Is the Future Set in Stone?: A Biblical study of God’s relation to time and knowledge of the future

by Troy Edwards

The great evangelist, John Wesley, stated it this way in his comments on Matthew 2:17: A passage of Scripture, whether prophetic, historical, or poetical, is in the language of the New Testament fulfilled, when an event happens to which it may with great propriety be accommodated.4

Mr. T. H. Home, in his Introduction to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures, says: ‘The apostles, who were Jews by birth, and wrote and spoke in the Jewish idiom, frequently thus cite the Old Testament, intending no more by this mode of speaking than that the words of such an ancient writer might with equal propriety be adopted to characterize any similar occurrence which happened in their times. The formula “that it might be fulfilled,” does not therefore differ in signification from the phrase “then was fulfilled,” applied in the following citation in Matt, ii :i7, 18, from Jcr. xxxi:i5, 17, to the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. They are a beautiful quotation, and not a prediction of what then happened, and are therefore applied to the massacre of the infants according not to their original and historical meaning, but according to Jewish phraseology.’5

We do a dishonor and a disservice to both God and His written Word when we attempt to defend the idea of exhaustive foreknowledge by referring to passages in which the divinely inspired writer uses the phrase, “that it might be fulfilled.” The word was never meant to give support this view: The word πληρόω, fulfilled, does not necessarily determine us to such a sense, as if the evangelists designed to speak of a prediction of future events accomplished; but may barely express an accommodation of borrowed words. In effect, says bishop Kidder, a scripture may be said to be fulfilled two ways; properly, as when that which was foretold comes to pass; and improperly, by way of accommodation, as when an event happens to any place or people like to what fell out some time before.6

Other scholars have also understood the word “fulfilled” as primarily accommodation rather than prediction of the future: It is agreed, indeed, on all hands, that many of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New are not made as containing any thing prophetical, but in the way of illustration or rhetorical accommodation, where one writer finds the words of some other well-known writer adapted to express the ideas which he desires to convey.7 It may seem perhaps surprising to some, that St Matthew should so frequently introduce his citations with a ‘This was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:’ but whoever considers the idiom of the Hebrew tongue, cannot but know that the phrase, answering to the expressions, ‘that it might be fulfilled,’ means no more, than that hereby was verified, or that this event answered to the prediction, or the like. Nay, the Jews were accustomed to say, that a passage of scripture was then fulfilled, when any thing happened that was applicable to it; and therefore it is no wonder, that St Matthew, who himself was a Jew, and very probably wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue for the benefit of his countrymen, should naturally fall into their style and manner of expression.8 Basically, what Matthew and other writers are telling us when they quote from an Old Testament passage and say, “that it might be fulfilled” is that they are applying the truth that Solomon taught many centuries before: The thing tha...

the divinely inspired New Testament writers were moved by God to select an Old Testament passage that was parallel to the event that they were recording that was present in their day.

However, most prophecies of the incarnation of our Lord fall under the category that God planned for the event to occur in the future.

If God predestines every single event as the former group claims then God is a monster worse than Satan himself. If God created a man and ensured he irresistibly carried out a task that would guarantee his eternal lost state, then he is worse than the devil. Yet, this is exactly what is being taught by those who promote unscriptural predestinarian philosophies.

In this group God callously creates a world in which He knows the future in finite detail, including Judas’ future betrayal and subsequent damnation.

It is the same word used by Jesus in Matthew 7 in which He tells us that everyone makes a personal choice as to whether one receives life or destruction from Him: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

God did not desire the destruction of Judas no more than He desires any man's destruction: The Lord is not slow in keeping his word, as he seems to some, but he is waiting in mercy for you, not desiring the destruction of any, but that all may be turned from their evil ways. (2 Peter 3:9; Bible in Basic English)

This “son of perdition” is one who opposes God. It would certainly be counter-productive on God’s part to predestine people for the mere purpose of opposing Himself.

Satan certainly was not on a mandate from God to mislead Judas to betray the Lord. When Satan acts, he acts on his own will:

When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

Scripture through principle and example shows that Judas’ destiny was not “set in stone” but could have been completely different: And perhaps some will ask, “Was it not his destiny? Do not the words of Christ indicate that Judas was under the power of an irresistible hand which left him no choice, and compelled him to become a traitor? Was not the betrayal of Christ necessary for our salvation, and was not Judas, by the very predestination of God, compelled

to betray him?” No, a thousand times, No! If that dreadful thought could find its way into my mind, I should be compelled to regard the crime of Judas, not with horror, but with an awe more profound than that with which I regard the sufferings of Christ Himself. Christ endured the most dreadful sufferings to save the world; but if this theory were true, Judas was elected, predestined, compelled, to commit the most dreadful sin to save the world; and this would be a more awful form of sacrifice than even Christ's obedience unto death. But it was not so. I can never be thankful enough for the story of Jonah’s preaching in Nineveh. The prophet was commissioned to declare that in forty days Nineveh should be destroyed. It was a simple,

unconditional prophecy, just like “One of you will betray me;” the time was fixed, the judgment determined. But Nineveh repented, and the destruction did not come. We have not yet arrived at any true understanding of Scripture prophecy if we treat the moral warnings in the Bible, concerning the future, like the supposed prophecy of astrologers, and if we think that there was no power left to man to avert the threatened doom. A prophecy of approaching death was turned aside by prayer, apart from any moral change in the man who was told that his death was near. “Thus saith the Lord, Se...

were added to his life. The warnings of Christ should have led Judas to repentance; and then, like the prophecy against Nineveh, they would have answered their very highest purpose. They were intended, not to show that he was bound hand and foot and delivered up to commit his dreadful sin, but to startle his conscience, and to make him dread the crime to which his evil heart was drifting.3 (Emphasis are mine) Judas’ destiny was not settled at the time that the Lord...

things could have been totally different for Judas if he had applied the teachings of the Lord whose pre...

Dr. Edward Robinson in his “Greek Lexicon of New Testament” says: ….that something took place, not in order that a prophecy might be fulfilled, but so that it was fulfilled; not in order to make the event correspond to the prophecy, but so that the event would and did correspond to that prophecy. The phrase is often used to express historical or typical parallelisms.4

George Trevor writes: Was Judas, then, predestined to this wickedness? No more than every sinner is predestined to perdition, who chooses its paths in the face of remonstrance. The psalm was there like a beacon to warn him from the rock: it was the sinner's own traitorous heart that turned it to a prophecy. Had he no other warnings? What was that life of purity and prayerfulness, that wonder-working poverty, that unceasing protest against mammon, which Judas hourly saw and heard, in deed and word, from his Master? What was that example of the rich young ruler

whom Jesus loved, and lost because of his great possessions? What was that earnest warning of the camel and the needle’s eye? Oh! a thousand times had the caution been rung in his ears, as it is in our own, with Judas now to toll a louder knell, “Take heed and beware of covetousness. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” But Judas, like thousands of ourselves, heard in vain.5

Far be it from our loving kind Savior to intentionally set Judas up for a fall. On the contrary, Jesus did everything possible to help Judas readjust his character. Jesus tried to save Judas. Therefore, when the Lord quoted Psalm 41:7-9 in relation to Judas He was not saying that this was a fixed destiny. Again, George Trevor writes: No!

Never think this is destiny. This is wilfulness: this is sin. Fate and predestination are points, not for argument, but for appeal to our moral nature. We are so encompassed by mystery, that one may soon lose himself in metaphysics. I have no proof of my own existence, but that I feel it, and the best proof of my moral freedom is that I feel it. The choice is my own: I am conscious of it. I could have helped it if I would; and even when I see I have done wrong, I dare not deny that I willed it at the time. What! Judas not help being a thief! He who was entrusted with the slender purse of the brotherhood, not help stealing from the poor and from God! Then

must we shut up our courts of justice, and cry shame upon religion, honour, and honesty. Let us return to common sense. Judas saw t...

As Trevor points out, we make our own choices because we have been given a will that has not been subjected to irresistible compulsion.

Albert Barnes explains: This passage is applied (John xiii. 18) to Judas, with the statement, in regard to him, that what he had done was done “that the Scripture might be fulfilled:” …. It is not necessary to suppose that the Saviour meant to say that the passage in the psalm had original and exclusive reference to Judas; the phrase employed by the Saviour, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled,” may have been used by him in that large sense in which these words are often used as denoting, either (a) that the language found in the Scriptures, and applicable originally to another case, would properly express the idea, or describe the fact; or (b) that the case referred to was one of a class; or that, as it was accomplished in the case of David, so in a similar sense it was accomplished in the case of the Saviour. In other words, Judas was regarded as belonging to the same class as the individual to whom the psalm refers. He was one to whom the language of the psalm was applicable; and the Saviour endured the same kind of suffering which the person did who is referred to in the psalm. Thus the language of the Scriptures, applicable to all such cases, received a complete fulfilment in Him.7

And the words, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled,” seem to signify no more than that the words which David wrote concerning his enemies were fulfilled in Judas. It does not mean that his fall and destruction were decreed by God, and minutely foretold in Scripture, and that his fall and destruction were brought about agreeable to that decree for the purpose of fulfilling Scripture; but simply that his voluntary and wilful fall from the grace of God, and the holy ministry, fulfilled what the Psalmist spoke respecting his own adversaries.8

Henn concludes, “….and since it is so common for the Jewish writers to use

the term fulfilled, where nothing more is meant than accommodation of words to an occasion, it is most reasonable so to interpret it here.”9

in the house of the LORD. (Zech. 11:12-13)

Neither of these have any reference to Judas. Therefore, many scholars agree that this is another example of parallelism, or the past repeating itself:

This was completely Satan’s doing. It was he who demanded to sift Peter. How amazing that God is blamed when divine revelation makes it clear that Satan was working in Peter’s life. Note that

Satan tempted Peter to deny Jesus three times. One of the reasons that Jesus could accurately predict the number times that Peter would deny Him is because He knew Satan’s pattern of temptation. This is the same three-fold pattern of temptation Satan presented to Eve in Genesis chapter 3 where he first questions what God has actually said to Adam, casting doubt upon God’s Word. Satan then outright contradicts what God said, and concludes this pattern by assigning selfish motives to God’s character. All of this led Eve, and later Adam, to deny their God. Moreover, Satan utilized this same three-fold pattern of temptation on Jesus as well (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-14).

This may also be the reason why Jesus Himself prayed three times against the temptation of refusing to give His life for the salvation of humanity (Matthew 26:44).

The Lord here showed his prescience. He, who knew what was in man, saw into Peter’s inmost soul, and knew how he would act in the trial that awaited him. Impressive is this lesson. Since we know so little of our own hearts, it shows how humbly and meekly we should hear the words of the Most High, when they tell us of our weakness and warn us of our danger.2

Therefore, it was unnecessary for Jesus to see into the future. Just knowing the heart of Peter and knowing Satan’s pattern of working in temptation was enough for Jesus to give a perfectly accurate prediction of Peter’s denial.

We believe, along with another writer, that Peter could have taken steps to avoid the sin of having denied Jesus: He sinned notwithstanding the most solemn forewarning. In words that could admit of no misinterpretation, he had been told of the sorrow and misery to which he was hastening. How thoroughly should this warning have placed him on his guard! How incessantly should he have been on the alert to defeat the uttered prediction! But in spite of the forewarning

although the fowler's snare was so clearly exposed—faithless Peter denied his Lord!6

(Matthew 26:40-41)

Peter, on the other hand, did not take the Lord’s warning seriously. Instead, he continued to protest and claim, “Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee” (Matt. 26:35b)

Peter desired to stay true to Christ and he could have. But Peter’s problem was his desire to do it in his own strength rather than looking to God to give him supernatural strength to resist Satan’s onslaughts.

He gave it to him as a warning that had every potential of being avoided.

We should never allow a prophetic warning from God to make us fatalists. These warnings are given in most cases to encourage us to partner with God through prayer to change the future for the better.

God was actually hoping for, which was that they would reverence the Christ.

E. M. Bounds, wrote, “He prayed, however, not in revolt against God's will, but in submission to that will, and yet to change God’s plan and to alter God’s purposes he prayed.”1 Another passage showing us that things could have been different in relation Christ’s redemptive work is found in 1 Corinthians: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor. 2:7-8)

If Satan and his prince-rulers of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph. 2:2; 6:10-12) had known that their motivation of these religious leaders to kill Jesus (John 8:37-44) would culminate in their own destruction (Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8) then they would not have taken this course of action. This again is clear proof that our Lord’s death could have been altered.

But this sentence structure in the King James Version contradicts another Scripture on this same subject: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Hebrews 9:25-28) If Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world then He had to have suffered

Everyone living on earth would worship the beast. These are all the people since the beginning of the world whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life.

The Lamb is the one who was killed. (Easy to Read Version)

Furthermore, every person who is ever born has their name written in the Lamb’s book of life. Sadly, the failure to repent and turn to the Lamb results in their name being blotted out (Exodus 32:32-33; Psalm 69:28; Revelation 3:5; 20:12-15; 21:27; 22:19). This truth destroys any idea that God is outside of time seeing who has already received Christ or who has been elected to salvation by a divine decree.