Why did God forgive David (2 Samuel 12:13), but not Judas (Matthew 27:3-4) for an identical confession of sin?

Question

How can only the confession of David (for betraying Uriah) receive God’s forgiveness, but the identical confession along with additional repentance of Judas in Matthew 27:3-4 (for betraying Jesus) does not receive God’s forgiveness?

Confession of David in 2 Samuel 12:13 [MT] : “And David said to Nathan: "I have sinned against [HaShem]." And Nathan said to David, "Also [HaShem] has removed your sin; you shall not die.” ( וַיֹּ֚אמֶר דָּוִד֙ אֶל־נָתָ֔ן חָטָ֖אתִי לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר נָתָ֜ן אֶל־דָּוִ֗ד גַּם־יְהֹוָ֛ה הֶעֱבִ֥יר חַטָּאתְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תָמֽוּת )

Confession & Repentance of Judas in Matthew 27:3-4 [NIV] :

“When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

• In Matthew 26:24 & John 17:12, we are told Judas is not forgiven.
• Did the Law of Forgiveness change in the New Testament?

Answer 1

I will offer a response to this question two ways:

1. Assuming David was forgiven
2. Considering the possibility that David was not forgiven

---

Assuming David was forgiven

The Lord’s words to Samuel put it very well:

the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

Two individuals may outwardly appear the same/similar, but God sees the truth inside that no outward show can hide. Appropriately then it is God’s prerogative to grant or withhold forgiveness of sin.

Paul spoke of the “godly sorrow” that leads to repentance in 2 Corinthians 7 (NIV):

9 yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.

10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death

The opposite of godly sorrow is worldly sorrow, which Dottard has already discussed as sorrow because of the punishment/consequence. This is not the kind of sorrow that leads a person to transformative change.

The pejorative language with which Judas is described in the Gospels/Acts does not suggest a man who was sincerely repentant for his grievous sin. David, on the other hand, does show tremendous sorrow--see Psalm 51:

1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

...

9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Note that David not only acknowledges his sin, but his focus is on what the Lord thinks, not what other people think. And David wants to be changed; he wants a clean heart. The point of repentance is not the sorrow, but the change that comes of it.

As Yael Eckstein observed:

we will know we have achieved true repentance when we choose not to sin in circumstances where we might previously have sinned

David does not simply wish to have his sins taken away so he can continue as he was--he wants to fundamentally change. This is what is meant by "repent":

to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life (Merriam Webster, see here)

--

Considering the possibility that David was not forgiven

Not all exegetes hold that David was forgiven. After hearing Nathan's parable about his (David's) own sin:

And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: (2 Samuel 12:5)

The Hebrew הֶעֱבִ֥יר חַטָּאתְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תָמֽוּת׃ from 2 Samuel 12:13 has also been taken to mean that David will be spared immediate punishment by death (the punishment he himself pronounced in verse 5), rather than indicating forgiveness of his sins. Psalm 16:10 “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” is itself rife with theological interpretation.

Psalm 32:5 does speak of forgiveness. Forgiveness of what sin? David committed adultery & murder and had pronounced (with an oath) the death sentence upon himself, and I am left to conclude that his standing before God is unclear. I am not his judge and do not claim to know.

The terrible irony is this - had David, after committing adultery, sincerely repented then and done all he could to make things right, perhaps only a handful of people would have ever known of his sin. But in an effort to hide his sin (fear of man more than fear of God), he committed murder -- and as a result his fall from grace is now recorded in the most widely disseminated book in human history.

His efforts to hide his sin resulted in it being known to billions. This does not describe a repentant heart or a godly sorrow. His later actions are for God alone to judge.

--

Did the Law of Forgiveness change in the New Testament?

The ordinances and sacrifices certainly changed (see Hebrews chapter 9), but it does not appear that human nature changed at all.

The command to repent is found clearly in both the Old & New Testaments (see, for example, Isaiah 55:7 & Matthew 4:17). If repentance is designed to change humans and develop them beyond their fallen nature (I submit that it is), repentance encompasses the same principles in the Old & New Testaments.

The penitence of repentance described by David in the Old Testament

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalm 51:17)

is beautifully matched by the godly sorrow described by Paul (see above).

As for forgiveness itself, Isaiah's promise is never abridged in the New Testament:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

I conclude that Jesus came not to make repentance & forgiveness forever obsolete, but to give the sacrifice that would make repentance & forgiveness eternally operative.

Answer 2

This is a very interesting question - and I don’t have a ready answer. Nevertheless there are some aspects which are worth consideration.

JOHN 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition [snip -emphasis mine]

Only two persons are labelled ‘son of perdition’. Judas, and that figure many label as the antichrist in Revelation. It seems that these two reached a point where they totally submit to Satan. Totally ‘sold out’.

Paul in Romans 1 describes a ‘state’ that man can fall into, where they are literally ‘un-savable’.

ROMANS 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting

The word ‘debased’, from the Greek ‘adokimos’, often translated as ‘reprobate’, describes a condition where you are literally beyond being able to be saved. Because you reach a state where you are no longer classed as ‘human’. Pretty harsh - but nevertheless a reality. It must be said that reaching this stage is both a [long and deliberate] process, one you enter into, and progress further into, entirely by choice.

Now I’m not suggesting this ‘fits’ Judas, but I am bringing to attention that there is a point where, by mans own choice, he reaches a state beyond reach.

To be classed as ‘son of perdition’ is unique. Obviously this is out of the ordinary, but also obvious is that this ‘state’ made, or was the difference between David and Judas.

One other point we need to keep in mind is that both David and Judas were under the Mosaic covenant. Forgiveness, or rather ‘covering sin’ came by a different manner to that believers today operate under. So we can’t judge forgiveness by what is ‘true’ for us.

This comparison you’ve brought is challenging. I have no definitive answer. I guess each will either have to resolve it to themselves, or ‘shelve it’, put it aside until you come across an explanation that satisfies.

Answer 3

Summary
There is nothing in the Scripture to support a conclusion that God responded to the sin of David and Judas differently, and in the case of Judas' sin, the account demonstrates the deficiency of atonement under the Mosaic Law when the priests failed to respond to Judas' confession.

David's Confession
First, it is misleading to say the LORD forgave David:

So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. (2 Samuel 12:13 ESV)

The the verb עָבַר is rarely taken to mean forgive here. "Put away" or "pass over" would better convey the LORD's response. As the Chronicler states, to "forgive" would be סלח:

if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive (ואסלח) their sin and heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Second, David's confession was not given until he was confronted with his sin:

¹ And the LORD sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. ² The rich man had very many flocks and herds, ³ but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him. ⁴ Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” ⁵ Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, 6 and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

⁷ Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. ⁸ And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. ⁹ Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. ¹⁰ Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ ¹¹ Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. ¹² For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” ¹³ David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child who is born to you shall die.” (2 Samuel 12)

Obviously David had been living with knowledge of his sin for some time, yet failed to make a confession until he was confronted with his actions and learned of the LORD's judgment. This does not mean his confession was not sincere, but, objectively, it must be noted David did not take the initiative to go to Nathan or to the priests.

Judas Confession
Unlike David, Judas, took the initiative to acknowledge his sin:

³ Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, ⁴ saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!” ⁵ Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself (Matthew 27 NJKV)

Not only did Judas take the initiative, he went to those to whom the Mosaic Law (which was still in effect at the time) directed him:

⁵ ‘And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing; ⁶ and he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin. (Leviticus 5)

Judas not only confessed his sin, he did so to those to whom the Law directed him: the priests. At this point it was the priests who were obligated to take the next step. Thus, in terms of forgiveness, or atonement, or putting away sin, a primary difference between the two confessions is the response of those to whom the confession was made:

Nathan:  The LORD has put away your sin
Priests: What is this to us? You see to it

Nathan had been sent by the LORD so it is reasonable to conclude his response was divinely directed. On the other hand, the priests not only dismissed Judas, they told him to see to it himself. They refused to respond to a man who came to them confessing his sin.

The irony between the two confessions is when confronted sin, David confessed; but when confronted the sin innocent blood had been betrayed, the priests, who were equally guilty, not only failed to make atonement for Judas; they failed to confess their sin.

Conclusion
An understanding of atonement which narrowly focuses on the inefficacy of animal sacrifice, ignores the deficiency of a legal system in which the designated agents refuse to carry out their duties. There is no Scriptural basis for concluding God did not respond to Judas as He did with David. Rather, as Scripture states, confession results in cleansing and forgiveness:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

Judas took the initiative and confessed his sin. He did so by going to those whom the Law directed him. Their failure does not justify a conclusion God responded differently.

Has the law of forgiveness changed? In once sense yes. The New Testament states the Levitical priestly code has been replaced with an eternal High Priest who sacrificed Himself. There is now both an acceptable sacrifice and one who always responds to all who confess their sin. However, it has always been God alone who forgives sin. So a better understanding is the New Testament removed the Old Testament intermediaries to ensure confession is always responded to.

Answer 4

The answer is simple - there are two problems with Judas' confession -

1. It was not to Jesus, the one he had betrayed
2. It was sorrow for the consequences and not the sin itself

True confession leads to reformation and (where possible) rectification of the wrong done. Perhaps the best way to understand Judas is to compare and contrast him with Peter:

• Both betrayed their Lord
• Judas was seized with remorse but never confessed love to Jesus; Peter loved the Lord (John 21:1-14). Judas loved money (John 12:6, Mark 14:11) and wanted prestige and hoped to force Jesus into revealing Himself as the great conquering Messiah.
• Both were seized with remorse - Judas returned the money and suicided; Peter went out and wept bitterly and later confessed to Jesus.

We must also recall that all sin is sin against God, whether another person is involved or not.

• When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 1 Cor 8:12.
• Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight. Ps 51:4
• He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honours God. Prov 14:31.
• Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. Deut 20:18. See also 2 Sam 12:13, 14, Gen 39:9, 1 Sam 12:23, 1 Sam 14:34, 2 Chron 19:10, Prov 17:5, Jer 34:19, Eze 13:19.

Thus, any confession, whatever else it involves, must include a confession of guilt and culpability to God as David did, and as Peter did.

Answer 5

The two confessions were not actually identical, as assumed in the question.

David confessed with a godly sorrow for his sin. His confession was heartfelt and true.

Look at 2 Samuel 12:15-23 to see what his sorrow led him to do afterward. Only a truly penitent and humble man of faith would have gone to such lengths, in fasting and in prayer, to seek the divine favor, knowing he had done wrong. This demonstrates the character of David's heart.

Judas' confession was not for his sin, but was a confession of his guilt. While it was a detailed confession, and while he was certainly sorrowful for the consequences of his sin, it was not a true sorrow for the sin itself, and the circumstances in which it was rendered show it as an unnatural, almost forced, confession.

The text indicates of Judas that "when he saw that he was condemned..." (Matthew 27:3), he repented himself. Judas knew that he had sinned, and that he would be accountable for that sin. But he did not seek to reconcile himself with Jesus. His pride would not allow him. His confession had been in the hopes that he might avoid the consequences--thinking, perhaps, that Jesus might yet be released, and Judas would regain his former position--without needing to humble himself.

Judas' disgraceful self-murder, mentioned in Matthew 27:5, shows that, so far from seeking to regain the divine favor, as David had done, he wished only to remove himself so as not to face his guilty conscience any longer.

Answer 6

We do not know that Judas was not forgiven. We only know that Judas did not forgive himself. Depending on how the following passage is understood, Judas may have already been forgiven.

• Then He *poured water into the basin, and began washing the disciples’ feet … 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet; otherwise he is completely clean. And you are clean—but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; it was for this reason that He said, “Not all of you are clean.” —John 13:5-11

Peter would deny, and Judas would betray. Jesus washed the feet of both men. As to why the outcome for these two men took such drastically different courses, perhaps the key can be found in this prayer:

• “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you men like wheat; 32 but I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” —Luke 22:31-32

When a person recognizes himself and his actions for what they are, is it not his faith in himself that is in danger of being lost? Jesus said, “Ask and you will receive” (Jn 16:24), but a person can lose the will and the hope to ask. Sometimes the door that is locked is locked from within.

Answer 7

Dispositions are different and that's why.

One thing is a) repentance, that is to say, acknowledgment of sin and wrongdoing with a humble desire and theologically fully warranted hope to be forgiven by and reconciled with all-merciful God and another thing is b) a graceless or desperate remorse, i.e. desperate acknowledgment of a wrongdoing without a desire, hope and prospect of receiving forgiveness and be reconciled to God. David had the first, the repentance, whereas Judas - the second, which I would call not a repentance, but a desperate remorse.

Moreover, Judas did not give chance to Jesus' desire to forgive him (as Jesus fulfilled this desire in forgiving Peter who thrice betrayed Him) by strangling his own hapless self. Both David and Judas were desired to be forgiven by God, but David gave Him a vent for His desire through his humble repentance, whereas Judas resisted, and vanquished even, His desire of forgiving Judas, by despairing and by committing the suicide.

Answer 8

The Uriah and the Bathsheba incidents are connected. These are comparable with Judas’ betrayal walk to Gethsemane and his initial proposition to the Pharisees. Comparing the two one big difference stands out. David’s initial involvement was based on an impulse of his wicked flesh, while Judas’ involvement must have been of political nature and calculated. This could have been the crucial difference between the two.

The difference would be like comparing the punishments of manslaughter and murder, where perpetrators of the former would get spared the death sentence in polities that practice capital punishment.

Thus, Judas’ involvement went deeper than David’s. He had, therefore, difficulty recognizing that he had let his thought-world be hijacked by an evil spiritual entity; that triggered the evil deed. This was, however, something David soon figured out.

Answer 9

If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. I John 1:6-7

Not doing the truth in an aspect or category of life for a believer is called walking in darkness, which is sin. According to a person’s desire to walk in the light, he will seek the truth (indicating he is seeking God's guidance and forgiveness). This will cause him to recognize where he is or has been sinning and how to correct this sin. Once taking action on this knowledge a person is then walking in the light, and at that point, he knows God has forgiven him in that category. This truth has been in effect since the Old Testament and has not changed.

Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance. Psalm 89:15

David eventually recognized his sin regarding Uriah and Bath-sheba and was forgiven, yet a child still died as the consequences of his actions. In like manner, regarding Judas, the description in Matthew 26:24 speaks only to the consequences for the man who would betray Jesus and not to whether he would be forgiven. One also cannot irrefutably state that the phrase “son of perdition” which Jesus spoke of in John 17:12 refers to Judas.

More than a few scriptures indicate that Judas was indeed forgiven of his sin and rejoined the other eleven apostles during the forty days Jesus appeared in his resurrected body. In considering the scriptures noted below, it’s important to keep in mind the inconsistency that would be presented in believing that God would change his policy on forgiveness. Another inconsistency would be that if Judas had killed himself prior to the forty days following Jesus’ resurrection (as popular teaching concludes) somehow Jesus neglected to replace Judas and no recorded mention of his absence or demise was made by anyone during that time period. It is also vital to remind ourselves that God’s Word is written from His omniscient perspective and deserves our utmost diligence in not reading our own assumptions into it.

I Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Luke 24:33,36, John 20:24 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Luke 6:13, Acts 1:2 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:26 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

These scriptures are testimony to God’s unwavering forgiveness and indicate that Judas did not take his own life until after Jesus’ ascension. They also put us in mind of the perfection, consistency and brilliance with which God has inspired His Word.

Answer 10

Because Judas committed Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.

There are only two beings recorded in the scriptures that have committed blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. Neither of them will be forgiven in this or in the life to come. Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is to have pure knowledge from Him. To KNOW by the power and holiness of God the truth. Most of us simply walk in faith, hope, and charity. But there are a few who, through the Holy Ghost, have heard his voice and tasted of the fullness of His Spirit. Those few who deny what the Holy Ghost has given, can not be forgiven.

The first is Satan, Lucifer, the Son of Morning. He walked in the presence of God. He knew first hand of the greatness of God. But even still, he turned against God and led a third of the host of Heaven to war. God cast satan from His presence to never return again. Where there will always be the gnashing of teeth and eternal torment.

The second is Judas Iscariot. He too walked in the presence of God our Savior. He was witness to the miracles and the powers of God. He tasted of the Spirit of God as he walked with Jesus. Judas saw and KNEW. He too turned against our God. He too led an army against our Christ.

Like Satan, Judas committed blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. They both committed the only unforgivable sin.