard them [my disciples] and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
This verse reveals that by the time Jesus made this statement Judas was “destined to be lost.” But neither this nor any other verse states when Judas became “destined” to be lost. I see no reason to think it was prior to the time when Judas, of his own free volition, irrevocably resolved it in his heart to turn against God. Scripture teaches us that there is a point when God sees that it is useless to strive with people any longer. He thus withdraws his Spirit from these people, hardens their heart, and determines their destiny (e.g. Gen. 6:3; Rom. 1:24–27). When this occurs the only remaining question is how God can strategically use the wickedness of these people to further his divine plans.
By virtue of his own wickedness Judas had apparently put himself in this position. The fact that Judas’ betrayal fulfilled scripture does not mean that he was the one who had to fulfill scripture.
In fact, it doesn’t seen that anyone had to betray Jesus to “fulfill” Scripture. The passage that Judas “fulfills” is Psalm 41:9, in which David complains that a “close friend” who “shared my bread” has “lifted up his heel against me.” There is clearly nothing predictive about this passage. If no one had betrayed Jesus, no one would be sitting around wondering why Psalm 41:9 wasn’t “fulfilled.” Consider that in the previous sentence David complained that people were saying he was going to die from a “vile disease” (41:8). People never said this about Jesus, yet no one worries that Psalm 41:8 wasn’t “fulfilled.”
When Jesus (or a Gospel author) says that an event “fulfills” an Old Testament passage, they don’t necessarily mean that the event was predicted by the Old Testament and that the event had to occur. What they often mean is simply that the event illustrates in a superlative way a principle found in the Old Testament passage. The event didn’t have to occur, but once it occurs, or once it becomes certain to occur, it takes on retroactive significance by being interpreted through the lens of an Old Testament passage. Judas’ betrayal of Jesus thus “fulfills” Psalm 41:9 in the sense that it is the supreme illustration of a betrayal of God’s servant. As a friend betrayed David, so Judas betrayed the Son of David.
This use of the term “fulfilled” may sound odd to modern western people, but it would not have sounded odd to first century Jews. It was a form of Bible interpretation called “midrash” that helped Jews interpret current events in light of Scripture.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism, Responding to Objections
Verse: John 13, John 17
Related Reading
Molinism and Open Theism – Part II
In the previous post on this topic I briefly outlined Molinism and then discussed “the grounding objection.” In this post I’ll first discuss another fundamental objection to Molinism and then discuss how it is overcome by the Open View of the Future. In the process it will be clear how the Open View differs from…
How do you respond to 1 Samuel 2:25?
Eli’s sons “would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to kill them.” Compatibilists sometimes cite this text as an example of how God determines events for which humans are morally responsible. Eli’s sons were evil in not listening to their father, yet it was the…
Is it true you’re an “Open Theist” and that you don’t think God knows the future perfectly?
I am an “Open Theist” – though I honestly don’t care for the label, because as I’ll show, the uniqueness of this view isn’t in what it says about God but in what it says about the nature of reality. (I think it would be better to call us something like “Open Futurists.”) In any…
What is the significance of 2 Chronicles 12:5–8?
The Lord allows King Shishak of Egypt to almost conquer all of Israel because of King Reheboam’s rebellion. “You abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak” (vs. 5). The officers and king repent, so the Lord responds by saying, “They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them, but I…
Why do you argue that discipleship and politics are rooted in opposite attitudes?
Question. At a recent conference I heard you argue against the idea that there could ever be a distinctly “Christian” political position by contending that political disputes are premised on a claim to superiority while discipleship is fundamentally rooted in humility. I don’t think I get what you mean. Can you explain this? Answer: In…
How do you respond to Romans 11:36?
“For from him [God] and through him and to him are all things.” Calvinists sometimes cite this doxology as evidence that Paul believed that every single event in world history was from, through and for God. In light of the fact that the verses leading up to this doxology address God’s genuine frustration with Israel’s…