Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Monday, April 10, 2006

More thoughts on the "Judas" book

With all this debate this week about the "gospel of Judas", it was interesting that a gentleman referred to a portion of Scripture during our "Breaking of Bread" meeting that mentioned the betrayal of Judas.

Here's the passage, from the words of the Apostle Paul in regards to the act of Judas, recorded within 20 years (?) of the event... "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

The Apostle was clearly stating that the act of Judas was one of betrayal.

Of course, some may discount Paul's writings... so let's go to a portion of Scripture written appx. 1000 years PRIOR to the events... Psalm 41:9 "Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me."

Many look at this as a prophecy of Judas' evil actions, and the book of Matthew supports that interpretation. Though the account of the book of Matthew is disputed by this book of "Judas", it is posted here for your examination: "Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." And they said, "What is that to us? You see to it!" Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood." And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter's field, as the LORD directed me."" (Matthew 27:3-10)

That passage referred to a portion of Jeremiah, but I can't find that at the moment, so here's another parallel passage from Zacheriah..."Then I said to them, "If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain." So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter." (Zechariah 11:12-13)

That passage was written about 500 years PRIOR to the events recorded in the Gospels. And the events written prior also indicate that it was an act of betrayal, not of mutual co-operation. The Jews were meticulous in their record keeping, and the ancient Biblical texts for the Old Testament are VERY close, if not exact, to what we have today in our Bibles. (I got a chance to see a portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Montreal a while back... very cool indeed) Thus, we can count on these prophecies as being an accurate account of what was yet to come... the betrayal of the Lord Jesus Christ by Judas, for 30 pieces of silver, which was then thrown back into the Temple, which was then used to buy a potter's field... according the Matthew.

Of course, the Lord Jesus Christ was perfectly aware of what was going on the whole time... as He said to Judas, "What you do, do quickly." (John 13:27)

"Now as they were eating, He said, "Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me." And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, "Lord, is it I?" He answered and said, "He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, "Rabbi, is it I?" He said to him, "You have said it."" (Matthew 26:21-25)

Did this mean that Christ was a co-conspirator? Only to the extent that He knew what must occur to obtain the redemption of the souls of mankind.

And boy am I ever glad that He paid that price by shedding His blood on the cross of Calvary.

So with Easter coming up, I ask you... have YOU been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb?

19 Comments:

  • At Mon Apr 10, 12:31:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "So with Easter coming up, I ask you... have YOU been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb?"

    Yes, as has every human on this planet. :)

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 12:45:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Drew, you might want to try reading the Bible sometime.

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 12:48:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    That's where I got it from Jesse. :)

    Check out my website (www.drewc.net) for why I believe that the Bible says this.

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 02:15:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    The Word of God says "By grace you have been saved through faith". Drew, you are wrong in your view, and I pray that your salvation is not in jepordy.

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 02:55:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "The Word of God says "By grace you have been saved through faith".

    Agreed, but that faith is not of ourselves, it is a gift from God. God chooses who to regenerate and give this faith to (the doctrine of election), and also when. For some it's not until during a future age.

    "Drew, you are wrong in your view, and I pray that your salvation is not in jepordy."

    Thanks, but since God has given me faith in Christ unto salvation I don't think there is much to worry about unless you believe that one can either lose their salvation or can't be saved if they believe in Universal Reconciliation. But I don't believe that I'm wrong in this view, it seems pretty clear to me in Scripture.

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 03:21:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I've been reading a book called Velvet Elvis, by Rob Bell. He writes:

    "Heaven is full of people Jesus died for."

    "Hell is full of people Jesus died for."

    Yes, Jesus died for all mankind. But, he also says in Matthew 7:21-23:

    "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

    Be very careful. Watch out for people who produce good fruit. Not everyone who claims the name of Jesus actually knows him.

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 03:27:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Be very careful. Watch out for people who produce good fruit. Not everyone who claims the name of Jesus actually knows him."

    Amen. Always watch for the fruit of the Spirit in one claiming to be a Christian.

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 03:36:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    About the word "betrayal" here: it's a flimsy argument to use this to view Judas' act (which is only peripherally mentioned anyhow) as a definite statement of "betrayal": the category employed is from paradidwmi, "to hand over". While I agree that the NT is quite clear in condemning Judas' actions (Peter's scathing commentary on him in Acts 1 can stand alone at this point), I don't believe this passage is really saying anything more than that Judas handed Jesus over to the authorities.

    Yes, what Jesus did was wrong, just like (and Drew will appreciate this) Gunn's role in Illyria's emergence, or - worse - Knox's, but it was going to happen anyhow.

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 03:39:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Yes, what Jesus did was wrong"

    I'm going to assume you meant Judas here. :D

    "just like (and Drew will appreciate this) Gunn's role in Illyria's emergence, or - worse - Knox's, but it was going to happen anyhow."

    Exactly (and yes appreciated, always good to get some Gospel according to Buffy and Angel in there). :) Judas' "betrayal" was ultimately part of God's plan.

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 03:42:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    Yes, thanks for that unfortunate typo correction there, Drew! LOL

    If I were a real bastard right now, though, I'd talk about Judas' "own place" just to be obnoxious... ;)

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 03:42:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    Actually, scratch that: I am a total bastard. (Born to unmarried parents, bastard by definition. ;) )

     
  • At Mon Apr 10, 03:46:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Heh.

     
  • At Tue Apr 11, 06:07:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    A few comments.

    Jesse: could your response to Drew have been any lamer? "Read the Bible"? Get real. If you're going to challenge Drew in a public forum, you're either going to sway public opinion by a) having better arguments and interacting in a superior fashion or b) coming up with an over-the-top hilarious pithy comment. You did neither, and lost badly - in one exchange! Lame.

    Drew:

    I think it's unsustainable biblically to say that everybody has been washed in the blood of the Lamb. Eph 2:5 for instance talks about Christians as at one point being dead in trespasses and sins but now being made alive together with Christ. I think it's more biblical to state that the application of the blood of Christ takes place at some point in time, as opposed to having occured instantly at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection, even if you do hold to some possibility of this happening to those who died outside of Christ at some point in their post-mortem future.

     
  • At Tue Apr 11, 08:57:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I think it's unsustainable biblically to say that everybody has been washed in the blood of the Lamb. Eph 2:5 for instance talks about Christians as at one point being dead in trespasses and sins but now being made alive together with Christ. I think it's more biblical to state that the application of the blood of Christ takes place at some point in time, as opposed to having occured instantly at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection, even if you do hold to some possibility of this happening to those who died outside of Christ at some point in their post-mortem future."

    Well, technically I did say we've all been redeemed, not washed, but you might be right. :) Hypothetically though, if UR were the case, there could be a linear and non-linear aspect to it (yes, I've just been watching Star Trek: Deep Space Nine on DVD) where while on a linear level some haven't yet been "washed," on God's non-linear level (an assumption, yes, but one I'm fairly certain we both make) we could all be considered washed. Of course this brings up the questions of at what level are redemption, washing, and other soteriological "events" ontological and at what level are they positional (not to mention noological on our part)? :)

     
  • At Tue Apr 11, 09:36:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    "Well, technically I did say we've all been redeemed, not washed, but you might be right."

    Fair enough - I went from the question that Andrew posted and assumed you responded to it verbatim.

    "Hypothetically though, if UR were the case, there could be a linear and non-linear aspect to it (yes, I've just been watching Star Trek: Deep Space Nine on DVD) where while on a linear level some haven't yet been "washed," on God's non-linear level (an assumption, yes, but one I'm fairly certain we both make) we could all be considered washed."

    I see what you're saying here, and I would probably agree with the concept. Might a more careful wording be, "Those who have been eternally decreed by God to be redeemed will experience redemption at some point in time in their lives, although their election is sure within the eternal counsel of God"? Or is that just repeating what you said in different language? I work with morons who have drained all my brain power today, so...

    "Of course this brings up the questions of at what level are redemption, washing, and other soteriological "events" ontological and at what level are they positional (not to mention noological on our part)? :)"

    Definitely, and we must be categorically clear here. I do believe that redemption is in the NT most always the concept of bringing an enemy into a friendly relationship in the NT (and not the accounting metaphor I've heard declared at a rather business-minded church I once attended), but again, while the act of redemption as well as the beneficiaries thereof are eternally decreed, I do believe that action is brought to pass within the elect's experience at some point. One day they are enemies of God, the next they are friends of God which is accomplished by his grace according to his good pleasure. The washing, of course, is both a practical and psychological practice that is ongoing; the NT uses the present tense to describe the "washing" of the blood in John. We experience it daily as we walk in the light, and is not a completed action in our lives.

    And you're right to point out that soteriology is a highly complex theological set of beliefs, and when we only think of soteriology evangelistically, i.e. "have you been saved?" with no further thought, we end up getting tripped up even in our evangelistic encounters when somebody furrows their brow and says, "what the deuce are you talking about?" and even they pick up on the category errors and through nothing more than asking legit and fair "meatball" questions to the Christians, have the experience of having a Christian stumble all aroudn him/herself in trying to figure out for themselves what message they're trying to deliver.

    Which is why doing meaningful - and not bumper-sticker - theology is important in church life. I was thrilled, as I was doing some reading on the Holocaust, to see Bonhoeffer point out that the State Church whose Fuhrer was Hitler rather than Christ couldn't respond to the atrocities because they couldn't think theology.

    OK, end rant.

     
  • At Thu Apr 13, 04:55:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I see what you're saying here, and I would probably agree with the concept. Might a more careful wording be, "Those who have been eternally decreed by God to be redeemed will experience redemption at some point in time in their lives, although their election is sure within the eternal counsel of God"?"

    I guess that's one of the questions then, at what point does redemption happen? Did it happen 2,000 years ago when the redemption price was paid or does it take place at the point that the person comes to believe that the price has been paid?

    "Definitely, and we must be categorically clear here. I do believe that redemption is in the NT most always the concept of bringing an enemy into a friendly relationship in the NT (and not the accounting metaphor I've heard declared at a rather business-minded church I once attended), but again, while the act of redemption as well as the beneficiaries thereof are eternally decreed, I do believe that action is brought to pass within the elect's experience at some point."

    Wouldn't that be reconcilation rather than redemption, or do you consider those two things to be one and the same? Btw, I'm pretty sure that I actually agree with you on this one, but I'm asking for clarity's sake.

    I wonder though, could these various "events" be considered to be both ontological on at least a spiritual level as of 2,000 years ago and noological for us within our lifetimes (or sometime thereafter if UR were the case) at the same time? In other words, is it possible that there are different "layers" of salvation within (and apart from) history so that (and yes, I'm presupposing UR here, but if you prefer just replace "all" with "all the elect") all have been saved, yet only a few have been saved, and yet none have been saved, all at the same time?

    I do agree with you on this:

    "One day they are enemies of God, the next they are friends of God which is accomplished by his grace according to his good pleasure. The washing, of course, is both a practical and psychological practice that is ongoing; the NT uses the present tense to describe the "washing" of the blood in John. We experience it daily as we walk in the light, and is not a completed action in our lives."

    Although I would qualify it by saying that I suspect we are enemies of God only in our own sinful minds, but of course that's within my framework of belief that God has already reoconciled the whole world to Himself in Christ even if we've yet to fully realize it. :)

    "And you're right to point out that soteriology is a highly complex theological set of beliefs, and when we only think of soteriology evangelistically, i.e. "have you been saved?" with no further thought, we end up getting tripped up even in our evangelistic encounters when somebody furrows their brow and says, "what the deuce are you talking about?" and even they pick up on the category errors and through nothing more than asking legit and fair "meatball" questions to the Christians, have the experience of having a Christian stumble all aroudn him/herself in trying to figure out for themselves what message they're trying to deliver.

    Which is why doing meaningful - and not bumper-sticker - theology is important in church life. I was thrilled, as I was doing some reading on the Holocaust, to see Bonhoeffer point out that the State Church whose Fuhrer was Hitler rather than Christ couldn't respond to the atrocities because they couldn't think theology."

    Agreed. :)

     
  • At Thu Apr 13, 10:49:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    "I guess that's one of the questions then, at what point does redemption happen? Did it happen 2,000 years ago when the redemption price was paid or does it take place at the point that the person comes to believe that the price has been paid?"

    In that only those who are in the state of having been redeemed in the NT are presented as having been redeemed, I believe that redemption cannot be said to have taken place for unbelieving individual x. I think that makes a mockery of the concept of redemption, nearly as much as me mixing the categories "redemption" and "reconciliation" in the previous post. Note to self: not posting while on phone at work drastically cuts down on pwnage received. :P

    The price for redemption can said to have been paid in full already, the recipients decreed from eternity past, the effects are only said to be true for individual x when individual x is reconciled to Christ.

    "Although I would qualify it by saying that I suspect we are enemies of God only in our own sinful minds"

    I see what you're saying there, and I see why you're saying it, but I think the word "only" is inappropriate in this instance. It is true that we are enemies in the sphere of our minds, but I think that Paul is more saying that our natural minds are inclined towards hostility towards God as opposed to arguing that there is no such enmity at all except in our minds. I would support that by stating the state of enmity exists not only in our minds, but our souls, spirits, hearts, entrails, and all the other wonderful metaphors the Bible uses to describe the different aspects of the inner person.

    Man, I haven't had a serious theological conversation in a while, working out the rust still...

     
  • At Fri Apr 14, 11:52:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "The price for redemption can said to have been paid in full already, the recipients decreed from eternity past, the effects are only said to be true for individual x when individual x is reconciled to Christ."

    I think I can go with that, although I still can't help wondering if there aren't different levels of reconciliation that take place at different times for each of us.

    ""Although I would qualify it by saying that I suspect we are enemies of God only in our own sinful minds"

    I see what you're saying there, and I see why you're saying it, but I think the word "only" is inappropriate in this instance. It is true that we are enemies in the sphere of our minds, but I think that Paul is more saying that our natural minds are inclined towards hostility towards God as opposed to arguing that there is no such enmity at all except in our minds. I would support that by stating the state of enmity exists not only in our minds, but our souls, spirits, hearts, entrails, and all the other wonderful metaphors the Bible uses to describe the different aspects of the inner person."

    To be honest, that's more or less what I actually meant, I just didn't put it quite as dramatically. :) I guess I was mostly trying to get across that I suspect the state of enmity is more on our part than on God's.

    "Man, I haven't had a serious theological conversation in a while, working out the rust still..."

    Heh, it's all good. I haven't really in some time either. :)

     
  • At Fri Apr 14, 11:12:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Blake Kennedy said…

    "I think I can go with that, although I still can't help wondering if there aren't different levels of reconciliation that take place at different times for each of us."

    If by that that you mean that God works progressively to bring us to the point of repentance and faith, I'd agree.

    "To be honest, that's more or less what I actually meant, I just didn't put it quite as dramatically. :) I guess I was mostly trying to get across that I suspect the state of enmity is more on our part than on God's."

    I'd say the state of enmity is very real; I think what Paul is meaning when he says, "you are enemies in your minds" is that, "your minds are inclined to hostility against God", as opposed to making up the state of enmity out of whole cloth, or something like that.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home