Judas Iscariot

VIEW:46 DATA:01-04-2020

JUDAS ISCARIOT.—One of the Twelve, son of Simon Iscariot (Joh_6:71; Joh_13:26 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). Iscariot (more correctly Iscarioth) means ‘the man of Kerioth.’ Kerioth was a town in the south of Judæa, and Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilæan. He had an aptitude for business, and acted as treasurer of the Apostle-band (Joh_12:6; Joh_13:29).
Judas turned traitor, and sold the Lord to the high priests for thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave (Exo_21:32); and this dire treachery constitutes one of the hardest problems of the Gospel history. It seems to present an inevitable dilemma: either Jesus did not know what would happen, thus failing in foresight and discernment; or, as St. John expressly declares (Joh_6:64), He did know, and yet not only admitted Judas to the Apostolate, but appointed him to an office which, by exciting his cupidity, facilitated his crime. A solution of the problem has been sought by making out in various ways that Judas was not really a criminal.
(1) In early days it was held by the Cainites, a Gnostic sect, that Judas had attained a higher degree of spiritual enlightenment than his fellows, and compassed the death of Jesus because he knew that it would break the power of the evil spirits, the rulers of this world. (2) Another ancient theory is that he was indeed a covetous man and sold the Master for greed of the pieces of silver, but never thought that He would be slain. He anticipated that He would, as on previous occasions, extricate Himself from the hands of His enemies; and when he saw Him condemned, he was overwhelmed with remorse. He reckoned, thought Paulus in more recent times, on the multitude rising and rescuing their hero from the rulers. (3) He shared the general wonderment of the disciples at the Lord’s procrastination in coming forward as the King of Israel and claiming the throne of David, and thought to force His hand and precipitate the desired consummation. ‘His hope was,’ says De Quincey, ‘that Christ would no longer vacillate; he would be forced into giving the signal to the populace of Jerusalem, who would then rise unanimously.’ Cf. Rosegger, INRI, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] p. 263. (4) His faith in his Master’s Messiahship, thought Neander, was wavering. If He were really the Messiah, nothing could harm Him; if He were not, He would perish, and it would be right that He should.
Such attempts to justify Judas must be dismissed. They are contrary to the Gospel narrative, which represents the Betrayal as a horrible, indeed diabolical, crime (cf. Joh_6:70, Luk_22:3-4). If the Lord chose Judas with clear foreknowledge of the issue, then, dark as the mystery may be, it accords with the providential ordering of human affairs, being in fact an instance of an ancient and abiding problem, the ‘irreconcilable antinomy’ of Divine foreknowledge and human free will. It is no whit a greater mystery that Jesus should have chosen Judas with clear prescience of the issue, than that God should have made Saul king, knowing what the end would be.
Of course Judas was not chosen because he would turn traitor, but because at the outset he had in him the possibility of better things; and this is the tragedy of his career, that he obeyed his baser impulses and surrendered to their domination. Covetousness was his besetting sin, and he attached himself to Jesus because, like the rest of the disciples, he expected a rich reward when his Master was seated on the throne of David. His discipleship was a process of disillusionment. He saw his worldly dream fading, and, when the toils closed about his Master, he decided to make the best of the situation. Since he could not have a place by the throne, he would at least have the thirty shekels.
His resolution lasted long enough to carry through the crime. He made his bargain with the high priests (Mat_26:14-16 = Mar_14:10-11 = Luk_22:3-6) evidently on the Wednesday afternoon, when Jesus, after the Great Indictment (Mat_23:1-39), was occupied with the Greeks who had come craving an interview (Joh_12:20-22); and promised to watch for an opportunity to betray Him into their hands. He found it next evening when he was dismissed from the Upper Room (Joh_13:27-30). He knew that after the Supper Jesus would repair to Gethsemane, and thither he conducted the rulers with their band of soldiers. He thought, no doubt, that his work was now done, but he had yet to crown his ignominy. A difficulty arose. It lay with the soldiers to make the arrest, and, seeing not one man but twelve, they knew not which to take; and Judas had to come to their assistance. He gave them a token: ‘The one whom I shall kiss is he’; and, advancing to Jesus, he greeted Him with customary reverence and kissed Him effusively (Mat_26:47-50 = Mar_14:43-46 = Luk_22:47-49).
It must have been a terrible ordeal for Judas, and in that hour his better nature reasserted itself. He realized the enormity of what he had done; and he followed his Master and, in an agony of remorse, watched the tragedy of His trial and condemnation by the Sanhedrin. It maddened him; and as the high priests were leaving the Hall of Hewn Stone, the Sanhedrin’s meeting-place, he accosted them, clutching the accursed shekels in his wild hands. ‘I have sinned,’ he cried, ‘in that I betrayed innocent blood.’ He thought even now to annul the bargain, but they spurned him and passed to the Sanctuary. He followed, and, ere they could close the entrance, hurled the coins after them into the Holy Place; then rushed away and hanged himself (Mat_27:3-5).
Such is St. Matthew’s account. The tragedy was so appalling that legends grew apace in the primitive Church, and St. Luke has preserved one of these in a parenthesis in St. Peter’s speech at the election of Matthias (Act_1:18-19). One is glad to think that St. Matthew’s is the actual history. Judas sinned terribly, but he terribly repented, and one wishes that, instead of destroying his miserable life, he had rather fled to the Cross and sought mercy at the feet of his gracious Lord. There was mercy in the heart of Jesus even for Judas.
Was Judas present at the Eucharist in the Upper Room? St. John alone mentions his departure; and since he does not record the institution of the Supper, it is open to question whether the traitor ‘went out’ after it or before it. From Luk_22:17-21 it has been argued that he was present, but St. Luke’s arrangement is different from that of St. Matthew and St. Mark, who put the institution after the announcement of the Betrayal (Mat_26:21-29 = Mar_14:18-25). According to St. John’s account, Judas seems to have gone out immediately after the announcement, the institution following Joh_13:38, and ch. 14 being the Communion Address.
David Smith.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Son of Simon (Joh_6:71; Joh_13:2; Joh_13:26). Ish Kerioth, "the man of Kerioth," in Judah (Jos_15:25), like Ish Tob, "the man of Tob." This distinguishes him from the other Judas, also from the other eleven apostles who were of Galilee. He thus was connected with Judah his prototype who sold Joseph, and the Jews who delivered Jesus up to the Roman Gentiles. He obeyed the call of Jesus like the rest, probably influenced by John the Baptist's testimony and his own Messianic hopes. Sagacity in business and activity were the natural gifts which suggested the choice of him afterward as bearer of the common purse (Joh_12:6). He is placed last among the twelve because of his subsequent treachery; even previously he was in the group of four lowest in respect to zeal, faith, and love.
The earliest recorded hint given by Christ of his badness is in Joh_6:64; Joh_6:70, a year before the crucifixion: "some of you ... believe not; for Jesus knew from the beginning who ... believed not, and who should betray Him"; "have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil" (not merely" demon," the Greek always for the evil spirit possessing a body, but "devil," used only of Satan himself to whom Judas was now yielding himself). Yet even then repentance was not too late for Judas. Peter the foremost of the twelve had so shrunk from the cross as to be called "Satan," yet Peter recovered more than once afterward (Mat_16:23). John, who had an instinctive repugnance to Judas, whose base selfish character was so opposite to John's own, delineates the successive stages in his fall. Jesus' many warnings against mammon love were calls to Judas while yet he had not made his fatal and final choice (Mat_6:19-34; Mat_13:22-23; Luk_16:11; Mar_10:25-26).
Before that crisis Judas had salvation and even a high place of honour in Christ's future kingdom within his reach. Temptation fell in his way when larger contributions were made (Luk_8:3), part of which were spent for the necessities of Jesus and the disciples traveling about with Him, and the rest given to the poor. Hence Judas, being almoner, grudged the 300 pence worth of ointment lavished by Mary on Jesus, as money which ought to have come in to him, and led some of the other disciples to join in the cry. He had no care for the poor, but for self. Censoriousness and covetousness even to theft prompted his objection (Joh_12:5-6). Mary spent her all to do honour to Jesus' burial; Judas, grasping at all, betrayed Him to death and burial. Her love kindled no sympathetic spark in him towards the common Lord. Hope of larger gain alone kept him from apostasy a year before (Joh_6:64).
Now the lost chance of the 300 pence (denarii), vindictiveness at Jesus' reproof (Joh_12:7-8), secret consciousness that Jesus saw through his baseness, above all the Lord's mention of His "burying" which dispelled his ambitious hopes of sharing a Messianic kingdom of power and wealth, drove him to his last desperate shift to clutch at 30 pieces of silver, the paltry price of a slave (Exo_21:32; Zec_11:12-13; Php_2:7), and betray his Lord. The title "the son of perdition," given by Jesus in His high priestly prayer (Joh_17:12) to Judas and to none else but "the man of sin" (2Th_2:3), as doomed and essentially belonging to perdition, also Christ's declaration, "woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born" (Mat_26:24), oppose the notion that Judas betrayed Christ mainly in order to force Him to declare tits true nature and kingdom, that Judas might occupy the foremost place in it.
The narrative gives little ground for this clever theory; rather, covetousness wrought in him unchecked spite and malignity, possibly not unmixed with carnal expectations from Messiah's kingdom, until, in the face of light, he yielded himself up to be Satan's tool, so that he received his sentence before the last day. Prophecy fore-uttered his doom (Psa_109:4-8). "Satan" was the "wicked" one "set over" Judas, first causing him to murder Christ, then himself. In Act_1:16-20; Act_1:25, Peter says, "this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit by the month of David spoke before concerning Judas ... he obtained part of this ministry ... from which by transgression he fell, that he might go to his own place" (compare Isa_30:33). Ahithophel, his type, combined shrewd sagacity with intimate knowledge of David, which he turned against David, giving the hellish counsel to incest and parricide (2Sa_15:12; 2Sa_16:23; 2Sa_17:1-3; 2Sa_17:23; compare Psa_41:9; Psa_55:13).
So Judas in relation to Christ, knowing His favourite haunt for prayer, Gethsemane. Suicide was the end of Judas as of the type. Even Judas shared in Christ's washing of the disciples' feet, and Jesus said "ye are clean, but not all" (Joh_13:10). Troubled in spirit at Judas' presence, He said at the last supper, "verily, verily ... one of you shall betray Me" (compare Joh_13:21); "exceeding sorrowful they began every one to say, Lord, is it I?" Judas asked the same lest his silence should betray guilt, and received the whispered reply in the affirmative (Mat_26:22; Mat_26:25). Meantime John next, Jesus on one side, as Judas was on the other, leaned back so as to be on Jesus' bosom, and at Peter's suggestion asked secretly "who is it?" (Joh_13:23 ff) He answered "he it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it." Then He gave the sop to Judas, an act of love (dipping a morsel of unleavened bread in the broth of bitter herbs and handing it to a friend), but it only stirred up his hatred (Psa_109:4-5).
So after the sop Satan entered Judas. Then said Jesus, "that thou doest do quickly." A paroxysm of mad devilishness hurried him on, as the swine of Gadara rushing into the deep. Jesus' awful words were enough to warn him back; but sin by willful resistance of light had now become a fixed law of his being. God gives him up to his own sin, and so to accomplish God's purpose; even as God did to Balaam (Num_22:22), and Jesus to the Pharisees (Mat_23:32). Greek "what thou art doing (with full determination already being carried into action) do more quickly." The disciples thought, judging by Jesus' habit, though the fact is not elsewhere recorded except the allusion in Joh_12:5, that His direction to Judas was to give something to the poor. Jesus Christ, in proof that Judas too partook of the Lord's supper, a proof that Joh_6:54-56, cannot be understood of eating that supper, but of feeding on Him by living faith). (See JESUS CHRIST.)
Judas, having given a token beforehand, "whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is He, take Him and lead Him away safely" (Mar_14:44-45; Mat_26:48), led the Roman band and priestly officers to apprehend Jesus in Gethsemane, and gave his studied, kiss, saying "Hail, Master!" or as Mark graphically represents his overdone show of deference, "Master, Master!" Jesus, as Judas approached, said, "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" and as Judas drew nigh to kiss Him, "Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" (Luk_22:47-48). When the Lord was condemned by the high priest and Sanhedrin, Judas probably being present, the reaction came; not that the condemnation took him by surprise, his confession shows he contemplated the result. His former Lord's love and righteousness now remembered brought into his soul "remorse" (metameleia, not "repentance" (metanoia); Mat_27:3-4.
"I sinned in that I betrayed the innocent blood," he cried to the high priests, his tempters. "What is that to us? See thou to that," they sneeringly reply. Having served their end he is now cast aside as vile even in their eyes. Having forced his way into the sanctuary of the priests (naos he flung down the money, his bait to sin, now only hateful and tormenting to him (not as Alford, "speaking without and throwing the money into the naos"; for en too naoo, not eis ton naon, implies he was inside when he flung down the money), and departed and went and hanged (or strangled) himself. Act_1:18 describes the sequel. He burst asunder when the suicide was half accomplished, and his bowels gushed out (even as he had laid aside bowels of compassion, Psa_109:16), his body lying ignominiously on the face, not on the back as the dead generally lie.
He had designed, Gehazi like (2Ki_5:26), to provide a possession for himself and his, despairing of gain by Messiah, since he saw at last that His kingdom was not then a temporal one (Psa_109:9); but the only possession he purchased was a bloody burial place, Aceldama, which the priests bought with the price of blood, being characteristically too punctilious to put it into the treasury (Mat_23:24). The potter's field was "to bury strangers in," fulfilling the foretold doom of Judas (Psa_109:11). The potter's clay, the emblem of God's sovereignty so as to give the reprobate to perdition, is first introduced by Jeremiah (Jer_19:11), and so "Jeremy" is quoted as the original of Zec_11:12-13. (See ACELDAMA on the double reason for the name).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Ju'das Iscar'iot. (Judas of Kerioth). He is sometimes called "the son of Simon," Joh_6:71; Joh_13:2; Joh_13:26, but more commonly Iscariotes. Mat_10:4; Mar_3:19; Luk_6:16; etc. The name Iscariot has received many interpretations more of less conjectural. The most probable is from Ish Kerioth, that is, "man of Kerioth," a town in the tribe of Judah. Jos_15:25.
Of the life of Judas before the appearance of his name in the lists of the apostles, we know absolutely nothing. What that appearance implies, however, is that he had previously declared himself a disciple. He was drawn, as the others were, by the preaching of the Baptist, or his own Messianic hopes, or the "gracious words" of the new Teacher, to leave his former life, and to obey the call of the Prophet of Nazareth. The choice was not made, we must remember, without a provision of its issue. Joh_6:64.
The germs of the evil, in all likelihood, unfolded themselves gradually. The rules to which the twelve were subject in their first journey, Mat_10:9-10, sheltered him from the temptation that would have been most dangerous to him. The new form of life, of which we find the first traces in Luk_8:3 brought that temptation with it. As soon as the twelve were recognized as a body, travelling hither and thither with their Master, receiving money and other offerings, and redistributing what they received to the poor, it became necessary that some one should act as the steward and almoner of the small society, and this fell to Judas. Joh_12:6; Joh_13:29 The Galilean or Judean peasant found himself entrusted with larger sums of money than before, and with this, there came covetousness, unfaithfulness, embezzlement. Several times, he showed his tendency to avarice and selfishness. This, even under the best of influences, grew worse and worse, till he betrayed his Master for thirty pieces of silver.
(Why was such a man chosen to be one of the twelve? ?
(1) There was needed among the disciples, as in the Church now, a man of just such talents as Judas possessed, ? the talent for managing business affairs.
(2) Though he probably followed Christ at first from mixed motives, as did the other disciples, he had the opportunity of becoming a good and useful man.
(3) It doubtless was included in God's plans that there should be thus a standing argument for the truth and honesty of the gospel; for if any wrong or trickery had been concealed, it would have been revealed by the traitor in self-defence.
(4) Perhaps to teach the Church that God can bless and the gospel can succeed even though some bad men may creep into the fold.
What was Judas' motive in betraying Christ? ?
(1) Anger at the public rebuke given him by Christ at the supper in the house of Simon the leper. Mat_26:6-14.
(2) Avarice, covetousness, the thirty pieces of silver. Joh_12:6.
(3) The reaction of feeling in a bad soul against the Holy One whose words and character were a continual rebuke, and who knew the traitors heart.
(4) A much larger covetousness, ? an ambition to be the treasurer, not merely of a few poor disciples, but of a great and splendid temporal kingdom of the Messiah. He would hasten on the coming kingdom by compelling Jesus to defend himself.
(5) Perhaps disappointment because Christ insisted on foretelling his death instead of receiving his kingdom. He began to fear that there was to be no kingdom, after all.
(6) Perhaps, also, Judas "abandoned what seemed to him a failing cause, and hoped by his treachery to gain a position of honor and influence in the Pharisaic party."
The end of Judas. ?
(1) Judas, when he saw the results of his betrayal, "repented himself." Mat_27:3-10. He saw his sin in a new light, and "his conscience bounded into fury."
(2) He made ineffectual struggles to escape, by attempting to return the reward to the Pharisees, and when they would not receive it, he cast it down at their feet and left it. Mat_27:5 But,
(a) restitution of the silver did not undo the wrong;
(b) it was restored in a wrong spirit, ? a desire for relief rather than hatred of sin;
(c) he confessed to the wrong party, or rather to those who should have been secondary, and who could not grand forgiveness;
(d) "compunction is not conversion."
(3) The money was used to buy a burial-field for poor strangers. Mat_27:6-10.
(4) Judas himself, in his despair, went out and hanged himself, Mat_27:5, at Aceldama, on the southern slope of the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, and in the act, he fell down a precipice and was dashed into pieces. Act_1:18. "And he went to his own place." Act_1:25. "A guilty conscience must find neither hell or pardon."
(5) Judas' repentance may be compared to that of Esau. Gen_27:32-38; Heb_12:16-17. It is contrasted with that of Peter. Judas proved his repentance to be false by immediately committing another sin, suicide. Peter proved his to be true by serving the Lord faithfully ever after. ? Editor).
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

or, as he is usually called, the traitor, and betrayer of our Lord. “The treachery of Judas Iscariot,” says Dr. Hales, “his remorse, and suicide, are occurrences altogether so strange and extraordinary, that the motives by which he was actuated require to be developed, as far as may be done, where the evangelists are, in a great measure, silent concerning them, from the circumstances of the history itself, and from the feelings of human nature. Judas, the leading trait in whose character was covetousness, was probably induced to follow Jesus at first with a view to the riches, honours, and other temporal advantages, which he, in common with the rest, expected the Messiah's friends would enjoy. The astonishing miracles he saw him perform left no room to doubt of the reality of his Master's pretensions, who had, indeed, himself in private actually accepted the title from his Apostles; and Judas must have been much disappointed when Jesus repeatedly refused the proffered royalty from the people in Galilee, after the miracle of feeding the five thousand, and again after his public procession to Jerusalem. He might naturally have grown impatient under the delay, and dissatisfied also with Jesus for openly discouraging all ambitious views among his disciples; and, therefore, he might have devised the scheme of delivering him up to the sanhedrim, or great council of the nation, (composed of the chief priests, scribes, and elders,) in order to compel him to avow himself openly as the Messiah before them; and to work such miracles, or to give them the sign which they so often required, as would convince and induce them to elect him in due form, and by that means enable him to reward his followers. Even the rebukes of Jesus for his covetousness, and the detection of his treacherous scheme, although they unquestionably offended Judas, might only serve to stimulate him to the speedier execution of his plot, during the feast of the passover, while the great concourse of the Jews, from all parts assembled, might powerfully support the sanhedrim and their Messiah against the Romans. The success of this measure, though against his master's will, would be likely to procure him pardon, and even to recommend him to favour afterward. Such might have been the plausible suggestions by which Satan tempted him to the commission of this crime. But when Judas, who attended the whole trial, saw that it turned out quite contrary to his expectations, that Jesus was capitally convicted by the council, as a false Christ and false prophet, notwithstanding he had openly avowed himself; and that he wrought no miracle, either for their conviction or for his own deliverance, as Judas well knew he could, even from the circumstance of healing Malchus, after he was apprehended; when he farther reflected, like Peter, on his Master's merciful forewarnings of his treachery, and mild and gentle rebuke at the commission of it; he was seized with remorse, and offered to return the paltry bribe of thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders instantly on the spot, saying, ‘I sinned in delivering up innocent blood;' and expected that on this they would have desisted from the prosecution. But they were obstinate, and not only would not relent, but threw the whole load of guilt upon him, refusing to take their own share; for they said, ‘What is that to us? see thou to that;' thus, according to the aphorism, loving the treason, but hating the traitor, after he had served their wicked turn. Stung to the quick at their refusal to take back the money, while they condemned himself, he went to the temple, cast down the whole sum in the treasury, or place for receiving the offerings of the people; and, after he had thus returned the wages of iniquity, he retired to some lonely place, not far, perhaps, from the scene of Peter's repentance; and, in the frenzy of despair, and at the instigation of the devil, hanged himself; crowning with suicide the murder of his master and his friend; rejecting his compassionate Saviour, and plunging his own soul into perdition! In another place it is said that, ‘falling headlong, he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out,' Act_1:18. Both these accounts might be true: he might first have hanged himself from some tree on the edge of a precipice; and, the rope or branch breaking, he might be dashed to pieces by the fall.”
The above view of the case of Judas endeavours ingeniously to account for his conduct by supposing him influenced by the motive of compelling our Lord to declare himself, and assume the Messiahship in its earthly glory. It will, however, be recollected, that the only key which the evangelic narrative affords, is, Judas's covetousness; which passion was, in him, a growing one. It was this which destroyed whatever of honest intention he might at first have in following Jesus; and when fully under its influence he would be blinded by it to all but the glittering object of the reward of iniquity. In such a mind there could be no true faith, and no love; what wonder, then, when avarice was in him a ruling and unrestrained passion, that he should betray his Lord? Still it may be admitted that the knowledge which Judas had of our Lord's miraculous power, might lead him the more readily to put him into the hands of the chief priests. He might suppose that he would deliver himself out of their hands; and thus Judas attempted to play a double villany, against Christ and against his employers.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

is-kar?i-ot (Ἰούδας Ἰσκαριώτης, Ioúdas Iskariṓtēs, i.e. 'ı̄sh ḳerı̄yōth, ?Judas, man of Kerioth?): One of the twelve apostles and the betrayer of Jesus; for etymology, etc., see JUDAS.

I. Life.
Judas was, as his second name indicates, a native of Kerioth or Karioth. The exact locality of Kerioth (compare Jos_15:25) is doubtful, but it lay probably to the South of Judea, being identified with the ruins of el Karjetein (compare A. Plummer, article ?Judas Iscariot? in HDB).

1. Name and Early History:
He was the son of Simon (Joh_13:2) or Simon Iscariot (Joh_6:71; Joh_13:26), the meaning of Iscariot explaining why it was applied to his father also. The first Scriptural reference to Judas is his election to the apostleship (compare Mat_10:4; Mar_3:19; Luk_6:16). He may have been present at the preaching of John the Baptist at Bethany beyond Jordan (compare Joh_1:28), but more probably he first met Jesus during the return of the latter through Judea with His followers (compare Joh_3:22). According to the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (see SIMON THE CANANAEAN), Judas was among those who received the call at the Sea of Tiberias (compare Mat_4:18-22).

2. Before the Betrayal:
For any definite allusion to Judas during the interval lying between his call and the events immediately preceding the betrayal, we are indebted to John alone. These allusions are made with the manifest purpose of showing forth the nefarious character of Judas from the beginning; and in their sequence there is a gradual development and growing clearness in the manner in which Jesus makes prophecy regarding his future betrayer. Thus, after the discourse on the Bread of Life in the synagogue of Capernaum (Jn 6:26-59), when many of the disciples deserted Jesus (Joh_6:66) and Peter protested the allegiance of the apostles (Joh_6:69), Jesus answered, ?Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil? (Joh_6:70). Then follows John's commentary, ?Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve? (Joh_6:71), implying that Judas was already known to Jesus as being in spirit one of those who ?went back, arid walked no more with him? (Joh_6:66). But the situation, however disquieting it must have been to the ambitious designs which probably actuated Judas in his acceptance of the apostleship (compare below), was not sufficiently critical to call for immediate desertion on his part. Instead, he lulled his fears of exposure by the fact that he was not mentioned by name, and continued ostensibly one of the faithful. Personal motives of a sordid nature had also influence in causing him to remain. Appointed keeper of the purse, he disregarded the warnings of Jesus concerning greed and hypocrisy (compare Mat_6:20; Luk_12:1-3) and appropriated the funds to his own use. As a cloak to his avarice, he pretended to be zealous in their administration, and therefore, at the anointing of Jesus' feet by Mary, he asked ?Why was not this ointment sold for 300 shillings, and given to the poor? Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein? (Joh_12:5, Joh_12:6; compare also Mat_26:7-13; Mar_14:3-8).

3. The Betrayal:
Yet, although by this craftiness Judas concealed for a time his true nature from the rest of the disciples, and fomented any discontent that might arise among them (compare Mar_14:4), he now felt that his present source of income could not long remain secure. The pregnant words of his Master regarding the day of his burial (compare Mat_26:12; Mar_14:8; Joh_12:7) revealed to His betrayer that Jesus already knew well the evil powers that were at work against Him; and it is significant that, according to Mt and Mk, who alone of the synoptists mention the anointing, Judas departed immediately afterward and made his compact with the chief priests (compare Mat_26:14, Mat_26:15; Mar_14:10, Mar_14:11; compare also Luk_22:3-6). But his absence was only temporary. He was present at the washing of the disciples' feet, there to be differentiated once more by Jesus from the rest of the Twelve (compare ?Ye are clean, but not all? and ?He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me,? Joh_13:10, Joh_13:18), but again without being named. It seemed as if Jesus wished to give Judas every opportunity, even at this late hour, of repenting and making his confession. For the last time, when they had sat down to eat, Jesus appealed him thus with the words, ?One of you shall betray me? (Mat_26:21; Mar_14:18; Luk_22:21; Joh_13:21). And at the end, in answer to the anxious queries of His disciples, ?Is it I?? He indicated his betrayer, not by name, but by a sign: ?He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him? (Joh_13:26). Immediately upon its reception, Judas left the supper room; the opportunity which he sought for was come (compare Joh_13:30; Mat_26:16). There is some doubt as to whether he actually received the eucharistic bread and wine previous to his departure or not, but most modern commentators hold that he did not. On his departure, Judas made his way to the high priests and their followers, and coming upon Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, he betrayed his Master with a kiss (Mat_26:47-50; Mar_14:43, Mar_14:44; Luk_22:47; Joh_18:2-5).

4. His Death:
After the betrayal, Mk, Lk and Jn are silent as regards Judas, and the accounts given in Mt and Acts of his remorse and death vary in detail. According to Mt, the actual condemnation of Jesus awakened Judas' sense of guilt, and becoming still more despondent at his repulse by the chief priests and elders, ?he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.? With the money the chief priests purchased the potter's field, afterward called ?the field of blood,? and in this way was fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah (Zec_11:12-14) ascribed by Matthew to Jeremiah (Mat_27:3-10). The account given in Act_1:16-20 is much shorter. It mentions neither Judas' repentance nor the chief priests, but simply states that Judas ?obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out? (Act_1:18). The author of Acts finds in this the fulfillment of the prophecy in Psa_69:25. The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) rendering, ?When he had hanged himself, he burst asunder,? suggests a means of reconciling the two accounts.
According to a legendary account mentioned by Papias, the death of Judas was due to elephantiasis (compare Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, 5). A so-called ?Gospel of Judas? was in use among the Gnostic sect of the Cainites.

II. Character and Theories.
1. Joined the Apostles to Betray Jesus:
Much discussion and controversy have centered, not only around the discrepancies of the Gospel narratives of Judas, but also around his character and the problems connected with it. That the betrayer of Jesus should also be one of the chosen Twelve has given opportunity for the attacks of the foes of Christianity from the earliest times (compare Orig., Con. Cel., ii. 12); and the difficulty of finding any proper solution has proved so great that some have been induced to regard Judas as merely a personification of the spirit of Judaism. The acceptance of this view would, however, invalidate the historical value of much of the Scriptural writings. Other theories are put forward in explanation, namely, that Judas joined the apostolic band with the definite intention of betraying Jesus. The aim of this intention has again received two different interpretations, both of which seek to elevate the character of Judas and to free him from the charge of sordid motives and cowardly treachery. According to one, Judas was a strong patriot, who saw in Jesus the foe of his race and its ancient creed, and therefore betrayed Him in the interests of his country. This view is, however, irreconcilable with the rejection of Judas by the chief priests (compare Mat_27:3-10). According to the other, Judas regarded himself as a true servant of Christianity, who assumed the role of traitor to precipitate the action of the Messiah and induce Him to manifest His miraculous powers by calling down the angels of God from heaven to help Him (compare Mat_26:53). His suicide was further due to his disappointment at the failure of Jesus to fulfill his expectations. This theory found favor in ancient times with the Cainites (compare above), and in modern days with De Quincey and Bishop Whately. But the terms and manner of denunciation employed by Jesus in regard to Judas (compare also Joh_17:12) render this view also untenable.

2. Foreordained to Be a Traitor:
Another view is that Judas was foreordained to be the traitor: that Jesus was conscious from the first that He was to suffer death on the cross, and chose Judas because He knew that he should betray Him and thus fulfill the Divine decrees (compare Mat_26:54). Those holding this view base their arguments on the omniscience of Jesus implied in Joh_2:24, Jesus ?knew all men?; Joh_6:64, ?Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him,? and Joh_18:4, ?knowing all the things that were coming upon him.? Yet to take those texts literally would mean too rigid application of the doctrine of predestination. It would treat Judas as a mere instrument, as a means and not an end in the hands of a higher power: it would render meaningless the appeals and reproaches made to him by Jesus and deny any real existence of that personal responsibility and sense of guilt which it was our Lord's very purpose to awaken and stimulate in the hearts of His hearers. John himself wrote after the event, but in the words of our Lord there was, as we have seen, a growing clearness in the manner in which He foretold His betrayal. The omniscience of Jesus was greater than that of a mere clairvoyant who claimed to foretell the exact course of future events. It was the omniscience of one who knew on the one hand the ways of His Eternal Father among men, and who, on the other, penetrated into the deepest recesses of human character and beheld there all its secret feelings and motives and tendencies.

3. Betrayal the Result of Gradual Development:
Although a full discussion of the character of Judas would of necessity involve those ultimate problems of Free Will and Original Sin (Westcott) which no theology can adequately solve, theory which regards the betrayal as the result of a gradual development within the soul of Judas seems the most practical. It is significant that Judas alone among the disciples was of southern extraction; and the differences in temperament and social outlook, together with the petty prejudices to which these generally give rise, may explain in part, though they do not justify, his after treachery - that lack of inner sympathy which existed between Judas and the rest of the apostles. He undoubtedly possessed certain business ability, and was therefore appointed keeper of the purse. But his heart could not have been clean, even from the first, as he administered even his primary charge dishonestly. The cancer of this greed spread from the material to the spiritual. To none of the disciples did the fading of the dream of an earthly kingdom of pomp and glory bring greater disappointment than to Judas. The cords of love by which Jesus gradually drew the hearts of the other disciples to Himself, the teaching by which He uplifted their souls above all earthly things, were as chafing bonds to the selfishness of Judas. And from his fettered greed and disappointed ambition sprang jealousy and spite and hatred. It was the hatred, not of a strong, but of an essentially weak man. Instead of making an open breach with his Lord, he remained ostensibly one of His followers: and this continued contact with a goodness to which he would not yield (compare Swete on Mar_14:10), and his brooding over the rebukes of his Master, gave ready entrance for ?Satan into his soul.? But if he ?knew the good and did not do it? (compare Joh_13:17), so also he was weak in the carrying out of his nefarious designs. It was this hesitancy, rather than a fiendish cunning, which induced him to remain till the last moment in the supper room, and which prompted the remark of Jesus ?What thou doest, do quickly? (Joh_13:27). Of piece with this weak-mindedness was his attempt to cast the blame upon the chief priests and elders (compare Mat_27:3, Mat_27:4). He sought to set himself right, not with the innocent Jesus whom he had betrayed, but with the accomplices in his crime; and because that world which his selfishness had made his god failed him at the last, he went and hanged himself. It was the tragic end of one who espoused a great cause in the spirit of speculation and selfish ambition, and who weighed not the dread consequences to which those impure motives might lead him (compare also Bruce, Training of the Twelve; Latham, Pastor Pastorum; Stalker, Trial and Death of Jesus Christ).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores