Nowhere in scripture does it say that Judas was saved or possessed eternal life.
It doesn't have to. It (Scripture) is taken for granted that as a Hebrew Judas is in covenant with God being of the seed of Abraham and an heir of [his] promises.
In fact it declares just the opposite. The bible teaches that Judas was the son of perdition from the beginning. Jesus said of Judas it would of been better off for him to not even been born than to betray the Son of Man.
Actually, it doesn't. It is certain erroneous interpretation that is of the opinion Judas was/is doomed. I've studied the question at length and I now under that what Scripture says and the false theology out there that condemns Him to "hell" and then on the other hand claim Jesus can save the sinner and He does - it's just that He doesn't save Judas. As a Hebrew in covenant and under the Law Judas was atoned every year on Yom Kippur just as every Jew in covenant with God. seeing you have presented the textbook position of Judas' damnation - a belief I used to hold to from the start until I came across one Scripture, then another, that honestly contradicted what most believe about this man and this has caused me to look closer at the question. After prayerful study and sincere desire for the truth I believe I can present the truth on the question of Judas Iscariot.
John 6:63-65
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray Him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
I do not deny it. Judas betrayed Jesus. But when I asked others on other sites over the years if they could identify what Judas did that is considered his betrayal, most everyone cannot pinpoint his deed. But then again, didn't all the disciples betray Jesus - Peter most sinister for denying even knowing Jesus to save his hide. While Peter denied knowing Jesus, in contrast what did Judas do? He pointed Jesus out and in so many words said, "this is He whom you seek. This is Jesus, Messiah" thereby
declaring Him to those that would arrest Him.
John 6:70-71
Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray Him.)
Yes, Judas was called "devil" by Jesus. Jesus also declares that Christ chose Judas and "named him apostle." And this after Jesus spent all night in prayer with His Father. And in the text Judas is chosen in the same capacity as the other eleven apostles. Along with being chosen by Christ in the same capacity as the other eleven Luke says that Jesus "named them apostles." Not eleven apostles and one devil-apostle. Not eleven apostles and one false apostle. The text merely states that Jesus disciples were called to Him and of these He chose twelve and "named them apostles." This is an equally shared distinction and all twelve "were named apostles" by Jesus. To say that Judas was not or never an apostle is to
contradict Jesus who declared Judas as [an] "apostle" the same as Peter was "named apostle" or John was "named apostle" etc.
Another point to consider is that here and elsewhere in the gospels and once in Acts Judas is identified several times that he was "one of the twelve." Now, we know the importance of being identified by a word successively such as the word "holy" referring to God. But three "holy, holy, holy" as in Isaiah six is indicative of profound meaning. The repetition of a word or phrase in the Bible is a significant literary device used to convey meaning and emphasis. When the angels in Isaiah's vision cry out "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts," the threefold repetition is not a casual utterance. It carries profound theological weight. In Hebrew literary tradition, repeating a word is a way of creating a superlative or an absolute. Saying "holy" once is an attribute. Saying it twice is an emphasis. Saying it three times signifies the highest possible degree of that quality. "Holy, holy, holy" means God is not just holy, but absolutely, completely, and perfectly holy. His holiness is beyond all measure and comparison. We know the significance of the number "three" in the Bible. But Judas is identified five times as [being] one of the twelve." Five is a blessed number. There are five "books" of the Pentateuch. According to Scripture five represents "grace."
Then there is the word "devil" in the passage you quote of John. The word "devil" is the Greek "diabolos" and in the passage you post in John 6:70 it is an adjective (according to Strong.) An
adjective is a word that modifies, or describes, a noun or pronoun. It provides more information about the noun's qualities, characteristics, or attributes. But Jesus is not saying Judas was the proverbial fallen angel named Lucifer and identified as "adversary" ("Satan.") The word "devil" as defined by Strong is "traducer." What is "traducer"? The word
diabolos literally means "slanderer," "accuser," or "one who throws a stone." The word "traducer" fits this meaning perfectly, as a traducer is someone who speaks maliciously and falsely of another, slandering or defaming them. After this I wondered where in the gospels Judas "slandered" Jesus. There is no record of Judas "slandering" Jesus. Not exactly. I thought ahead to the interaction between Judas and the chief priests when Judas went to them asking how much they would pay to help them "take Jesus." I wondered how that would have played out. The first thing I recognized was the priests knew Judas was a disciple of Jesus. Maybe in their own corruption they may have wondered if Jesus was trying to trap them by sending one of His disciples. They could have been suspected of Judas and were not buying what Judas was selling them. But for thirty pieces of silver, which was a lot of money, Judas knew he was "losing" them. Until Judas began to slander Jesus, throw in a complaint or two about Jesus. and then the priests took note. They may have been corrupting but they were seen by the people as credentialed men. They were men having power over the people. And as such they could hear Judas slandering his teacher/rabbi. If something was suspect about Judas coming to them, then "bearing false witness" could be used of Judas by the priests to get Judas in trouble if something didn't pan out and Judas was there to get these priests in hot water themselves. If anything, they could have Judas later arrested and stoned for bearing false witness against Jesus his rabbi if they were caught in a plan by Jesus. That's one thing a student would never do to their rabbi and that is slander him and accuse him falsely of something. Then, I understood how Judas was a traducer, a slanderer, an accuser. Once Judas slandered his rabbi they had him, one of Jesus' disciples on their side. (
I still have many more of your comments to reply and I only have 10,000 words in which to do it.)
Let me move on.
John 12:4-6
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray Him, objected, 5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
Yes, Judas was a thief. He was the one that "held the bag." But weren't the disciples also sinners like Judas? Peter was a cusser. Always blaspheming with his mouth. Each disciple were sinners. And each of them in covenant with God and every year a lamb was slain to atone their sins for one year. Didn't any of these sacrifices and offerings every year do anything to change these men? No. Judas was a slander and a thief. Peter cussed and blasphemed a lot. They were all sinners and covered by blood every year to atone for their sins. Yet there was no power in the animal sacrifice to effect change and that dealt with personal sin like there is today in which as born-again believers we observe communion in church and pray for the power to be more like Jesus. But they didn't have that under the Law. But it did point to someone with the power to change every born-again believer into the image of Christ. Until that day (Pentecost) Judas and Peter were sinners. And both under the Law and for one year their sins were covered by the blood of the sacrifice un til next year when they do it all over again.
John 13:10-11
10 Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." 11 For He knew who was going to betray Him, and that was why He said not every one was clean.
The focus was on Judas because Jesus knew he was going to betray Him. They were ALL sinners. But let me ask you... can you identify what Judas did that was his betrayal? What did he do that betrayed Jesus?
John 17:12
12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except
the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
The same word is used to describe the very man of sin, the antichrist in:
2 Thessalonians 2:13-
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
the man doomed to destruction.
STRONGS NT 684: ἀπώλεια
ἀπώλεια, ἀπωλείας, ἡ (from ἀπόλλυμι, which see);
1. actively, a destroying, utter destruction: as, of vessels,
Romans 9:22; τοῦ μύρου, waste,
Mark 14:4 (in
Matthew 26:8 without a genitive) (in Polybius 6, 59, 5 consumption, opposed to τήρησις); the putting of a man to death,
Acts 25:16 Rec.; by metonymy, a destructive thing or opinion: in plural
2 Peter 2:2 Rec.; but the correct reading ἀσελγείαις was long ago adopted here.
2. passively, a perishing, ruin, destruction;
a. in general: τό ἀργύριον σου σύν σοι εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν, let thy money perish with thee,
Acts 8:20; βυρθίζειν τινα εἰς ὄλεθρον καί ἀπώλειαν, with the included idea of misery,
1 Timothy 6:9; αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας destructive opinions,
2 Peter 2:1; ἐπάγειν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπώλειαν, ibid. cf.
2 Peter 2:3.
b. in particular, the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God:
Revelation 17:8, 11, cf.
Revelation 19:20;
Philippians 3:19;
2 Peter 3:16; opposed to ἡ περιποίησις τῆς ψυχῆς,
Hebrews 10:39; to ἡ ζωή,
Matthew 7:13; to σωτηρία,
Philippians 1:28. ὁ υἱός τῆς ἀπωλείας, a man doomed to eternal misery (a Hebraism, see υἱός, 2):
2 Thessalonians 2:3 (of Antichrist);
John 17:12 (of Judas, the traitor); ἡμέρα κρίσεως καί ἀπωλείας τῶν ἀσεβῶν,
2 Peter 3:7. (In secular authors from Polybius as above (but see Aristotle, probl. 17, 3, 2, vol. ii., p. 916{a}, 26; 29, 14, 10 ibid. 952^b, 26; Nicom. eth. 4, 1 ibid. 1120{a}, 2, etc.); often in the Sept. and O. T. Apocrypha.)
I use the KJV. Here's that passage in the King James Version:
12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. John 17:12.
Two things. "Lost" and "perdition." First, the word "lost."
This word "lost" is only used to identify believers and those in covenant with God. Jesus was sent to the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" and so there is nothing more significant than that. All Israel was lost. Peter was lost, James was lost, Matthew was lost. If they are of Israel, (Jacob) then they are all lost. Lost sheep of the House of Israel. And notice they are "sheep" and not "goats."
Perdition. A word in the King's language. Here's what Strong defines this word.
perdition: [#684] "apōleia" (used 20 times in the KJV NT.) And there are more than five times the Greek word is translated using different English words in the NT. It means: from a presumed derivative of [#622] (apollumi);
ruin or
loss (physical, spiritual or eternal.)
It means "ruin" or "loss." But what is interesting is the three senses in which we are to understand this word in context of its use. Jesus uses it to refer to Judas. And I agree. Judas was a son of ruin or loss. But in what way do we understand this ruin or loss when used to describe Judas? This is simple. Was Judas "ruin" or "loss" as a man who was Hebrew and in covenant with God? No, because every year atonement was made for the children of Israel on Yom Kippur, their most sacred day. Passover is prepared on this day. A Passover which began in Egypt the night the Holy Spirit, the Angel/Messenger of Death, killed all the first-born sons of Egypt while the Spirit passed-over the Hebrew homes that had the blood of the sacrifice painted on their door frames and window frames. So, this "ruin" or "loss" cannot apply to Judas in the sense of "
eternal ruin." Neither could it apply to Judas in a
spiritual sense for the Holy Spirit had not yet been given and all Israel was learned in the letter of the Law. The only way to understand what Jesus was saying when He called Judas a "son of perdition/ruin/loss" was in the physical sense. Judas committed suicide. He "ruined" his body and this was the "loss" Jesus was referring. It applies more to Judas given that the branch he hung himself on broke and he fell down the side of an incline and his bowels gushed out. He ruined his body. He was perdition/ruin/loss in the physical sense.
Matt 26:23-25
23 Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."
This also is true. "Better for him if he had not been born." This is a strange thing to say of Judas. But a statement that proves predestination. Sure, you can say he had "free will" to not betray Jesus. And what of someone else to do the deed of betraying Jesus? Would Jesus say the same thing of that person, "better for him if he had not been born"? And if he weren't born and Judas was not born, who else would God NEED to be born to betray Jesus? Seems to me God NEEDED someone to betray Jesus because that's what the prophecy in Psalms needs "to be born" that would "lift up his heel" against Jesus. It very well could have also been done by a Peter or a Matthew. But Judas, a name that comes from "Judah" which means "praise." Whether it was Judas, or Peter, or James, or Tom, Dick, and/or Harry, the prophecy calls for someone close to Jesus to "lift his heel" against the Lord. In the Bible and Middle Eastern culture, "to lift up the heel" against someone means to
betray, betray violently, or show contempt for a person with whom you were once close or shared a bond of trust. Someone had to do it. There is no free will involved at all. Someone HAD to be born who would betray Jesus. It's inescapable. Someone was predestined to betray the Lord. The prophecy cannot forever go unfulfilled. Would it been "better" if this person had "not been born"? What are the ramifications if this person, Judas or another, had not been born? If this person had really "not been born" there would be no betrayal, no arrest, no trial, no condemnation to death, no scourging (by His stripes...), no shame, no suffering, no crucifixion, no burying, no resurrection, and no atonement and everyone remains in unatoned sin because the person we needed to be born was never born and there's no betrayal, etc. Peter calls it, "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." Acts 2:23.
With this in mind, then it would NOT have been better if this person - Judas or other - had not been born in order to betray the Lord Jesus by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Judas or other the bottom line is someone needed to be born who would by the determinate counsel of God betray Jesus.
Acts 1:16-19
16 and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."
18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
Acts 1:24-26
Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Ps 109:4-8
In return for my friendship they accuse me,
but I am a man of prayer.
5 They repay me evil for good,
and hatred for my friendship.
6 Appoint an evil man to oppose him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.
7 When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.
8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.
hope this helps !!!
We come to the end. I wonder if it will post under 10,000 words.
In Acts 1:15-26 (and I studied these verses), Peter was disobedient to the Lord. Jesus commanded His eleven disciples to return to Jerusalem and "tarry."
49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Luke 24:49.
The definition of "tarry" means to "seat/sit down, do nothing [or officiate.]"
If Jesus wanted to replace Judas He was on the planet for forty days after He resurrected. He would have appointed a replacement for Judas who died committing suicide, but Jesus didn't. According to Acts 2:47 Jesus doesn't replace in the body of Christ, He ADDS. The typical position of the body for a person who teaches is to do it sitting down. But to officiate a meeting or to address a crowd Peter STOOD UP! Jesus told them all to "sit down" and wait UNTIL they were endued with POWER from on high. It was a ten-say window from Ascension to Pentecost and Peter couldn't wait as Jesus commanded. So, he STOOD UP and officiated a meeting among the remaining eleven disciples. Dirty-mouth Peter couldn't shut up, sit down, and WAIT!
What Peter done is problematic. He was leading the others to "hand vote" for a replacement for Judas. Now, I cannot tell if Peter was leading the others to choose out a replacement treasurer for Judas who "held the bag", or he was actually choosing out an apostle. I think he was choosing a treasurer. I'm sure Peter knows that God is the One who calls and chooses out individuals to serve as apostle. Saul in First Corinthians teaches us that God does the choosing as to who He wants to be an apostle to serve Him. Then there is the word in English: "numbered" in both verse 17 and verse 26. These are two different Greek words. I forget which one it is that is also used in the gospel where Jesus said, "the hairs of your head are numbered." The word means "among." Used of Judas it's like taking a hair from your head and placing it somewhere else on your head. With Matthias it's like taking a hair from someone else's head and placing it on your head. The difference and meaning behind the use of these words by the Holy Spirit?
Just this: Judas was "counted among" the twelve disciples but Matthias is counted
with the twelve disciples.
One is inclusion, the other, exclusion.
And I leave it right here.
