How does John 6:70 reflect on the concept of divine foreknowledge and free will? Text of the Passage John 6:70 – “Jesus answered them, ‘Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.’” Immediate Literary Context John 6 opens with the feeding of the five thousand, proceeds through the Bread of Life discourse, and climaxes with many disciples leaving (vv. 60–66). Verses 67–71 form a dramatic coda: Jesus asks the Twelve whether they, too, will depart; Peter confesses faith; Jesus responds with v. 70, explicitly foreknowing the betrayal foretold in v. 71. The narrative establishes (1) divine election (“chosen you”) and (2) forthcoming apostasy (“one of you is a devil”) in a single utterance. Original-Language Insight “Have I not chosen you” employs the aorist middle indicative ἐξελεξάμην (eklexámen), signifying a decisive past act of selection. “Devil” translates διάβολος (diábolos), used adjectivally of Judas as an active opponent of God. The juxtaposition in one sentence forces the reader to grapple with election that includes the foreknown betrayer. Divine Foreknowledge Defined Foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις, prógnōsis; cf. 1 Peter 1:2; Acts 2:23) is God’s timeless, certain knowledge of all events before they occur. Scripture portrays this knowledge as exhaustive (Isaiah 46:9–10; Psalm 139:4, 16) and inseparable from His decrees (Ephesians 1:11). Foreknowledge Throughout John • John 1:48–50 – Jesus sees Nathanael before Philip calls him. • John 2:24–25 – He “knew all men.” • John 13:1–11 – Foreknowledge of betrayal leads to foot-washing. John’s Gospel repeatedly pairs omniscience with voluntary human responses, supplying a thematic framework for 6:70. Free Will in the Fourth Gospel John presents genuine human agency: belief (3:16), refusal (5:40), moral culpability (9:41). Jesus’ invitations (“Come to Me,” 6:35) assume capacity to respond, though enslaved wills require divine drawing (6:44, 65). Synthesis in John 6:70 1. Christ’s choice of the Twelve incorporates Judas, proving divine foreknowledge does not hinder human decision. 2. Judas remains morally accountable; the term “devil” is ethical, not deterministic. 3. The verse demonstrates concurrence: God’s sovereign plan (Acts 2:23) and Judas’s voluntary betrayal (Matthew 26:24) operate simultaneously. Comparative Texts • Genesis 50:20 – Joseph’s brothers acted freely; God meant it for good. • Acts 4:27–28 – Human rulers plotted; God predestined. • Romans 9 with 11:22–23 – Divine hardening yet potential grafting back. Historical-Theological Voices • Augustine, Tractates on John 27: “Not because He chose Judas to damnation, but foreknowing what he would of himself be.” • Calvin, Institutes 3.24.8: “God foreknew, not created, the sin; the reprobate follow their own evil desires.” • Aquinas, ST I.q14.a13: Knowledge in God is cause of things yet preserves contingency of second causes. Philosophical Clarification Modern analytic theists distinguish: – Logical priority: God’s knowledge is based on His decree yet not coercive. – Modal status: Future free acts are contingent; God’s omniscience spans all modalities. Thus foreknowledge is “strong” (certain) but not “causal” in the mechanistic sense. Pastoral Implications Believers gain assurance that God’s redemptive plan is unhindered by human treachery. Unbelievers are warned that proximity to Christ (Judas-like familiarity) without genuine faith yields judgment. Archaeological Corroboration First-century basalt foundations at Tabgha (traditional site of the feeding, excavations 1970s) support the historic setting of John 6. Pilgrim Egeria (AD 380) records local remembrance, showing continuity of location-based memory, countering mythic-theory objections. Answer to Common Objections Objection 1: “If Jesus chose Judas, Judas had no choice.” Reply: Choice denotes appointment to office, not coercion of volition (cf. 6:64, where Jesus “knew from the beginning who would not believe”). Objection 2: “Foreknowledge equals predetermination.” Reply: Knowledge is not agency; observing a parade from a rooftop does not cause the floats. Conclusion John 6:70 displays Christ’s exhaustive foreknowledge while preserving Judas’s freedom and culpability. The verse functions as a microcosm of the biblical doctrine: sovereign election and genuine human responsibility coexist without contradiction, undergirding the reliability of God’s redemptive plan and offering both comfort and warning to every reader. |
    |