 This video is part of a study series titled Biblical Salvation Settled Wants Some For All. Please see the playlist link in the video description. Hello everybody, and welcome to Biblical Salvation Settled Wants Some For All. Sorry, it's been a while since I've added more videos to this series. I've had a lot on with making the documentary recently and a bunch of personal stuff going on as well. So in this study, we'll be looking at John chapter 13. So this is when Jesus will now be speaking to his closest disciples. So the dialogue will change quite significantly from what we have seen in previous chapters. Now, John 13 is interesting because arguably it's not as strong doctrinally and it doesn't necessarily prove doctrine per se, but the washing of the disciples feet does provide a good illustration to explain the spiritual doctrines in an earthly manner, but particularly on the issue of ongoing forgiveness versus absolute and overall forgiveness. And it also gives some insight into Judas' betrayal as well. So we will explore Judas' salvation, quote, unquote, or lack thereof, as I'm going to argue in this video. Now, I have already looked at Judas before in my study on John 6, but I was fairly brief. So this will be quite a lengthy study on Judas. So it's not to try and re prove what I've already proved to those of you who have already watched the series, but you'll hear a lot of counter arguments to say that, well, Judas was safe, but then he lost his salvation. So in this study, you're going to see why those counter arguments don't add up and how he can actually refute those. OK. And in order to explore that, we will have to digress quite a bit from John 13 itself for a while. And then we'll look at Peter's denial as well. And that will lead us up to what Jesus is going to be telling the disciples in John chapter 14 and 15 and 16 and so on. All right. So introducing the chapter, then the first five verses is Jesus preparing to wash the disciples' feet. So that's introducing the context of this chapter. So in verse six, Jesus comes to Simon, Peter, it's his turn to be washed. And Peter says on Tim, Lord, do you wash my feet? So Jesus answered him, what I do now you don't know, but you shall know hereafter. So Peter then says to Jesus, you shall never wash my feet. And then Jesus says something quite important here. He says, if I wash you not, you have no part with me. So Simon then, well, Peter says on Tim, Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. Jesus said on Tim, he that is washed needs not saved to wash his feet, but is clean every weight, and you are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him, therefore said he, you are not all clean. So after he had washed their feet and taken his garments and was set down again, he said onto them, do you know what I have done to you? So this is a very familiar story, many of us are very familiar with it. And it's, you know, the savior of mankind, essentially the King of Kings, humbling himself to wash his servants feet. So it's a very beautiful story. Now, as I mentioned in the previous slide, this doesn't necessarily prove any doctrine in itself. I wouldn't go to it as a proof text, but it's very interesting what we can learn from this chapter and what it does explain to us. So Jesus is washing his disciples feet. It's something that they must receive. OK, and if they don't receive this, they have no part with him, Jesus says. So Peter then assumes that he needs to take this further than Jesus himself would take it. So Jesus would do a small cleaning, but obviously Peter feels the need for an entire cleansing. But this is not necessary because Jesus says he is already clean, save for one small part, you know, a specific part of him, his feet. But because Jesus knows that Judas will betray him, they're not all clean. Now, it doesn't say specifically whether Jesus actually washed Judas' feet here, but whether Judas was washed at the feet or not, Judas was not clean. So the cleansing ritual here would have no purpose or effect on him, essentially. So following what Jesus has done, he then leads into a conversation he will have with his disciples throughout the next chapter. So it becomes one long, continuous conversation that lasts for several chapters. So there are a few things that we can unpack from this story. And again, as I said, it doesn't prove doctrines, but it does give us a good picture and kind of like a carnal illustration, if you like, of the spiritual things that are going on that we know from the rest of the Bible. So there's questions to be asked here. What is the significance of the cleansing in regards to salvation? And is this anything to do with sanctification, you might ask? Why did Jesus insist that a particular part of the body was cleaned, albeit not all of it? He insisted that Peter did not need his entire body cleaning, but he must have his feet cleaned. So what's the significance of this? What is the significance of Jesus telling the disciples to wash one another's feet? Is that literal or is that symbolic? So there are some of the questions that we'll be looking at in this study. So as I have done with other sayings of Jesus, I will argue that to some extent this passage has a double meaning. So there is a more direct application of washing one another's feet, and that is to serve each other just as Christ is serving his disciples. But there's also a salvation kind of application as to what that cleansing represents. OK, so that's that's what we'll have a look. So let's have a look then at what cleansing represents in the Bible. What does it represent for unsaved people in getting saved? What does it represent for people who are already saved? Particularly if they stumble into sinners. This will be very important for understanding this concept. And so that's that's what we're going to look at here. Now, as I was preparing the material for this study, the first thing that came to mind, a very detailed passage that came to mind first was Psalm 51 and David wrote this Psalm when Nathan, the prophet, delivered onto him his punishments for killing Uriah and committed adultery with Bathsheba. That's in 2 Samuel 12, where those punishments are read out. So before we look at the Psalm itself, let's briefly familiarize ourselves with the sins and the punishments as well laid out for David in 2 Samuel 12. So in 2 Samuel 11, that's David's sin against Uriah and Bathsheba. And then in the chapter 12, verses one to six, that's when Nathan gives the parable of the Yulam. And then between 7 to 12, we actually have the list of punishments that soul. Well, Nate, sorry, soul. Nathan gives to David. OK, so. So Nathan says to David, you are the man who I spoke of in the parable. This is what the Lord God of Israel says, I anointed you King over Israel and I delivered you out of the hand of soul. I give you the master's house, the master's wife, his bosom, et cetera, et cetera. So David's been given all of this. And so then Nathan asks in verse nine, why have you despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil in his sight? So this is the sins being listed here. And notice that as well as the sin itself, David is accused of despising the commandment of the Lord. So not only did he break the commandment, but he also despised that commandment as well, because essentially David does know better and he goes on to do this, despite knowing what the Bible clearly teaches. And there are Old Testament verses about kings should not take on to themselves many wives and, you know, not committing adultery and so on and so forth. So the first punishment then laid out in verse 10 is that the sword would never depart from David's house. And we saw this with the various infighting that went on between his sons and competition for the throne and brother against brother and so on. And so that was evil being raised up against his own house. And then it says, I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in the sight of the son. So David's neighbors shall lie with his wives. And I guess, although it's a little bit off an exact example, his Absalom went into his concubines in 2 Samuel 16. And then you did it secretly, but these punishments will be done before all Israel. So the punishments on David would be very public as proven by the fact that they are all the documented in the Bible. You know, we know about these, if we didn't know about them, then it wouldn't be before Israel. As you carry on reading 2 Samuel 12, you get to verse 13. And then David acknowledges the accusations and that he has sinned against the Lord. And it's very important that the Lord, it says the Lord also has put away your sin and you shall not die. And that's quite important in understanding how God deals with David's sin. Now, despite the fact that God put away his sin and preserved him, at least from a physical death, David must still suffer the punishments listed before verse 13 and will still face these punishments as well. And that's despite the fact that God has put away his sin and that David will not die for that sin. That's quite important when you understand how God deals with the sins of believers. And so David must suffer the punishment of his child will also die. And that's exactly what happens later in this chapter. His newborn child dies, okay? So to further the cleansing in Psalm 51 and John 13, we need to be careful to remember exactly what's happened in 2 Samuel 12. So first we see that David was a believer. He was not, you know, he was one of God's own. He was not some unsaved outsider, okay? Nevertheless, David sinned, we saw that, and he was confronted with his sin by the prophet, Nathan. Nathan made it very clear to David that he would not die and God would quote, unquote, put away the sin, okay? Now, despite the sin being put away, David would experience a multitude of severe punishments because of the sins he committed. These punishments seemingly, as far as we can tell, only affect David in his earthly lifetime. Nathan never mentioned if or how his eternal life would be affected, and that's quite important because a lot of, I've been confronted by people who believe that he can lose salvation. Oh, well, you didn't read 2 Samuel 12. You didn't look at what happened to David. And then I just bounced it back on them. No, you didn't look at what happened to David because Nathan never mentioned, hey, David, you're gonna lose your salvation if you don't repent of this right away, because that's what other conditional security advocates would say, no, God put away his sin, but despite having his sin put away, he still has to face these punishments. So now that we understand this, let's explore Psalm 51 and how David talks about the matter of his cleansing. So we will deviate a little bit from John 13 for a while to understand what's going on here. So in Psalm 51, I'm not gonna read it all out, but you can see it there on the screen. We see in this Psalm that David is praying for God's mercy because of his sins with Bathsheba. He writes about this concept of cleansing in quite a lot of detail and relates it to the washing of sins away, okay, washing those sins away. So in verse one and in verse nine, he uses this phrase blot out, is wipe out language rather like wiping something off a chalkboard or scrubbing a kitchen counter. It's like blot it out, rub it out. The dictionary would even give a more dramatic definition of blot out to annihilate and destroy something that perhaps seems very extreme, but that's also what the dictionary definition would say as well. Then in verse two, we see washing language as if the sin is a bit like dirt that needs to be removed, like you and I would in the shower or the bath, just as Jesus is doing in a literal sense in John 13, he's literally washing the dirt off their feet. And then David repeats this language in verse seven using phrases like purge me with the hyssop, and I shall be clean, wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. So it's treating sin almost like dirt on top of the body that needs to be washed off. Now alongside asking to be washed and cleaned, David acknowledges his sin and appeals to God to restore his joy and his gladness and to make him no wisdom. So this gives us an indication why David must go through this cleansing, recognizing that his sin was only pleasurable temporarily, did not have any elastic joy. The consequences of his sin were very dire and cancel out any joy that the sin provided really, that the price wasn't worth the pleasure. And as well as the consequences listed as his punishments in 2 Samuel 12, it also cost him his spiritual joy, and that's why he asks, restore unto me the joy of your salvation. It's not restore unto me my salvation itself, it's the joy of. So here we see an outcome of David's cleansing here in verse 13, that as a result of his cleansing, as a result of everything that David is praying for here, then he will teach transgressors and sinners the ways of God and convert them, quote, unquote. Now, it's not entirely clear from the psalm whether he is referring to the likewise cleansing of other believers who have fallen into sin, or whether he is referring to those who are not God's people, so like the Gentiles, whom he might convert. But typically in the Bible, sinners often refers to those outside rather than those inside. So you could look at it like this, David has transgressed, but he has not filed as what the Bible would refer to as transgressor, okay? And it did say in Samuel, second Samuel 12, that God would put away his sin, okay? David, if David lives upright and has a clean heart, he would be far more effective at teaching unsafe sinners about the Lord to convert them onto salvation, okay? So then let's tie this in with the washing that David talked about, with the washing that Jesus is doing and how this ties in with the forgiveness of sins, if you like. So Jesus said he is clean every wits. It's not necessary for Jesus to wash Peter's hands or his head, you know, most of his body is clean already. There's no need to clean this part of the body. And yet still, Jesus needed to clean his feet, a very particular there, okay? So, you know, if Jesus doesn't wash Peter's feet, Peter has no part with Jesus, okay? So what does this mean? What is it about the feet that need washing as opposed to the rest of the body which remains clean? What is Jesus trying to teach us here? How does this relate to the washing of sins as David wrote about? Well, think about how feet differ from other parts of the body. What their main function is and their spiritual application generally, all right? So feet are, you know, primarily used for walking. You don't need me to tell you that. Especially in the time and place of Jesus when this really was the primary means of travel. Most people did not own horses, motorized vehicles did not exist. So even basic amenities like water and firewood for heating required travel that we don't require today. So it's important that, you know, we understand a bit of historical context behind that. So in a literal sense, it's very humbling what Jesus is doing here. Of all parts to wash, he is washing their feet. Now, consider how much Jesus and his disciples traveled. You read the Gospels and they're constantly going over here and over there and, you know, in this counting, that counting in this city. Usually they traveled on foot. So just, you know, imagine how dirty and dry and crusty and sweaty their feet would have been. And to an ancient society that mostly walked everywhere, the feet were undoubtedly probably the most disgusting area of the body. You know, if it's not the, you know, the hinders parts, if you like. But the feet and their purpose of walking have a spiritual application as well. So for example, like the Bible says, walk after the spirit, not after the flesh. Walk in the light as he is in the light. Walk after his commandments, walk in truth. Walk worthy of God or walk to please God. Walk in wisdom, walk in love. And there are, you know, lots of other Bible verses about walking in something or walking after something, these are just but a few. But the key point is that walking is something that you do going about from place to place. So all these verses about walking in this and walking after that can be interpreted as, as you go about from place to place in life, do this, follow after that, et cetera. So, you know, you may have heard this described as your Christian walk or your walk with the Lord and a lot of Christians use that kind of terminology. But just as walking a lot would cause the feet to get dirty and, you know, a lot of dead skin and all that kind of stuff, you need to keep your feet clean to prevent disease and infections. Consider then that, you know, maybe your spiritual walk also needs this same type of cleansing. And so you're probably gonna be wondering what exactly do I mean by this? Well, unlike those who have a workspace salvation or the alleged existence of these hypergrace believers wherever they are, apparently these guys say that they exist, but there you go. We ought to really take a balanced view of the Bible. Okay, now on the one hand, the Bible has many, many verses about obeying God, not following the simple examples of the world and walking after the right way and not after the wrong way. But on the other hand, we must also not forget that the Bible has many, many verses about God's ever-needed mercy and our ongoing need for forgiveness, even as believers, which would be completely redundant if, according to these guys, we just stop sinning completely. Okay. So, you know, you can see some verses on the left where it's, you know, more about us walking in obedience and not following after this, that and the other. On the other side, we've got verses about God's forgiveness. And then in the middle, we've got verses that are kind of in the middle. They're saying, you know, for sake is way so that God can pardon you. Turn from your wicked ways so that God will forgive your sin. So, you know, there's a spectrum of things here. Yes, there is our obedience. There is our turning from sin and our walking in obedience. But there is also God's forgiveness when we don't do that as well. Okay. So, as Paul described in Romans and Galatians, there are two forces that work within us and they are contrary to one another. So, the flesh itself wants to carry on sinning. Being saved doesn't magically make the flesh not want sin anymore. Whereas the spirit, now that God's spirit is within us, well, that spirit presumably wants to do what is right. Okay. You know, they wrestle against each other as you can see some of the verses on the screen there from Galatians and Romans. And Romans 7 goes into much more detail about that. So, all of that to say this, even as you fulfill your Christian walk and your mind wants to serve the Lord of Christ, the sin nature that dwells in your flesh is contrary and wants to draw you back into sin, even though you have already believed the gospel and have had your sins remitted because when you look at where the Bible says that, that ties in with the point of salvation. So, the washing that is going on in John 13 here gives us a visual illustration of what I would call, well, the forgiveness or the remission of sins versus the give us Lord our daily bread and forgive us our sins sort of things as well. So, regarding your whole body, you are clean every way Jesus has made you clean and this is the all encompassing forgiveness of sins. But then regarding your feet as you go about your daily Christian walk, Jesus needs to wash your feet particular and this is the ongoing forgiveness of sins. We've got all encompassing forgiveness of sins which is also the remission of sins and the ongoing forgiveness of sins as well. Okay. So, first let's try to understand the distinction between remission and forgiveness if there is any difference. Now, the term forgiveness and remission are interchangeable because that the translated from the same Greek or underlying Greek word of Jesus but in Luke 4.18, this word is translated as deliverance or liberty. So, in English, there are technicalities in the difference between these words but as they are translated from the same, they are biblically interchangeable at least as far as sin is concerned. So often, modern translations do tend not to use the word remission, they'll just render forgiveness instead in all cases other than Luke 4.18 where these other words are used. All right. So, the King James Bible, basically it translates the underlying Greek into the following words in English. So, sometimes it's translated as forgiveness and this is the default translation. So, if there's no compelling reason to use an alternative word, as with its verb forgive, this rendering may be more appropriate where forgiveness refers to specific sins rather than all sins generally such as, for example, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Jesus says has not forgiveness. A one-off translation is either deliverance or liberty and that's in Luke 4.18 as it would otherwise sound strange to say forgiveness to the captives or forgiveness to them that are brews because people could be held captive or bruised in ways other than their sins. For example, sickness, infirmity, demonic possession or some form of oppression. So, the surrounding language is too generalized to refer to sinners specifically. And furthermore, it would read very strange in English at least if it listed forgiveness as two items in the same list. You know, as if there's somehow different kinds of forgiveness for captives versus those that are brews. So, in Greek, perhaps this sounds more sensible to use the same underlying word but in English it doesn't. So, forgiveness is not really appropriate for Luke 4.18. So, it uses deliverance or liberty in that context. And then the final word that the Greek is translated to is remission and this is what the King James uses. So, when I had a look at the concordance, at first glance, it appears as if the King James was inconsistent as translating the word remission instead of forgiveness because at first glance it seems almost as if the reasons are seemingly random or not outwardly obvious. In other words, you look up that Greek word all across the King James and sometimes it says forgiveness, sometimes it says remission, not always clear why it uses one word as opposed to the other if there is even a specific reason. Now, during translation, different committees worked on various parts of the Bible. So, it's possible that some translators could have favored one word over the other did not enforce a consistent word in English. So, we could just assume that the two words that mean the exact same thing. But remission seems to be preferred in verses where either there is an absolute finality to the remission or the forgiveness of sins. In other words, it's done, it's finished or the remission of the sin and forgiveness of sins is the target of or the root cause of a particular action or verb. And I'll show you what I mean, but if the forgiveness or the remission is specified as an item in a list alongside other items or if it does not have a target or root associated with it, then it is rendered forgiveness, the rendering forgiveness is preferred. So, these tend to be the two examples where the King James seems to use the word remission rather than forgiveness. So, we'll have a look at these. So, in these verses, remission or forgiveness is either the purpose of or the cause of an associated action or concept. And so, instead of the word forgiveness, the word remission is favored. So, for example, Matthew 26, 28, for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins. So, the remission is the purpose of him shedding his blood. Luke 1.77, to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins. So, this remission is the trigger of giving knowledge of salvation. Luke 3.3, and he came into all the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Because of that word for, the remission of sins is the purpose of the baptism of repentance. And then Acts 2.38, Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. So, the remission of sins is the purpose for repenting and being baptized. In other words, you repent, you get baptized, the purpose of that is for the remission of sins. Okay. So, in these verses then on the screen now, the remission or the forgiveness is final. It's ended, that's the end of it. And so, again, it favors the word remission in the King James rather than the word forgiveness. So, Hebrews 9.22, and almost all things are by the law purged with blood and without shedding of blood is no remission. So, by the purging of the blood, that ends all things. That's final, which if you read Hebrews 9 in its context, you will see that that's pretty final. And that context carries forward into Hebrews 10 as well. So, in Hebrews 10.18, now where the remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. And so, again, this finalizing forgiveness, no more blood offerings from the Old Testament for sins are required. Jesus finishes that requirement. And so, again, it's not, it doesn't say forgiveness of these, it says remission because the fact that it's final, it's done, it's settled. Okay. Now, in these verses, on the other hand, remission or forgiveness is part of a list or it's very specific to a particular type of sin or it does not have a target action associated with it. And so, the word forgiveness is favored. And so, in Mark 3.29, when he says, but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost has never forgiveness, but is in danger. It doesn't, of eternal damnation. It doesn't say remission because the forgiveness is a very specific sin. You know, it's not related to the blood offering. It's not like an all-encompassing final type of forgiveness. It's forgiveness over something that's very specific. Okay. And it's not part of a list of any other things either. Now, in Acts 5.31, it says, him that has God exalted with his right hand to be the prince and savior to give repentance to Israel, sorry, and forgiveness of sins. So, although other verses such as Acts 2.38 say repentance is for the remission of sins or the forgiveness of sins, here the word and puts forgiveness as a list item alongside repentance rather than the direct purpose of it. So it doesn't say repentance to Israel for the forgiveness of sins. It says repentance and forgiveness. So because it's like a list item there, it uses forgiveness instead of remission. Ephesians 1.7, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, even according to the riches of his grace and Colossians 1.14 reads similar. So again, although the blood offering finalizes the forgiveness of, as in Hebrews 9 and 10, here they're listed as if they're separate things. Paul is actually listing items. And it doesn't say redemption through his blood for the forgiveness of sins, but rather just redemption of his blood and the forgiveness of sins. And so because they're list items, the word forgiveness instead of the word remission is used. And then finally, let's look at the verbs instead of the nouns. So in John 20, 23, the King James will say, whosoever sins you remit, they are remitted. And whosoever sins you retain, they are retained. And this is, as far as I'm aware, this is the only verse that uses the verb of remission at least in the King James Bible. And the reason it uses the verb for remission instead of the verb for forgiveness is that in Acts, the disciples will go on to preach repentance for the unbaptism for the remission of sins. And so because that's what the disciples are going to go on to preach in the book of Acts, you know, you open the book of Acts and it says repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. And so for that reason, it uses the verb there for remit rather than the verb for forgive. Whereas in Matthew 6, 11 to 12, this is Jesus giving the model prayer. And it says, give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And so praying daily for forgiveness means that we're asking for this forgiveness for specific sins. And it's not final. It's not like a final remission of sins for all the past sins. And that's it. That's the end of it. That there's no finality because this is like a daily prayer and this is teaching you how to pray as a believer. Okay. So this kind of forgiveness is ongoing. It's not final. And so instead of remission, it uses the word forgive. Mark 11, 25 to 26. And Jesus says, and when you stand praying forgive, if you have any matter against any other that your father, which is in heaven, may forgive your trespassers. But if you do not forgive, neither will your father, which is in heaven forgive your trespassers. And so again, forgiveness is specific because this first could apply at any time that you have a grievance with anybody really. So it's saying the sins won't be the same all of the time. So you need to settle your grievances with your brother and then you can settle your grievances with the father. And so these will be fairly specific at the point when this first applies. And so again, it uses the word forgive rather than remission because it's not a final remission of sins. Okay. And in fact, here's a good example verse to solidify the kind of point that I'm talking about. In Luke 23-34, Jesus, while he's being crucified says, Father forgive them for they know not what they do and they parted his reigning castle. So here Jesus was praying over the people who were crucifying him and rejoiced over his execution. Now I highly doubt anybody of any persuasion, you know, whatever they believe about the gospel that they would argue that by Jesus praying this prayer, all of the people standing here all got saved and gained eternal life especially if they continued to reject Jesus after this time. But it is possible that because Jesus prayed this prayer over him, perhaps because of their ignorance, they will not have this matter brought against them at the final judgment. Or in other words, they're still going to hell but perhaps God will go easy on them over this specific matter. And obviously that is somewhat conjectural. We do know that in Acts two and three, the apostles would preach regarding his resurrection and hold those Jews accountable for his death. And some of them were pricked in their conscience and did believe on to salvation, obtaining the overall forgiveness of sins. So the group that Jesus was praying over, I don't think anybody would argue that they got the whole forgiveness of sins package just because Jesus prayed forgive them. This is forgiveness over a very, very specific matter. Okay. And so what does all of this teach us then? Well, we can see that remission and forgiveness are interchangeable words. They essentially mean the same thing but distinguishing those words helps us to understand the clear difference between the blood atonement for the final, ultimate forgiveness of all sins as is necessary for salvation and repentance turning to God is the manifestation of this process. Those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they pass from death on to life. Their sins are forgiven in order for that to happen. And as per John 13 that the whole body is clean everywhere. Okay. Their baptism confirmed publicly confirms their belief, their confession before men. And this is that the final remission of sins. So it's remission. And so there's also then as well as that there's the ongoing need for specific sins of believers as per John 13. You need that I wash your feet. This is not the final remission of sins that as this one is, but it's just simply Father forgives our sins. Okay. Which is a prayer that he gave to his disciples and the multitudes that followed him. It wasn't for unsaved publicans and harlots to get saved. So perhaps that you are now wondering maybe why do I make a distinction between the all-encompassing forgiveness and remission of sins versus the ongoing forgiveness of sin. What if I sin after the final remission that happened when I repented onto salvation? And the reason that I bring this up is that people with a workspace salvation, particularly if they believe in conditional security that we can lose salvation. So you've got your arm in the anise, your cow in the anise, your adventist, your ovens, et cetera, et cetera. They believe that Jesus has blood only covers you for past sins. And that's assuming that you have repented of all of those sins. But then that doesn't automatically cover you for future sins. So somehow you have to fit in one of these three categories, either you're never sin again so that you're not of any danger of having any unforgiven sin, or you have to re-repent all over again and re-obtain the blood sacrifice, essentially. So it's to go through that whole repentance process all over again and get saved again, quote, unquote. Or otherwise you must lose your salvation because the forgiveness of sins then ceases to be effective. So they use a couple of verses to support this. For example, 2 Peter 1.9 says purged from his old sins or Romans 3.25 says remission of sins that are passed. But they ultimately fail to grasp this concept of the general forgiveness of sins that are being passed from death on to life and the ongoing need for forgiveness of sins of the believer. Okay, now, as a side note, understanding this is important because you will often hear two counterarguments. Now, people who believe in eternal security and faith alone who I would, you know, agree with, they often say things like something catchy, like Jesus forgives all of your sins past, present, and future. They often say a catchy phrase like that. Now, people who reject that, so, you know, believe in conditional security or faith-bless works, they would come up with a retort like, well, there is no verse in the Bible that says that. Okay, well, yeah, technically it is true that the Bible never says that phrase verbatim. I can't open the Bible and show a verse where it says, Jesus forgives all sins past, present, and future. I can't find it. What that is, though, that phrase, it's a gross oversimplification of what the Bible actually says. So to cut a really long story short, regarding our eternal forgiveness, that which we need so we can enter the kingdom despite being born in sin, this requires Jesus' blood offering and this is a final offering. So once we believe we receive this remission, it's final, it's finished, it's done. Jesus already died, he's already done the blood offering. There's no ongoing need for Old Testament sacrifices, okay. Regarding our earthly forgiveness, though, the Bible does explain that God chastises his children and scourges his sons. Hebrews 12 talks about that. Well, that's not final and it is subjective as well because it's correlated with your disobedience. So the person who disobeys more is gonna get chastised more, okay. Well, this requires ongoing forgiveness because as your feet get dirty spiritually speaking. And in fact, part of your ongoing training as a believer is in fact Hebrews 12 says that the chastisement is so that you can partake of his holiness, okay. So that is that ongoing forgiveness need there. So to explain this in greater detail would probably digress from John 13 a bit too much because this misunderstanding comes from interpretations of Hebrews 10, 26, which says, for if we sin willfully, we have received the knowledge of the truth but there remains no more sacrifice for sin so that the people who are works-based or believe you can lose salvation, they'll take that statement, there remains no more sacrifice for sin and they'll say, well, see his sacrifice is no longer effective for you, it no longer applies to you but that's not what that says and if you read it in context, it's that what we've just been talking about Jesus' blood offering is final, he doesn't need to die on the cross again, we don't need another blood sacrifice. Now, if you want a bit more information about that, there was a video when I was denouncing the false gospel of this guy at PUC on apologetics and the second video in that refutation is about Hebrews 10 and the chastisement of believers so that answers it in a bit more detail if you want that. Salvation is obtained through the final blood offering so Jesus died once and for all, he does not need to be sacrificed again, you don't need another blood sacrifice to cover your sins, that the remission is final, okay? But Hebrews 10 goes on to explain that there is a fiery indignation which shall devour adversaries so Hebrews 12 also describes the chastisement of believers and so God will punish his children in various ways if they sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth but not with eternal damnation, okay? Now, we have already seen an example of this fiery indignation, we've already seen the chastisement along with already completed remission of sins. David's sin was put away before God that he shall not die. Now, contextually, he meant an earthly death but if we were to apply it to salvation, it's also true. Yet despite this, despite having his sin put away, that doesn't change the fact that he will still have to suffer for the punishments laid out by Nathan which Nathan never mentioned eternal hellfire. He mentioned punishments that would affect David in an earthly manner. So a catchy phrase that you could use to explain this is that saved people pay for sins in this life whereas unsaved people pay for sins in the next life. You know, that's not a Bible quote, it's just a sort of catchy phrase that just sort of helps explain this. Now, to reiterate, as I said towards the beginning, John 13 is not a proof text of this doctrine. Remission and forgiveness is not even mentioned in this chapter as the context of anything but if we join the dots with washing and how this is used elsewhere in the Bible in relation to sin, it does provide a good illustration of how it works. So Hebrews 10 is a much more solid passage to justify that doctrine with clear proof text. Now, people may ask, is this what's referred to as sanctification? Is this the process of sanctification? Because a lot of people would interpret what I've been talking about as sanctification. So they will say something like, for example, well, we'll pass from death onto life, that's initial justification. We're continually undergoing our Christian walk of learning to obey him and walking in holiness, that sanctification, so that we may attain our final salvation. Well, I do agree that learning to walk in obedience and holiness is sanctification in a manner of speaking. But I wouldn't call, I wouldn't strictly call sanctification what we've just been talking about in regards to ongoing forgiveness and chastisement because, well, this study is not intended to teach about sanctification. So I'm only gonna briefly summarize it here but Jesus said, I sanctify myself, okay, in John 1790. Well, Jesus does not need to undergo a life change to turn from his sins and walk in obedience. Jesus already walked in obedience. He didn't need to be sanctified in that regard. So to define sanctification as what we've just been talking about is problematic because Jesus didn't sin. Now, Paul said to the Corinthian church, comparing them with sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God, you are washed, you are justified and also you are sanctified as if to say they're already sanctified. And that's in 1 Corinthians 6 and that's that they're already sanctified by being justified. It's final, it's not ongoing. Whereas Paul said to the Thessalonian church, abstain from fornication, which is for your sanctification so as to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor. And this is ongoing abstinence and therefore we assume then that the sanctification is ongoing in that context. So if you look up the dictionary definition of sanctification, the simple definition would be to set apart something from something else for a sacred or religious purpose. That's quite a simple definition really and that can apply in different ways. So when Jesus said, I sanctify myself, well, by going to death on the cross for Athens and being raised from the dead, this sets him apart from every other man. So that sanctifies Jesus from everybody else, sets him apart, okay? The Corinthians are set apart already by virtue of being justified and washed of their sins because God has set his children apart from the unsaved who are not his children. He's set apart a people for himself by saving them, okay? Now for us as believers, we are to abstain from fornication to set ourselves apart. Well, that's obviously ongoing abstain from fornication. So that sets us apart from sinners outside because it demonstrates that we behave differently than they behave, okay? So our behavior sanctifies us or sets us apart from everybody else that does those things. So this is not so much about the forgiveness of ongoing sins, but actually the turning from it so as to not really ask for forgiveness in the first place because if you abstain from fornication, well, you don't really need to pray for the forgive me my fornication, do you? If you don't do it, you don't need to ask for forgiveness of that. And so this is why I decouple sanctification from ongoing forgiveness of sins because forgiveness is sins that we've already done and sanctification is really, if anything, avoiding doing those sins. And so you see how by taking that simple definition of sanctification, it can mean different things in different contexts, which is why I wouldn't really apply that to what I've been talking about in regards to the remission of sin, okay? So we digressed quite a lot from John 13. So let's bring it back to John 13 then. So after all that that we've looked at with the washing of the feet, we then carry on from verse 13. But what we're still building on this idea of forgiveness and you'll see that in a moment. So it says in verse 13, you call me master and lord, you say well for so I am. If I then your lord and master have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I've given you an example that you should do as I have done to you. Truly, truly I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent is greater than he that sent him. If you know these things, happy are you if you do them. I speak not of you all, for I know whom I have chosen, but that the scripture may be fulfilled. He that eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come that when it is come to pass, you may believe that I am he. Truly, truly I say unto you, he that receives whomsoever I send receives me and he that receives me receives him that sent me. Okay. So again, we have this continuing this theme then that we've been exploring about tying in washing feet with forgiveness. We can see here the further illustration is this is no longer man to God or God to man. This is now man to man. Okay. So this is just as Jesus washed our feet, he forgives us our sins. Well now we wash one another's feet. Okay. So we can once again take the literal application of washing one another's feet and this can be to serve one another, sometimes in unpleasant ways. I mean, washing feet isn't something I particularly fancy if I'm perfectly honest, but the fact that Jesus is willing to do something and do that to a very dirty area of the body really is really modeling how weak should be as believers prepared to get our hands dirty to help one another just as Christ did for his disciples. But we can also take the allegorical application representing the forgiveness of sins because the Bible commands believers to forgive one another's sins or wash one another's feet and to counsel one another away from those sins for the very reason that God forgave our sins. Jesus washed his disciples feet, so do we wash one another's feet. And so just to show you a few verses like Colossians 3.13 or Ephesians 4.32 is also similar, forgiving one another as Christ forgave you. Galatians 6, if a man be overtaken in a fault, you know, we restore that man and bear one another's burdens. Matthew 18, should you not have had compassion on your fellow servant as I had pity on you? So just as Jesus washed our feet, just as Jesus has forgiven us, so we should wash each other's feet and forgive each other, okay. Now this verse in verse 19, now I tell you before it came, when it has come to pass, you may believe that I am a this verse really sets up some context for the next couple of chapters when we will get to John 14 and 15 in this series. So it won't be explored in this video, but Jesus is explaining to his disciples the things that must come to pass because they don't fully understand this yet, but when it will come to pass, it will solidify their beliefs and give them the confidence that they need to preach boldly and act. So that's something that we will explore more in John 14, 15, 16, when Jesus is gonna really have to solidify their confidence and send them comfort because there's a lot of things really in the next couple of chapters that the disciples aren't really grasping and they're failing to fully realize exactly what Jesus was going doing. And they have a bit of a wavering faith really. And then in verse 20, we see that by receiving Jesus, if we were to take that meaning as getting saved, we also receive those that Jesus sent so that the messengers that gave us the gospel, but we also receive the brethren as well in a way as our brothers and sisters in Christ too. We are adopted into the family of God. And so we then see why we need to wash one another's feet because that is a part of receiving each other and receiving Christ, okay. Now this first verse 18, this introduces us to what's coming up in further verses regarding Judas. And so I'm gonna explore this theme next and we're gonna be looking at the issue of Judas' salvation, okay. So let's just read ahead for a few verses just to get a picture of what Jesus is saying about Judas, but we are gonna digress from John 13 for quite a while while we deal with this issue, okay. So Jesus was troubled in the spirit. So he said, truly truly, I say unto you that one of you shall betray me. So then the disciples looked upon one other, doubting who he spoke of. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom, one of his disciples who Jesus loved, Simon Peter beckoned to him that he should ask who it should be of whom he speak. Then lying on Jesus' breast said on to him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, he it is to whom I shall give us up, which when I have dipped it and when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas' scariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him, then said Jesus unto him, that you do do quickly. So no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this onto him. For some of them thought because Judas had the bag that Jesus had said unto him by those things which we have kneeed off against the feast or that he should give something to the poor. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this onto him. So earlier in the series, when I looked at John 6, earlier in the series, I briefly addressed the issue of whether Judas was saved or lost his salvation or was never saved. Now I asserted obviously that he was never saved, but I was fairly brief about that issue. So in light of what we've been reading in John 13, I'm going to re-explore this issue again and I'm going to do it in much greater detail here because although it does, it will have to digress from John 13 for quite a while, that the passage here does give us some insight as to why Jesus recruited Judas as a disciple. If we are to say that he was never saved, okay? So if I assert that Judas was never saved, some questions need to be answered such as why would Jesus include an unsaved person as one of his disciples, okay? And there's various other questions that people ask and what we need to be able to do as well is refute some of the counter arguments that conditional security advocates will use. So there are three possible positions on this issue. So position one is that Judas was not, was, sorry, was saved and did not lose his salvation, but he did suffer loss. Now I don't know anybody who asserts this position. It's a very unusual position told and really when we look at the other two, I think that will really be easily debunked by default really as we explore this issue. So the second possibility is that Judas was saved and then he lost his salvation. So this is the prominent position held by conditional security advocates, such as for example, Jesse Morel who I'm gonna be debunking in this part of the video. He's done several videos where he asserts that Judas lost his salvation. So we'll explore some of the talking points on this and refute them. And then the third position, which is the position that I hold, is that Judas was never saved so he didn't lose his salvation because he didn't have it. This is the position that I hold, as does anybody who believes in free grace, eternal security, but also Calvinists with the perseverance of the saints would believe this as well, okay. So just skimming over these verses here in John 13. What does this all tell us about Judas' membership as a disciple? Well, first of all in verse 18, it says, but the scripture may be fulfilled. So we see that it was necessary in the Old Testament for certain scriptures relating to Jesus must be fulfilled in the New Testament. So if they're not fulfilled, Jesus couldn't refute prophecies pointing to him and so he couldn't be the Christ by definition, okay. So that gives us one indication it's to fulfill scripture. Verse 21 says one of you shall betray me. So as demonstrated in John 6 earlier in the series, Jesus already foreknew that Judas would betray him, okay. Jesus already knows this about Judas before it happens. That's another important point, okay. Now we then see between verses 22 to 25 that the disciples doubting of whom he spoke, they're asking who it is. So the disciples couldn't discern among one another who would betray Jesus. They had absolutely no idea it was false, who was false. It could have been any one of the 12 as far as they were concerned. Maybe Peter thought, oh maybe it's John or maybe it's Andrew. It could have been any of them as far as they knew, okay. Now as we get to 26 to 29, Jesus gives them an indication by dipping the sop that he gave it to Judas Iscariot and then he said, he sent Judas Iscariot away. And yet despite doing this, even as Jesus provides clear hints here that Judas is the one that would betray him, the disciples still don't discern this, okay. They still don't put the two and two together even though it seems like Jesus is making it quite obvious in verse 26 without saying in front of Judas, okay. So what are the arguments then supporting that Judas lost his salvation? The idea that he was saved and then he lost his salvation. Now conditional security advocates may use a variety of logical steps to assert this, to reach this assertion. So for example, argument one, well Judas was a disciple. So there are certain logical steps used to assert that he once had salvation, which is supposedly proven by the authority that Jesus had given him. The second argument is that there are some verses that people would quote directly as proof texts if you like about Judas being lost or fallen. And these are supposedly the proof texts that he lost his salvation. And so we're gonna explore both of these arguments and we're gonna see their shortcomings, okay. So dealing with the first argument that as Judas was a disciple, there are certain logical steps that we therefore conclude that he was saved. So Jesse Morel has discussed the issue of Judas several times on his channel. He claims that because Judas was used by Jesus to preach the gospel and cast out devils that he must have been saved. And one of the arguments he uses is that well the devil cannot cast out his own devils. So as you read Mark three, in the same chapter he gives them the authority to cast out devils to the 12. But then later in that same chapter we have the Pharisees and Jews confronting Jesus because they accuse him of casting out the devils by the power of Satan. But how can Satan cast out Satan? And so obviously when you put those two together and they're really in the same chapter there you can see why he would jump to that conclusion, okay. He's also asserted as well that Jesus prepared Judas a throne in heaven. So he wouldn't have prepared a throne for Judas if he wasn't saved at the time when Jesus said this. So Judas had a throne in heaven but lost it. And this comes from Matthew 19 where he said onto his disciples, you shall sit upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. And so that's the verse he will go to. We'll see Judas had a throne, okay. The second argument is that some people will quote versus directly about Judas being lost or fallen. And so they're kind of irrefutable proof texts that Judas lost his salvation. So this guy here, he's called Keith but his channel's called Why City Preachers. So in this particular video, you can't lose salvation. He was refuting eternal security as preached from John 6, which I have used to advocate for eternal security earlier in the series which says that Jesus should lose nothing regarding those that he gives eternal life to. So Keith's reputation of that is that Judas was saved at one point but then was lost according to John 17 where it says, I have kept them in your name. Those that you gave me, I have kept and none of them is lost but the son of perdition referring to Judas that the scripture might be fulfilled as we saw in John 13. So we'll need to explore that as well. I think as well, Jesse Morel has made the same argument in his video, Yes, You Can Lose Salvation, Epic Bible Study. About 57 minutes and 15 seconds in, he says, Jesus said to the father that that same verse that Keith was quoting. And so what he then says it in the dialogue is that in other words, Jesus lost Judas. That's what that verse is saying. This is Jesse Morel's quote in bold there. That's what he's saying from that verse. Now, another verse that I have also heard used to suggest that Judas lost his salvation is in Acts 125 where it says Judas by transgression fell that he might go to his own place. That's another one of the proof texts. So we'll need to look at that as well. Okay. So first let's explore the issue about Judas preaching the gospel and casting out devils. And we'll quickly discover why this logical leap doesn't really prove that Judas was saved. And so just as a reminder, here's the logical steps that they will make. While Judas preached the gospel and cast out devils and then they'll say, well, Jesus would never ordain a false prophet to preach the gospel and Satan cannot cast out Satan. Therefore Judas must have been saved initially but because we know he was false, he must have lost his salvation. Okay. So first we must consider, did Judas really preach a false gospel? And if he did, should Jesus have ordained him to preach the gospel? Okay. Well, problem number one is that, well, I need to know what verse or passage are you citing that says that Judas preached a false gospel? Now I know that Judas was false but we don't really know what kind of gospel he would have preached. So, you know, we know that Judas was false to Jesus between and this is abundantly clear in the scripture. We don't know what kind of gospel message Judas would have actually preached. Did he preach something other than the kingdom of God is near? Well, there's no evidence of this that I know of post one in the comments if I've missed something. Did he preach something other than believe on the Lord Jesus Christ that thou shalt be saved? Well, again, we don't really know because we don't really have it documented what the disciples were going around preaching when Jesus sent them out. So it is actually possible that Judas preached the correct, I won't say the correct gospel, the correct gospel message even though he himself was false. Now this is perfectly plausible because of what we read in John 13 during this study that even after Jesus sent hints to the other disciples to indicate that Judas was false they still didn't realize that he was false and they were going around preaching with him. So they didn't pick up on anything wrong with what he was saying. They didn't realize that Jesus was calling him false then and there in John 13. So, did Judas really preach false gospel? And if he did, should Jesus have ordained him to preach the gospel then? Well, really, I think saying that Jesus should not have sent Judas to preach if he was a false prophet is really to assume the conclusion because you have to arbitrarily decide that you think Jesus should not have sent Judas to preach. We have already seen from John 13 and we saw it earlier in John 6 as well that Jesus chose Judas already knowing that he is false to the intent that scripture would be fulfilled. So even if Judas did preach a false gospel and you ask, well, why did Jesus choose him to preach the gospel then? But the thing is this all has to happen that scripture might be fulfilled. Okay, so we saw this in John 13. I know who I have chosen but that the scripture might be fulfilled. And then in John 6 earlier in the series, we read that, well, Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not on who should betray him. And then later in that same chapter, have not I chosen you 12? And one of you is a devil. He's fake of Judas is scary. So he chose Judas knowing that he is a devil. Okay, so these scriptures indicate Jesus picked Judas already recognizing that he was false to the intent that scripture might be fulfilled and the disciples could not even discern that he was false. Okay, so if he's preaching a false gospel, why didn't the disciples discern that? Okay, so why would Jesus pick a false disciple and yet Judas would be so indiscernible to the disciples? Well, we've already seen that it's a scripture would be fulfilled. But also you can apply a wider allegorical lesson to John 13 that even in Christendom, we won't always recognize false prophets easily at least not straight away. Okay, so expanding on this, we know obviously that Jesus warned us about false prophets in the Sermon on the Mount. They are wolves in Woodley, but on the outside they wear sheep's clothing. Now we typically take that to mean that they appear meek and gentle rather than dangerous and hostile, which is true. But by wearing sheep's clothing, they can also appear as one of Jesus's flock if we take the sort of sheep analogy from John chapter 10 that Jesus has his sheep. So you could also interpret that as they look like Jesus's sheep, not just that they're meek and gentle. We can only know them by their fruits, not the tree itself. So unless you have expertise in a barriculture or a horticulture agriculture, that the chances are that like me, you probably don't really know how to recognize a lot of different fruit trees if they aren't growing fruit. Okay, however, if you see fruit grow on them, then you will know what kind of trees. So if I see a tree that doesn't have apples on it, I don't know if it's an apple tree. I only know if it's an apple tree. If I looked at it and it has apples on it, that's the only way I know. Okay, now maybe some of you are experts in these fields and you know, but the average man doesn't. So with this in mind then, Judas's betrayal of Jesus wasn't manifest yet. Remember that fruit, if we can know false prophets by their fruit, fruit doesn't just spring up out of nowhere. It takes time to grow fruit. So you won't recognize it straight away. So the fruit of Judas wasn't manifest yet. And so the disciples couldn't really discern that he was false because they had not yet seen the corrupt fruit of Judas. So they couldn't really yet know that the fruit tree itself was corrupt because it didn't have any fruit yet. Okay, so you might ask them, well, even if Judas has corrupt fruit, his betrayal of Jesus was not yet known, surely when they were out preaching with Judas, they should have recognized him then unless he was producing good fruits or preaching the correct gospel, casting out devils. And so that's something that someone will ask to suggest that Judas was saved because otherwise the disciples would pick up on that. Well, you might see this as undermining the responses I gave to the first problem, but what you have to consider the following points. What Judas actually preached and whether he could cast out devils should not automatically mean, should not automatically be asserted to mean that he was producing good fruit. It is possible that his preaching never actually got anybody saved, even if he was preaching the right message superficially. And his casting of the devils could have been temporary or fake. We don't really know, you know, it's possible that he just faked casting out devils. If false prophets were that easy to identify, Jesus wouldn't really need to warn us about them in Matthew seven. He had to warn us because they're hard to identify. And as I mentioned in the previous slide, fruit takes a while to grow. It doesn't grow instantaneously. And so it's possible that Judas still preached correctly and cast out devils, but the true fruit of his works or the outcome or the product of what he did was not yet truly manifest. So for example, maybe he only ever produced false converts. And even after casting out devils, maybe the recipients didn't get eternally saved from those encounters. Whereas many of other Jesus' recipients or the other disciples' recipients did. They just did it with Judas. So Judas could have preached the right message and cast out devils. It just didn't really have any lasting effect to the saving of the soul, okay? Problem number three is that if the disciples, remember that the disciples predominantly went as a group or two by two. So in Mark, I cited a few slides ago that this didn't happen yet. He gave them the power and ordained them to preach. But later in Mark six, that's when Jesus sends out the 12 in pairs. So even if Judas was false, let's just say for the sake of argument, he could not wield the power of the other disciples. He was still paired with a disciple that was not false. So as long as Judas didn't preach anything too false or too off base, that the paired disciple wouldn't discern that he is false. And the paired disciple may also provide important biblical truth while the pair of them are preaching to the recipient. And let me give you a couple of examples of passable language to show that Judas could have employed something similar where he's not outright preaching a false gospel, but it's difficult to recognize that he is preaching a false gospel, okay? So on my channel, I'm not gonna get into it in this video, but I've argued extensively on my channel that the repent of your sins to be saved mantra is the broad road leading to destruction that deceives millions of Christians and that faith alone is the narrow road leading to life. On the contrary, a repent of your sins preacher. So Jesse Morell is one of them. YCity Preachers is one of them. They would say that you have to repent of your sins to be saved. They would on the other hand say that my faith alone gospel is, well, I don't say my, I mean, you know, everybody that believes that, they say that's the broad road that deceives millions of Christians and that their repent of your sins gospel is the narrow road. So I claim that I'm on the narrow road and they're on the broad road. They claim that I'm on the broad road and they're on the narrow road. Now, part of this confusion is because of the language that a lot of evangelical Christians use, which on the surface sounds like faith alone language, which is difficult to discern at first. But if you were to really think about it carefully and break it down, is it really faith alone language or rather is it works language that masquerades as faith alone? A lot of Christians use what I would call spectrum language. We have faith alone and we have faith and works, but they use language that's sort of bridging those two on this spectrum where it's not really clear exactly where someone's trying to place themselves. So here I'm gonna give you some examples of this spectrum language. So example number one, case in point, repent of your sins to be saved. Well, this phraseology will mean different things to different people, it's spectrum language. So if someone who does believe in faith alone and they do really believe that, but they were to say that, you ask them, well, what exactly do you mean by repent of your sins to be saved? They will say, well, you recognize that you were a sinner in need of a savior and you trust in Jesus to save you. Well, that's what I believe, but that's what they think that that's what that means, repent of your sins. Now, if you ask Keith or Jesse or someone on the faith plus work side, they will say, they will define that as repent of your sins to be saved. You must not sin anymore. You must be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect. That's how they define repent of your sins. So you see, it's the same phrase, but two people are interpreting it completely differently. Now, people that are sort of on the spectrum, like Calvinists and Reformed, they'll say, well, it doesn't mean perfection, but there must be some evidence of change. That's the kind of thing that like Billy Graham would say, for example. So that's kind of, are they over there or are they over there? It's not exactly clear, but you see it's the same phrase being used by all three different ends of the spectrum. Okay. So even though this is not biblical phraseology, like the Bible doesn't say, repent of your sins to be saved. And I know there's phrases that people will take that sounds similar, but it never says that verbatim phrase. You can see how both a true prophet and a false prophet could use this same terminology, according to either paradigm. So if the disciples were all preaching faith alone, but then Judas, let's say Judas was preaching repent of your sins to be saved, well, the disciples could have interpreted it as that that's what they thought that that's what Judas meant, when maybe Judas actually meant something over here. So it's not, it wouldn't be obvious that the other person preaches a different gospel. Okay. Now, here's another example. When people say, surrender your life to Christ to be saved or surrender to his Lordship to be saved. Again, this phrase, this phraseology will mean different things to different people. It's spectrum language. So if we ask the faith alone guy, what do you mean surrender everything to Jesus? What does that mean? Well, I said, well, you cannot save yourself. So no, you call upon the Lord Jesus and he will save you freely. You just have to give everything to him. Let him be your savior. That's how he would interpret that statement. Whereas if we ask faith and works guy over here, surrender everything to Jesus, you must give up your sin and everything else. And if you're clinging on to anything, you won't be saved that same phrase, but a completely different meaning because it's not clear what that phrase actually means. It's spectrum language. And then obviously these guys that are kind of in the middle there that the most evangelicals, they'll say, well, you submit to his Lordship so that he can begin to make changes in your life. Well, if he begins to make changes, it sounds almost like they're over here because I don't need to make those changes to be saved. God will begin it. But then if God has to make these changes, then we're still kind of over here then because we must see this. So again, you can see how this phrase can fit anywhere on this spectrum. So if the disciples are preaching one of these things and Judas is preaching a different thing, we don't really know because this phrase doesn't tell us, it doesn't tell us where on this spectrum you actually sit. Okay, so again, this is not biblical phraseology. The Bible never says surrender your life to Christ to be saved. It's just, it's parroted spectrum language that evangelical Christians use and it will mean different things to different people. So a false prophet and a true prophet could use this same phrase. They're not easily gonna be able to identify each other as preaching an opposing gospel. You see, Mr. Faith alone says surrender to Jesus to be saved. Faith plus works guy says surrender everything to Jesus to be saved. Well, they're not, if they just hear that from each other, they're gonna think, yeah, amen, we preach the same gospel. But when you really get down to the nitty gritty, they don't. Okay. And then another example is this have a personal relationship with Jesus to be saved. It's all about relationship, people say. Well, again, this phrase will mean different things to different people. One guy says, well, don't shut Jesus out. Turn to Jesus, call upon him alone, ask him in prayer and he will save you. He will take that statement, have a personal relationship as faith alone language. The works guy, well, he's gonna say, you must be on your knees every day, seeking him in prayer, otherwise you are not saved because you lack this relationship. And then, you know, people in the middle of, you know, whenever you feel like giving up, you just keep clinging and turning on to Jesus and stay focused on him. It's this idea that we have to keep focusing because we're constantly, you know, at risk of losing that focus and that's that relationship there, that working relationship. So again, you know, we see that this same type of language, the Bible never says this phrase. The Bible never says have a relationship with Jesus. It's just something that Christians from across the spectrum all say. So we don't know if they're preaching a false gospel or not because we don't know what they mean by these catchphrases. So bringing this back to Judas then, if Judas had used this same kind of language, this sort of spectrum language when he was preaching the gospel, it wouldn't be immediately obvious to the pair disciple that Judas was false. So even if Judas was always false, he could have just as well used similar kinds of language that ensured that he never truly preached the correct biblical gospel, but he wasn't entirely obviously preaching a false gospel either, okay? So in conclusion to the first point then, just because Judas was ordained to preach, that has no correlation with his salvation. It's perfectly plausible that Jesus sent him out to preach despite the fact that Judas was false. So, you know, the idea that Judas was sent to preach is not really a valid argument to assert that Judas was saved or that he was once a true prophet at some point in history. And so the next point then is, what about the casting of devils then? Because didn't Jesus make it clear that Satan cannot cast out or at least he would not cast out his own devils? Well, the problem number one with this is that we already saw in previous lists of problems that Jesus sent his disciples out two by two. So Judas was presumably paired with a good disciple when casting out devils. Now this is if we assume that Judas didn't have the power to do it himself if he was not saved. So it's perfectly plausible that Judas and that the good disciple would perform the exorcism at the same time for the same devil to come out, doing it as a pair, but it was the power of the good disciple that did the actual casting. And so the good disciple was completely unaware that Judas was not supplying any spiritual power to the exorcism because while they both cast out that devil and the devil comes out, the other disciple doesn't necessarily know that it's his power alone. Okay, that's if we assume that kind of a paradigm. And so the second problem then is that we often assume that Judas could only have this power if he was saved, but it's not entirely implausible that Judas was given the power by Jesus to cast out devils even if he was false anyway. Okay, because remember, Jesus needs a false disciple as we saw earlier so that scripture can be fulfilled. So if he didn't give Judas that power, while then the disciples might cotton on too early that Judas was false and that would prevent scripture being fulfilled. So there may have been some eternal necessity that Jesus had to give him this power even if he wasn't saved. Now there are some verses that suggest this power is exclusively for believers such as Mark 16, 17. The signs shall follow them that believe they shall cast out devils. Acts 19, also there was some Jewish exorcists and they couldn't cast out the evil spirits. But remember that both of these verses refer to after the cross, not before and Jesus did not directly give any authority to the Jewish exorcists in Acts chapter 19. And really, yeah, that like Mark 16 makes it look like it's for them who believe but don't just read that verse in amnesia to everything else that the Bible says because if we look at Matthew seven and the Sermon on the Mount, there are gonna be many people who say, Lord, have we not cast out devils? So they're bragging about casting out devils but they're filed under I never knew you depart from me, you that work in equities. Now this passage doesn't necessarily say whether they're casting out devils was legitimate power. You know, maybe they were fakers but either way it doesn't really matter because we can interpret Judas to be the same. Okay, whether Judas did it or whether he faked it. So conditional security doesn't really work here because Jesus said, I never knew you, not I used to know you but you lost your salvation and I don't know you anymore. It's I never knew you, okay. Now I'm only saying that it's plausible that Judas could cast out devils by the power of God despite being unsaved. I'm not saying that that's how I believe it happened but it certainly doesn't prove that he was saved. Okay, it's not really a guarantee that he was saved. And also as well, you know, just building on that same idea, Revelation 16, we have the unclean things, the mouth of the false prophet for they are the spirits of devils working miracles. Okay, so whether Judas could or could not cast out devils he could certainly, you know, spirits of devils can work miracles and they can at least make it look like miracles happening. So, you know, that may or may not include the casting out devils. Now, what about then Satan cannot cast out Satan? Well, you could consider the possibility really that Satan doesn't cast his demons out rather the demons leave at his command. So Satan could still give the illusion that demons are being cast out when they're actually in a way being requested out. In other words, because remember when Jesus is casting out devils, the devils won't leave when anybody else tells them to. Okay, the devils don't want to leave. Jesus has to command them to leave. Otherwise they won't leave. And Jesus is doing that contrary to the will of those devils. Whereas if Satan is their leader, so to speak, they're gonna obey him anyway. So Satan doesn't have to cast them out. Satan simply has to command or request them out. But it's not really the same thing. And I understand that that is purely conjectural on my part. And again, I'm saying it's plausible. I'm not saying that that's how it happened. So one could debate whether these miracles are actually genuine or a fake illusion. But either way, we can apply that to Judas. It's entirely possible that Judas could fake having the power of God, okay? But in conclusion then, neither of these two things really prove that Judas was eternally saved. That's not really a strong enough case, okay? So what about the next issue then? What about the throne in heaven? Because that was one of Jesse Murrell's other logical steps that the issue of Jesus losing Judas regarding his salvation as well. So Jesus offered 12 thrones in heaven for the 12 disciples, including Judas. But then Judas fell by transgression. So he had a throne, but he lost his throne. And therefore Judas lost his salvation by forfeiting the throne reserved for him in heaven. Because what they'll say is, well, why would Jesus give him a throne if he's not saved anyway? Well, let's take a look again at Matthew 19-28. But we'll also see John 17 as well as we look at this issue. So in Matthew 19, so in verse 25, it's his disciples. So we assume that Jesus is talking to his 12 disciples. And after chapter 19, when we get into chapter 20, he's gonna tell a parable, and then he will confirm that Jesus will take the 12 to Jerusalem. Now remember this, because this is gonna be important momentarily. But context would seem to assume that it's only the 12 disciples that Jesus is talking to here. So it doesn't include any other disciples, okay? Now in verse 27, Peter speaks on behalf of all the 12 disciples saying, behold, we have forsaken all, we have followed the, what shall we have therefore? So he's speaking for all the 12. But it's important to note that this does not automatically mean that Peter represents them all, just because he speaks on their behalf. And we'll see in a few slides why that is. I will expand on that. And then in verse 28, Jesus then confirms that the 12 thrones, it's not 11 thrones, it's 12 thrones. But his choice of wording is very important now. So this is the verse that Jesse Murrell has used to assert that Judas was one saver and then lost his salvation. But really this verse arguably refutes it. And I'll explain why that is. And so hold on to these points while we cross-reference it with other scriptures as well. So let's have a look at John 17 and cross-reference it. So in John 17, this is Jesus' final prayer in John before Judas betrays him and Judas has already left the other disciples. So Jesus is praying for his disciples specifically. He's not praying for all believers, okay? Because he's gonna do that later in verse 20. So at the moment he's only praying for his disciples. So this is the verse 11 and 12 where Jesus keeps the ones that the father has given him. And none of them is lost but the son of perdition, referring to Judas. And the purpose was that the scripture would be fulfilled. And then down in verse 15, when we look at Jesus' praise for his disciples, I pray that you, not that you should take them out of the world, but you should keep them from the evil. Well, that prayer for the disciples arguably, that prayer wasn't really answered in Judas because Judas wasn't really kept from evil. So his prayer there didn't even apply to Judas because, or if it did, God, you know, the father didn't answer that prayer. Okay? So did Judas really have a throne prepared and then lost it? Well, you know, did Jesus really lose Judas? Well, John 6 helps us to understand the full picture of what's going on in regard to Judas. So in John chapter 6, earlier in the chapter, not speaking about Judas specifically, but speaking about eternal life, Jesus said, all that the father gives me shall come to me and him that comes to me, I will in no wise cast out. So the father must give them to Jesus for eternal life to happen. Okay? This must happen. And once this happens in verse 39, this is the father's will that all which he has given me, so once the father has given them on to Jesus for eternal life, I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day. And then he that believes on him, you know, believes on him has eternal life and I will raise it up at the last day. So we clearly see Jesus talking about eternal life. He's not talking about discipleship. He's not talking about the obedient life of the believer. He's talking to a group of unsaved Jews. We saw that when we studied John chapter 6, going back to the basics to tell them what they have to do for eternal life. Okay? So it's important that we understand that in context. When Jesus said, I should lose nothing, we're talking about eternal life. And so this is really what needs to be answered when we look at Judas being lost because why city preachers? He was doing a video refuting this that no, actually Jesus can lose some because he lost Judas. So he was refuting John 6 with John 17. Okay? So we have some fundamental problems here that need to be resolved. In John 6, Jesus says, I should lose nothing regarding eternal life. Yet in John 17, Jesus did keep the disciples but Judas was lost. Well, this is easy to reconcile because John 6 and to a lesser extent, John 17, already answers this conundrum. Okay? The passages that they're trying to wrestle against each other, they already solve this problem for you. So later in John chapter 6, after Jesus has declared that he should lose nothing regarding those that he gives eternal life to, later in that chapter, some people did depart from him. Some of his disciples, not the 12 left him and Jesus reveals something very important about Judas. So between verses 64 to 66, many disciples leave Jesus and it's confirmed Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not and who should betray him. Jesus knew that from the beginning. Okay? And notice that it doesn't categorize them as those who believed but don't believe anymore. It's who they were that believe, not you believe, not you don't believe. Okay? That's how he's categorizing them there. Okay? And so those disciples walk no more with him and Jesus knows this from the beginning and also who should betray him? Jesus knows from the beginning. Okay? Now then, in verses 67 to 70, Jesus turns to the 12. Will you also go away? Will you leave like these disciples are leaving? Now, again, just as we saw in Matthew 19, Peter takes it upon himself to answer for the other 12 disciples. They don't all say this. Peter is saying this on their behalf. Lord, to who shall we go? You have the words of eternal life and we the 12, Peter speaking behalf of the 12 are sure that you are the Christ, the son of the living God. Now, despite the fact that Peter has spoken on behalf of all disciples, Jesus confirms that one of the 12 is a devil. Have not I chosen you 12? And one of you is a devil. Not you will be a devil, you is a devil. Okay? You are a devil. And then the author, John confirms that he spoke of Judas Iscariot. Okay? So, you know, when he says you are a devil, he doesn't mean like Peter when he said, you know, get behind me Satan to Peter. He doesn't mean that he's talking about Judas Iscariot because he knows from the beginning who should betray him. Okay? So the author confirms who we're talking about here. So there's a few things going on here. When we bring John six together with John 13, John 17 and Matthew 19, we see how the Bible all sings together like, you know, all singing on the same song sheet. Just because Peter spoke on behalf of all the disciples, we believe and are sure that does not mean that he represents all the 12 disciples because of the fact that Jesus pointed out in response to Peter that one of you is a devil. So just because Peter said, we are sure that you are the Christ, all of us, that doesn't mean that it applied to Judas. That doesn't mean that Peter can speak on behalf of Judas. So with that in mind, then, there is no reason to believe that Peter can collectively represent the other disciples in Matthew 19 either. So just because Peter says, we have forsaken all and followed you, that does not mean that it applies to Judas. That does not mean that Judas has forsaken all to follow you. Okay? Peter can't speak on behalf of Judas here. Now then, Peter has already stated, we have forsaken all, we have followed you on behalf of other disciples. But then notice what Jesus says. Jesus doesn't just say, you in the regeneration. He said, you which have followed me. Well, Peter already said, we have followed thee. So why does Jesus need to add those words? Because he could have just said in response, you in the regeneration of the Son. But he doesn't. He says, we have followed you. Jesus replies, you which have followed me. Okay? So then, Jesus' words here would be completely redundant unless there is somebody among them who has not followed Jesus. Okay? Now, bear in mind that he is only speaking to his 12 disciples. He's not speaking to the other disciples that departed in John 6. It's the 12 that he's talking to in this context. Okay? So then, just because Jesus says that they will sit on 12 thrones, that doesn't mean that Judas is automatically included because even if Judas is excluded from the throne, that doesn't change the fact that the remainder of the disciples who have followed Jesus will still sit upon 12 thrones. But the 12th throne will be filled by somebody else. Okay? Finally, if we look at what happens shortly after Matthew 19, you will see why it doesn't really make much sense to include Judas in receiving the 12 thrones, aside from the fact point that we've already mentioned. So in Matthew 20, on the same conversation in the same context, Jesus gives a parable of the labors in the vineyard. And then he says to them in verse 17, we're going to Jerusalem and we're taking Jesus goes to Jerusalem and takes the 12 with him. We go to Jerusalem that the son of man shall be betrayed. So why are they going to Jerusalem so that Jesus can be betrayed? Onto the chief priests and onto the scribes and they shall condemn him to death. So immediately after the conversation when Jesus has given those 12 thrones, speaking to the 12 disciples, they're immediately going to Jerusalem so that Judas can betray Jesus. So this conversation must have happened fairly recently prior to the conversation in John 13. So even when Jesus issued the thrones, this is leading up to the fact that he knows that he will be betrayed and he's going to Jerusalem so that Judas can betray him. Okay. Now, just a quick objection that somebody might throw. Why would Jesus bother to say 12 thrones in Matthew 19? If only 11 of the disciples would receive a place, why not say 11 thrones? Well, should he have not indicated to his disciples that one of them would not receive a throne? If what I say is true, okay? So well, remember that there are 12 tribes to be judged and there's a throne for each tribe. So somebody somewhere will have to sit in the 12th throne anyway. If it's not Judas, somebody's going to have to sit there. There are 12 thrones. Jesus already commented that one of the disciples was false previously in John 6 but didn't reveal who it was. Now, John himself, when he wrote the Gospel account, revealed who it was, but Jesus didn't reveal it there and then he just said, one of you is a devil. And it's not evident from John 6 that the disciples further questioned him about this, okay? Now, in Matthew 19, Jesus and the 12 were already headed to Jerusalem anyway so that Jesus could be betrayed. And it was during his final moments with the disciples that Jesus would be much clearer about there being a false disciple. This was not revealed earlier in Matthew 19. So if Jesus would have revealed it in Matthew 19 and said 11 thrones and there's 12 of them, they'd be like, hang on a minute, what's going on here? Jesus would have aroused suspicion or questioning too early, okay? Before, you know, John 13. And even in John 13, when Jesus hinted who was the false disciple, the other disciples still didn't grasp that it was Judas anyway, okay? So then, when we piece this all together, you quickly realize how absurd it is really to assert that Judas was included in the giving of the 12 thrones on the premise that he was saved eternally at the time. Because in John 13 and John 17, this is Jesus speaking to his disciples and praying very shortly before his betrayal. So this is one of the last things that Jesus did before Judas betrayed Jesus. He signals to the other disciples that Judas will betray him before he sends Judas away to carry out this purpose. And in his prayer in John 17, before Judas even betrays him, Jesus already points out that he's lost. Jesus knows that Judas is false before Judas does the false thing, okay? Now in Matthew 19 and 20, Jesus is taking the 12 disciples to Jerusalem so that Jesus can be betrayed, okay? While at the same time, he's giving the 12 thrones in this same conversation while he's already going to be betrayed by Judas. So this must have also happened not too long before John 13 and John 17 because they're going to Jerusalem to do this, okay? Now then, in John chapter six, this must have happened much earlier because Jesus had more than 12 disciples in that chapter and many of them left him with only the 12 remaining. And even back then, so even before all of this, Jesus already points out one of you is a devil knowing from the beginning who would betray him. So if Jesus already knows all the way back here at this point in time that Judas was false, okay? And Jesus then issues the 12 thrones, he's already taking them to Jerusalem so that Judas can betray him. It's utterly ridiculous to say that Judas was initially saved and given a throne when Jesus knows what Judas is about to do and already knew that long before this, okay? It's like, I already know you're false here and I'm taking you to Jerusalem here so that you can be false to me, but I'm still gonna give you a throne anyway for the five minutes between here and here that you actually saved. I mean, think about how ridiculous and absurd that is, okay? And the next point, people will say then, well, wait a minute, didn't Jesus say here, I should lose nothing, okay? But then in John 17, none of them is lost but the son of perdition. So did Jesus lose Judas or not? What's that all about? Well, we'll just look at that next, okay? Well, in John 17, where this comes from, we need to focus on verse 12 here. This is the crux of the matter, okay? But this statement is also important as well though, in a way, verse 15, that Jesus prays that they should be kept from the evil. Now, first of all, I want you to notice what Jesus did not say, okay? Jesus did not say, I have lost Judas. That's not what he said, okay? What Jesus actually said was, none of them is lost but Judas. I couldn't say Jesus lost Judas, it just said none of them is lost but Judas, okay? So there are actually two ways of reading this statement depending on how you look at it. So if you read it this way, then yeah, it looks like Judas, Jesus lost Judas. Those that you gave me I've kept, but then none of them is lost but the son of perdition, you know? Kinda lost the son of perdition there. But if you actually read it like this, it looks like Judas was already lost which is consistent with what we've seen in other passages. Those that you gave me I have kept and none of them is lost. So I've kept those that you gave me, I've not lost any of them, okay? But the son of perdition is lost. Now why is the son of perdition lost? Because I lost him? No, that's not what he says. It's so that scripture might be fulfilled. Judas was already lost so that scripture might be fulfilled, okay? Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, Jesus is praying specifically for his disciples. He won't pray for all believers until verse 20. So with this in mind then, we cannot even say from John 17 itself that Judas lost his, from his eternal life. Only that he was really lost as a disciple. Now when Jesus said I should lose nothing, he wasn't talking about his disciples. He was talking about eternal life in anybody that received it, okay? Now later in that same chapter, just as Judas betrayed him, well, many of his others, many other disciples walk no more with him, but concerning their eternal life, it says Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed on, who should betray him? So Jesus knows it from the beginning. So it's quite meaningless then to say that they were temporarily saved if Jesus already knows they won't be in the end anyway, okay? And thirdly, you need to ask yourself this question. What does Jesus' statement in John 17, 12 even mean? What is the purpose of Jesus saying those that you gave me I have kept? If Jesus has kept them and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, well, is he supposed to have kept his disciples from losing his eternal life? Is that even what that means? Is he supposed to have kept his disciples from losing their office or discipleship? Or is he supposed to have kept his disciples from something else entirely? What is he supposed to have kept them from, okay? Well, the answer is super simple because John is gonna tell us in the next chapter. All we have to do is go forward one chapter. John's gospel is going to tell us. So in John 18, in the first seven verses, Judas betrays Jesus and Jesus and his other disciples are surrounded, okay? Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he so Jesus is revealing his identity among the others. Therefore you seek me and he says, let these go their way so Jesus petitions them to let his other 11 disciples go free. Why, why, why? Well, it's verse nine that the saying might be fulfilled which he spoke of them which you gave me, I have lost none. That's the reason that's the very saying that he said in John 17. Now it's not an exact quote, it's paraphrasing but you go to John 17, those that you gave me, I have kept, none of them is lost. Well, of them which you gave me, I have lost none. So by asking his disciples to go free and not being captured as Jesus was being captured, he's fulfilling his saying that I have kept those that you gave me, okay? So the context then is that Jesus kept his disciples from being put to death like himself. It has absolutely nothing to do with preserving their eternal life because if they would have been crucified with Jesus well presumably would have had eternal life anyway is keeping them from the earthly death that he's about to face himself. Now, Jesus successfully fulfilled this commitment. None of the 11 disciples were lost in this context. None of them were arrested. They didn't suffer the same fate that Jesus suffered. Now Judas died by his own means. So Judas wouldn't have even suffered the same fate as the other disciples anyway. You know, Jesus didn't need to make this commitment over Judas because there was no prospect of Judas being arrested and put to death alongside Jesus. That prospect might have happened for the other 11 disciples which is why Jesus had to appeal for them to go free. So Jesus did not need to petition them to save Judas. Judas was not facing the same risk. Jesus fulfilled his commitment to not lose the other 11 to suffering the same punishment as himself. Judas suffered his own fate but Jesus didn't lose him because Judas didn't need Jesus' protection in the events of John 18 anyway. Yet Jesus still describes Judas as being lost. Why? Because he was always lost. Okay, Judas was never not lost. He was always lost. Okay. So concluding that point then, we can't say that Jesus lost Judas. We can only say that Judas was lost. And even supposing that Jesus did lose Judas according to John 17, we can only say that Jesus lost him as a disciple or lost it to an early death. Not from eternal salvation at least in the context of John 17 anyway. So comparing this with John 6, many other disciples were lost but it was confirmed that they never believed because Jesus already knew that they would walk no more with him. But regarding those that Jesus has given eternal life to, it's those people that Jesus says, I will lose nothing. Jesus is not obligated to fulfill that commitment to non-believing disciples that do not have eternal life. He has no obligation to fulfill that promise. And Jesus kept his disciples from suffering the same fate as himself. He succeeded in fulfilling this but Judas was not subject to that fate anyway. Okay. So to bring this issue to a close then, what about Judas falling as described in Acts? And this is Acts 125 where it says, Judas by transgression fell that he might go to his own place. And obviously to fall, you assume that he started somewhere to fall from that place. Well, this is quite simple. All we have to do is read what Judas fell from. This isn't complicated at all. Notice that the passage does not say Judas fell from salvation or eternal life or Judas fell from brotherhood or sainthood or Judas fell from election. Doesn't say anything like that. The passage does say he fell from this ministry and apostleship. Okay. And they cast the lots and it was given to Matthias. There are lots of saved believers who didn't have this ministry and apostleship. So this verse is not relevant to Judas' salvation whatsoever. All right. So if Acts one was saying that Judas fell from eternal life and lost salvation, well, he couldn't be replaced by Matthias in the next verse because being saved onto eternal life is not a competition. Okay. It's specific to every individual. It's not an office that can be replaced. So Matthias was chosen to replace the ministry and the apostleship of Judas. We would then presume, although you know, maybe don't know for sure, but we would presume that he was given the 12th throne in heaven, which doesn't undermine that Jesus intended for the other 11 disciples in Matthew 19, which you which have followed me shall sit upon 12th throne. So that's not undermined in any way whatsoever because there are 12 thrones. Okay. So let's finish our study of Judas with our findings. Jesus always knew that Judas was false from the very beginning. Jesus foresaw that Judas was false, would betray him long before he confirmed the reward of the 12th thrones. And even when he awarded the 12th thrones, he was already on his way to Jerusalem so that Judas could betray him. So it's ridiculous to say that I'm giving you the 12th thrones for the couple of days that you're gonna be saved until you're gonna betray me two days later. It's just absurd. Judas was chosen as a disciple even while being false from the beginning. Why would Jesus choose a false disciple to preach and cast out devils so that scripture could be fulfilled? It's what the Bible tells us. Jesus confirmed that one of his disciples would betray him to fulfill scripture in John 13. Jesus confirmed that Judas was lost to fulfill scripture in his prayer in John 17. And although he didn't cover Matthew 27.9 in this study and that's about the 30 pieces of silver, it confirms that Judas' betrayal fulfills Old Testament prophecy. Prophecy had long before Jesus came to this earth long before Judas was born either. And although Jesus didn't mention fulfilling prophecy in Matthew 20.18, it was fulfilling what he already told the disciples that would happen earlier in Matthew 16 where he told them that he must go to be betrayed. Okay. Jesus did not lose Judas and even if he did, it was not in the context of eternal life. Now Judas was lost as a disciple or he was lost from the promise of being kept to not being killed because obviously he did die in a field whereas the other disciples were preserved. So you could say he was lost in that aspect if you're gonna say that Jesus even lost him but he doesn't say that Jesus lost him just that he was lost. But regarding eternal life, he was always lost. Jesus already knew he was a betrayer. Okay. Judas did not fall from eternal life. He fell from office of ministry and apostleship because this office was handed over to somebody else. Eternal life cannot be handed over to somebody else. Okay. And so when you see all this in its full scope, it's really concerning when you hear these arguments such as Jesus lost Judas, like what Jesse Morel and Why City Preachers are saying because what they basically have to say then is that Jesus is a liar or a failure. And Jesus said regarding eternal life, if he gives somebody eternal life that the Father has given to him, I should lose nothing. Okay. You know, is Jesus gonna do what he should? Because they'll try and pick on the fact that it said should instead of will but then like the next verse gives a definitive anyway. And if Jesus should do something, is he not gonna do it? But then the Bible does not say that Jesus lost Judas only that Judas was lost and not in the context of eternal life. So what's their response? Jesus lost Judas. So either Jesus lied or he failed when he said I should lose nothing regarding eternal life. These men have to make Jesus a liar or a failure basically to prop up their doctrine instead of just repenting of being a wicked false prophet. And so, you know, these guys wanna tell you to repent of all of your sins to be saved. Well, they lie about what the Bible says about Judas. They've lied about this. And you know, they're calling Jesus either a liar or a failure for losing Judas when he said that I should lose nothing. And the Bible doesn't even say that he lost Judas. Okay. So, you know, these men are not saved by their own standards. Okay. They haven't repented of all of their sins. All liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire. So picking up where we left in John 13 then we can now move away from the issue of Judas and we are coming more towards the end of our study soon but before we do, we'll be turning our attention to the other disciples and also to Peter. Okay. So Judas now leaves in verses 30 to 32. Jesus will remain with his 11 faithful disciples. And it says he's now glorified because the key scripture pertaining to Jesus is being fulfilled in it and is about to be fulfilled. Okay. So in verse 33, he says to his disciples, little children, let yet a little while am I with you, you shall seek me and as I said onto the Jews where I go you cannot come. So now I say unto you. So it's quite unusual that Jesus says this to his disciples because this is something that he said, very similar to unbelieving Jews in John 821. And he said something similar to Jewish Greeks in John 12. So, you know, we will explore the implications of that briefly. And then he goes on to say a new commandment I give you that you love one another and as I have loved you that you also love one another by this all men shall know that you are my disciples if you love one another. So this is also quite unusual because loving one another doesn't really strike us as a new commandment per se because of the fact that back in Mark 12, Jesus said that the second greatest command was to love your neighbors yourself. So we'll explore this as well. But we do need to understand that this is pointing forwards to what the disciples will go to do after Jesus departs. So as I said, verse 33 has similarities to what Jesus said to unsaved Jews in John 8 and 12. However, arguably he is using the statements in different ways to each audience. So although the context has changed, Jesus is now talking to his disciples. He's using this similar phrasing, but arguably for a different purpose than what he said to the Jews who rejected him. So, you know, in John 8, he said, I go my way, you shall seek me, you shall dine your sins where I go, you cannot come. We looked at that earlier in the series. And then John 12.35, when Jesus said unto them, yet a little while is the light with you. That's quite similar to what he says here, yet a little while am I with you? Now, when he said, yet a little while am I with you? Or in John 12, he, you know, the light is with you. We can interpret this to be a window of closing opportunity. And in John 12, we looked at the idea of people losing their window to be saved, even if they're still alive. It doesn't necessarily go up to their death bed, which is what a lot of Christians think. So, you know, the opportunity was dwindling for the listeners to accept that light while they still had the light. Now, obviously that doesn't really apply to disciples, but there's still this idea that the time that the disciples get to spend with Jesus physically, that's diminishing now, that's coming towards an end. Okay, soon enough, he won't be with them in person anymore. And so, the disciples perhaps do not fully appreciate this. They don't fully realize what Jesus is about to go and do. But this will tie in with a future study into John 14 to 16, where Jesus will promise them the giving of the Holy Spirit as the comforter. But the Jews that rejected Jesus wouldn't have the same comfort though. Now, when he said, you shall seek me and where I go, you cannot come to the Jews in John 8. It was not entirely clear why he said this. But in this context, Jesus was pointing to his death, or at least that's how they understood it. But there was a double meaning here because Jesus went on to say, I am from above. And obviously the Pharisees and the Jews were down their sins. So after Jesus' death, he would have sent to heaven, but that audience cannot come there essentially. But again, he's using it in a slightly different context here because he's pointing to his death again, but in a much more literal sense because the disciples will forsake him. And it's important then to understand that as far as the disciples are concerned, nobody can follow Jesus to his death. He must go through this alone. And this is important because people with a workspace salvation often like to quote mine, the passage where Jesus has denied yourself as if to say, we must be willing to follow Jesus to the death if we are really saved. And if you're not prepared to go through that, you know, you're not saved or whatever. And this is where it comes from Matthew 16 where Jesus was telling his disciples that he must go to his death to be betrayed. And so if anyone will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. So, you know, Peter did not accept at that time that Jesus must go and do this. Now, besides the fact that nobody did follow Jesus to his death, and we will look at Peter shortly, Jesus is making it quite clear that nobody can follow him to his death. He must do it alone. So it's quite absurd then to make to use this statement in Matthew 16 to say that, you know, we need to surrender our life and take up the cross to be willing to put to death itself, you know, in order to be saved because as far as salvation is concerned, it's Jesus that does the dying and he does it alone. He laid his life down for us alone. We don't surrender our life to Christ to be saved, okay? Now this statement in here, Matthew 16 does need its own dedicated study, but it's just gonna have to wait till later in the series, unfortunately. So further building on this, Jesus not only must go to the cross alone, but he knows that his disciples wouldn't follow him to the death anyway, knowing that they would forsake him. So there is more going on to this story. Despite the fact that the disciples, and particularly Peter would commit to following Jesus, Jesus already knows that they won't follow through with this, but nevertheless, Jesus has other purposes for the disciples and in fact, he even tasks himself with keeping them or preserving them, preserving their earthly lives. As we saw earlier when we looked at Judas' salvation, so Jesus said in Matthew 16, if any man follow me to the death, you know, let him do these things, but Peter didn't want Jesus to go through with it at the time. And we know from John 13 and further hindsight, they wouldn't follow it through anyway. Jesus will later pray to the Father, confirming that he has kept them and lost none, which is later seen to mean that Jesus will protect his disciples from suffering his own fate. So Jesus has other purposes for the disciples that doesn't involve taking up the cross to be put to death alongside him, all right? So once we start to understand this, we'll start to see why Jesus talks about this new commandment about loving one another among the disciples and what he will go to say when we studied John 14 through to 16. So we'll part these verses for now, we could sort of revisit them briefly towards the end. But while we're still on this issue of the disciples not following Jesus to the bitter end, we'll explore Jesus' journey because this is very important going into John 14. So just as we've looked at the disciples for sake in Jesus, this warrants us to spend a bit more time exploring Peter's denial because we see into Peter's life much more than most of the disciples. So Simon Peter said on team Lord, where do you go in verse 36? And Jesus says, where I go, you cannot follow me now but you shall follow me afterwards, okay? Peter said, Lord, why can I not follow thee now? I will lay down my life for your sake. Jesus answered him, will you lay down your life for my sake? Truly, truly, I say unto you, the cock shall not crow till you have denied me three times. And if you read the Matthew account, the other disciples seem to agree with Peter there, but like Peter they were equally committed but didn't follow through with it. So Peter, where Peter says, Lord, where do you go? Peter perhaps does not fully grasp what Jesus must go and do even though it has been explained to him several times before. And this will be an important factor in conversations in John 14, 15 and 16. As Jesus already said, Peter cannot follow Jesus to the death and he will not anyway, which we'll see in the next verses. And so Peter may not fully understand that Jesus is going to his death but offers that he would lay down his life for Jesus but Jesus knows Peter will fail. So as Jesus points out in verse 33, Peter will shall follow him afterwards, okay? But as with the other disciples, perhaps Peter will need to gain a bit more confidence in his faith into what Jesus is about to go and do which ties him very heavily with what we explore later in the series between John 14 to 16. Now arguably Peter's faith is better at this point than it previously was. In a simple way, he really did believe that Jesus was the Christ. Perhaps he had some wavering confidence regarding some of the things that Jesus told him and commanded him. But if you look at John 6 and Matthew 16 in both of these events, Peter expresses a simple childlike faith in believing with certainty that Jesus is the Christ and in the synoptic accounts, Jesus commends him for pointing that out. But then Jesus foretells his disciples in the synoptic event about going to his death but Peter doesn't want him to go through with this and perhaps Peter's concerned with losing Jesus as one of his best friends but misunderstanding the eternal purpose of why Jesus must go and do this. But despite seeming more confident about following Jesus even to death, he will not succeed in his commitment which Jesus already foresees obviously. So because then Peter goes on to deny him three times, people ask the question, was Peter eternally saved at this time? People often wonder that. He has already acknowledged that Jesus is the Christ. We know that whosoever believes in him shall not perish. We've already gone to great lengths to prove that Judas was never saved. He didn't lose salvation. We've explored eternal security in great detail in this study. So we won't delve into the idea of Peter losing his salvation. But yeah, he does go on to deny Jesus three times and obviously we remember Jesus warning as whosoever shall deny me before men, him shall I deny before my father which is in heaven. So what was Peter subject to the denial there? So we need to understand the context behind Jesus saying he will deny those that deny him, Matthew 10 and the way in which Peter denied Jesus and whether they're really equatable. So I'm not going to read all this out but you can see it on the screen. In Matthew 10, Jesus sends out his 12 disciples to preach primarily to a Jewish audience rather than a Gentile one. And the disciples will encounter two types of households. Some will receive them and be hospitable while others will not receive them and not hear their words. So as a result of households accepting or rejecting their preaching, families will turn on each other and the gospel will divide households. And elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus even says he came to set family members at variance against one another. And so consequently the disciples make expect persecution for what they are doing. So when Jesus says, whosoever shall deny or confess, it's really a simple test for the disciples to determine who received their preaching and who did not. So if we assume that Jesus confessing denying men before the father is salvific, perhaps related to the eye of a new iridium, presumably those who receive the disciples preaching will confess Christ as an outward sign of their salvation to the disciples. And the disciples can then know that Jesus will confess those people salvifically. They got saved. So arguably there is also a parallel as well in Second Timothy. If we deny him, he will also deny us, but that's not as clear as exactly what Paul means by that. So we don't want to jump scope too much away from what we're looking at. But besides all this, we know from the Bible that a specific type of confession is associated with salvation. This is obviously after Christ's death and resurrection, whereas Matthew 10 is before, but if you shall confess with your mouth, the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. And so we see then two important facts about confession in tying it with salvation. So the purpose of confession is to confirm to the disciples who received their preaching and who did not. And this is how the disciples could know who was of God and who was not. They didn't need to be clouded in mystery as to who Jesus will confess and who will Jesus deny when it comes to the judgment because the public confession and denial of the recipients already exposes this to them. And although not applicable to disciples at the time, we need to see that we need to confess the Lord Jesus associated with believing in his resurrection. Sorry, I meant to put belief there. In Matthew, sorry, in John 6 and Matthew 16, Peter very confidently confessed that Jesus is the Christ. So then what of his denial? What exactly did Peter deny? Well, reviewing each of the Gospels, Peter's denial was very specific. Several people approached Peter and were sure that they recognized him as being one of Jesus' disciples. So they obviously have presumably seen them before. And one of the group who arrested Jesus was also sure that he recognized Peter. Now, you know, obviously it would have been dark at the time it was all oil lamps and candle lit. So they wouldn't have really seen very well. So you know, that's why he couldn't be absolutely sure. But notice what they asked Peter and therefore what Peter denies. They asked whether he was Jesus' disciple. Peter denied being Jesus' disciple and denied knowing Jesus personally as one of his disciples. So in conclusion then, Peter did not deny that Jesus is the Christ. He did not deny that Jesus is the Son of the living God, et cetera, et cetera. He did deny being Jesus' disciple and knowing Jesus as one of his disciples. Now that knowing Jesus, though it's not really necessarily salvific because the crowd didn't question Peter about whether he knew Christ as his Lord and Savior. They, you know, questioned him about whether he was one of his disciples. So yes, we can say that it was wrong for Peter to deny Christ, but it wasn't in the blasphemous context of those who outright reject Christ. So it doesn't really mean that Peter wasn't saved or lost his salvation. Would Peter have denied that Jesus was the Christ? You know, if he was confronted, well, we'll never really know because he wasn't questioned about this, okay? And we can consider then the totality of what Jesus is saying to and about his disciples. He knows that his disciples will not commit to their supposed bravery. He knows that his disciples will betray him. He commits to save his disciples' lives, nevertheless, to fulfill his prayer over them that I have kept them and none of them is lost. And he ultimately has a greater purpose for his disciples after his resurrection. Okay, so we can also consider how Jesus interacted with Peter after his resurrection. So, you know, when you read John 21, I'm not gonna read all these verses now just for the sake of time, but notice how Jesus responded. This is when he asked him, do you love me three times? He didn't say, you say you love me, Peter, but I said to you, if you love me, keep my commandments and I commanded you, you know, to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me. How can I leave you with the keys to the kingdom if you don't have the courage to be a true born-again believer? You know, you need to repent of all of your sins and fall down on your face and seek me daily. You know, you better start facing some real persecution, Peter. Now, you know, that's how these work salvation folk and conditional security types would deal with Peter. It's not how Jesus dealt with Peter, though. This is how Jesus responds, do you love me? Well, feed my sheep. So he asks him three times, one for each denial, and Jesus is satisfied with Peter's answer, okay? And that's all it is. You know, it doesn't need to be sensationalized and, you know, over-dramaticized. And in fact, in the next verses, after this verse 18, Jesus will even commit to Peter that he will live to be an old age, glorifying God in his death, okay? And so besides all this, you know, the fact that Jesus told Peter he would deny him three times and this must be fulfilled. What were Peter's, and by extension of that, the other disciples, internal reasons for forsaking Christ? Well, we can obviously pick the easy answers such as, you know, fear and wavering faith, but following what we saw in John 13 and we will progress onto John 14 and 15, we see that there are various things that the disciples aren't fully grasping. So Peter asked in John 13, where is Jesus going? Even though Jesus already explained that they went to Jerusalem so that Jesus can be portrayed. And he's already told Peter that he's going to his death. Peter may not be fully realizing this. So Jesus then confirms to Peter, you will follow me afterwards. Later, when you get to John 14, five, we'll see in the next study that Thomas doesn't grasp this either. In verse eight, Philip does not grasp Jesus' relationship with the son as the son with the father. And then in verse 22, Judas, but not Judas' Gary, the other Judas, does not fully grasp how Jesus will manifest himself onto them. And so there have been many times when, you know, before this as well, when the disciples failed to understand various things that Jesus said. Such as failing to understand some of his parables. Okay, you know, it happened. And so you could argue then that the underlying reason why the disciples didn't have the boldness to not forsake Jesus was that they, they didn't really fully realize at the time who Jesus actually was and what Jesus would do, which, you know, to us is what he has done. So Jesus had to explain his parables to his disciples when they didn't understand them, like the parable of the seed and the sower. But in John 14, 16, he's going to promise the sending of the Holy Spirit in place of his physical presence. Okay. And the Holy Spirit will be their comforter, which the disciples have lacked up to this point. And so when this happens, we will see the disciples being almost instantly really more bold in faith in the book of Acts. You know, it's almost like that really. So Jesus needs to reassure their confidence and build up their faith in him. But this won't be fully realized until Jesus has gone to the cross and resurrected to them again. So his conversation with the disciples now is one of comfort and encouragement and the command to abide to continue in him going forward because, you know, they may be discouraged by his death, but they will get to witness his resurrection. And after that, you know, he will not be physically present with them anymore. So revisiting John 13, then in 30, 40, 35 where they're commanded to love one another, Jesus is going to be handing over the reins to his disciples and he won't be around to direct them anymore. So it's imperative that before anything else that they love one another as Christ loved them. Otherwise, you know, the whole system will fall apart. And so the disciples will no longer be followers of Jesus teaching, but they will be leaders among the brethren. You know, they will go on to write their own epistles and build Jesus church. And so it's important that they don't do this in isolation from each other. You know, the book of James must agree with the book of Peter and it must agree with the book of Jude and so on and so forth. And so for that, their love for one another is going to really set them apart from as disciples from various Jews and synagogues that may, you know, not have much consideration for each other beyond their regular gatherings or the requirements of the law. So now that we know, now we know obviously the commandment to love your neighbors yourself was always there from the law of Moses. So loving one another, how is this a new commandment? Well, it's because the disciples are not neighbors anymore. They're brethren, they're brothers and sisters in Christ. And whereas Jews were united around their ancestry or their family relationships or their national identity, the disciples will be united around the person of Jesus Christ and his gospel accomplished by what he is about to go and do. And so the love that they will have for one another is a very special sort of love for fellow brethren that will be repeatedly emphasized as well throughout various epistles. And just as Christ is telling the disciples to love one another and, you know, we'll go on to say, if you love me, keep my commandments. The apostle John being present here will also pick up on that theme and say similar things in his epistles, particularly in one John five where, again, he ties in knowing God and loving God with following his commandments and loving each other as well. You know, we know that we love the children of God because they are our brothers and sisters in inheritance. And so that really concludes our study of John chapter 13. So I hope that this study has benefited you and I'll be working on material for John 14 and 15 upcoming in the series. So watch out for that.