The Father never drew Judas

[Pastor_Bob]

Judas was the One who fulfilled the OT prophecies though to be the one to turn against the Messiah, so he was lost from the start, and by his own choice and the soveregn plans of God, was to never get saved, correct?

By his own choice, yes. By the sovereign plans of God, no.

That would directly contradict 2 Peter 3:9, The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (KJV)

And, 1 Timothy 2:4, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (KJV)

That would be quite unfair to Judas if he was exempt from these promises.

 

[GISMYS]

Yes! God is the alpha and omega the beginning and the end,God is outside time,God sees time from beginning to end now,God knew the thoughts and deeds of Judas long before Judas did.

 

[The Biblicist]

By his own choice, yes. By the sovereign plans of God, no.

That would directly contradict 2 Peter 3:9, The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (KJV)

And, 1 Timothy 2:4, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (KJV)

That would be quite unfair to Judas if he was exempt from these promises.

I don't believe that Judas was forced against his will to do anything. But I do believe the Father must draw him in order for him to have saving faith and Jesus quite clearly denies the Father drew him in that manner (Jn. 6:64-65). Free will was exercised by the whole human race in the person of Adam (Rom. 5:12) where the human nature forfeited that ability, thus "no man can" is a universal acknowledgement of that fact by Christ of total inability ("can" - dunamis). Thus Judas, as well as all other sinner, have no inherent ability to savingly believe in Christ, as that is foreign to their fallen nature justly deserved by their joint WILLFUL participation with Adam in the fall as one unfallen human nature (Rom. 5:12-19).

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I don't believe that Judas was forced against his will to do anything. But I do believe the Father must draw him in order for him to have saving faith and Jesus quite clearly denies the Father drew him in that manner (Jn. 6:64-65).

I do not believe this issue here is salvation, but rather a calling by God to be a disciple. In a sense, yes, we're all called to be a disciple; but, Jesus specifically called twelve men. He then said, "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

In my opinion, Jesus was separating the true, committed, dedicated disciples from the rest of the crowd. The next verse seems to support that: "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

Who left Him? Many of His "disciples." Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe in Him, trust Him, stay with Him, and He also knew who would turn their back on Him and betray Him. Apparently, there were many who fell into this category.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not believe this issue here is salvation, but rather a calling by God to be a disciple.

It would appear from the preceding context that the subject is believing on Christ for eternal life or coming to Christ in faith (vv. 35-57).

Isn't verses 51-57 exactly what "some" of the disciples objected to?

60 ¶ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this,[vv. 51-57] said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

Didn't Christ already clearly state the very Jews who were his listening audience were unbelievers (Jn. 6:36)?

In a sense, yes, we're all called to be a disciple; but, Jesus specifically called twelve men.

How does that fit with the whole passage beginning in verse 29 right up to verse 57 being directly addressed to unbelieving Jews who rejected what he was teaching (v. 36)? He neither claims them as "his disicples" but clearly identifies them as unbelievers (v. 36) that need to eat his flesh and drink his blood (metaphorically partake of Christ by faith) in order to have eternal life not because they have eternal life and are disciples?

Those called "some" of his disciples cannot possibly be part of that audience he was addressing to believe in him for eternal life which takes up all of John 6:29-57.

Those being addressed as "some" of His disciples are already professed believers in Christ who simply regarded his teaching directed to the unbelieving Jews "too hard" to believe.

60 ¶ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

These disciples were simply those who accompanied Christ from the feeding of the five thousand along with the multitude. It is this multitude of unbelievers Christ is directly addressing while his disciples are observing this discussion rather than the audience being addressed by Christ.

Remember, by the time of his resurrection over "five hundred brethren" saw him at one time. Hence, although the twelve were selected as apostles there were many hundreds of professing disciples baptized under John the Baptist and His own twelve (Jn. 4:1-2) that followed him, and from among whom the replacement for Judas was selected (Acts 1:21-22).

The quotation from verse 44 in verse 64 had been addressed to the unbelieving crowd (see vv. 36-52) who needed to savingly believe in Jesus Christ as the bread of life, rather than to his disciples.

Indeed, one could not even be called a "disciple" in the gospel era unless they have confessed Christ and submitted to baptism already (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30; Acts 19:5; Mt. 28:19-20).

In addition these are men he had known "from the beginning" but those he had addressed in the audience were those who had followed him from the miracle of the feeding of the thousands (Jn. 6:15-36).

Moreover, quoting again verse 44 and directly applying to those specific ones Christ claimed that were unbelievers from the beginning is set forth as an explanation why they remained in unbelief from the beginning as professing disciples:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

In addition, this text says again "no man can come unto me" which does not refer to calling the twelve as disciples but for coming to him for eternal life as that has been the consistent subject before (vv. 35-40) and after (vv. 46-51).

Finally, Peter explicitly proves the issue is not a calling to apostleship that is in view, but the "words of eternal life" that is being rejected or accepted (vv. 66-69).

I understand why your soteriological preference inclines you to this kind of interpretation, but I cannot see how the immediate context can support that kind of interpretation since it is coming to Christ for eternal life that is the consistent theme from John 6:29 to John 6:67-69.

 

[CatMommy]

I wonder if anyone has asked themselves how Jesus would have been handed over so as to accomplish his mission were it not for Judas?

Jesus came to die and take the sins of the world upon himself on the cross. The perfect unblemished lamb of God. The final sin sacrifice.

How would Jesus have died if Judas was not part of God's plan?

 

[The Biblicist]

I wonder if anyone has asked themselves how Jesus would have been handed over so as to accomplish his mission were it not for Judas?

Jesus came to die and take the sins of the world upon himself on the cross. The perfect unblemished lamb of God. The final sin sacrifice.

How would Jesus have died if Judas was not part of God's plan?

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: - Acts 2:23

It was purposed by God through using the natural enmity of those had "taken, and by wicked hands have crucified." This is why Judas is called "the son of perdition" as God purposed to use a man that Christ "from the beginning" knew to be "a devil" (Jn. 6:64, 70). God never forced Judas to do his demonish deed, but predetermined to use him by permitting his natural depravity to execute that deed, as Jesus said to him at the pivotal point:

Jn. 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

 

[CatMommy]

Well said. Thank you.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: - Acts 2:23

It was purposed by God through using the natural enmity of those had "taken, and by wicked hands have crucified." This is why Judas is called "the son of perdition" as God purposed to use a man that Christ "from the beginning" knew to be "a devil" (Jn. 6:64, 70). God never forced Judas to do his demonish deed, but predetermined to use him by permitting his natural depravity to execute that deed, as Jesus said to him at the pivotal point:

Jn. 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.