Was What Judas Did Necessary?

The big question people ask and and I don't want you to answer I want you to just meditate or think on this question without trying to answer because I don't want it to be a

Barrage of yeses or nos, right? The question is Was what

Judas did necessary? Was what Judas did necessary?

Okay, that's the question that I want you to consider again. Don't answer it out loud Don't I don't want to I don't want to have a debate.

I want you to really think on that question Because immediately when we ask that we take a step back and we say well was the cross necessary the answer to that is

Absolutely, right? Well was what Jesus I'm sorry what Judas did to Was that necessary in bringing about the cross right?

Could there have been another way? That's that's the first question that that people automatically well if Judas didn't do it maybe one of the other disciples would have done it or maybe the maybe the

Scribes or the chief priests or the fair maybe they would have found another way to arrest Jesus but here's where we have to consider that in Acts chapter 4 and verses 27 and 28 it says this it says

For truly in this city, by the way, this is Peter is preaching and he's preaching to the Jewish people

He's preaching to the leaders He says for truly in this city there were gathered together against your

Holy Servant Jesus whom you anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate Along with the

Gentiles and the people of Israel to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place so according to Peter in Acts chapter 4 the

Events leading up to the cross are in fact predestined that is not my

Interpretation. That's literally what it says. It doesn't I mean on a if if we look at the text he says

In this city there were gathered against Jesus Whom God anointed?

Herod and Pontius Pilate The Gentiles and the people of Israel To do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place now right away.

The argument says what didn't mention Judas And I would admit it didn't mention Judas, but it does say

That an event had been predestined to take place that this event was predestined predetermined to take place and therefore if someone asked me

Was what Judas did necessary? Here's my answer.

My answer is it was necessary, but it was not coerced

It was necessary, but it was not coerced and you say well, what do you mean and how are you making that distinction?

Well, I'm going to use I'm going to I'm going to appeal to the our reformed ancestors Specifically Luther and Calvin Luther and Calvin both wrote books on the will of man

Luther's book is called on the bondage of the will and it was a response to Desiderius Erasmus who had written on the freedom of the will and Calvin wrote a book called the bondage and liberation of the will which he was responding to a man named

Albert Pigius who had written a Treatise on free will he had written in opposition to Calvin and both of them both

Calvin and Luther Both made this similar argument that if God knows something

Then that thing will be by necessity For instance if God knows tomorrow,

I'm going to fall down a set of steps and God knows it with certainty Then there's no way

I ain't falling down them steps because God knows it and therefore it is necessary Because if it didn't happen and God knew it would happen then

God is somehow Wrong Right. So when we begin to think about God's Knowledge of all things we begin to realize how his knowledge is not only

Informative But it is determinative His knowledge Determines what will happen by necessity because if he knows it and it doesn't happen then he didn't really know it and You end up with something called open theism

Open theism says God has an idea of what will happen but not certain knowledge of what will happen because men are still ultimately free and Men may change their minds

That's a dangerous place To say God does not know for certain now I do want to take a step back

Open theism is a lot a little bit more nuanced than that quite a bit more nuanced than that and there are different versions of It and there are other versions of how

God knows all things or something called Molin ism, which looks at the future With or what are what are known as variables and counterfactuals things that could be different But aren't

God knows what it could be and what it won't be and therefore he actuates a universe where these things take place

There's quite complicated philosophy that goes behind this but ultimately what Luther and Calvin were getting to say was that if God knows something will happen

Then it is necessary Because God knows it

But that does not mean that God coerced it So for instance

When we talk about the God's knowledge and freedom there are three terms and again

I have five minutes left, so I almost hasten not to do this, but I don't want to leave this out The three most common expressions of how

God knows and Decides or determines the future are called determinism Libertarianism and compatibilism now, this is not libertarianism as in like Republican Democrat and libertarian.

That's not the same So don't get confused. We're not up here doing a What's his name?

Who was the big libertarian candidate? Well, we're not we're not doing a Ron Paul campaign determinism essentially says

Hard determinism says that every thought and action of man is determined by God that God determines every thought and action of man

There are some passages that tend to lend to that, right? I mean there are some reasons why some people might fall into that camp

There are passages that says, you know that uh, you know, every step a man makes is ordained to the Lord I read that yesterday and and it was it was it was literally

Richard's favorite passage. It's in the book of Jeremiah as every step is ordained from the Lord, right? So so that's where that thinking comes from, right?

That's called determinism then you have Libertarianism libertarianism is the idea that man's ways or decisions are not determined by anyone but himself

That man is a Libertarian free creature. He has the ability to make his decisions with within himself and And those decisions come from nowhere but himself, right?

So the decision is from the man, right and and certainly there are passages which lend to that the idea

You know choose this day whom you will serve, but as for me in my house will serve the Lord right Joshua Said that so we have those passages, right?

And this is where I said it becomes, you know, people have their favorite verses that go with this subject

Where the real issue lies though is how do you bring them together? And that's why I call myself a compatibilist the term compatibilism and this is a it's a it's a term which is fairly well known

But basically what it means is that the sovereignty of God and the responsibility man are ultimately compatible

In that God is ensuring that his will is being done even by allowing his creatures to make

Legitimate choices, right? So that's the the way that those two would work out together and Where this comes into play would be in passages like Genesis chapter 50 and verse 20

We're after the brothers of Joseph having sold them into slavery having mistreated him and done all these terrible things to them at the end of the life

After Israel has died and he's facing his brothers and he says What you meant for evil?

God meant for good same verb what you did God did you both were active

God wasn't just passive He was active in your decision to bring about good so there's a balance that has to be found there and so When we talk about the will we have to say that yes, the will is

Able to make decisions. It does make decisions every day. You make hundreds of sometimes thousands of decisions but God is also bringing about his will in your life and therefore if you were

To make a decision which would thwart God's will for you

God is sovereign over that and He actually can and does often stop us how many times have you wanted to do something and weren't able to do it for whatever reason and You look back at it now and say boy.

I'm glad God kept me from that So the simple answer I like R.

C. Sproul's way of saying it. He said I Am free, but God is more free and when my freedom runs into his freedom

I Lose So it's a simple way of saying it, but that's compatibilism is in its simplest terms.

So now when I go back to Judas I can confidently say

Judas didn't do anything. He didn't want to do He did what he wanted to do

He chose to betray Christ therefore It can be said of him

It's absolutely his responsibility and yet this very act was prophesied The 30 pieces of silver remember that's an

Old Testament prophecy, which is fulfilled in the New Testament, right? This very action was prophesied by God and therefore there's a balance

Between how we understand God's sovereignty and how we understand man's responsibility

God is sovereign and bringing this about But Judas is still responsible for his own action because he did what he wanted to do and He is ultimately going to bear and is currently bearing

The weight of that decision as it says right here and this is where we're ending.

It would have been better If he had not been born for a man to make that decision to turn from Christ and betray the

Son of God After having had his feet washed after having seen the miracles after having participated in his ministry to turn him over an

Act of sheer and utter hatred It'd be better if that man

If he'd never been born So, I hope that was helpful I hope that was somewhat clarifying and maybe helps you understand a little better when we talk about how