satan entered into him' was judas truly free to resist?
TRANSCRIPT
Leaven Leaven
Volume 3 Issue 3 The Lord's Supper Article 12
1-1-1995
"Satan Entered into Him" Was Judas Truly Free to Resist? "Satan Entered into Him" Was Judas Truly Free to Resist?
Tim Kelley
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology
and Philosophy of Religion Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Kelley, Tim (1995) ""Satan Entered into Him" Was Judas Truly Free to Resist?," Leaven: Vol. 3 : Iss. 3 , Article 12. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol3/iss3/12
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
The Lord's Supper 37
"Satan Entered into Him"Was Judas Truly Free
To Resist?
By Tim Kelley
In Jesus Christ Superstar, the rock operaby Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, the centralcharacter among the disciples is Judas. The com-poser and the lyricist powerfully reconstruct thisinfamous disciple as a modern skeptic who "onlywants to know" whether Jesus is all that the churchclaims him to be. Judas' motives are pure through-out; and, as he betrays Jesus, he pleads, "Just don'tsay I'm damned for all time."!
Others have also taken a closer lookat Judas;and, if they have not attempted to redeem him, theyhave at least tried to placeJudas within his historicalcontext. One such attempt was donebyJames Smartin his book, The Quiet Revolufion.> Smart ad-dresses three descriptions of Judas found in thesecondary literature. In the first description Judas isseen as a divinely appointed agent who is predes-tined to play his role as betrayer and who has nofreedom to resist that destiny. In the seconddescrip-tion Judas is understood as a pawn of Satan. Satanselects him, enters him and uses him to carry out hispurpose, with Judas unable to resist. Smart rejectsthese portraits ofJudas and instead describes Judasin a third way. In this view Judas is a free moralagent who, though at first in harmony with theministry of Jesus, betrays Jesus for religious andideological reasons (greed, for Smart, is an insuffi-cient reason to explain Judas' betrayal). Judas is freeto act and stands as a warning to all discipIeswhocanmake the same deadly choices."
Amore recent work which attempts to recon-
struct the historical Judas is William Klassen's ar-ticle on Judas in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.'Klassen is convinced that in the earliest traditionJudas was no worse than any other disciple. As forthe picture of Judas in the Fourth Gospel, Klassenbelieves that the author has simply demonized Judasand made him more ofan automaton than a human,which makes for good drama but not good history."
The question before us, however, is whetherJudas, according to the Fourth Gospel, acts as a freemoral agent when he betrays Jesus. Our theologicalinstincts, rooted in the Restoration Movement's re-jection ofpredestinarian theology,6 quickly moves toanswer the question, "yes." Yet, a careful look at theFourth Gospel denies us any simple answer.
Portrait of Judas in the Fourth Gos-pel
The first reference to Judas is John 6:64-7l.Here many of the disciples of Jesus respond nega-tively to the "bread oflife" discourse. Jesus recog-nizes that "there were some who do not believe," towhich the author adds, "For Jesus knew from thefirst who were the ones that did not believe, and whowas the one that would betray him" (John 6:64). It isnot altogether clear what is meant by "from the first"but it seems to imply that Jesus knew of Judas'betrayal when he chose Judas to follow him.? Thisseemingly predestinarian point of view is strength-ened by the words of Jesus which follow, "For thisreason I have told you that no one can come to me
1
Kelley: "Satan Entered into Him" Was Judas Truly Free to Resist?
Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1995
38 Leaven, vol. 3, #3
unless it is granted by the Father" (John 6:65).In John 6:70-71 the idea of a predestined
Judas appears further strengthened: "Jesus an-swered them, 'Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yetone ofyou is a devil.' He was speaking ofJudas sonof Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve,was going to betray him." Here difficult questionsabound. Does the reference to Judas as "a devil"imply only something about the moral character ofJudas or does it suggest that Judas was already.under Satan's control? Is the author asserting thatJesus knowingly chose "a devil" to be one of thetwelve? Was Judas, according to the Fourth Gospel,chosen in order to fulfill the prescribed role as be-trayer?
The next reference to Judas is found in John12:1-7, a story which parallels Mark 14:3-9. Theunnamed disciples who complain about the expenseof the ointment used to anoint Jesus in Mark'saccount are identified in John, not in the plural butas Judas alone. In a parenthetical comment follow-ing Judas' objection, the author notes, "He said thisnot because he cared about the poor, but because hewas a thief; he kept the common purse and used tosteal what was put into it" (John 12:6). AlthoughJudas is identified as the one "who was about tobetray him" (John 12:4),no statement about whetherJudas was predestined to do this is found. Rather,moral categories are used, and Judas is called a thief.This is an important reference inasmuch as theFourth Gospel is silent about Judas' receipt ofmoneyfor betraying Jesus.
Passing over, for the moment, John 13, weturn to the high priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17.In verse 12 Jesus prays, "While I was with them, Iprotected them in your name that youhave given me.I guarded them, and not one of them was lost exceptthe one destined tobe lost, sothat the scripture mightbe fulfilled." The phrase "the one destined to be lost"is literally "son of perdition" or "son of destruction."The NRSV has thus given the phrase a clearly pre-destinarian interpretation; but "son of perdition/destruction" may not necessarily imply such a ren-dering. It may be a description ofJudas' character inmuch the same way "sons of thunder" describes thecharacter ofthe sons ofZebedee or "sonofencourage-ment" describes the character of Barnabas. In thatcase "son of perdition/destruction" might only implythat Judas' own moral character fitted him for de-struction.
However, a predestinarian interpretationseems more evident in the words that follow,"sothatthe scripture might be fulfilled." A particular scrip-ture is not mentioned in 17:12; but in 13:18,Psalm41:9 is quoted. While a thorough discussion of the
Johannine concept offulfillment is impossible here,it is clear that the author has a more nuancedconception than mechanical fulfillment in whichPsalm 41:9 predicted Judas would betray -Iesus."
In John 13:2, Satan's role in Judas' betrayalofJesus is stressed: "The devilhad already put it intothe heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betrayhim .... " Following Jesus' washing of the disciples'feet, Jesus asserts that not all disciples are clean, andadds, "... I know whom I have chosen. But it is tofulfill the scripture, 'The one who ate my bread haslifted his heel against me.' ..." (John 13:18, Psalm41:9) Again this raises the possibility that Jesuschose Judas knowing that he would fulfill the role ofbetrayer. The high point of the drama is reachedduring the Supper as Jesus gives a morsel to Judas.The text then reads, "Satan entered into him. Jesussaid to him, 'Do quickly what you are going to do.' ... So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immedi-ately went out. And it was night" (John 13:27b, 30).Then Judas, at the behest of Satan, leaves the com-pany of the disciples and goes into the darkness."
When we cometo the actual betrayal, John'saccount is simple and straight forward. Judas issilent throughout and relatively passive. Klassensees in this passivity another indication ofthe FourthGospel's portrayal ofJudas as a programmed instru-mentratherthan ahuman with authentic freedom ofchoice.10
All of these texts suggest a predestinarianview of Judas' betrayal. Taken by themselves, theyassert that Jesus chose Judas with full knowledgethat he would betray him; that Judas had alreadybeen a devil and thief; that the betrayal by Judas hadbeen foreordained in scripture; and that (iftheNRSVis correct in 17:12)Judas was destined for destruc-tion. However, taking the texts by themselves, apartfrom their larger theological context, is preciselywhat we should not do. Two considerations need toqualify these results. The first is the larger contextofthe Johannine theology ofbelief and unbelief. Thesecond is the way in which the Fourth Gospel de-scribes the events in the upper room which end inJudas' departure.
Belief and Unbelief in the FourthGospel
Even a brief survey of the Fourth Gospelmakes it obvious that the author holds that bothbelief and unbelief are human choices for which theindividual is held responsible. II The purpose state-ment in John 20:31 makes human freedom andresponsibility clear, "But these are written that youmay believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son ofGod,and that bybelieving you may have life in his name."
2
Leaven, Vol. 3 [1995], Iss. 3, Art. 12
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol3/iss3/12
It is also clear that those who do not believe are heldmorally responsible for the choice of unbelief (9:41;12:42-43).
Schnackenburg correctly summarizes theevidence:
The moral duty to believe (6:29) is notseen as impossible to fulfill. The possibil-ity offaith derives from the very fact thatJesus makes a constant and unwaveringapproach to all his listeners (cf. 8:51;10:37-38, 12:36).... In addition to this,responsibility for individual choice andthe inexcusability of unbelief is heavilystressed: the non-believer pronounces hisown sentence (3:18, 36; 8:24; cf. 8:26;12:48), unbelief is a lack of will (5:40;7:17), sin (8:21; 9:41; 16:9) and as suchinexcusable (15:22, 24). Finally, the abil-ity ofhuman beings to believe is shown bythe fact that a good number of Jews, inspite of the adverse currents of unbeliefand the hostile propaganda of the rulinggroups, did in fact believe: (cf. 6:69; 7:31;8:30-31; 9:38; 10:42; 12:42; 17:8), a factwhich the evangelist sets in theologicalcontrast to the hardening willed by God(12:42)12
John, then, sets predestinarian languagebeside language which asserts human freedom andresponsibility. These seemingly contradictory viewsare held in paradoxical tension, and the FourthGospel resists any attempt to resolve this paradox.
That the freedom side ofthe paradox appliesto Judas is made clear in the upper roomscene. In theupper room, the beloved disciple is reclining next toJesus, "in his bosom." Peter, who will later showhimself quite willing to resort to violence (18:10), isseated far enough away that he must ask the beloveddisciple what was said (13:24). The place ofhonor atthe table, however, may very well have belonged toJudas, who reclined to the left of the host.P Theentire scene takes on the appearance ofa final appealto Judas. Jesus does not expose Judas to the volatiledisciples. Instead, Judas is protected. When Judasfinally departs, the disciples are unaware ofthe truereason. Toreduce this episode to an "acted out" scenein order that Psalm 41:9 might be fulfilled is to doviolence to the theology of the Fourth Gospel. Judasis called upon to choose and has the freedom to do so.The paradox remains.
The Biblical Doctrine of Hardness ofHeart
The Lord's Supper 39
The paradox ofpredestination and free will isnot to be resolved since the Bible consistently holdsthe two sides in tension. It does so through theconcept of hardness of heart. 14 Two Old Testamentexamples illustrate the doctrine.
The most obvious example of hardness ofheart is that of Pharaoh. Here the paradox of thedivine will and human freedom is presented in itsstrongest form. In Exodus 3:19 Pharaoh's resistanceto Israel's freedom is attributed to his own stubborn-ness, yet in 4:21 God tells Moses that he will hardenPharaoh's heart. A double description of Pharaoh'shardness of heart continues throughout Exodus.Pharaoh hardens his own heart and God hardensPharaoh's heart. IS This twin description ofPharaoh'shardness of heart makes it clear that, on the onehand, God has not taken an otherwise compliantperson and hardened his heart against his own will.On the other hand, it is clear that Godplays an activerole in Pharaoh's hardness. Put another way, Goduses the very opposition of this unbeliever to fulfillhis own purpose, and even hardens that opposition tofurther those purposes.
The second is that ofCain, who has an impor-tant place in the Johannine literature: "Wemust notbe like Cain who was from the evil one and murderedhis brother. And why did he murder him? Becausehis own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous"(1 John 3:12). The description of Cain as "from theevil one" bears remarkable similarity to the FourthGospel's description of Judas as "a devil" and onewhom "Satan entered." Notice, however, that Cain isheld responsible for his evil deeds. It is Cain's moralfailure that makes him "from the evil one," not thewill of God nor the overpowering of Satan.
Genesis 4:6-7 makes this powerfully clear:"The LORD said to Cain, 'Why are you angry, andwhy has your countenance fallen? If you do well, willyou not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin islurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you mustmaster it'." Cain is responsible for mastering sin; yetit is also clear that sin can become the master. Thechoiceis whether or not Cain opens the door to the sinwhich lurks there. Once the door is open to sin,however, freedom is diminished and sin gains con-trol.
Seeing the connection between ethical char-acter and human freedom is vital if we are to under-stand the portrait of Judas in the Fourth Gospel. Ifthe description of Judas as a devil (John 6:70) is astatement of Judas' own moral failure, and not sim-ply Satan's control ofJudas, we begin to see how theFourth Gospelviews Judas. When Judas is describedas a thief'(John 12:6),it is not simply the author's wayof attributing the betrayal to greed. It is to suggest
3
Kelley: "Satan Entered into Him" Was Judas Truly Free to Resist?
Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1995
40 Leaven, vol. 3, #3
that Judas' moral character has taken shape. Thebetrayal is an act which is consistent with thatcharacter. Satan entered into a willing heart, not aheart coerced either by God's will or Satan's desire.
In the discussion offree will and predestina-tion, the game of chess often is used as an analogy. Asit is typically presented, God is the player and hu-mans are the chess pieces (pawns). Viewed from thisperspective, Judas is a pawn God uses to fulfill hisplan. That analogy is clearly not the picture given inthe Fourth Gospel. If, however, the chess analogy ischanged to one in which humans are themselvesplayers it becomes helpful. If an inexperienced chessplayer engages a chess master, the results are quitepredictable. The inexperienced player has full free-dom to make any moves consistent with the rules ofchess. The chess master has the skill to use the freelybut unknowingly chosen moves of the inexperiencedopponent for the master's own purposes. The inexpe-rienced player freely chooses moves which inevitablylead to the chess master's victory. Something elsehappens in this hypothetical contest: with each poorchoice by the inexperienced player, the future choicesare limited. Step by step, the player loses chesspieces and has less of the board open to play.
Of course, every analogy has limitations andthe above analogy is no exception. Clearly, God is notthe opponent of humanity. Yet, particular humansmay stand in opposition to God's will. God's purposescame to fruition in the life, death and resurrection ofJesus. Those purposes were accomplished, eventhrough the choices and actions of those who becameGod's opponents. From the standpoint of those whowere in opposition to God, each choice against God'spurposes impacted human freedom, for their charac-ter was shaped and hardened, and their freedom wasdiminished.
This describes Judas in the Fourth Gospel.
We are not told when the character of Judas washardened in opposition to God's purpose; but we aretold that Jesus was aware of Judas' character andknew ultimately that it would lead to Judas' betrayalof him. Jesus' effort to convert Judas in the upperroom is a powerful witness to human freedom. It isa statement that we are not doomed to follow ourcharacter. In the end, Judas did follow his character,and Satan found a willing accomplice. However,Jesus died because he chose to die, not because Judasbetrayed him.16 That the betrayal was used by Godto further his ultimate purpose affirms God's sover-eignty but does not deny human freedom.
Was Judas free to resist? Yes-and Jesustried to help him resist. Yet Judas' freedom had beennarrowed by the choices in life which had turned himinto a devil and thief. His act of ultimate betrayalflowed from that hardened character. The apparentpredestinarian language in the Fourth Gospel is notmeant to deny ultimate human freedom, but to af-firm Jesus' foreknowledge and God's sovereign pur-pose." Finally, Judas stands as a powerful warningto all disciples who believe they are immune from thefate of Judas. We are shaped by the choices we make.It is the terrifying freedom God has given his cre-ation. Judas remains a sobering reminder that wemust, ''Take care, brothers and sisters, that none ofyou may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turnsaway from the living God. But exhort one anotherevery day, as long as it is called 'today,' so that noneof you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.For we have become partners of Christ, if only wehold our first confidence firm to the end" (Hebrews3:12-14).
Tim Kelley is preaching minister ofthe CamarilloChurch of Christ, Camarillo, California.
4
Leaven, Vol. 3 [1995], Iss. 3, Art. 12
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol3/iss3/12