Scapegoat - Judas

[Bob Crowley]

John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

What scripture was fulfilled in Judas ??

The scripture in question would appear to be Psalm 41:9. From our modern cultural viewpoint, we'd find it a bit odd to single out once verse, and a Psalm at that, as fulfilling the prediction about Judas Iscariot. To the Jewish mind at the time of Christ though, I have to assume it would have a more concrete meaning, since they discussed these verses at length.

Psalm 41:9 ESV
"Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me."

Likewise from my 21st. century viewpoint I wouldn't have picked out Bethlehem as the birthplace of God in the flesh in a million years, based on one verse from one prophet. But the Sanhedrin could tell King Herod point blank where the Messiah would be born when the Magi turned up. They knew immediately. So they must have had some profound Scriptural discussions around the camp fire.

Micah 5:2
"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days."

The bit I don't like is the predestination bit, as though Judas didn't have a choice. I say this because I've often claimed my father turned up in my room on the night he died in January 1979. At one point in the conversation he exclaimed "I always was doomed! I didn't really have any choice!"

I was an atheist at the time, but even so I argued back "That can't be right!" He replied "Oh, it's right, all right! You can see that from here!"

But later in the conversation he blurted out "I was WILLING!" (to act the way he did which condemned him).

I still have trouble coming to grips with it.

I think Judas was in a similar situation. He didn't really have any choice, but at the same time he was "WILLING"!

It's not something I like to think about, but Christ's comment that the Scripture might be fulfilled meant that someone had to fulfil that role.

It's like the false prophet and the anti-Christ. Assuming these are two real people who fill those offices, God's got two people in mind to be first into the Lake of Fire with the devil and his minions.

Will they have a choice in avoiding their roles? Probably not, but they'll also turn out to be WILLING to fulfil their roles.

So I suppose the responsibility for their ultimate fate will rest with them, in order that Scripture (Revelation) might be fulfilled.

If they weren't mentioned in Scripture we wouldn't even talk about them.

 

[The Narrow Way]

The scripture in question would appear to be Psalm 41:9. From our modern cultural viewpoint, we'd find it a bit odd to single out once verse, and a Psalm at that, as fulfilling the prediction about Judas Iscariot. To the Jewish mind at the time of Christ though, I have to assume it would have a more concrete meaning, since they discussed these verses at length.

Psalm 41:9 ESV
"Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me."

The bit I don't like is the predestination bit, as though Judas didn't have a choice. I say this because I've often claimed my father turned up in my room on the night he died in January 1979. At one point in the conversation he exclaimed "I always was doomed! I didn't really have any choice!"

I was an atheist at the time, but even so I argued back "That can't be right!" He replied "Oh, it's right, all right! You can see that from here!"

But later in the conversation he blurted out "I was WILLING!" (to act the way he did which condemned him).

I still have trouble coming to grips with it.

I think Judas was in a similar situation. He didn't really have any choice, but at the same time he was "WILLING"!

It's not something I like to think about, but Christ's comment that the Scripture might be fulfilled meant that someone had to fulfil that role.

It's like the false prophet and the anti-Christ. Assuming these are two real people who fill those offices, God's got two people in mind to be first into the Lake of Fire with the devil and his minions.

Will they have a choice in avoiding their roles? Probably not, but they'll also turn out to be WILLING to fulfil their roles.

So I suppose the responsibility for their ultimate fate will rest with them, in order that Scripture (Revelation) might be fulfilled.

If they weren't mentioned in Scripture we wouldn't talk about them.

Bob, I don't believe it was that someone "HAD TO" fulfill those roles, such as Judas took....it is just that God KNOWS the FUTURE of all of us...and He KNEW that that was exactly what Judas was going to do when he came on the scene. God doesn't PreDestin anyone....but He does KNOW the future of all of us.... We are all FREE to CHOOSE which MASTER we want to serve.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Technically I can't see much difference between God's foreknowledge expressed in Psalm 41:9 and it's fulfilment hundreds of years later in a specific person, in terms of predestination.

As far as I'm concerned Judas was predestined to betray Christ.

If I say to you that on the 22nd January 2023 you will have toast and marmite for breakfast based on my complete foreknowledge of your life, and on the 22nd January 2023 you have toast and marmite for breakfast, what's the difference between your alleged free will and predestination?

 

[The Narrow Way]

Technically I can't see much difference between God's foreknowledge expressed in Psalm 41:9 and it's fulfilment hundreds of years later in a specific person, in terms of predestination.

As far as I'm concerned Judas was predestined to betray Christ.

If I say to you that on the 22nd January 2023 you will have toast and marmite for breakfast based on my complete foreknowledge of your life, and on the 22nd January 2023 you have toast and marmite for breakfast, what's the difference between your alleged free will and predestination?

Bob, there is a NIGHT & DAY difference. 1. KNOWING that something is going to happen or 2. MAKING that something happen are two completely different things. No comparison.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Romans 9:22
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction?

This would seem to indicate some are born without the capacity to love, and they make wrong choices accordingly.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Bob, there is a NIGHT & DAY difference. 1. KNOWING that something is going to happen or 2. MAKING that something happen are two completely different things. No comparison.

I doubt it that's quite the case from God's point of view. Using the bit I quoted before, ....

"... If I say to you that on the 22nd January 2023 you will have toast and marmite for breakfast based on my complete foreknowledge of your life, and on the 22nd January 2023 you have toast and marmite for breakfast... ", it's more a case of God knowing that on 22nd January 2023, you WILL have toast and marmite for breakfast...

I suspect that the night my father died, he was looking at the judgment seat ie. God, since most of the time he was looking over my head at something behind me with a look of awe on his face. At other times he was trying to hide his face behind his hands and cringing at the same time. I think then he was seeing less salubrious parts of his life in the light of God's divine gaze. At the same time he was able to see how God sees things, and so he could say "... It's right all right. You can see that from here."

Whenever I turned around to see what he was looking at, all I saw was the wall. In any case if I had seen it viz. God, I'd have been struck dead. But my father was already dead and his body was lying in his flat miles away. He was in spiritual form, and spirits cannot die. Demons and the dammed cannot commit suicide for example to escape Hell.

Secondly if God's got a "plan" as we maintain, then it would have to be more involved than millions of people doing nothing more than having a bunch of opinions. That would lead to nothing but chaos.

He's got a finger in the pie, but it's so subtle we can't see it. I'm not all that convinced of our absolute freedom. I think Judas "always was doomed" BUT but he was also WILLING.

Apologies for using Marmite in the example, but it reminds me of the Tommy Cooper joke how in a local grocery competition, he won a year's supply of Marmite!!

One jar!!

 

[Bob Crowley]

As for Carl's original question, Christ was the scapegoat, not Judas.

The scape goat was an innocent animal which bore the sins of Israel on their behalf. As someone who doesn't like mistreatment of animals, I'm curious as to what sort of life it had after being driven out of the camp, carrying its dismal load.

Christ was the innocent man ("lamb") who bore the sins of the whole world on our behalf. He was the ultimate scapegoat, not Judas. Judas was the one who betrayed him, but did not carry our sins. Since he refused to ask Christ's forgiveness, he took his own sins with him when he committed suicide.

At least one of the saints had a vision where Judas was Satan's "seat" in Hell, hence Christ's pre-eulogy, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born."

 

[Carl Emerson]

As for Carl's original question, Christ was the scapegoat, not Judas.

The scape goat was an innocent animal which bore the sins of Israel on their behalf. As someone who doesn't like mistreatment of animals, I'm curious as to what sort of life it had after being driven out of the camp, carrying its dismal load.

Christ was the innocent man ("lamb") who bore the sins of the whole world on our behalf. He was the ultimate scapegoat, not Judas. Judas was the one who betrayed him, but did not carry our sins. Since he refused to ask Christ's forgiveness, he took his own sins with him when he committed suicide.

At least one of the saints had a vision where Judas was Satan's "seat" in Hell, hence Christ's pre-eulogy, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born."

I would have thought that the Lamb verses Goat theme representing the righteous and the unrighteous was well established in scripture.

It therefore doesn't sit well with me to hear Jesus being described as a goat.

 

[Bob Crowley]

It may not sound pleasant, but He served that purpose amongst others.

Christ Our Scapegoat | Christian Library

 

[A_Thinker]

Romans 9:22
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction?

This would seem to indicate some are born without the capacity to love, and they make wrong choices accordingly.

This only presents that God knew that He would have creatures with free-will ... who would choose not to submit to His love ... just as any wise parent knows that they will endure episodes of noncompliance among their children.

This has gotten me thinking a bit though.

Thought 1: My thinking is that parents seem to have a better outcome in maintaining a loving relationship with their children ... than God does with His creatures.

Thought 2: the relationship between parents and children ... is advantaged and bolstered by a part of the parents ... being and remaining inside of their children (i.e. genetics).

Obviously, the only people in scripture God is actually presented to be the Father of ... are those who have received His Spirit into their being. We like to think that God is Father of all, but scripture says that He really isn't, ... no more than He is the Father of cattle.

Thought 3: Scripture does say that all of mankind is unique ... in bearing the image of God, ... but an image, by nature, is only external. All humanity outside of the covenant of grace ... are not God's children, but are only His creations bearing His image. They have not been infused with the Spirit of the Father, and do not carry His life within them.

 

[A_Thinker]

Secondly if God's got a "plan" as we maintain, then it would have to be more involved than millions of people doing nothing more than having a bunch of opinions. That would lead to nothing but chaos.

God seems to take delight in diversity within limits.

Think of the snowflakes ... all different, but all the same ...

"... If I say to you that on the 22nd January 2023 you will have toast and marmite for breakfast based on my complete foreknowledge of your life, and on the 22nd January 2023 you have toast and marmite for breakfast... ", it's more a case of God knowing that on 22nd January 2023, you WILL have toast and marmite for breakfast...

We don't have unlimited free-will. There is a subset of possibilities in which we exists. For, instance, ... there are certain choices that are fairly easy to predict about my life ... for instance, I will, at some point, choose to eat today. Think of it ... given all that God can know, (without even knowing my thoughts), ... about my circumstances (i.e. age, location, past history, current priorities, etc.), ... it, likely isn't a particular stretch ... that He would be able to correctly predict my choice for breakfast.

We, ourselves, can do a fair job of predicting what our neighbors/friends/lovers/family etc. will do on a daily basis. Wouldn't God, ... who knows us so absolutely and ultimately, be able to accurately predict our choices ? Jesus distinguished Himself, partially, by being so adept at "knowing" the souls of the men and women with whom He had to do. We claim to be so amazed ... that Jesus knew what was in the heart of the Pharisees, for example, ... but would it really be so hard to understand ... for someone who so intimately understood human nature, ... and wasn't blinded by His own predispositions and bias ?

 

[Bob Crowley]

It's not so much a case of God "predicting" something - He sees it happening in His unlimited "now".

So if we happen to be standing in front of the judgement seat and He shows us a future event, we'll know beyond doubt that it WILL happen.

My father died on the 11th January 1979. When he appeared he made some predictions two of which were "You'll become a Christian" and "You'll meet a pastor. You'll think he's great, but all he'll do is to discourage you even more!"

I became a Christian in late 1982, and met the pastor shortly after since it was "his" church.

And about nine years after than he apologised with the words "You needed encouragement, but all I've done is to discourage you even more!"

That was probably in 1991 sometime, about 12 years after my father died.

My father was shown something that WOULD happen, despite my free will etc.

 

[The Narrow Way]

As for Carl's original question, Christ was the scapegoat, not Judas.

The scape goat was an innocent animal which bore the sins of Israel on their behalf. As someone who doesn't like mistreatment of animals, I'm curious as to what sort of life it had after being driven out of the camp, carrying its dismal load.

Christ was the innocent man ("lamb") who bore the sins of the whole world on our behalf. He was the ultimate scapegoat, not Judas. Judas was the one who betrayed him, but did not carry our sins. Since he refused to ask Christ's forgiveness, he took his own sins with him when he committed suicide.

At least one of the saints had a vision where Judas was Satan's "seat" in Hell, hence Christ's pre-eulogy, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born."

The "ultimate scapegoat" Bob, as I understand the Bible, is Satan.

If we follow the teaching of the Sanctuary, the sins of the repentant person were laid on the head of the LAMB (representing Jesus)...and the lamb was killed, as was Jesus. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, all those sins that had been laid on the lamb were SYMBOLICALLY placed on the head of the GOAT (the scapegoat) who was then led out of the Sanctuary, into the wilderness, never to be seen again. So in the end....all the sins of the righteous will be transferred from the Sanctuary to the head of Satan...and he will be the ULTIMATE SCAPEGOAT for all the repentant sinners and be destroyed in the 2nd death. Those who have not repented, will carry their own sins down to the 2nd Death with them.

 

[A_Thinker]

I would have thought that the Lamb verses Goat theme representing the righteous and the unrighteous was well established in scripture.

It therefore doesn't sit well with me to hear Jesus being described as a goat.

Could that imagery be illustrative of His condemnation ... as a man judged ?

I do wonder, with you I think, ... why there are these two pictures of God dealing with sin in scripture. Is it representative of two accomplishments of Christ ? Why would one's sins need to be driven from you ... when they've simultaneously been absolved through sacrifice ?

Could it be the simultaneous pictures of Christ dying for our sins, freeing us from the condemnation of our sinfulness, ... while also driving our sins away from us through sanctification, ... so that we may be free from the power of sin ?

 

[A_Thinker]

The "ultimate scapegoat" Bob, as I understand the Bible, is Satan.

If we follow the teaching of the Sanctuary, the sins of the repentant person were laid on the head of the LAMB (representing Jesus)...and the lamb was killed, as was Jesus. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, all those sins that had been laid on the lamb were SYMBOLICALLY placed on the head of the GOAT (the scapegoat) who was then led out of the Sanctuary, into the wilderness, never to be seen again. So in the end....all the sins of the righteous will be transferred from the Sanctuary to the head of Satan...and he will be the ULTIMATE SCAPEGOAT for all the repentant sinners and be destroyed in the 2nd death. Those who have not repented, will carry their own sins down to the 2nd Death with them.

So then ... you see Satan to function, in part, ... as a purifying agent ... who draws all that offends to him, ... and to, ultimately, be driven away from Godly humanity ?

 

[The Narrow Way]

So then ... you see Satan to function, in part, ... as a purifying agent ... who draws all that offends to him, ... and to, ultimately, be driven away from Godly humanity ?

I wouldn't put it like that. I would say that all the sins that Satan caused repentant people to commit, all are brought back on his own head (providing those people truly repented of their sins and accepted Jesus' sacrifice for them). Satan was the originator of those sins and he will be made responsible for them in the end.

 

[A_Thinker]

I wouldn't put it like that. I would say that all the sins that Satan caused repentant people to commit, all are brought back on his own head (providing those people truly repented of their sins and accepted Jesus' sacrifice for them). Satan was the originator of those sins and he will be made responsible for them in the end.

Doesn't that conflict with the John the Baptist's revelation of Christ as "The Lamb of God ... Who takes away the sins of the world" ?

 

[The Narrow Way]

Doesn't that conflict with the John the Baptist's revelation of Christ as "The Lamb of God ... Who takes away the sins of the world" ?

Oh no, not at all! When the sinner comes to Christ, He takes the sin off of the sinner...He's the ONLY ONE who can do that.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This only presents that God knew that He would have creatures with free-will ... who would choose not to submit to His love ... just as any wise parent knows that they will endure episodes of noncompliance among their children.

Yes - IF you ignore the word 'prepared' Greek KATARTIZO which means having been fitted for destruction - in middle voice.

But I am at the edge of my Greek expertise - I would appreciate if someone else could comment on if this indicates a self hardening or if they were born hard.

Please respond with good understanding of Greek to answer this.

Greatly appreciated.

 

[bling]

Romans 9:22
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction?

This would seem to indicate some are born without the capacity to love, and they make wrong choices accordingly.

Who prepared these objects to bring God’s wrath upon them, is the question?

If God prepared them then why must God “endure” great patience, since He is doing the preparing is there anything for Him to be patient about?

If God prepared these people, why is He angry about what He has done? Is He angry with himself?

This is talking about vessels that left the Potter’s shop with His mark on them. A potter in the first century did not make clay pigeons, but did make vessels for common purposes and special purposes. Any of these vessels with his mark on them can become damaged and worthless for what the master made them to be which means he would want them destroyed. The potter may wait a while hoping they can be repaired yet knowing they are beyond repair, so really wanting them destroyed.