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.

Related Reading

What is the significance of Ezekiel 22:29–31?

The Lord says he “sought for” someone to stand in the breech for Israel “but I found none.” Hence Israel experienced the wrath of God. If everything that shall ever come to pass is eternally fixed in the divine mind, God would have foreknown that no one would respond to his call for a Moses-like…

Topics:

How do you respond to Isaiah 14:24, 27?

The Lord of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass… For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who will annul it? his hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? The fact that Scripture frequently speaks of…

Boyd’s Bad Ass Tattoo

by: Greg Boyd In the process of working through a philosophical issue surrounding the openness of the future around twenty years ago, I and two friends (Alan Rhoda and Tom Belt) ended up creating the “Hexagon of Opposition”, or “Hexagonic Logic of Futurity,” as I’ve sometimes called it. I’ll explain what it all means in…

Is Open Theism Incompatible With a Chalcedonian Christology?

Question: The Chalcedonian Creed says Jesus was “fully God and fully human” and that these “two natures” remained distinct in the Incarnation, even though Jesus was one united person. I’m told that part of the reasoning behind the concern to keep Jesus’ humanity distinct from his divinity was to protect the “impassibility” of the divine…

What do you think of the classical view that God is impassible?

The classical view has historically held that God is impassible, meaning he is above pathos (passion or emotions). The main reason the church came to this view was that, following the Hellenistic philosophical tradition, they associated emotions with change while believing God was above all change (immutable). Moreover, experiencing emotions implies that one is affected…

How do you respond to John 6:64, 70–71?

Jesus told his disciples, “‘But among you there are some who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him” (vs. 64). Jesus continued, “‘Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.’…

Topics: