What does Judas Iscariot mean in the Bible?


1910 New Catholic Dictionary - Judas Iscariot
One of the 12Apostles, 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).
Holman Bible Dictionary - Judas Iscariot
(jyoo' dawss ihss car' ih aht) Personal name meaning, “Judah from Kerioth.” Betrayer of Jesus. See Judas .
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible - Judas Iscariot
JUDAS ISCARIOT. One of the Twelve, son of Simon Iscariot ( John 6:71 ; Matthew 27:3-5 RV [1] ). Iscariot (more correctly Iscarioth ) means ‘the man of Kerioth.’ Kerioth was a town in the south of Judæa, and Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a Galilæan. He had an aptitude for business, and acted as treasurer of the Apostle-band ( John 12:6 ; John 13:29 ).
Judas turned traitor, and sold the Lord to the high priests for thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave (Exodus 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 ( John 6:64 ), He did know, and yet not only admitted Judas to the Apostolate, but appointed him to an office which, by exciting his cupidity, facilitated his crime. A solution of the problem has been sought by making out in various ways that Judas was not really a criminal.
(1) In early days it was held by the Cainites, a Gnostic sect, that Judas had attained a higher degree of spiritual enlightenment than his fellows, and compassed the death of Jesus because he knew that it would break the power of the evil spirits, the rulers of this world. (2) Another ancient theory is that he was indeed a covetous man and sold the Master for greed of the pieces of silver, but never thought that He would be slain. He anticipated that He would, as on previous occasions, extricate Himself from the hands of His enemies; and when he saw Him condemned, he was overwhelmed with remorse. He reckoned, thought Paulus in more recent times, on the multitude rising and rescuing their hero from the rulers. (3) He shared the general wonderment of the disciples at the Lord’s procrastination in coming forward as the King of Israel and claiming the throne of David, and thought to force His hand and precipitate the desired consummation. ‘His hope was,’ says De Quincey, ‘that Christ would no longer vacillate; he would be forced into giving the signal to the populace of Jerusalem, who would then rise unanimously.’ Cf. Rosegger, INRI , Eng. tr. [2] p. 263. (4) His faith in his Master’s Messiahship, thought Neander, was wavering. If He were really the Messiah, nothing could harm Him; if He were not, He would perish, and it would be right that He should.
Such attempts to justify Judas must be dismissed. They are contrary to the Gospel narrative, which represents the Betrayal as a horrible, indeed diabolical, crime (cf. John 6:70 , Luke 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 (Matthew 26:14-16 = Mark 14:10-11 = Luke 22:3-6 ) evidently on the Wednesday afternoon, when Jesus, after the Great Indictment ( Matthew 23:1-39 ), was occupied with the Greeks who had come craving an interview ( John 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 ( John 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 ( Matthew 26:47-50 = Mark 14:43-46 = Luke 22:47-49 ).
It must have been a terrible ordeal for Judas, and in that hour his better nature reasserted itself. He realized the enormity of what he had done; and he followed his Master and, in an agony of remorse, watched the tragedy of His trial and condemnation by the Sanhedrin. It maddened him; and as the high priests were leaving the Hall of Hewn Stone, the Sanhedrin’s meeting-place, he accosted them, clutching the accursed shekels in his wild hands. ‘I have sinned,’ he cried, ‘in that I betrayed innocent blood.’ He thought even now to annul the bargain, but they spurned him and passed to the Sanctuary. He followed, and, ere they could close the entrance, hurled the coins after them into the Holy Place; then rushed away and hanged himself (John 13:26 ).
Such is St. Matthew’s account. The tragedy was so appalling that legends grew apace in the primitive Church, and St. Luke has preserved one of these in a parenthesis in St. Peter’s speech at the election of Matthias (Acts 1:18-19 ). One is glad to think that St. Matthew’s is the actual history. Judas sinned terribly, but he terribly repented, and one wishes that, instead of destroying his miserable life, he had rather fled to the Cross and sought mercy at the feet of his gracious Lord. There was mercy in the heart of Jesus even for Judas.
Was Judas present at the Eucharist in the Upper Room? St. John alone mentions his departure; and since he does not record the institution of the Supper, it is open to question whether the traitor ‘went out’ after it or before it. From Luke 22:17-21 it has been argued that he was present, but St. Luke’s arrangement is different from that of St. Matthew and St. Mark, who put the institution after the announcement of the Betrayal ( Matthew 26:21-29 = Mark 14:18-25 ). According to St. John’s account, Judas seems to have gone out immediately after the announcement, the institution following John 13:38 , and ch. 14 being the Communion Address.
David Smith.
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Judas Iscariot (2)
i.The NT sources.
ii.Name and Designations:
(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 (α) covetous, (β) ambitious, (γ) jealous.
v.References to Judas in post-Biblical literature:
(a)Apocryphal works;
(b)Early Christian writings.
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 ‘fix’d 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: Mark 3:16 ff., Matthew 10:2 ff., Luke 6:13 ff.
2. Early allusions to Judas: John 6:64 ff; John 12:4 ff; John 17:12, Luke 22:3 (cf. Mark 14:4 f., Matthew 26:8 f.).
3. The narratives of the Betrayal: Mark 14:10 f., Matthew 26:14 ff., Luke 22:4 ff.; John 13:2 ff.; Mark 14:18 ff., Matthew 26:21 ff., Luke 22:21 ff., John 13:21 ff.; Mark 14:43 ff., Matthew 26:47 ff., Luke 22:47 f., John 18:2 ff.
4. The two accounts of the death of Judas: Matthew 27:3 ff., Acts 1:16 ff.
From this classification it will be seen that, with the exception of Luke 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 John’s 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.).
Ἰούδας is the Gr. form of the Heb. Judah (יהוּדָה), which in Genesis 29:35 is derived from the verb ‘to praise’ (יָדָה), and is taken as meaning ‘one who is the subject of praise’ (cf. Genesis 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. Ἰσκαριώθ, a transliteration from Heb., is the best attested reading in Mark 3:19; Mark 14:10, Luke 6:16; Ἰσκαριώτης, the Graecized form in Matthew 26:14, Luke 22:3, John 6:71; John 13:2; John 13:26; ὁ Ἰσκαριώτης in Matthew 10:4, John 12:4; John 14:22. Eight of these passages refer to Judas; in two (John 6:71; John 13:26) his father Simon is called Iscariot; once (John 14:22) his fellow-Apostle is distinguished from his more famous namesake as ‘not the Iscariot.’ Only in John 13:2 does the full phrase occur—‘Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.’ Nestle thinks that ἁπὸ Καριώτου, a reading of Codex Bezae, found four times in Jn instead of Ἰακαριώτης, 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 Ἰσκαριώτης by this paraphrase (cf. ExpT [1] ix. pp. 189, 240, 283)
Two facts already mentioned have an important bearing on the interpretation of Ἰακαριώτης: (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 ἀπὸ Καριώτου confirms the view that Judas is named after his place of abode (cf. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, p. 393). Cheyne says ‘we should have expected απο κεριωθ,’ yet admits that ‘it is a plausible view’ that Ἰσκαριώτης is derived from Ish-Kerioth (אִישׁ קְרָיוֹח), ‘a man of Kerioth’ (Ency. Bibl. ii. 2624). Dalman (The Words of Jesus, p. 51 f.) thinks that Ἰσκαριώθ was the original reading, and points back to the Hebrew, whilst ὁ ἁπὸ Καριώτου corresponds to the equivalent Aramaic דִּקִרִיוֹת or דְּמִן קְרִיוֹת 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 Ἱεριχωτής, ‘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 Joshua 15:25 (Vulgate Carioth); Buhl identifies the place with the modern Karjaten in South Judah (GAP [2] p. 182). (3) Others suggest the Kerioth mentioned in Amos 2:2, Jeremiah 48:24 (LXX Septuagint Καριώθ),—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 Ewald’s view that it is another name for Ar.’ A less probable opinion is that the town referred to is Κορέαι or Kurawa (Josephus BJ i. vi. 5, iv. viii. 1; Ant. xiv. iii. 4) in North Judaea (Buhl, GAP [2] 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 twelve’—i.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. Matthew 26:14; Matthew 26:47, Mark 14:10; Mark 14:20; Mark 14:43, Luke 22:3; Luke 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 (John 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: ‘You—the 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 him—one of the twelve’ (John 6:70-71). St. John’s phrase (εἶς ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα) differs slightly from that used by the Synoptists (εἶς τῶν δώδεκα); 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 Master’s 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’ (Mark 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 Mark 14:10 the best supported reading (אBCLM) is ὁ εἶς τῶν δώδεκα, 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 ὁ εἶς as equal to ὁ πρῶτος, as in τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων (Mark 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 ‘ὁ εἶς τῶν δ. can mean nothing but “the first (No. 1) of the twelve,” which is absurd.’* [4] 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.’† [5] 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 (Matthew 26:23, John 13:23; John 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 Lord’s 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’ (John 12:6) is quite plain, if the Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 correctly renders the following sentence: ‘and having the bag, took away (ἐβάσταζεν) what was put therein.’ βαστάζω means (1) to bear, (2) to bear away, as in John 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 Mary’s anointing, for they may have come to light after that act, but before the narrative was shaped in this form.
The rendering of ἐβάσταζεν by the neutral word ‘hare’ is adopted by some, who hold that John’s 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’ (ὅτι χαλετὸς ἦν καὶ τὸ κοινὸν βαλλάντιον ἐβάσταζε). ‘The statement about Judas’ in this hypothetical text is then naïvely 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 Luke 6:16 there is a variation from the phrase by which Judas is usually described. Instead of δς καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτόν (‘who also betrayed him,’ lit. ‘delivered him up’) St. Luke has δς ἐγένετο προδότης, well rendered by Field—‘who 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 traitor’—neither brings out the force of γίνομαι, 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 fact—‘who betrayed him’ (Mark 3:19 παρέδωκεν); but there is also the prophecy, ‘The Son of Man is about to be betrayed’ (Matthew 17:22 μέλλει παραδίδπσθαι), and the statement, when the time was drawing nigh, that the process had already begun, ‘The Son of Man is being betrayed’ (Matthew 26:2 παραδίδαται). Similarly, Judas is described as ‘he who would betray him’ (John 6:64 ὁ παραδώσων), ‘he who is betraying me’ (Matthew 26:46 ὁ παραδιδούς), and as ‘he who had betrayed him’ (Matthew 27:3 ὁ παραδούς). In this connexion John 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 Schaff’s Popular Commentary, in loc.).* [6]
(f) ‘A devil.’—In John 6:70 there is a contrast between the hopes of Jesus when He chose (ἐξελεξάμην) the Twelve, and His present grief over the moral deterioration of one whose nature is now devilish (διάβολός ἐστιν). Our Lord’s 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 Lord’s 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 Pressensé, ‘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 (John 17:12) is ἀπώλεια, which signifies the state of being lost. It is the substantive derived from the same root as the main verb of the sentence (ἀπώλετο). 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 lost—he (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. 2 Thessalonians 2:3). The same word (ἀπώλεια) is rendered ‘waste’ in the Synoptic accounts of Mary’s anointing (Matthew 26:9, Mark 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 loss’—‘the waster.’
This verse (John 17:12) is often appealed to by rival champions of Calvinism and Arminianism. In Bishop Sanderson’s 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. John 17:9 ‘those whom thou hast given me’) is rather that ‘they in whom the Father’s 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 Betrayal—‘Satan 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’ (εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὁ Σατανᾶς), is also found in John 13:27, and it is preceded by the statement (John 13:2) that the devil had ‘already put into the heart (ἤδη βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν) 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 (δείπνου γινομένου) by the emphatic assertion that ‘already’ (ἤδη), i.e. at some time other than the Supper, the suggestion of the devil had been entertained by Judas. In St. Luke’s 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 (John 12:4 f.) a definite stage in the process which is sometime
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament - Judas Iscariot
The only biblical reference to Judas Iscariot by name outside the Gospels is Acts 1:16-20; Acts 1:25, and there he is called neither ‘Iscariot’ nor ‘the traitor’ (προδότης, as in Luke 6:16), nor is his action spoken of by the term παραδιδόναι. He is described in Luke 6:17 as the one who ‘became guide (ὁδηγός) to them that arrested Jesus,’ and in Luke 6:20 as having ‘fallen away (παρέβη) from the ministry and apostleship to go to his own place’ (see Place). It is interesting, however, to note the other allusions to our Lord’s betrayal in the Acts and in the Epistles. (1) In Acts 3:13 St. Peter attributes it virtually to the Israelites themselves (δν ὑμεῖς παρεδώκατε κτλ.; cf. Acts 2:23), and so again (2) in Acts 7:52 does St. Stephen (τοῦ δικαίου οὗ νῦν ὑμεῖς προδόται καὶ φονεῖς ἐγένεσθε). (3) In Romans 4:25 St. Paul, quoting Isaiah 53:12 (Septuagint ), says less definitely that Jesus our Lord παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν; (4) but in 1 Corinthians 11:23 the very act and time of betrayal are alluded to in connexion with the institution of the Last Supper (ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο κτλ.). On the other hand, St. Paul three times describes the betrayal from the point of view of our Lord’s own voluntary submission, viz. (5) Galatians 2:20 : παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ; (6) Ephesians 5:2 : παρέδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; (7) Ephesians 5:25 : ἐαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἐκκλησίας (cf. 1 Peter 2:23 : παρεδίδου τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως, and see John 10:17-18; John 17:19 etc.); and once (8) even of the Father Himself (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν, Romans 8:32).
As to Judas’s grievous end itself, as recorded in the Acts, it is not necessary here to compare it in detail with the account given in Matthew 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 Psalms 41:9, so recently quoted by our Lord Himself (John 13:18), together with its necessary consequences as foreshadowed in two other Psalms (Psalms 69:25; Psalms 109:8): that is, if John 13:20 be an original part of St. Peter’s speech, and not, as is possible, a part of the Lucan (or later) elucidation of the passage contained in John 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 Psalms 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 Psalms 69:25 the text is more exact, but the original figure employed (ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτῶν, not αὐτοῦ) suggests a nomad encampment of tents rendered desolate because of the cruel persecutions which their occupants had practised, while Psalms 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 John 13:18-19, with or without John 13:20 (see above), would seem to be an editorial comment inserted in the middle of St. Peter’s 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 traitor’s grievous end which is independent of, and in some details apparently irreconcilable with, St. Matthew’s (Matthew 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. Matthew’s simple ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο.
(c) For the title Akeldama and its interpretation see separate article, s.v.
It remains to remark that St. Peter’s 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 John 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.
Whyte's Dictionary of Bible Characters - Matthias the Successor to Judas Iscariot
IN the opening chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we are introduced into the first congregational meeting, so to call it, that ever was held in the Church of Christ. There are a hundred-and-twenty members present in the upper room, and the Presbytery of Jerusalem are met there with the congregation: moderator, clerk, and all. Peter presides; and he discharges the duties of the day with all that solemnity of mind and all that intensity of heart which we seldom miss in Peter. The solemnity of the meeting would solemnise any man. It would melt a far harder heart than the heart of the emotional son of Jonas ever was. For Judas Iscariot, a member of the Presbytery, so to call him, has turned out to have been the son of perdition all the time. For thirty pieces of silver he had become guide to them that took Jesus. Peter himself had wellnigh gone down into the same horrible pit with Judas: and he also would have been in his own place by this time, had it not been that his Master prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail. And thus it is that Peter is now sitting in that seat of honour and influence and authority, and is conducting the election of a successor to Judas, with all that holy fear and with all that firm faith which makes that upper room, under Peter's presidency, such a pattern to all vacant congregations to all time. Considering her age and her size, the Church of Jerusalem had a large number of men any one of whom could quite well have been put forward and proposed for the vacant office. But Peter and his colleagues, with a great sense of responsibility, had prepared a short leet of two quite outstanding and distinguished men; Joseph, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And then one of the eleven led the congregation in prayer in these well-remembered words-"Lord, Thou knowest the hearts of all men: show whether of these two Thou hast chosen." And the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Now, somewhat remarkable to say, never before the day of his election, and never after it, is Matthias's name so much as once mentioned in all the New Testament. At the same time, we have Matthias's footprints, so to speak, oftener than once on the pages of the four Gospels. And a man's mere footprints, and the direction they point to, will sometimes tell us far more about the real character and capacity of the man than whole volumes of printed matter about him. The first time we see one of Matthias's footprints is on the sands of Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. Like Andrew and Simon the sons of Jonas, and like John the son of Zebedee, Matthias was a disciple of the Baptist at that time, confessing his sins. The next day John seeth Jesus coming to him, and saith to Matthias, Behold the Lamb of God. And Matthias heard him speak, and he followed Jesus, along with John and Andrew. And when Peter tabled Matthias's name on the day of the election, he certified all these things about Matthias to the ten, and to the women, and to Mary the mother of Jesus, and to His brethren, and to the whole hundred-and-twenty. And more than that, Peter certified to the whole congregation that, when many who had been baptized, apostatised and went back and walked no more with John and Jesus, Matthias, said Peter, has this to his praise, that he has endured and has persevered up to this very present. Not only so, but this also, that Matthias had been a witness with the eleven of the resurrection of the Lord. And these, added Peter, are the two indispensable tests of fitness for this vacant office; a three years' conversion and faithful diseipleship, and this also, that he had seen the risen Lord with his own eyes. And the lot fell upon Matthias.
Now, it is sometimes not very unlike that when you yourselves meet to call a minister. Tremendous as the moment is: everlasting as the issues are that hang upon that moment: you may never have heard so much as the name of that candidate for the pastorate of your immortal soul. You may never so much as have heard him once open his mouth either to pray or to preach. Not one of the hundred-and-twenty had ever heard this stranger man Matthias once open his mouth. But Peter has had his eye on Matthias all along. Peter knew far more about both Joseph and Matthias than they could have believed. Peter was all ears and all eyes where a future apostle and pastor was concerned. And so it is sometimes still. All you really know about your future minister you have to take sometimes on the best testimony you can get. As one of our own elders once said when we were calling our young minister: "I would rather trust to those two capable men who know him and have heard him preach, than I would trust to my own ears." And he spake with both wisdom and humility in so saying. Like the hundred-and-twenty, little as you know about your future minister, you know this much, that when all the other young men at school and college were choosing learning, and philosophy, and medicine, and law, and the army, and the navy, and trade, and manufactures, and so on; this youth now in your offer was led to choose the word of God, and the pulpit, and the pastorate, for his life-work. And, with all that, you may with some assurance, put your hand to his call, after you have made your importunate and personal prayer about this whole momentous matter to Him who knows the hearts of all men. For He knows your heart better than you know it yourself: and He knows just what kind of a minister your heart needs: your own heart and your children's hearts. And, then, He knows the hearts of all those probationers also, and whether their hearts are properly in their Master's work or no. As also what motive it was that made them ministers at first, and with what motive and with what intention they are laying out their future work among you. How well it is, both for congregations and candidates, that He knows all men's hearts, and that all men's hearts are in His hands.
Three years ago Matthias had come through a very sharp trial of faith, and love, and patience, and perseverance. At his conversion and baptism Matthias had prepared his heart to leave all and to follow Christ. But instead of being invited to do what with all his heart he wished to do, Matthias was deliberately passed over by our Lord in His election of the twelve. Matthias had been in Christ, as Paul says, a long time before some of those men who were lifted over his head; and here was he as good as set aside and clean forgotten. And, just suppose, what is more than likely, that Matthias knew Judas's secret heart and real character quite well; what a shock it was to Matthias's faith, and love, and whole religious life, to see such a deceiver as Iscariot was, deliberately chosen by Christ, when Matthias would have shed the last drop of his blood for the Master who had refused to employ him. But Matthias, for all that, did not let his heart sour. He accepted being set aside as his proper place. He found in himself only too many reasons why he was so set aside. He was like the defeated candidate in Plutarch who, departing home from the election to his house, said to them at home that it did him good to see that there were three hundred men in Athens who were better men than he was. And thus it was that when many men would have turned away and gone after another master, Matthias said to himself: 'Office or no office, election or rejection, call or no call, to whom else can I go?' Nay, not only did Matthias keep true to his Master through all these humiliations and disappointments, but he continued to behave himself and to lay out his life just as if he had been elected and ordained. So much so, that without ordination he worked harder at the out-of-the-way work of the discipleship than some of those did who were elected, and ordained, and honoured, and rewarded men. And thus it was that Peter was able to certify to the hundred-and-twenty that Matthias had been as true and as loyal to his Lord all those three years as the very best of the eleven had been. 'And thus,' said Peter, 'if there were some who were numbered among us who were not at heart of us, there were others who were at heart and in life really of us, though they were not as yet written down among us.' So have I myself seen heaven-born and highly-gifted ministers of Christ passed over in the day when this and that vacant charge met to cast their lots. And, like Matthias, I have seen such men left out at the beginning only to be the more promoted and employed in the end. But then, to be sure, they were like Matthias in this also, that all their days they were men of staunchest loyalty to their Master, and men of sleepless labour for His cause. When a door shall open, and where, is not the true servant's business, nor his anxiety. It is the true servant's part to be ready; which the truest of all servants never feels that he is. And disappointments and procrastinations to all such men are but extended opportunities to enable them to be somewhat less unready for their call when it comes. If Matthias had been a modern probationer you would not have found him going about complaining against this committee and that congregation. You would not have seen him going about idle all the week, and then turning up at each new vacancy with the same old and oft-fingered sermon. No. You may shut all your doors on some candidates, but you cannot shut them out from their books, and from the hidden and unstipended work that their hearts love. You cannot, with all your ill-cast lots, either embitter or alienate a truly elect, and humble-minded, and diligent disciple of Christ, And with all your ill-advised elections the stone that is fit for the wall will not always be let lie in the ditch.
But is there anything possible to our very best probationers that can at all be compared to this qualification of those days-to have companied with the Lord Jesus all the time He went out and in among His disciples? Yes; I think there is. Nay, not only so; but when we enter into all the inwardness and depth of this matter we come to see that our students of divinity and our probationers have actually some great advantages over the twelve disciples themselves. Our Lord's words are final, and full of instruction and comfort to us, on this matter. His words to Thomas, I mean. Jesus saith to him "Thomas, because thou hast seen, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." And you will all recall Sir Thomas Browne's noble protestation: "Now, honestly, I bless myself that I never saw Christ nor His disciples. I would not have been one of Christ's patients on whom He wrought His wonders. For then had my faith been thrust upon me, nor should I enjoy that greater blessing pronounced to all that believe and saw not. I believe He was dead and buried, and rose again: and desire to see Him in His glory, rather than to contemplate Him in His cenotaph or sepulchre. They only had the advantage of a bold and noble faith who lived before His coming, and who upon obscure prophecies and mystical types could raise a belief and expect apparent impossibilities." To have seen and handled the Word of Life; to have had Him dwelling among them, full of grace and truth, as John says; to have had Him going in and out among them, as Peter says, was a privilege incomparable and unspeakable. At the same time, let any student in our day read his Greek Testament, with his eye on the Object: let him be like John Bunyan:-"Methought I was as if I had seen Him born, as if I had seen Him grow up, as if I had seen Him walk through this world, from the Cradle to the Cross: to which, when He came, I saw how gently He gave Himself up to be hanged and nailed on it for my sins and wicked doings. Also, as I was musing on this His progress, that dropped on my spirit, He was ordained for the slaughter," and so on. Let any of our students company with Christ all the time He went in and out in that manner, and he may depend upon it that the beautiful benediction which our Lord addressed in reproof to Thomas will be richly fulfilled to that wise-hearted student all his happy ministerial days, and through him to his happy people. Now, if there were a divinity student here I would ask and demand of him out of this Scripture for students-Are you so companying with Christ while you are still at college? Do you see with all your inward eyes what you read in your New Testament? Do you believe and believe and believe your way through the four Gospels? Is your faith the very substance itself of the things you hope for, and the absolute and conclusive evidence of the things you do not as yet see? Do you pray your way through the life of Christ? Do you put the lepers, and the sick, and the possessed with devils, and the dead in their graves, out of their places, as you read about them; and do you put yourself into their places, and say what they say, and hear and accept what is said to them? For, if so, then you will receive, all your preaching and pastoral days, the end of your faith, the salvation of your own soul, and the salvation of the souls of your people.
Then, again, could any of our probationers be put forward by his proposer as Matthias was still put forward by Peter? No. It could not possibly be said of any man living in these dregs of time of ours that he had been an actual witness of the resurrection of Christ. And yet I am not so sure of that. Strange things can be said when you come to speak about a true probationer. With man it is impossible; but not with God With God all things are possible. I myself know probationers who are witnesses of the very best authority that Christ is risen indeed. Let such a young preacher come to your vacant pulpit with Ephesians 1:19-23; Ephesians 2:1 for his Sabbath morning exposition; and let him set forth with Paul, that the spiritual quickening of a soul dead in trespasses and sins is done by the same mighty power that quickened and raised up Christ, and you will soon see if he knows what he is speaking about. And if he does: if he makes your hearts to burn with the noble doctrine of his and your oneness with the risen Christ, then you have in your offer a living witness of apostolic rank for Christ's resurrection. You might have the angel who rolled away the stone and sat on it for your other candidate, but he should have no vote of mine. Give me for my minister, not Gabriel himself, but a fellow-sinner who has been quickened together with Christ, and who can describe the process and the experience till my death-cold heart burns within me with the resurrection-life of Christ. Give me a minister whom God has raised from the dead, and you may have all the sounding brasses and tinkling cymbals in heaven and earth for me. And I am glad to say that there are not a few probationers abroad of that experience. Only, are you sure you will recognise them when they appear and preach in your pulpit? For-
A jest's prosperity lies in the earOf him that hears it, never in the tongueOf him that speaks it.Let the hundred-and-twenty take heed how they hear.
Watson's Biblical & Theological 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,' Acts 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.
Morrish Bible Dictionary - Judas Iscariot
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' (Psalm 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. Hebrews 6:1-6 . He is mentioned in Matthew 10:4 ; Matthew 26:14-47 ; Matthew 27:3 ; Luke 22:3,47,48 ; John 13:2,26,29 ; John 18:2-5 ; Acts 1:16,25 , etc.

Sentence search

Iscariot - See Judas Iscariot
Iscariot - —See Judas Iscariot
Kerioth - —See Judas Iscariot
Traitor - —See Judas Iscariot, ii
Perdition, Son of - —See Judas Iscariot
Son of Perdition - —See Judas Iscariot, ii
Judas-Colored - ) Red; - from a tradition that Judas Iscariot had red hair and beard
Spy Wednesday - The Wednesday in Holy Week, intimating that Judas Iscariot was watching the movements of Our Lord in order to secure His betrayal
Wednesday, Spy - The Wednesday in Holy Week, intimating that Judas Iscariot was watching the movements of Our Lord in order to secure His betrayal
Bishoprick, - where the office, is 'apostleship,' for which one was chosen to take the place of Judas Iscariot
ke'Rioth - (Joshua 15:25 ) Supposed by some to have been the birthplace of Judas Iscariot
Apostle Spoons - The place of Judas Iscariot was supplied sometimes by Paul, more often by Matthias
Eleven, Eleventh - , undecim), is used only of the eleven Apostles remaining after the death of Judas Iscariot, Matthew 28:16 ; Mark 16:14 ; Luke 24:9,33 ; Acts 1:26 ; 2:14
Aceldama - The field Judas Iscariot purchased, where he killed himself (Acts 1:19 )
Barsabas - JOSEPH, also called JUSTUS, who was nominated with Matthias as suitable to fill the place of Judas Iscariot
Barsabas - He was one of the candidates for the vacancy in the apostleship, occasioned by the fall of Judas Iscariot
Jude - Among the apostles there were two who bore this name, (1) Judas (Jude 1:1 ; Matthew 13:55 ; John 14:22 ; Acts 1:13 ), called also Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ); and (2) Judas Iscariot (Matthew 10:4 ; Mark 3:19 )
Barsabas - He was on of the two candidates nominated to fill the vacancy left by Judas Iscariot in the apostleship, Acts 1:1-26
Galilean - All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:11 ), were Galileans
Apostle - The twelve apostles of Jesus were Simon Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot
Simon - Father, or brother, of Judas Iscariot, himself surnamed Iscariot ( John 6:71 ; John 13:26 ‘Judas of Simon Iscariot,’ John 13:2 ‘Judas Iscariot of Simon’)
Simon - Simon the father of Judas Iscariot (John 6:71; John 13:2; John 13:26)
Judas - It seems that, after the treachery of Judas Iscariot in betraying Jesus, the name Judas became unpopular among Christians. ...
For example, Jesus’ group of twelve apostles included a second man named Judas, but when writers mention him they point out that he was the son of a man named James, and not Judas Iscariot. )...
Judas Iscariot...
Judas the betrayer was commonly known as Iscariot (meaning ‘man of Kerioth’), after the home town of his father, Simon (Matthew 10:4; John 6:71)
Price of Blood - —An expression used by the priests of the Temple in reference to the money Judas Iscariot had received for the betrayal of his Master. (For the story of Judas’ end, and the divergent account in Acts 1:18-19, see Akeldama, Judas Iscariot). —See under Judas Iscariot, but esp
Hazor - " It is supposed to have been the home of Judas Iscariot, the man of Kerioth, Matthew 10:4; Conder suggested Kheshram, north of Beer-sheba, as the site of this Hazor
Mass, Saints of the - Before the Consecration, in the prayer Communicantes, commemoration is made of ...
Our Lady
twelve Apostles (including Saint Paul, but excluding Judas Iscariot)
Pope Saint Linus
Pope Saint Cletus
Pope Saint Clement
Pope Saint Sixtus
Pope Saint Cornelius
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Saint Lawrence
Saint Chrysogonus
Saint John the Martyr
Saint Paul the Martyr
Saint Cosmas
Saint Damian
After the Consecration, in the prayer Nobis quoque peccatoribus, we pray for fellowship with certain other apostles and martyrs ...
Saint John the Baptist
Saint Stephen the First Martyr
Saint Matthias the Apostle
Saint Barnabas the Apostles
Saint Ignatius of Antioch
Pope Saint Alexander I
Saint Marcellinus
Saint Peter the Exorcist
Saint Felicitas
Saint Perpetua
Saint Agatha
Saint Lucy
Saint Agnes
Saint Cecilia
Saint Anastasia
It is noteworthy that all the above are martyrs, and either Romans or saints popular at Rome, as our Mass is the local liturgy of the city of Rome
Simon - The father of Judas Iscariot (John 6:71 )
Saints of the Mass - Before the Consecration, in the prayer Communicantes, commemoration is made of ...
Our Lady
twelve Apostles (including Saint Paul, but excluding Judas Iscariot)
Pope Saint Linus
Pope Saint Cletus
Pope Saint Clement
Pope Saint Sixtus
Pope Saint Cornelius
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Saint Lawrence
Saint Chrysogonus
Saint John the Martyr
Saint Paul the Martyr
Saint Cosmas
Saint Damian
After the Consecration, in the prayer Nobis quoque peccatoribus, we pray for fellowship with certain other apostles and martyrs ...
Saint John the Baptist
Saint Stephen the First Martyr
Saint Matthias the Apostle
Saint Barnabas the Apostles
Saint Ignatius of Antioch
Pope Saint Alexander I
Saint Marcellinus
Saint Peter the Exorcist
Saint Felicitas
Saint Perpetua
Saint Agatha
Saint Lucy
Saint Agnes
Saint Cecilia
Saint Anastasia
It is noteworthy that all the above are martyrs, and either Romans or saints popular at Rome, as our Mass is the local liturgy of the city of Rome
Simon - The father of Judas Iscariot
Waste - Judas Iscariot in vol
Simon - The father of Judas Iscariot, John 6:71 13:2,26
Perdition - In John 17:12 the phrase is applied to Judas Iscariot, while in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 it is used of the ‘man of sin,’ or Antichrist
Apostle - The names of the twelve are, Simon Peter; Andrew, his brother; James, the son of Zebedee, called also "the greater;" John, his brother; Philip; Bartholomew; Thomas; Matthew, or Levi; Simon the Canaanite; Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus, also called Judas or Jude; James, "the less," the son of Alphaeus; and Judas Iscariot, Matthew 10:2-4 Mark 3:16 Luke 6:14
Hazor - This place has been identified with el-Kuryetein, and has been supposed to be the home of Judas Iscariot
Apostle - ...
12 Judas Iscariot. Judas Iscariot is always named last. ...
On the death of Judas Iscariot, Matthias, an early disciple, was chosen in his place, for there must be (irrespective of Paul, who, as we have seen, held a unique place) twelve apostles as witnesses of His resurrection, Acts 1:22 ; Revelation 21:14 as there must still be twelve tribes of Israel
Thomas - ’ If, as Eusebius states, the Apostle’s name was Judas, he would be styled ‘the Twin’ to distinguish him from Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot
Simon - ) The fifth was the father of Judas Iscariot (John 13:2; John 13:26)
Simon - Simon, father of Judas Iscariot
Judas - The last of these was Judas Iscariot
Simon - ...
The father of Judas Iscariot (John 6:71 ; 13:2,26 )
Kiss (2) - ...
With regard to the salutation of Judas Iscariot (Luke 22:47-48), to have kissed the hand of Christ after the interval of absence caused by his conference with the chief priests would have been but an ordinary tribute of respect, and as such would have escaped the notice of the disciples, while giving the required information to those who had come with him
Apocrypha - ...
The following is a list of the Apocrypha: ...
Apocrypha of Jewish Origin ...
Jewish Apocalypses ...
Book of Henoch
Assumption of Moses
Fourth Book of Esdras
Apocalypse of Baruch
Apocalypse of Abraham
Legendary Apocrypha of Jewish Origin ...
Book of Jubilees, or Little Genesis
Third Book of Esdras
Third Book of Machabees
History and Maxims of Ahikar, the Assyrian
Apocryphal Psalms and Prayers ...
Psalms of Solomon
Prayer of Manasses
Jewish Philosophy ...
Fourth Book of Machabees
Apocrypha of Jewish Origin with Christian Accretions ...
Sibylline Oracles
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Ascension of Isaias
Apocrypha Of Christian Origin ...
Apocryphal Gospels of Catholic Origin ...
Protoevangelium Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James, describing the birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin
Gospel of the Pseudo-Matthew
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy
History of Joseph the Carpenter
Transitu Marire, or Evangelium Joannis, describing the death and assumption of the Blessed Virgin
Judaistic and Heretical Gospels ...
Gospel according to the Hebrews
Gospel according to the Egyptians
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Philip
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Bartholomew
Gospel of Matthias
Gospel of Nicodemus
Gospel of the Twelve Apostles
Gospel of Andrew
Gospel of Barnabas
Gospel of Thaddeus
Gospel of Philip
Gospel of Eve
Gospel of Judas Iscariot
Pilate Literature and Other Apocrypha concerning Christ ...
Report of Pilate to the Emperor
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea
Pseudo-Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar, King of Edessa
Gnostic Acts of the Apostles ...
Acts of Peter
Acts of John
Acts of Andrew
Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Bartholomew
Catholic Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles ...
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Philip
Acts of Matthew
Acts of Simon and Jude
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of James the Greater
Apocryphal Doctrinal Works ...
Testamentum Domini
Nostri Jesu
Preaching of Peter, or Kerygma Petri
Apocryphal Epistles ...
Pseudo-Epistle of Peter
Pseudo-Epistles of Paul
Pseudo-Epistles to the Laodiceans
Pseudo-Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
Christian Apocryphal Apocalypses ...
Apocalypse of Peter
Apocalypse of Paul
Demoniacs - The case of Judas Iscariot was somewhat different, inasmuch as it was Satan himself that entered into that wretched man
Apostle - Judas Iscariot, one of "the twelve," fell by transgression, and Matthias was substituted in his place (Acts 1:21 )
Names - ...
Surnames were sometimes given from the place where one lived or from which one came, as in the case of Judas Iscariot (wh
Joseph - He was therefore nominated, along with Matthias, for the office made vacant by the treachery and death of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21-23)
Judas - Judas Iscariot
Bag - See Judas Iscariot
Apostle - " These twelve were arranged in three groups, Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, with James and John, the two sons of Zebedee; then Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew; and, lastly, James, the son of Alpheus, Lebbeus (called Thaddeus, Judas, and Jude), Simon Zelotes or the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot
Judas - Lastly, Judas Iscariot, the traitor. ...
See Iscariot...
The awful character of this man is related to us so fully in the gospels, that there can need nothing more than a reference to those sacred records to obtain the most complete account of him, together with his tremendous doom: for what can more fully decide the everlasting ruin of the traitor than the Lord Jesus's account of him, when summing up all in one the most finished picture of misery, Jesus saith "good were it for that man, if he had never been born!" (Mark 14:11)...
It hath been a subject of some debate in the early church respecting Judas Iscariot, whether he did or did not receive the Lord's Supper. But if the evangelist meant the Lord's Supper in the Passover, when he said, (John 13:2) "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him"-if this was the sacramental supper, then it will follow that all that is subsequent in this chapter was also subsequent to the service. But I cannot see the very great importance of the question, whether Judas Iscariot did or did not receive the Lord's Supper
Satan - He "entered" Judas Iscariot (Luke 22:3 ), and "filled the heart" of Ananias (Acts 5:3 ). He was able to "enter" Judas Iscariot (Luke 22:3 ; cf
Thom'as - John; and this amounts to three traits, which, however, so exactly agree together that, slight as they are they place his character before us with a precision which belongs to no other of the twelve apostles except Peter, John and Judas Iscariot
Place - , Luke 14:9,10 , RV, "place" (AV, "room"); of the destiny of Judas Iscariot, Acts 1:25 ; of the condition of the "unlearned" or non-gifted in a church gathering, 1 Corinthians 14:16 , RV, "place;" the sheath of a sword, Matthew 26:52 ; a place in a book, Luke 4:17 ; see also Revelation 2:5 ; 6:14 ; 12:8 ; metaphorically, of "condition, occasion, opportunity" Acts 25:16 , RV , "opportunity" (AV, "license"); Romans 12:19 ; Ephesians 4:27
si'Mon - ) ...
Simon the father of Judas Iscariot
Disciple (2) - ...
Judas Iscariot. ...
Judas Iscariot. ...
Judas Iscariot
Bread, Bread of Presence - Conversely, to take someone's bread and then turn against that person is to commit a heinous offense of ingratitude and betrayal, as in the case of Judas Iscariot (Psalm 41:9 ; John 13:18-30 )
Luciferus i, Bishop of Calaris - He compares the emperor to the worst kings that ever reigned, and regards him as more impious than Judas Iscariot
Lost - also John 17:12 ‘None of them is lost, but the son of perdition’; see Judas Iscariot); but as a participle used passively, the form in which we find it in Luke 19:10, and in the group of parables in Luke 15, which bear especially on this subject, it signifies simply a condition of peril, grave, yet with the glad prospect of recovery
Judas Iscariot - The only biblical reference to Judas Iscariot by name outside the Gospels is Acts 1:16-20; Acts 1:25, and there he is called neither ‘Iscariot’ nor ‘the traitor’ (προδότης, as in Luke 6:16), nor is his action spoken of by the term παραδιδόναι
Arment - ...
Psalm 109:18 (a) This is a description of Judas Iscariot
Judas Iscariot - "The treachery of Judas Iscariot," says Dr
Ointment - When Mary anointed Jesus with a pound of costly ointment, Judas Iscariot rebuked Jesus because the ointment was worth the equivalent of one year's salary (John 12:3-8 )
Judas Iscariot - Judas Iscariot
Repentance - Judas Iscariot was "seized with remorse" after betraying Jesus (Matthew 27:3 )
Passover (i.) - Peter, and the unheard conversation of our Lord with Judas Iscariot (John 13:23-24, Matthew 26:25). This was probably the sop which Judas Iscariot received (John 13:26)
Fall, Fallen, Falling, Fell - , "having become headlong," is used of the suicide of Judas Iscariot
Number Systems And Number Symbolism - Similarly, in the New Testament, when Judas Iscariot committed suicide, the eleven moved quickly to add another to keep their number at twelve
Bread - Of this offence Judas Iscariot was guilty at the Last Supper
Mary - Judas Iscariot murmured at this; but Jesus justified Mary in what she had done, saying, that by this action she had prevented his embalmment, and in a manner had declared his death and burial, which were at hand
Apostles - The remaining five names—Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas or Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus, and Judas Iscariot are new. Most commonly it is regarded as a geographical term signifying ‘man of Kerioth,’ but where Kerioth was situated is keenly canvassed, some placing it to the east of the Dead Sea and others in the south of Judah (see Judas Iscariot). The third is formed of James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas or Thaddaeus, and Judas Iscariot
Twelve - Judas Iscariot: the traitor
Judas Iscariot (2) - JUDAS ISCARIOT...
i. ’ Only in John 13:2 does the full phrase occur—‘Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon
Simeon - Father of Judas Iscariot (John 6:71; John 12:4; John 13:2; John 13:26)
the Penitent Thief - Nay, for anything we know, this man may at one time have been one of our Lord's disciples, quite as well as Simon Zelotes and Judas Iscariot
James - ), and Judas Iscariot
Banquet - Yet our blessed Redeemer did not refuse to give his disciples, and Judas Iscariot himself, that proof of his love and humility
Ananias And Sapphira - ' And the young men came in and found her dead, and they buried Ananias and Sapphira in Aceldama, next back-breadth to Judas Iscariot, the proprietor of the place
Matthias the Successor to Judas Iscariot - For Judas Iscariot, a member of the Presbytery, so to call him, has turned out to have been the son of perdition all the time
Apostle - Hammond thinks, from the Hebrew קנא , signifying the same with Zelotes, or the Zelot, a name given to him on account of his having before professed a distinguishing zeal for the law; and Judas Iscariot, or a man of Carioth, Joshua 15:25 , who afterward betrayed him, and then laid violent hands on himself
Foresight - In the especially striking case of the choice of Judas Iscariot as one of the Apostles, it expressly explains that this was due to no ignorance of Judas’ character or of his future action (John 6:64; John 6:70; John 13:11), but was done as part of our Lord’s voluntary execution of His own well-laid plans
Ahithophel - ...
Now, as you know, Ahithophel, from that day to this, has been stoned in his grave at Giloh, and all manner of names called at him as he lies there: Deserter, traitor, apostate, Judas Iscariot, suicide, and all manner of evil names, because he left David and joined Absalom
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis - In one fragment he mentions Justus Barsabas; in another he gives an account of the death of Judas Iscariot which seems plainly intended to reconcile the story in St
Sinlessness - And even Judas Iscariot, though he had known Him long, and had, at the moment when he spoke, a strong interest in recalling anything with which he could have found fault as an excuse for his own conduct, acknowledged that he had betrayed ‘innocent blood’ (Matthew 27:4)
Gospels - , Judas Iscariot and his father Simon Iscariot ( John 6:71 RV Gospels, Apocryphal - ...
( i ) The Gospel of Judas Iscariot , used by a sect of the Gnostics the Cainites
Mental Characteristics - No rule is to be directly drawn from the Lord’s treatment of the woman in the Temple, or of Zacchaeus, or of Judas Iscariot, which would apply to all adulteresses, or renegades, or traitors: each was dealt with as the particular need required