Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Judas
The Maximum Leader has asked a fascinating question dealing with the very issue of predestination. Actually his ruminations strike deeply at the roots of Christian doctrine. Not only do they point out difficulties with predestination, but they imply a conflict with the ideas of Jesus being human and the Son of God both and being aware of it. They also assume that the Biblical story is correct, that God sent Jesus down to do as he did, to save mankind. There are very deep issues here. I have copied the two critical paragraphs:
I have always had a problem with the concept of predestination. Martin Luther espoused it, in particular in his debates with Erasmus. My first blog on Determinism and Free Will discussed this. The problem with predestination is that it undercuts the whole idea of free will. It also destroys the concept of moral virtue, since if one is predestined, then the choices already are made. Morality rests on the existence of free will. Without the choice to sin or not, or to do evil or not, there is no virtue in not sinning or in not doing evil, and the supererogation(?, I shouldn't use Keith's words if I'm not sure how to spell them!) of doing good is also non-existent.
How could Judas feel remorse for something he did if he had no choice in the matter? Judas committed suicide when he realized the magnitude of his betrayal. Again, suicide is considered an unforgivable sin. (My guess is because the perpetrator of the murder is no longer alive to ask for forgiveness and be penitent.) So not only has Judas been predestined to betray Jesus, but he is also predestined to kill himself in an unforgivable sin. According to predestination doctrine, God condemned Judas to Hell from the get go. The poor schmuck didn't have a chance.
The problem gets worse if we hypothesize that God created Judas specifically for the role. It implies the whole thing is a setup. God creates the perfect man to be killed by Judas so that we can have all our sins forgiven. I have discussed this in various places in other posts, but never put it together in quite this way before. The nature of the underlying transaction doesn't make sense. It is a phenomenal synthesis of elements of the sacrifice of the first born son and the scapegoat. Only the scapegoat is sacrificed instead of run out of the city. Jesus crucifixion is often compared to the sacrifice of the lamb at Passover. So major cultic elements of the Jewish ritual are combined in the concept.
The Dantean idea of Judas being devoured in the lowest rung of Hell by the Devil has strong emotional appeal. After all the Devil and Judas betrayed God, the first God as God, and the second God as Man. But again if Jesus had to be betrayed for the good to come, then Mike is right, it is hardly fair or just to punish the betrayer. One could argue he is not the betrayer but the saver, for without the betrayal there is no martyrdom of Jesus.
Here is the point at which I become heretical. If one removes the idea that the whole betrayal and crucifixion was the plan of God and totally under his control, the problem becomes much more tractable. If we suppose that God is like us in a much larger sense in that He plays the hand He is dealt rather than stacking the deck, then Judas can indeed be considered immoral for his betrayal. We have an aspiring Rabbi that finds he cannot support the conventional doctrine and preaches a much more inclusionary and forgiving doctrine that is effectively undercutting the influence of the established faith. Judas has the choice of accepting the new doctrine or the old, and his avarice(or the Devil?) leads him to accept the old. In so doing he commits himself to remove the source of the new doctrine. After he does so, he so remorseful he kills himself. All these now are choices Judas makes not determined behavior. In this approach any betrayer would fit, not just specifically Judas.
To commit further heresy, [you have been warned] let us suppose the Epistle writers, in particular Paul, simply put the control of God and the cultic imagery into the story as their interpretation, and it struck such an emotional chord in his congregations that it stuck. After all, sin and sinfulness are major pre-occupations of many. To find a way to get to Heaven after all, via a satisfying symbolic route, would be very persuasive. My reading of the gospel material does not find Jesus' divinity. It is in the epistles that it is found.
As to Jesus foreknowledge of his betrayal, he was probably an austute enough politician to realize that the Sanhedrin was out to get him. I don't think it necessarily indicates a divine plan. We must also consider here that Jesus had to be fully human without divine knowledge for his actions to count as examples to us. I have argued that in the past, and the Maverick Philosopher had a series of discussions on this a month ago in a very philosophically deep way of the problem of Incarnation. In my way of thinking, Jesus was acting as fully human and not divine, until after the crucifixion. [One can still argue against divinity here also, but it is outside this discussion] In such a case he had no pre-knowledge other than what a careful observer and powerful analytical thinker would have.
The other way out of the problem is to define predestination in such a way that it allows for free will to change the outcome. That is an oxy-moron.
Riddle your Maximum Leader this... Can Judas really be held responsible for his betrayal of Jesus if one is a good reformed Protestant Christian and believes in predestination? If you do, then it was in God's own plan that Judas do what he did. How can you hold him in fault for something he was predestined to do? Without Judas, how would Jesus have fulfilled his purpose?
Even if you don't believe in predestination, think about it. Jesus would have still needed a betrayer. Jesus had foreknowledge of his betrayal, though perhaps not his betrayer. This would imply, at least, that it was in the Divine Plan for someone to act in the role of betrayer. Can that person, Judas Iscariot, really be fully culpable for his role in The Plan? Does he deserve to be devoured by Satan in the lowest circle of Hell?
I have always had a problem with the concept of predestination. Martin Luther espoused it, in particular in his debates with Erasmus. My first blog on Determinism and Free Will discussed this. The problem with predestination is that it undercuts the whole idea of free will. It also destroys the concept of moral virtue, since if one is predestined, then the choices already are made. Morality rests on the existence of free will. Without the choice to sin or not, or to do evil or not, there is no virtue in not sinning or in not doing evil, and the supererogation(?, I shouldn't use Keith's words if I'm not sure how to spell them!) of doing good is also non-existent.
How could Judas feel remorse for something he did if he had no choice in the matter? Judas committed suicide when he realized the magnitude of his betrayal. Again, suicide is considered an unforgivable sin. (My guess is because the perpetrator of the murder is no longer alive to ask for forgiveness and be penitent.) So not only has Judas been predestined to betray Jesus, but he is also predestined to kill himself in an unforgivable sin. According to predestination doctrine, God condemned Judas to Hell from the get go. The poor schmuck didn't have a chance.
The problem gets worse if we hypothesize that God created Judas specifically for the role. It implies the whole thing is a setup. God creates the perfect man to be killed by Judas so that we can have all our sins forgiven. I have discussed this in various places in other posts, but never put it together in quite this way before. The nature of the underlying transaction doesn't make sense. It is a phenomenal synthesis of elements of the sacrifice of the first born son and the scapegoat. Only the scapegoat is sacrificed instead of run out of the city. Jesus crucifixion is often compared to the sacrifice of the lamb at Passover. So major cultic elements of the Jewish ritual are combined in the concept.
The Dantean idea of Judas being devoured in the lowest rung of Hell by the Devil has strong emotional appeal. After all the Devil and Judas betrayed God, the first God as God, and the second God as Man. But again if Jesus had to be betrayed for the good to come, then Mike is right, it is hardly fair or just to punish the betrayer. One could argue he is not the betrayer but the saver, for without the betrayal there is no martyrdom of Jesus.
Here is the point at which I become heretical. If one removes the idea that the whole betrayal and crucifixion was the plan of God and totally under his control, the problem becomes much more tractable. If we suppose that God is like us in a much larger sense in that He plays the hand He is dealt rather than stacking the deck, then Judas can indeed be considered immoral for his betrayal. We have an aspiring Rabbi that finds he cannot support the conventional doctrine and preaches a much more inclusionary and forgiving doctrine that is effectively undercutting the influence of the established faith. Judas has the choice of accepting the new doctrine or the old, and his avarice(or the Devil?) leads him to accept the old. In so doing he commits himself to remove the source of the new doctrine. After he does so, he so remorseful he kills himself. All these now are choices Judas makes not determined behavior. In this approach any betrayer would fit, not just specifically Judas.
To commit further heresy, [you have been warned] let us suppose the Epistle writers, in particular Paul, simply put the control of God and the cultic imagery into the story as their interpretation, and it struck such an emotional chord in his congregations that it stuck. After all, sin and sinfulness are major pre-occupations of many. To find a way to get to Heaven after all, via a satisfying symbolic route, would be very persuasive. My reading of the gospel material does not find Jesus' divinity. It is in the epistles that it is found.
As to Jesus foreknowledge of his betrayal, he was probably an austute enough politician to realize that the Sanhedrin was out to get him. I don't think it necessarily indicates a divine plan. We must also consider here that Jesus had to be fully human without divine knowledge for his actions to count as examples to us. I have argued that in the past, and the Maverick Philosopher had a series of discussions on this a month ago in a very philosophically deep way of the problem of Incarnation. In my way of thinking, Jesus was acting as fully human and not divine, until after the crucifixion. [One can still argue against divinity here also, but it is outside this discussion] In such a case he had no pre-knowledge other than what a careful observer and powerful analytical thinker would have.
The other way out of the problem is to define predestination in such a way that it allows for free will to change the outcome. That is an oxy-moron.
// posted by Bill @ 1:48 PM 
