Judas Iscariot
Judas Iscariot
The only biblical reference to Judas Iscariot by name outside the Gospels is Act 1:16-20; Act 1:25, and there he is called neither Iscariot nor the traitor (, as in Luk 6:16), nor is his action spoken of by the term . He is described in Luk 6:17 as the one who became guide () to them that arrested Jesus, and in Luk 6:20 as having fallen away () from the ministry and apostleship to go to his own place (see Place). It is interesting, however, to note the other allusions to our Lords betrayal in the Acts and in the Epistles. (1) In Act 3:13 St. Peter attributes it virtually to the Israelites themselves ( .; cf. Act 2:23), and so again (2) in Act 7:52 does St. Stephen ( ). (3) In Rom 4:25 St. Paul, quoting Isa 53:12 (Septuagint ), says less definitely that Jesus our Lord ; (4) but in 1Co 11:23 the very act and time of betrayal are alluded to in connexion with the institution of the Last Supper ( .). On the other hand, St. Paul three times describes the betrayal from the point of view of our Lords own voluntary submission, viz. (5) Gal 2:20 : ; (6) Eph 5:2 : ; (7) Eph 5:25 : (cf. 1Pe 2:23 : , and see Joh 10:17-18; Joh 17:19 etc.); and once (8) even of the Father Himself ( , Rom 8:32).
As to Judass grievous end itself, as recorded in the Acts, it is not necessary here to compare it in detail with the account given in Mat 27:3 ff.; it is sufficient to say that in the present state of our information the two accounts are well-nigh, if not quite, irreconcilable. But various points in the Lucan record remain to be reviewed.
(a) St. Peter in his opening address at the election of St. Matthias infers that the inclusion of the traitor in the number of the apostles and his obtaining a share in their ministry was a mysterious dispensation by which was fulfilled the prediction of Psa 41:9, so recently quoted by our Lord Himself (Joh 13:18), together with its necessary consequences as foreshadowed in two other Psalms (Psa 69:25; Psa 109:8): that is, if Joh 13:20 be an original part of St. Peters speech, and not, as is possible, a part of the Lucan (or later) elucidation of the passage contained in Joh 13:18-19. In any case, all three quotations, but specially for our purpose now, the last two, are of interest as illustrating the free use made of the text of Scripture and its secondary application. In Psa 41:9 the actual wording bears little likeness to the Septuagint , being a more literal rendering of the Hebrew, while its original reference is to some treacherous friend (e.g. Ahithophel, the unfaithful counsellor of David). In Psa 69:25 the text is more exact, but the original figure employed ( , not ) suggests a nomad encampment of tents rendered desolate because of the cruel persecutions which their occupants had practised, while Psa 109:8 has in view one particular official, like Doeg or Ahithophel, who has been false to his trust, and therefore it is, to our modern notions, more appropriately and with less strain transferred to the case of Judas.
(b) The passage Joh 13:18-19, with or without Joh 13:20 (see above), would seem to be an editorial comment inserted in the middle of St. Peters address either by the author of the Acts himself or, as has been thought, by some later glossator or copyist. Of the latter view there is, we believe, no indication in the history of the text. If, as is more likely, therefore, it is due to St. Luke, he has here adopted an account of the traitors grievous end which is independent of, and in some details apparently irreconcilable with, St. Matthews (Mat 27:3 ff.), but to a less extent, we are inclined to think, than is sometimes held. For it is not out of keeping with eastern modes of treating facts for St. Luke to speak of the field of blood being acquired by the traitor himself with the price of his iniquity (qui facit per alium, facit per se), which St. Matthew more accurately says was actually purchased by the chief priest, whilst the horribly graphic description of his suicide is little more than a conventional way of representing St. Matthews simple .
(c) For the title Akeldama and its interpretation see separate article, s.v.
It remains to remark that St. Peters expression, as recorded in his address, and the apostolic prayer of ordination, for which he was probably responsible and the mouthpiece, breathe much more of the spirit of primitive Christianity in their restrained and chastened style than the more outspoken and almost vindictive statements of Joh 13:18-19, so that one would not be altogether surprised to find that the latter are, as has been suggested, a less genuine tradition of a later age.
C. L. Feltoe.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Judas Iscariot
One of the 12 Apostles, who betrayed Our Lord for 30 pieces of silver. When the priests refused to take back the silver, he cast the pieces down in the Temple and “went out and hanged himself with an halter” (Matthew 27).
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Judas Iscariot
The Apostle who betrayed his Divine Master. The name Judas (Ioudas) is the Greek form of Judah (Hebrew “praised”), a proper name frequently found both in the Old and the New Testament. Even among the Twelve there were two that bore the name, and for this reason it is usually associated with the surname Iscariot [Heb. “a man of Kerioth” or Carioth, which is a city of Judah (cf. Joshua 15:25)]. There can be no doubt that this is the right interpretation of the name, though the true origin is obscured in the Greek spelling, and, as might be expected, other derivations have been suggested (e.g. from Issachar).
Very little is told us in the Sacred Text concerning the history of Judas Iscariot beyond the bare facts of his call to the Apostolate, his treachery, and his death. His birthplace, as we have seen, is indicated in his name Iscariot, and it may be remarked that his origin separates him from the other Apostles, who were all Galileans. For Kerioth is a city of Judah. It has been suggested that this fact may have had some influence on his career by causing want of sympathy with his brethren in the Apostolate. We are told nothing concerning the circumstances of his call or his share in the ministry and miracles of the Apostles. And it is significant that he is never mentioned without some reference to his great betrayal. Thus, in the list of the Apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels, we read: “and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him”. (Matthew 10:4. Cf. Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16). So again in St. John’s Gospel the name first occurs in connection with the foretelling of the betrayal: “Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him whereas he was one of the twelve” (John 6:71-2).
In this passage St. John adds a further particular in mentioning the name of the traitor Apostle’s father, which is not recorded by the other Evangelists. And it is he again who tells us that Judas carried the purse. For, after describing the anointing of Christ’s feet by Mary at the feast in Bethania, the Evangelist continues: Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: ‘Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?’ Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein (John 12:4-6). This fact that Judas carried the purse is again referred to by the same Evangelist in his account of the Last Supper (13:29). The Synoptic Gospels do not notice this office of Judas, nor do they say that it was he who protested at the alleged waste of the ointment. But it is significant that both in Matthew and Mark the account of the anointing is closely followed by the story of the betrayal: “Then went one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, to the chief priests, and said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you?” (Matthew 26:14-5); “And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them. Who hearing it were glad; and they promised him they would give him money” (Mark 14:10-1). In both these accounts it will be noticed that Judas takes the initiative: he is not tempted and seduced by the priests, but approaches them on his own accord. St. Luke tells the same tale, but adds another touch by ascribing the deed to the instigation of Satan: “And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and convenanted to give him money. And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude” (Luke 22:3-6).
St. John likewise lays stress on the instigation of the evil spirit: “the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him” (xiii, 2). The same Evangelist, as we have seen, tells of an earlier intimation of Christ’s foreknowledge of the betrayal (John 6:71-2), and in the same chapter says expressly: “For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him” (vi, 65). But he agrees with the Synoptics in recording a more explicit prediction of the treachery at the Last Supper: “When Jesus had said these things, he was troubled in spirit; and he testified, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, one of you shall betray me” (John 12:21). And when St. John himself, at Peter’s request, asked who this was, “Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew to what purpose he said this unto him. For some thought, because Judas had the purse, that Jesus said to him: Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor” (xii, 26-9). These last details about the words of Jesus, and the natural surmise of the disciples, are given only by St. John. But the prediction and the questioning of the disciples are recorded by all the Synoptics (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22). St. Matthew adds that Judas himself asked, “Is it I, Rabbi?” and was answered: “Thou hast said it” (xxvi, 25). All four Evangelists agree in regard to the main facts of the actual betrayal which followed so closely on this prediction, and tell how the traitor came with a multitude or a band of soldiers from the chief priests, and brought them to the place where, as he knew, Jesus would be found with His faithful disciples (Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47; John 18:3). But some have details not found in the other narratives. That the traitor gave a kiss as a sign is mentioned by all the Synoptics, but not by St. John, who in his turn is alone in telling us that those who came to take Jesus fell backward to the ground as He answered “I am he.” Again, St. Mark tells that Judas said “Hail, Rabbi” before kissing his Master, but does not give any reply. St. Matthew, after recording these words and the traitor’s kiss, adds: “And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come:” (xxvi, 50). St. Luke (xxii, 48) gives the words: “Judas, dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?”
St. Matthew is the only Evangelist to mention the sum paid by the chief priests as the price of the betrayal, and in accordance with his custom he notices that an Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled therein (Matthew 26:15; 27:5-10). In this last passage he tells of the repentance and suicide of the traitor, on which the other Gospels are silent, though we have another account of these events in the speech of St. Peter: “Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that it to say, the field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take” (Acts 1:16-20). Cf. Ps., lxviii, 26; cviii, 8). Some modern critics lay great stress on the apparent discrepancies between this passage in the Acts and the account given by St. Matthew. For St. Peter’s words taken by themselves seem to imply that Judas himself bought the field with the price of his iniquity, and that it was called “field of blood” because of his death. But St. Matthew, on the other hand, says: “Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter.” After this the Evangelist goes on to tell how the priests, who scrupled to put the money in the corbona because it was the price of blood, spent it in buying the potter’s field for the burial of strangers, which for this cause was called the field of blood. And in this St. Matthew sees the fulfillment of the prophecy ascribed to Jeremias (but found in Zechariah 11:12): “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave them unto the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed to me” (Matthew 27:9, 10).
But there does not seem to be any great difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. For the field, bought with the rejected price of his treachery, might well be described as indirectly bought or possessed by Judas, albeit he did not buy it himself. And St. Peter’s words about the name Haceldama might be referred to the “reward of iniquity” as well as the violent death of the traitor. Similar difficulties are raised as to the discrepancies in detail discovered in the various accounts of the betrayal itself. But it will be found that, without doing violence to the text, the narratives of the four Evangelists can be brought into harmony, though in any case there will remain some obscure or doubtful points. It is disputed, for instance, whether Judas was present at the institution of the Holy Eucharist and communicated with the other Apostles. But the balance of authority is in favour of the affirmative. There has also been some difference of opinion as to the time of the treachery. Some consider that it was suddenly determined on by Judas after the anointing at Bethania, while others suppose a longer negotiation with the chief priests.
But these textual difficulties and questions of detail fade into insignificance beside the great moral problem presented by the fall and treachery of Judas. In a very true sense, all sin is a mystery. And the difficulty is greater with the greatness of the guilt, with the smallness of the motive for doing wrong, and with the measure of the knowledge and graces vouchsafed to the offender. In every way the treachery of Judas would seem to be the most mysterious and unintelligible of sins. For how could one chosen as a disciple, and enjoying the grace of the Apostolate and the privilege of intimate friendship with the Divine Master, be tempted to such gross ingratitude for such a paltry price? And the difficulty is greater when it is remembered that the Master thus basely betrayed was not hard and stern, but a Lord of loving kindness and compassion. Looked at in any light the crime is so incredible, both in itself and in all its circumstances, that it is no wonder that many attempts have been made to give some more intelligible explanation of its origin and motives, and, from the wild dreams of ancient heretics to the bold speculations of modern critics, the problem presented by Judas and his treachery has been the subject of strange and startling theories. As a traitor naturally excites a peculiarly violent hatred, especially among those devoted to the cause or person betrayed, it was only natural that Christians should regard Judas with loathing, and, if it were possible, paint him blacker than he was by allowing him no good qualities at all. This would be an extreme view which, in some respects, lessens the difficulty. For if it be supposed that he never really believed, if he was a false disciple from the first, or, as the Apocryphal Arabic Gospel of the Infancy has it, was possessed by Satan even in his childhood, he would not have felt the holy influence of Christ or enjoyed the light and spiritual gifts of the Apostolate.
At the opposite extreme is the strange view held by the early Gnostic sect known as the Cainites described by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., I, c. ult.), and more fully by Tertullian (Praesc. Haeretic., xlvii), and St. Epiphanius (Haeres., xxxviii). Certain of these heretics, whose opinion has been revived by some modern writers in a more plausible form, maintained that Judas was really enlightened, and acted as he did in order that mankind might be redeemed by the death of Christ. For this reason they regarded him as worthy of gratitude and veneration. In the modern version of this theory it is suggested that Judas, who in common with the other disciples looked for a temporal kingdom of the Messias, did not anticipate the death of Christ, but wished to precipitate a crisis and hasten the hour of triumph, thinking that the arrest would provoke a rising of the people who would set Him free and place Him on the throne. In support of this they point to the fact that, when he found that Christ was condemned and given up to the Romans, he immediately repented of what he had done. But, as Strauss remarks, this repentance does not prove that the result had not been foreseen. For murderers, who have killed their victims with deliberate design, are often moved to remorse when the deed is actually done. A Catholic, in any case, cannot view these theories with favour since they are plainly repugnant to the text of Scripture and the interpretation of tradition. However difficult it may be to understand, we cannot question the guilt of Judas. On the other hand we cannot take the opposite view of those who would deny that he was once a real disciple. For, in the first place, this view seems hard to reconcile with the fact that he was chosen by Christ to be one of the Twelve. This choice, it may be safely said, implies some good qualities and the gift of no mean graces.
But, apart from this consideration, it may be urged that in exaggerating the original malice of Judas, or denying that there was even any good in him, we minimize or miss the lesson of this fall. The examples of the saints are lost on us if we think of them as being of another order without our human weaknesses. And in the same way it is a grave mistake to think of Judas as a demon without any elements of goodness and grace. In his fall is left a warning that even the great grace of the Apostolate and the familiar friendship of Jesus may be of no avail to one who is unfaithful. And, though nothing should be allowed to palliate the guilt of the great betrayal, it may become more intelligible if we think of it as the outcome of gradual failing in lesser things. So again the repentance may be taken to imply that the traitor deceived himself by a false hope that after all Christ might pass through the midst of His enemies as He had done before at the brow of the mountain. And though the circumstances of the death of the traitor give too much reason to fear the worst, the Sacred Text does not distinctly reject the possibility of real repentance. And Origen strangely supposed that Judas hanged himself in order to seek Christ in the other world and ask His pardon (In Matt., tract. xxxv).
———————————–
CHRYSOSTOMUS, Hom. De Juda Proditore: MALDONATUS and other commentators on New Testament; EPIPHANIUS, Haeres., xxxviii; Legend on death of Judas in SUICER, Thesaurus. Modern view in STRAUSS, Das Leben Jesu.
W.H. KENT Transcribed by Thomas M. Barrett
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Judas Iscariot
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; Phi 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).
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Judas Iscariot
JUDAS ISCARIOT
i.The NT sources.
ii.Name and Designations:
(a)Judas.
(b)Iscariot.
(c)One of the Twelve.
(d)A thief.
(e)Betrayer or traitor.
(f)A devil.
(g)Son of perdition.
iii.Other NT references to Judas:
(a)Before the Betrayal;
(b)Describing the Betrayal;
(c)After the Betrayal.
iv.The character of Judas:
(a)The good motives theory;
(b)The Satan incarnate theory;
(c)The mingled motives theory; he was () covetous, () ambitious, () jealous.
v.References to Judas in post-Biblical literature:
(a)Apocryphal works;
(b)Early Christian writings.
(c)Folk-lore.
Literature.
i. The NT sources.The basis of any satisfactory solution of the fascinating and perplexing problem of the personality of Judas must be a comprehensive and careful study of the words of Jesus and the records of the Evangelists. Interest in his life and character may have been unduly sacrificed to dogmatic discussions of fixd fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute, but the reaction in favour of psychological methods of study may be carried to excess. Conclusions arrived at by the use of these methods are not always consistent with the historical data furnished by the Gospels. In psychological as well as theological investigations, speculation may prove an unsafe guide; at least it should always move in a path made by prolonging the lines laid down in the documents which are the main sources of our information. Theories framed by induction from a critical comparison of the narratives may claim to be attempts to untie the knot, but theories involving excisions from, and conjectural emendations of, the text of the Gospels and Acts are mere cuttings of the knot. A frank acknowledgment that there are difficulties at present inexplicable is preferable to the adoption of such violent methods of removing them. The NT material available for the investigation of the subject in its manifold aspects is found in the following passages:
1. The lists of the Apostles: Mar 3:16 ff., Mat 10:2 ff., Luk 6:13 ff.
2. Early allusions to Judas: Joh 6:64 ff; Joh 12:4 ff; Joh 17:12, Luk 22:3 (cf. Mar 14:4 f., Mat 26:8 f.).
3. The narratives of the Betrayal: Mar 14:10 f., Mat 26:14 ff., Luk 22:4 ff.; Joh 13:2 ff.; Mar 14:18 ff., Mat 26:21 ff., Luk 22:21 ff., Joh 13:21 ff.; Mar 14:43 ff., Mat 26:47 ff., Luk 22:47 f., Joh 18:2 ff.
4. The two accounts of the death of Judas: Mat 27:3 ff., Act 1:16 ff.
From this classification it will be seen that, with the exception of Luk 22:3, the Synoptists say nothing about Judas before the Betrayal; their account of the Betrayal also differs in many details from that given in the Fourth Gospel. Some divergent traditions it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to harmonize; assumptions that the one is an intentional modification of the other, or that they are contradictory, must be carefully examined; suggestions that they are supplementary, or mutually explanatory, must be fairly considered. Statements in the Fourth Gospel which are said to show Johns bias against Judas will be investigated in due course.
ii. Name and Designations
(a) Judas.In all the lists of the Twelve this is the name of the Apostle mentioned last. Another Apostle (see preced. art. No. 1) bore this common Jewish name, but Judas now means the Betrayer of Jesus. His sin has stamped the word with such evil significance that it has become the class-name of perfidious friends, who are no better than Judases (cf. Judas-hole, Judas-trap, etc.).
is the Gr. form of the Heb. Judah (), which in Gen 29:35 is derived from the verb to praise (), and is taken as meaning one who is the subject of praise (cf. Gen 49:8). The etymology is disputed, but in its popular sense it suggests a striking paradox, when used of one whose name became a synonym for shame.
(b) Iscariot: the usual surname of Judas. , a transliteration from Heb., is the best attested reading in Mar 3:19; Mar 14:10, Luk 6:16; , the Graecized form in Mat 26:14, Luk 22:3, Joh 6:71; Joh 13:2; Joh 13:26; in Mat 10:4, Joh 12:4; Joh 14:22. Eight of these passages refer to Judas; in two (Joh 6:71; Joh 13:26) his father Simon is called Iscariot; once (Joh 14:22) his fellow-Apostle is distinguished from his more famous namesake as not the Iscariot. Only in Joh 13:2 does the full phrase occurJudas Iscariot, the son of Simon. Nestle thinks that , a reading of Codex Bezae, found four times in Jn instead of , is a paraphrastic rendering of Iscariot by the author of the Fourth Gospel. Chase furnishes other evidence for this reading (The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 102f.), but argues that it cannot be part of the original text. His conclusion is that an early Syriac translator represented by this paraphrase (cf. ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] ix. pp. 189, 240, 283)
Two facts already mentioned have an important bearing on the interpretation of : (1) the true reading, Simon Iscariot, shows that the epithet was equally applicable to the father and the son, and this twofold use of the word suggests that it is a local name; (2) the paraphrase confirms the view that Judas is named after his place of abode (cf. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthus, p. 393). Cheyne says we should have expected , yet admits that it is a plausible view that is derived from Ish-Kerioth ( ), a man of Kerioth (Ency. Bibl. ii. 2624). Dalman (The Words of Jesus, p. 51 f.) thinks that was the original reading, and points back to the Hebrew, whilst corresponds to the equivalent Aramaic or Hence the surname Iseariot probably means a Kariothite.
It is impossible to say with certainty where the Kerioth was situate of which Judas was a native. (1) On account of this difficulty, Cheyne conjectures that , a man of Jericho, is the true reading. (2) The majority of scholars incline to the view that Kerioth is the Kerioth-Hezron or Hazor of Jos 15:25 (Vulgate Carioth); Buhl identifies the place with the modern Karjaten in South Judah (GAP [Note: AP Geographic des alten Palstina.] p. 182). (3) Others suggest the Kerioth mentioned in Amo 2:2, Jer 48:24 (LXX Septuagint ),an important city, either Kir-Moab, or Ar, the capital of Moab. Harper (Am. and Hos., Int. Crit. Com. p. 42) says that the reference in the Moabite stone (l. 13) favours Ewalds view that it is another name for Ar. A less probable opinion is that the town referred to is or Kurawa (Josephus BJ i. vi. 5, iv. viii. 1; Ant. xiv. iii. 4) in North Judaea (Buhl, GAP [Note: AP Geographic des alten Palstina.] p. 181). If any one of these towns was the birthplace of Judas, he was not a Galilaean.
(c) One of the Twelve.In the Synoptic Gospels this phrase is found only in the narrative of the Betrayal, and it is applied only to Judas. It marks the mingled sorrow and indignation of the Evangelists, that within that select circle there could be a single treacherous heart. The simple formula is once changed by St. Luke (22:3), who adds to his statement that Satan entered into Judas these significant words: being of the number of the twelvei.e. counted among those whom Jesus called His friends, but about to become an ally of His foes, because in spirit he was none of his (cf. Mat 26:14; Mat 26:47, Mar 14:10; Mar 14:20; Mar 14:43, Luk 22:3; Luk 22:47). In the Fourth Gospel the phrase is used once of another than Judas; like a note of exclamation, it expresses surprise that Thomas, a member of the Apostolic band, was absent when the risen Saviour appeared to His disciples (Joh 20:24). But St. John also applies the phrase to Judas, giving it a position in which its tragic and pathetic emphasis cannot be mistaken: Youthe twelve, did not I choose? and of you one is a devil. Now he spake of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot; for it was he that was about to betray himone of the twelve (Joh 6:70-71). St. Johns phrase ( ) differs slightly from that used by the Synoptists ( ); Westcott suggests that it marks the unity of the body to which the unfaithful member belonged (Com. in loc.).
That Judas was one of the twelve is an important factor in the problem presented by his history. It implies that Jesus saw in him the material out of which an Apostle might have been made,the clay out of which a vessel unto honour might have been shaped; it implies that Judas, of free-will, chose to follow Jesus and to continue with Him; and it implies that Judas heard from the Masters lips words of gracious warning against the peril of his besetting sin. On the other hand, the fact that Judas was one of the twelve does not imply that Jesus had the betrayal in view when He chose this Apostle and entrusted him with the common purse; it does not imply that even in that most holy environment Judas was exempted from the working of the spiritual law that such evil things as thefts covetings, deceit proceed from within, and defile the man (Mar 7:22 f.); and it does not imply that there were no good impulses in the heart of Judas when he became a disciple of Jesus. Of Judas in his darkest hour the words of Lavater are true: he acted like Satan, but like a Satan who had it in him to be an Apostle.
In Mar 14:10 the best supported reading (BCLM) is , with a note in (Revised Version margin) Gr. the one of the twelve. Wright (Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, p. 31, cf. p. 147) is of opinion that Mk. distinctly calls Judas the chief of the twelve. He takes as equal to , as in (Mar 16:2). But the definite article is not found with this phrase in any other passage in the Gospels; moreover, it is almost impossible to believe that when the Gospels were written the assertion that Judas was the chief or even primus inter pares had a place in the original text. On the other hand, Field (Notes on the Translation of the NT, in loc.) is scarcely justified in saying . can mean nothing but the first (No. 1) of the twelve, which is absurd.* [Note: Swete (Com. in loc.) explains the phrase as a contrast with , the rest; Judas was the only one of the twelve who turned traitor.] The unique reading may, however, preserve a genuine reminiscence of a time in the earlier ministry of Jesus when Judas, the treasurer of the Apostolic company, had a kind of priority. If this were so, there would come a time when, as Wright suggests, the supporters of Judas would become jealous of the honour bestowed on Peter. [Note: There is force in Edersheims remark (Life and Times, ii. 536), that viewed in its primary elements (not in its development) Peters character was, among the disciples, the likest to that of Judas.] Jealousy would account not only for the dispute about rival claims to be the greatest, but also for the respective positions of Judas and Peter at the supper-table. The most probable explanation of the details given (Mat 26:23, Joh 13:23; Joh 13:26) is that John was reclining on the right of Jesus; but Judas claimed and obtained the chief seat at the table next Jesus, and was reclining on His left, whilst the lowest place was voluntarily taken by Peter, who felt keenly the Lords rebuke of this strife for precedence (cf. Andrews, The Life of our Lord, p. 485; Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. 493).
(d) A thief.The meaning of the statement that Judas was a thief (Joh 12:6) is quite plain, if the Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 correctly renders the following sentence: and having the bag, took away () what was put therein. means (1) to bear, (2) to bear away, as in Joh 20:15 (cf. cattle-lifting). Its use in the sense of bearing away secretly or pilfering is established (cf. Field, op. cit. in loc.). In this context the statement that Judas carried the money put into the bag which was in his possession seems singularly tame, if it is not mere repetition. On the other hand, to say that Judas had formed the habit of pilfering is a natural explanation of the assertion that he had been guilty of theft. Weiss (Leben Jesu, ii. 443) thinks that John had found out thefts committed by the greedy Judas; this does not necessarily imply that the thefts were known to John at the time of Marys anointing, for they may have come to light after that act, but before the narrative was shaped in this form.
The rendering of by the neutral word hare is adopted by some, who hold that Johns words do not imply more than that Judas had a thievish disposition. Ainger adopts this interpretation in a finely-wrought study of the character of Judas (The Gospel and Human Life, p. 231). It is true in a sense that he may have been a thief long before he began to steal, but this exposition involves the unlikely assumption that the betrayal of Jesus was the first act by which he converted his spirit of greed into actual money profit. If Judas had not formed the habit of pilfering, it is more difficult to understand how the thirty pieces of silver could be a real temptation to him.
Cheyne gets rid of the difficulty by assuming that the text is corrupt. In his conjectural emendation the word thief has no place; he reads because he was a harsh man, and used to carry the common purse ( ). The statement about Judas in this hypothetical text is then navely said to be worthy of more credit than it has sometimes received from advanced critics (Ency. Bibl. ii. 2625).
(e) Betrayer or traitor.In the list of the Apostles given in Luk 6:16 there is a variation from the phrase by which Judas is usually described. Instead of (who also betrayed him, lit. delivered him up) St. Luke has , well rendered by Fieldwho turned traitor (cf. Amer. Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 became a traitor; Weymouth, proved to be a traitor). The translation in the Authorized and Revised Versions which was the traitorneither brings out the force of , nor the significance of the omission of the article.
The statement that Judas turned traitor should be remembered in framing or estimating theories to account for his history; it confirms what has been said on this subject under (c). From this point of view the various phrases used in the Gospels will repay careful discrimination: most frequent is the simple statement of the tragic deed as a historic factwho betrayed him (Mar 3:19 ); but there is also the prophecy, The Son of Man is about to be betrayed (Mat 17:22 ), and the statement, when the time was drawing nigh, that the process had already begun, The Son of Man is being betrayed (Mat 26:2 ). Similarly, Judas is described as he who would betray him (Joh 6:64 ), he who is betraying me (Mat 26:46 ), and as he who had betrayed him (Mat 27:3 ). In this connexion Joh 6:64 deserves special attention: Jesus knew from the beginning who it was that should betray him. Needless difficulties are occasioned when from the beginning is regarded as referring to any period before the call of Judas; the thought seems to be that Jesus perceived from the beginning of His intercourse with Judas the spirit that was in him. Hence the statement is wrongly interpreted in a fatalistic sense. The rendering, Jesus knew who it was that would betray him has the advantage of suggesting that Jesus discerned the thoughts and intents of His unfaithful Apostle, and knew that the germ of the traitor-spirit was already in the heart of Judas (cf. W. F. Moulton in Schaffs Popular Commentary, in loc.).* [Note: Our Lords words to Pilate, He that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin (Joh 19:11), are sometimes applied to Judas; but the reference is almost certainly to Caiaphas.]
(f) A devil.In Joh 6:70 there is a contrast between the hopes of Jesus when He chose () the Twelve, and His present grief over the moral deterioration of one whose nature is now devilish ( ). Our Lords spiritual discourse to the multitude brought all who heard it to the parting of the ways; it shattered the hopes of those who were eager to share in the glories of an earthly kingdom. On the inner circle of the Apostles that teaching also cast its searching light; to Jesus, though not to Peter (v. 69), it was plain that Judas was at heart a deserter,in sympathy with those who went back and walked no more with him. What Jesus detected in Judas was a sudden crystallization of evil, diabolic purpose, which made him a very adversary of the one whom he called friend (Wright, op. cit. in loc.). But an adversary is not an irreconcilable foe; the assertion taken in its full strength of meaning is a message of conciliation as well as of warning. It involved no lowering of the position of Judas among the Twelve, for his name is not mentioned; and it assuredly involved no relaxing of our Lords efforts to scatter with the light of love the gloom which was creeping into the heart of one whom He had chosen to be with him. A strained interpretation of the saying underlies the statement that it appears to be inconsistent with the equal confidence in all the disciples shown by Jesus according to the Synoptic tradition (Ency. Bibl. ii. 2624). No man, says Pressens, could be more akin to a devil than a perverted apostle (Jesus Christ, p. 324).
(g) Son of perdition.The Gr. word rendered perdition in this phrase (Joh 17:12) is , which signifies the state of being lost. It is the substantive derived from the same root as the main verb of the sentence (). The connexion of thought is not easy to reproduce in English. Ainger (op. cit. p. 227) brings out the sense of the passage in a paraphrase: None of them is lost, but he whose very nature it was to be losthe (that is to say) whose insensibility to the Divine touch, whose irresponsiveness to the heavenly discipline, made it a certainty that he should fall away. The apostasy of Judas is traced to the natural gravitation of his character. By a well-known Hebraism Judas is described as the son of that which stamps his nature; he is of such a character that his proper state is one of loss (cf. 2Th 2:3). The same word () is rendered waste in the Synoptic accounts of Marys anointing (Mat 26:9, Mar 14:4). To what purpose is this waste? was the expression of indignation of some (Mk.) of the disciples; perhaps it was originally the question of Judas, though St. John does not say so. It may well be, however, that he whose audible murmur, Why this loss or waste? was echoed by the other disciples is himself described by Jesus as the son of lossthe waster.
This verse (Joh 17:12) is often appealed to by rival champions of Calvinism and Arminianism. In Bishop Sandersons Works (v. 324 f.) there is a letter to him from H. Hammond, who affirms that here it is expressly said that Judas, though by his apostasy now become the son of perdition, was by God given to Christ. But the true reading is, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ), and the thought (cf. Joh 17:9 those whom thou hast given me) is rather that they in whom the Fathers object is attained are those given to the Son; Judas, therefore, was not so given. To suppose that Judas is now brought before us as one originally doomed to perdition, and that his character was but the evolving of his doom, would contradict not only the meaning of the Hebraic expression son of (which always takes for granted moral choice), but the whole teaching of this Gospel. In no book of the NT is the idea of will, of choice on the part of man, brought forward so repeatedly and with so great an emphasis (W. F. Moulton, op. cit. in loc.).
iii. Other NT References to Judas
(a) Before the Betrayal.The obscurity which rests upon the early history of Judas accounts to a large extent for the difficulty of estimating his character. But for occasional allusions in the Fourth Gospel, all that is related of him before the Betrayal is that he was one of the chosen Twelve, and that he turned traitor. There is, however, a statement peculiar to St. Luke among the Synoptists, which is obviously intended to furnish an explanation of the act of BetrayalSatan entered into Judas (john 22:3). It finds a fitting place in the introduction to the narrative of the Betrayal in the psychological Gospel which so often gives internal reasons; the Gospel of the physician is also the Gospel of the psychologist (Alexander, Leading Ideas of the Gospels, p. 107). The same phrase, Satan entered into him ( ), is also found in Joh 13:27, and it is preceded by the statement (Joh 13:2) that the devil had already put into the heart ( ) of Judas the thought of betrayal. It is true, as Cheyne says (Ency. Bibl. ii. 2625), that in Jn. we have a modification of the Synoptic tradition, but that is not equivalent to quite a different account. So far from asserting that it was at the Last Supper that the hateful idea occurred to Judas, St. John prefaces his description of the proceedings at the Supper ( ) by the emphatic assertion that already (), i.e. at some time other than the Supper, the suggestion of the devil had been entertained by Judas. In St. Lukes brief account it is said, once for all, that Satan entered into Judas. In the Fourth Gospel the genesis of the foul purpose is distinguished from its consummation; the Satanic influences were not irresistible; the devil had not full possession of the heart of Judas until, after the sop, he acted on the suggestion which had then become his own resolve.
The Fourth Gospel also makes the Anointing at Bethany (Joh 12:4 f.) a definite stage in the process which is sometimes called the demonizing of Judas, but is better described as his giving place to the devil (Eph 4:27). St. Luke does not mention Marys anointing. St. Matthew and St. Mark have full accounts of it, but Judas is not named; yet immediately after the narrative of the Anointing both Mt. and Mk. place Judas offer to the chief priests to betray Jesus for money, thus clearly recognizing an intimate connexion between the two events. St. John explains this sequence by adding the significant detail that the murmuring against Marys waste of ointment had its origin in the heart of Judas. Our Lords defence of Marys beautiful deed implied a rebuke to Judas, and unmasked his hypocrisy; moreover, our Lords plain references to His coming death involved the disillusionment of His ambitious Apostle. The reproof would rankle; the disappointment would be acute. The angry spirit engendered by such emotions is closely akin to the spirit of treachery and revenge. On insufficient grounds, therefore, Gould speaks of Johns evident attempt to belittle Judas (Int. Crit. Com., note on Mar 14:4). No more likely origin of the murmuring, which was not confined to Judas (Mar 14:6, Mat 26:8), is suggested. On the other hand, there seems to be no reason for belittling St. John; his addition to the Synoptic Gospels justifies their association of Marys anointing with Judas desertion of Christ; it also furnishes a link between the Anointing of which St. Luke gives no account and his statement Satan entered into Judas,that statement is the psychological explanation of the actions of Judas recorded in the narratives of the Anointing and the Last Supper.
(b) Describing the Betrayal.In the Passion narratives all the Gospels refer to our Lords consciousness of His approaching Betrayal; all record His announcement, at the beginning of the Supper, of the presence of the Betrayer; and all mention the consternation and self-questioning of the Apostles to which that statement gave rise (Mar 14:18 ff., Mat 26:21 ff., Luk 22:21 ff., Joh 13:21 ff.). There is no reason to suppose (Weiss) that Judas was definitely indicated by our Lords words, He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me (Mat 26:23). Before the lamb was placed on the table, each guest dipped his own bread into the bitter sauce and ate the sop. The aorist participle ( ) refers to this act, but does not necessarily fix its time; as thus interpreted, the phrase is in harmony with the vague expression that man, used twice in Mat 26:24, with the passage quoted (Joh 13:18) from Psa 41:9 (He that eateth my bread; cf. messmate), and with the parallel passage in Mar 14:20 where the present participle is used ( ). An addition to the Synoptic tradition is found in the Fourth Gospel, which describes Jesus as giving a sop to Judas (Mar 13:26). At Eastern meals this was a mark of special attention (cf. Macmillan, A Mock Sacrament, in ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] iii. 107 f.); our Lords action would indicate the traitor to the disciple who was leaning back on His breast, though it left John, like the rest, in ignorance of the meaning of the words with which Jesus urged Judas to hasten the work he was already doing (Mar 14:27). To the traitor himself the words of Jesus, gradually narrowing in their range and therefore increasing in intensity, were at once a tender appeal and a final warning. St. Matthew alone records the question of Judas, Is it I, Rabbi? and our Lords answer, Thou hast said (Mat 26:25). If Judas had the chief seat at the table next to Jesus (cf. above, ii. (c)), the assent conveyed, perhaps in a whisper and certainly not in the ordinary form (cf. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 308 f.), must have had for him a tragic significance. As Zahn points out (op. cit. in loc.), the prefixed pronoun in heightens the contrast between the questioner and the speaker, and conveys the meaning, What thou hast said, there is no need for me to say. St. Matthew does not state that at this juncture Judas left the Supper-table, but the next allusion to Judas (Mat 26:47) implies an absence of some duration. The probable solution of the much-discussed problem, Did Judas eat the Passover? is that, although he ate the sop given to him by Jesus at the beginning of the Supper, he had gone out into the darkness (Joh 13:30) before Jesus gave the bread and the wine to His disciples. It is true that in Luke 22 the narrative of the Supper precedes our Lords announcement of the Betrayers presence, but the order (Luk 1:3) characteristic of this Gospel does not imply chronological sequence in every detail; Wright (op. cit. p. 132) accounts for the variation from the parallel passages by the suggestion that St. Luke was influenced by the language of St. Paul in 1Co 11:29.
In their accounts of the actual Betrayal of our Lord the Synoptists state that the kiss of Judas was the prearranged signal for His arrest (Mar 14:45, Mat 26:49; cf. Luk 22:47). In the Fourth Gospel nothing is said of the kiss, but a graphic account is given of our Lords unexpected declaration to His foes that He was the Nazarene for whom they were seeking (Joh 18:4 f.). The silence of St. John is no proof that the kiss was not given; nor is the fact which he records any evidence that the kiss was superfluous. A sufficient motive for the self-manifestation of Jesus is mentioned: let these go their way (Joh 18:8); such a request is appropriate whether the kiss of Judas be placed before or after the question of Jesus, Whom seek ye? If before, our Lord supplemented the Betrayers signal owing to the hesitancy of the awestruck soldiers, who shrank from arresting Him. If after, Judas must have been disconcerted by our Lords action; the kiss would not be given until later, when, as his courage returned, he did not scruple to kiss his Master with the unnecessary demonstration of a feigned affection (, Mar 14:45, Mat 26:49). Our Lords discernment of the evil purpose underlying this emotional display is indicated by His question, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss? (Luk 22:48). In Mat 26:50 Jesus is reported to have also said ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ), Friend, do that for which thou art come (cf. Authorized Version Friend, wherefore art thou come?).
Bruce (Expos. Gr. Test. in loc.) takes the lacooic phrase as a question in effect, though not in form; its probable meaning is Comrade, and as a comrade here? (cf. Bengel, in loc. Hoccine illud est cujus causa ades?). Blass unnecessarily (cf. Mat 22:12) changes into , which yields the meaning take away that for which thou art come, or art here, according as is taken from or . Cheyne (Ency. Bibl. ii. 2626) conjectures that the true reading is , thou actest a part, or thou art no friend of mine; is got rid of as a dittograph.
(c) After the Betrayal.In three of the Gospels (Mk., Lk., Jn.) there is no mention of the Betrayer after the arrest of Jesus; but Mat 27:3 ff. relates the after-history and fate of Judas as the fulfilment of prophecy. The ascription to Jeremiah of Zec 11:13 is probably due to a failure of memory; the passage is freely quoted, and may include reminiscences of the language of Jeremiah (cf. Jer 18:2ff; Jer 19:1ff; Jer 32:6 ff.). The absence of from some of the Old Lat. and ancient Syriac VSS [Note: SS Versions.] shows that the name was a stumbling-block to early translators of the NT. Zahn (Gesch. des NT Kanons, ii. 696) says that the Nazarenes had a Hebrew MS ascribed to Jeremiah, in which the passage is found verbatim,manifestly an Apocryphon invented to save the honour of Matthew. The variations from the Heb. and LXX Septuagint are not consistent with the theory that the Evangelists narrative is a legend evolved from the passage in Zechariah; they are explicable on the supposition that the facts suggested the prophecy. J. H. Bernard (Expositor, 6th series, ix. 422 ff.) shows that St. Matthews account must be based upon a tradition independent of the prophecy cited. The salient features of this tradition are thus summarized(a) Judas, stricken by remorse, returned the money paid him; (b) he hanged himself in despair; (c) the priests with the money bought a field called the Potters Field, which was henceforth called ; (d) the field was used as a cemetery for foreigners. The point of connexion between the fact and the prophecy is the exact correspondence between the amount paid for the prophets hire and for the prophet of Nazareths betrayal. In both cases the paltry sum was the expression of the nations ingratitude; the thirty pieces of silver was the price of a slave (Exo 21:32). Meditating on the details of the Betrayal, the Evangelist called to mind the experience of Zechariah, and saw in it the foreshadowing of the treatment of Jesus in which the sin of a thankless people reached its climax.
In Act 1:18-19 a different account of the death of Judas is given. Plummer regards the tradition preserved in the Gospel as nearer in time to the event, and probably nearer to the truth (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 798a). Bartlet holds that the Lukan tradition represents the actual facts most nearly (Acts in Cent. Bible, Note A). The chief argument for the latter view is a saying of Papias which resembles the statement in Acts, though it adds repulsive details (Cramer, Catena on Mt.). Dr. Rendel Harris, AJTh [Note: JTh American Journal of Theology.] iv. 490 ff., thinks that the Papias tradition is the fountainhead of the Judas legends, to which fountainhead Luke lies nearer than Matthew. The difficulties involved in this supposition are, (1) that it treats the account in Matthew as a mere substitution; (2) that it involves the conjecture of an original reading in Acts, he swelled up and burst asunder. It is more probable that the Papias story contains later additions from folk-lore than that the present text of Acts omits essential details. Dr. Harris points out striking coincidences between the Judas narratives and the accounts of the death of Nadan, the traitorous nephew of Ahikar, Sennacheribs grand vizier; but the parallel does not prove that the Ahikar stories are the literary parent of the Judas stories. Knowling (Expos. Gr. Test. in loc.) rightly says: Whatever may be alleged as to the growth of popular fancy and tradition in the later account in Acts of the death of Judas, it cannot be said to contrast unfavourably with the details given by Papias, Fragment 18, which Blass describes as insulsissima et fdissima. See, further, Akeldama.
iv. The Character of Judas
(a) The good motives theory.Many have attempted to explain the action of Judas as arising not from treachery and avarice, but from an honest endeavour to arouse Jesus to action and to hasten His Messianic triumph. Modern writers reproduce, with slight modifications, the theory to which the charm of De Quinceys literary style has imparted a fascination out of all proportion to its probability (Works, vi. 21 ff.; cf. Whately, Essays on Dangers to the Christian Faith, Discourse iii.). The theory assumes (1) that Jesus, like Hamlet, was sublimely over-gifted for purposes of speculation, but not correspondingly endowed for the business of action; (2) that Judas was alive to the danger resulting from this morbid feature in the temperament of Jesus, and acted not from perfidy, but with a genuine conviction that if Christs kingdom was to be set up on earth, He must be compromised before doubts could have time to form. This theory implies that the judgment of Judas was at fault, but that he had no evil intent; it finds no support in the Gospel history, and it is inconsistent with our Lords stern words of condemnation.
(b) The Satan incarnate theory.Dante (Inferno, xxxiv. 62) places Judas in the Giudecca, the lowest circle of the frozen deep of Hell, accounting him a sharer in the sin of Satan, inasmuch as his treachery was aggravated by ingratitude towards his benefactor. A similar tendency to set Judas apart as the arch-villain is manifest in works which reflect the popular imagination. Critics of the Ober-Ammergau Passion-play complain that the Betrayer is represented as a low, cunning rascal, and is often made to look ridiculous. But the comic personifications of Judas, as of Satan himself, in folk-lore are really tokens of popular abhorrence (cf. Bttner, Judas Ischarioth, p. 11 f.); they are the result of regarding him as an incarnation of Satanic wickedness. Daub, in the Introduction to a speculative work on the relation of good to evil (Judas Ischarioth, oder Betrachtungen uber das Bse im Verhltniss zum Guten), conceives Judas as the Satanic kingdom personified in contrast with Jesus who is the Divine kingdom personified; Judas is an incarnation of the devil. Dr. Fairbairn, who gives (Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 264 f.) a succinct summary of Daubs gruesome book, truly says that he is unjust to Judas, sacrificing his historical and moral significance to a speculative theory. The practical effect of such exaggerations of the innate vice of Judas is to place him outside the pale of humanity; but they are as untrue to the Evangelists delineation of his character as are the attempts to explain away his sin. The same objection may be urged against theories which portray Judas as a mere compound of malice and greed, uninfluenced by any high impulse or noble ambition. In the Gospels he appears as a man of like nature with ourselves; he was both tempted of the devil and drawn away by his own lust; Satan approached his soul along avenues by which he draws near to us; he was not twofold more a son of hell than ourselves (Mat 23:15); he went to his own place in the outer darkness, because he turned away from the light of life; the darkness blinded his eyes because he would not abide in the light, though the true light was shining upon him (cf. 1Jn 2:8 ff.).
(c) The mingled motives theory.The key to the complex problem of the character of Judas is not to be found in a single word. The desire to simplify his motives has led, on the one hand, to an attempt to exonerate him from guilt; and, on the other hand, to a description of him as the devil incarnate. The truth lies between the two extremes; in Judas, possibilities of good were unrealized because he gave place to the devil. It is a mistake to set one motive over against another, as though a man of covetous disposition may not also be ambitious, and as though an ambitious man may not also be jealous. The references to Judas in the Gospels, to which attention has already been called in this article, furnish reasons, it is believed, for saying that Judas was swayed by all three motives, one being sometimes more prominent than another, and the one reacting upon the other. It may well be that ambition would, for a time, restrain covetousness, and yet revive it in the hour of disappointment; whilst, in turn, jealousy would embitter, and covetousness would degrade ambition.
() Violence is done to the statements of the Evangelists when covetousness is eliminated from the motives which influenced Judas. His covetous disposition is not incompatible either with the fact that he was a disciple of Jesus of his own free will, or with his position of trust, or with his remorse at the consequences of his perfidy. (1) The call of Jesus would arouse a new affection, powerful enough to expel for a time all selfish greed, even though Judas, like the rest of the disciples, cherished the hope of attaining to honour in the Messianic kingdom. (2) His appointment by Jesus to a position of trust scarcely proves that he was no lover of money (Fairbairn, op. cit. p. 266); to entrust a man possessing more than ordinary business gifts with the common cash-box is to provide him with an opportunity of honourable service which may become the occasion of his downfall; it was along the line of his capacity to handle moneys that the temptation came to Judas to handle them to his own gain. (3) The objection that the remorse of Judas discredits the idea of his being actuated by greed of money has force only when covetousness is regarded as the sole motive of the betrayal. What we know of the conduct of Judas towards the close of his career suggests that covetousnessthe sin against which Jesus had so earnestly warned His discipleswas once more gaining the upper hand.
() To say that Judas was ambitious is not to differentiate him from his fellow-Apostles. The contrast between him and them was gradually brought to light as together they listened to the spiritual teaching of Jesus; that contrast is definitely marked by St. John when he first mentions Judas (6:71). It was a time of crisis; the Apostles had been severely tested (1) by the refusal of Jesus to accept the homage of the Galilaean crowd, who had been impressed by His recent miracles and desired perforce to make Him king; (2) by the searching question, Would ye also go away? (v. 67) put by Jesus to the Twelve, when Master and disciples were alike saddened by the desertion of the many. St. Peter thought he was speaking for all the Twelve when he made his confession of faith; but within that select circle there was one who had not found in Christ all that he was seeking. Jesus saw that already in spirit Judas was a deserter, and, as Westcott points out, a man who regards Christ in the light of his own selfish views is turning good into evil (), and is, therefore, a partaker of that which is essential to the devils nature (Speakers Com. in loc.). It was in the light of the Betrayal that St. John came not only to recognize in Judas the disloyal Apostle to whom Christ referred without mentioning his name, but also to perceive the significance of the words of Jesus, One of you is a devil (6:70). The whole incident shows that the words and actions of Jesus had proved a disillusionment to Judas; when he joined the disciples of Christ, he hoped for more than words of eternal life; baffled ambition was one of the motives which prompted him to do the devils work of betrayal.
() Reasons for believing that jealousy was one of the motives which led Judas to turn traitor have been given above (cf. ii. (e)). An ambitious man is peculiarly susceptible to this temptation. It would embitter Judas to realize that he was in a false position owing to his misconception of the aims of Christ, that his chances of advancement in the coming kingdom were dwindling, and that some of the least of his brethren would be greater than he. In proportion as others gained a higher place than himself in the esteem of Christ, the expectations he had been cherishing would fade. Trifles light as air are to the jealous confirmation of their fears. Fuller knowledge of the life of Judas would probably enable us to see this sin in germ. It may also be, as Ainger suggests (op. cit. p. 234), that the Evangelists are silent because there was so little to tell. Judas is described as a sullen and silent person dwelling ever on himselfhow he should profit if the cause were victorious, how he might suffer if the cause should fail. Such a man would be prone to jealousy and fit for treasons.
Whether covetousness, ambition, or jealousy was the basal motive of Judas when he betrayed Jesus, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to say. It is probable that the flame of resentment, kindled by baffled ambition, was fanned by malign jealousy and base desire to snatch at paltry gain when all seemed lost. That the thirty pieces of silver tormented Judas does not prove that they had never attracted him; that he keenly suffered from the pangs of remorse makes neither his evil deed nor his evil motives good. All that we are warranted in saying is well expressed by Bruce (The Training of the Twelve, p. 367): He was bad enough to do the deed of infamy, and good enough to be unable to bear the burden of its guilt. Woe to such a man! Better for him, indeed, that he had never been born!
v. References to Judas in post-Biblical Literature
(a) Apocryphal works.In the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles Judas Iscariot is mentioned ( 2). In the Arabic Gospel of the Childhood ( 35) Judas is represented as possessed by Satan at the birth of Jesus; he tried to bite Jesus, but could not; he did, however, strike Jesus, and immediately Satan went forth from him in the shape of a mad dog. In the Gospel of Judas (Iren. adv. Haer. i. 31; cf. Epiph. xxxviii. 1. 3) the Cainitesan important Gnostic sectare said to have declared that Judas the traitor knowing the truth as no others did, alone accomplished the mystery of the betrayal. In the Acts of Peter ( 8), Peter speaks of Judas as his fellow-disciple and fellow-apostle; he also refers to his godless act of betrayal. In the Acts of Thomas ( 32) the dragon or serpent says, I am he who inflamed and bribed Judas to deliver the Messiah to death. Later ( 84), there is a warning against theft, which enticed Judas Iscariot and caused him to hang himself. The account of the death of the serpent ( 32) probably contains reminiscences of the story of the death of Judas; after sucking the poison the serpent began to swell, and ultimately burst. Dr. Rendel Harris (op. cit. p. 508) quotes from Solomon of Bassora, The Book of the Bce, the interesting comparison: Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, was like unto the serpent, because he dealt craftily with the Lord.
(b) Early Christian writings.Clement of Rome (1 Ep. ad Cor. xlvi. 8) combines the words spoken by our Lord with regard to Judas (Mat 26:24 = Mar 14:21) with a saying recorded in another connexion in the three Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mat 18:6 f. etc.). Hermas (Vis. iv. ii. 6) probably borrows the same saying from the Synoptists, the change being no greater than we may expect when there is no express quotation (cf. The NT in the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 61, 121).
Papias refers to the horrible end of Judas (cf. above, iii. (e)) in the fourth book of his Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord (Cramer, Catena in Matthew 27). From the same book Irenaeus (adv. Haer. v. 33. 3f.) quotes an unwritten saying of Jesus, foretelling days when the earth shall be marvellously fruitful, and the animals shall be at peace. Papias further says that when the traitor Judas did not give credit to these things, and put the question, How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord? the Lord declared, They who shall come to these [times] shall see.
Tertullian, like Irenaeus (cf. above, v. (a)), condemns the Cainites because they held the conduct of Judas to be meritorious; he represents them as saying (adv. omnes Haerescs, ii.): Judas, observing that Christ wished to subvert the truth, betrayed Him. Tertullian also (adv. Marcionem, iv. 40) refers to the treachery of Judas as predetermined by prophecy.
Origen (contra Celsum, ii. 11f.) replies to the childish objection that no good general was ever betrayed; Celsus is reminded that he had learnt of the betrayal from the Gospels, and that he had called the one Judas many disciples, thus unfairly stating his accusation (cf. also Tract. in Mat. 35).
(c) Folk-lore.Some of the wild fables about Judas may be traced to the legend of the Wandering Jew (cf. Moncure D. Conway, art. Jew in Ency. Brit.9 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] xiii. 674). Another source of popular tradition is a 17th cent. work by Ulrich Megerle, a Vienna priest, generally known as Abraham a Santa Clara. His Judas der Erzschelm, oder eigentlicher Entwurf und Lebensbeschreibung des Ischariotischen Bosewichts was translated into several European languages; the English edition bears the title, The Arch-Knave, or the History of Judas from the cradle to the gallows. From the Polychronicon (14th cent.) and the Golden Legend (13th cent.) many stories of Judas, current as folk-lore, are supposed to be derived. Many curious allusions to Judas and quaint customs connected with his name are mentioned in Notes and Queries, ii. 5, 6, 7, iii. 7, iv. 1, v. 6. Cholevius, Geschichte der deutschen Poesie nach ihren antiken Elementen, compares the Judas legend with the dipus story.
Literature.It is superfluous to name Lives of Christ, Commentaries on the Gospels, and articles in Encyclopedias. Mention has already been made of the most important works which deal with the NT narratives of the life of Judas, to which may now be added Expositor, III. x. [1889] 161 ff.; Ker, Sermons, i. 282 ff.; Stalker, Trial and Death of Jesus Christ, 110 ff. Interesting studies of or references to Judas will be found in the following poems: Story, A Roman Lawyer in Jerusalem; Matthew Arnold, St. Brandan; Robert Buchanan, The Ballad of Judas Iscariot; Keble, Judass Infancy (Cradle Songs 13 in Lyra Innocentium). Dr. A. B. Grosart mentions Gianni, Sonnet on Judas; a few German poems may be added: Klopstock, Messias, 3rd Aufzug; Geibel, Judas Ischarioth; Max Crone, Judasrtsel and Der Sohn des Verderbens.
J. G. Tasker.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Judas Iscariot
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 Juda, and Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilan. 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 Lords 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 Masters 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 Sanhedrins 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. Matthews 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. Peters speech at the election of Matthias (Act 1:18-19). One is glad to think that St. Matthews 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. Lukes 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. Johns 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.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Judas Iscariot
is-kari-ot ( , Ioudas Iskariotes, i.e. ‘sh keryoth, 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).
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Judas Iscariot
[Ju’das Iscar’iot]
Son of Simon and one of the twelve apostles. He was a false disciple: when the Lord said to His apostles ‘ye are clean,’ He excepted Judas in the words ‘but not all.’ He was sent out with the others to preach, and no exception is made in his case as to the working of miracles in the name of the Lord Jesus. Under the plea of the necessities of the poor he complained of money being wasted when Mary anointed the Lord. Yet he did not really care for the poor: he was treasurer, and was a thief. Satan knew the covetousness of Judas and put it into his heart to betray the Lord for money, which he did for thirty pieces of silver. Satan afterwards, as the Adversary, took possession of him to insure the success of the betrayal.
Judas probably thought that the Lord would escape from those who arrested Him, as He had escaped from previous dangers, while he would gain the money. When the Lord was condemned, Judas was filled with remorse, confessed he had betrayed innocent blood, and cast the money into the temple. He was a complete dupe of Satan, who first tempted him to gain the money, and then would not let him keep it. He went and hanged himself, and probably falling from the tree, his bowels gushed out. An awful termination of a sinful course. The Lord called him the ‘son of perdition.’
In modern times men have erroneously argued that his confession under remorse showed true repentance, and that there is hope of his salvation! but it is not so: he fell ‘that he might go to his own place.’ It was a trial of man under new circumstances: to be a ‘familiar friend’ (Psa 41:9) of the Lord Jesus, to hear His gracious words, see His miracles, and probably be allowed to work miracles himself in His name; and yet, as in every other trial of man, he fell. Judas is a solemn instance of how far a person may be under the influence and power of Christianity, and yet become an apostate: cf. Heb 6:1-6. He is mentioned in Mat 10:4; Mat 26:14-47; Mat 27:3; Luk 22:3; Luk 22:47-48; Joh 13:2; Joh 13:26; Joh 13:29; Joh 18:2-5; Act 1:16; Act 1:25, etc.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Judas Iscariot
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).
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Judas Iscariot
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.