The Problem Of Judas Iscariot Why Did He Betray His Lord?

[jeremiah1five]

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable
.. for doctrine,
.... for reproof,
...... for correction,
........ for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.'
(2Tim. 3:17)

Did you know that Saul, the practicing, and obedient-to-the-Torah Jewish Christian was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures of the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets?

@jeremiah1five,

Because the book of Acts is an integral part of the Scriptures, then I believe it should be considered in the light of 2 Timothy 2:17 (above), and studied in accordance with the precept of 2 Timothy 2:15 (below):-

'Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.'
(2Ti 2:15)

Although the word "study" is the Greek word for "strive" it doesn't change the meaning of the passage. We must rightly divide (interpret) the Word of Truth, which again, Saul is referring to the Hebrew Scripture. I say that because Gentile Christians have this propensity to include the writings from Matthew to Revelation in this category but the NT just wasn't written yet, or should I say, wasn't gathered into a book, and that happened in the 4th century by Gentiles (and I make this distinction because it is important.)

As you say the book of the Acts is an historical record, and not doctrinal: so I do not look at it and either judge it's contents, or apply it's recorded practices to myself, because it is simply a record of historical events. I am not going to adopt the practices related in it, like that of casting lots for example, for it is not required of me.

But you hold that Peter was correct in his officiating over a meeting in which Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. So, if you hold to this and yet you don't practice or join a fellowship that does practice it, then you're not in a biblical fellowship and the authority of its mere existence as a fellowship is in question. It's like saying, yes, I know taking the Lord's name in vain is sin but I'm not going to practice it.

*The Lord brought me out of the denominations a long time ago, and I have been studying alone ever since. Though I am dispensational in my study of the Scriptures.

Redemptive History is dispensational, progressive, but NOT in the way Scofield presents dispensationalism when he developed his theology and included it in his bible translation publication, which many Christians take as correct doctrine, which it is not.

* I believe what is written in Acts 1, as I believe all that is written in the Biblical record, but to say that I adhere to it's practices is wrong, for they are not for me. I do not take it upon myself to make personal judgement concerning you, jeremiah1five, so please do not do so in regard to myself.

Have you not read 1 John 4:1?
Or Hebrews 5:14?
Or John 7:24?

* That is to be applauded.

* The church that I am a part of by God's grace, is the Church which is the Body of Christ, and Christ alone is it's Head. God in Christ has reconciled me to Himself, and I am trusting Him to save me on the basis of the sacrificial work of Christ.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

One cannot practice selective Christianity. One cannot go halfway or pick and choose what we'll believe and/or practice. Either say Peter was in error or join a fellowship where apostles are chosen in the same way as Acts 1:15-26 and be in compliance to the whole counsel of God.
Either Christ is Head and Peter's method is the method to be followed and be in a fellowship where the method is obeyed, or Christ is Head and He's left it to our devices to pick and choose what we'll obey and what we will not.
A Biblical Church is one in which when truth has been arrived at it is incorporated into the body of liturgy so that the fulness of Christ may be present, and not one in which the fulness is lacking and we hold ourselves back and, in the process, hold Christ back, too. How much we allow Christ to reign over the body depends on how much free reign we give Christ.
Vexing, grieving, restraining the Spirit falls within the realm of our beliefs and practices. It is in our hands.

 

[mailmandan]

Judas Iscariot was an unbelieving, unclean devil (John 6:64-71; 13:10-11) which explains why he betrayed Jesus.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Judas Iscariot was an unbelieving, unclean devil (John 6:64-71; 13:10-11) which explains why he betrayed Jesus.

I see your Scripture verses but can you explain how they apply to Judas?

 

[Complete]

Did you know that Saul, the practicing, and obedient-to-the-Torah Jewish Christian was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures of the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets?​

Hello @jeremiah1five,

Yes I am aware that Paul was an obedient and practicing Jewish Christian, and that he was referring to the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, in 2 Timothy 3:17 that I quoted. It was they that would make Timothy wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15).

Although the word "study" is the Greek word for "strive" it doesn't change the meaning of the passage. We must rightly divide (interpret) the Word of Truth, which again, Saul is referring to the Hebrew Scripture. I say that because Gentile Christians have this propensity to include the writings from Matthew to Revelation in this category but the NT just wasn't written yet, or should I say, wasn't gathered into a book, and that happened in the 4th century by Gentiles (and I make this distinction because it is important.)​

* The word, 'study', has the meaning of, 'endeavour', which requires effort, Timothy was to be a 'workman', one that 'needeth not to be ashamed', because of a lack of sincere application.

But you hold that Peter was correct in his officiating over a meeting in which Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. So, if you hold to this and yet you don't practice or join a fellowship that does practice it, then you're not in a biblical fellowship and the authority of its mere existence as a fellowship is in question. It's like saying, yes, I know taking the Lord's name in vain is sin but I'm not going to practice it.​

* I believe what is recorded in Acts 1 to have truly taken place: whether Peter acted in accord with the will of God in doing what he did I am not in a position to judge. I leave that to God who alone can make righteous judgements. The fact that Peter sought to know God's will regarding the choice of a replacement for Judas, by the method of casting lots, does not mean that I should use the same method myself, when I too need to know God's will in regard to anything in my own life.

Redemptive History is dispensational, progressive, but NOT in the way Scofield presents dispensationalism when he developed his theology and included it in his bible translation publication, which many Christians take as correct doctrine, which it is not.​

* I am not acquainted with the teaching of Scofield.

jeremiah1five

Have you not read 1 John 4:1?​

Or Hebrews 5:14?​

Or John 7:24?​

'Beloved, believe not every spirit,
but try the spirits whether they are of God:
because many false prophets are gone out into the world.'
(1Jn 4:1)

'But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age,
even those who by reason of use
have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.'
(Heb 5:14)

'Judge not according to the appearance,
but judge righteous judgment.'
(Joh 7:24)

jeremiah1five

One cannot practice selective Christianity. One cannot go halfway or pick and choose what we'll believe and/or practice. Either say Peter was in error or join a fellowship where apostles are chosen in the same way as Acts 1:15-26 and be in compliance to the whole counsel of God.​

Either Christ is Head and Peter's method is the method to be followed and be in a fellowship where the method is obeyed, or Christ is Head and He's left it to our devices to pick and choose what we'll obey and what we will not.​

A Biblical Church is one in which when truth has been arrived at it is incorporated into the body of liturgy so that the fulness of Christ may be present, and not one in which the fulness is lacking and we hold ourselves back and, in the process, hold Christ back, too. How much we allow Christ to reign over the body depends on how much free reign we give Christ.​

Vexing, grieving, restraining the Spirit falls within the realm of our beliefs and practices. It is in our hands.​

* I belong to the Church which is The Body of Christ, of which Christ is the Head, and apply the teaching appropriate to that calling, as revealed in the prison epistles of Paul (Eph. Phil, Col. 2 Tim. Tit. and Phile.), on the basis of Romans 5:12-8:39: in the knowledge that although all Scripture is 'for' me, not all is about 'me'. So as I said previously, I believe what Paul has said in 2 Timothy 3:17 and apply it on the basis of the principle of 2 Timothy 2:15.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hello @jeremiah1five,

Yes I am aware that Paul was an obedient and practicing Jewish Christian, and that he was referring to the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets, in 2 Timothy 3:17 that I quoted. It was they that would make Timothy wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15).

Tim was already saved/born-again.

* The word, 'study', has the meaning of, 'endeavour', which requires effort, Timothy was to be a 'workman', one that 'needeth not to be ashamed', because of a lack of sincere application.

Timothy was already saved and instructed to "do the work of an evangelist" in absence to an evangelist in that fellowship.

* I believe what is recorded in Acts 1 to have truly taken place: whether Peter acted in accord with the will of God in doing what he did I am not in a position to judge.

You should be. How else will you know whether what he did was correct or incorrect, whether it is correct doctrine or something to learn from as what not to do.
By the way, by Peter being in the flesh since the Holy Spirit did not arrive until the next day, Scripture says "those in the flesh cannot please God," so this in and of itself should prove to you Peter was not being led by God nor the Holy Spirit and that his actions in Acts 1 was diabolical, not of God.

I leave that to God who alone can make righteous judgements. The fact that Peter sought to know God's will regarding the choice of a replacement for Judas, by the method of casting lots, does not mean that I should use the same method myself, when I too need to know God's will in regard to anything in my own life.

As above, Peter was in the flesh and those in the flesh cannot please God, so what he did was opposite, diabolical, not of God.

* I am not acquainted with the teaching of Scofield.

Good. Stay away.

'Beloved, believe not every spirit,
but try the spirits whether they are of God:
because many false prophets are gone out into the world.'
(1Jn 4:1)

'But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age,
even those who by reason of use
have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.'
(Heb 5:14)

'Judge not according to the appearance,
but judge righteous judgment.'
(Joh 7:24)

* I belong to the Church which is The Body of Christ, of which Christ is the Head, and apply the teaching appropriate to that calling, as revealed in the prison epistles of Paul (Eph. Phil, Col. 2 Tim. Tit. and Phile.), on the basis of Romans 5:12-8:39: in the knowledge that although all Scripture is 'for' me, not all is about 'me'. So as I said previously, I believe what Paul has said in 2 Timothy 3:17 and apply it on the basis of the principle of 2 Timothy 2:15.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

I'll leave you with a reiteration of what I said:

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom. 8:8.

Since the Holy Spirit did not arrive until the next day to baptize the eleven into the body of Christ, Peter was "in the flesh" and thus did not please God. There is a contrast between the flesh and the Spirit. Diametrically opposed to each other. One is diabolical, the other is God or of God.
So, what Peter did "in the flesh" was diabolical and did not please God. As I have postulated vigorously Peter was in error.
This alone should put this issue to rest if, as you say, you follow the Word.
C-ya around.

 

[Complete]

Hello @jeremiah1five,

Tim was already saved/born-again.​

​

Timothy was already saved and instructed to "do the work of an evangelist" in absence to an evangelist in that fellowship.​

'And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.'
(2Ti 3:15-17)

You should be. How else will you know whether what he did was correct or incorrect, whether it is correct doctrine or something to learn from as what not to do.​

By the way, by Peter being in the flesh since the Holy Spirit did not arrive until the next day, Scripture says "those in the flesh cannot please God," so this in and of itself should prove to you Peter was not being led by God nor the Holy Spirit and that his actions in Acts 1 was diabolical, not of God.​

* The Bible does not tell us that he was wrong in so doing, so I am going to leave such judgment with the Lord. Peter, along with the twelve had received of the Holy Spirit from the risen Lord just 40 days previously.

'And when He had said this, He breathed on them,
and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.'
(Joh 20:22-23)

As above, Peter was in the flesh and those in the flesh cannot please God, so what he did was opposite, diabolical, not of God.​

* There is no written proof that Peter was acting according to the flesh, only surmise.

Good. Stay away.​

I'll leave you with a reiteration of what I said:​

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom. 8:8.​

​

Since the Holy Spirit did not arrive until the next day to baptize the eleven into the body of Christ, Peter was "in the flesh" and thus did not please God. There is a contrast between the flesh and the Spirit. Diametrically opposed to each other. One is diabolical, the other is God or of God.​

So, what Peter did "in the flesh" was diabolical and did not please God. As I have postulated vigorously Peter was in error.​

This alone should put this issue to rest if, as you say, you follow the Word.​

C-ya around.​

* Where does it say in the Bible, that the Holy Spirit came to baptize the eleven into the body of Christ?
You have no written proof that Peter was acting, 'in the flesh', at that time, only conjecture.
With the greatest respect to you, jeremiah1five, what you have said is surmise and not written fact.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[jeremiah1five]

Hello @jeremiah1five,

'And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.'
(2Ti 3:15-17)

* The Bible does not tell us that he was wrong in so doing, so I am going to leave such judgment with the Lord. Peter, along with the twelve had received of the Holy Spirit from the risen Lord just 40 days previously.

In this case it's not a "Thou shalt not" situation, it's historical. Luke records what happened, and we have to look into the text to see whether what is recorded is right or wrong when held up to the light of other Scripture.

The Bible does not say so as I say above. But the evidence is there to rightly divide whether Peter's actions are to be followed or not, whether he was right or wrong. And he was wrong.

And no, the apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit when Jesus breathed on them. Compare what is recorded in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit ACTUALLY was given.
Jesus said He could not send the Spirit until He left so, taking His breathing on the disciples cannot mean He gave the Spirit to them because He was STILL on the planet. It's not hard to understand.

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Jn 16:7.

The word "expedient" means "necessary" or "necessary to an advantage." So, Jesus says unequivocally that it is "necessary" for Him to go away, because if He doesn't GO AWAY He cannot - not will not - but cannot send the Spirit. So, I ask you, is Jesus lying? Because He would be lying to say out of this corner of His mouth it is "necessary to go away of He couldn't send the Spirit," and then a few weeks later breathe on the disciples and give them the Spirit. Make the call.

And as for Peter the Bible teaches us anyone who doesn't have the Holy Spirit is totally in the flesh. Saul says, those in the flesh cannot please God. The Holy Spirit wasn't sent until the next day after Peter and the rest chose a replacement for Judas, so, this means he was in the flesh and by being in the flesh cannot please God. God is not pleased by anyone in whom does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. Saul says a person without the Spirit is "none of His (God)."

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom. 8:9.

Scripture says the prayers of the wicked are sin to God and do you know why this is? Because no flesh shall glory in His Presence. The reason God hears believer's prayers is because of the anointing. No man can approach the King without the anointing. It/He covers the ugly flesh of men and yes, believer's flesh is ugly before God. No flesh will glory in His Presence.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom. 8: 8.

The Holy Spirit was ordained to come on the Feast of Harvest. The harvest was three thousand Jews born-again at the end of Acts 2. On this day Israel became spiritual Israel, or don't you understand the Scripture concerning teaching from the Bible on the Holy Spirit? And from this day Christ added Jewish Christians to His Church daily such as should be saved (Acts 2:47.)

So, applying Scripture found elsewhere to what Luke recorded took place in the upper room we can discern whether Peter was following God or following a leaning of his own understanding in the vanity of his mind, a mind that was carnal and not subject to the Law of God. Without the Spirit Peter was in the flesh and being in the flesh cannot please God. Peter was in disobedience and God was not pleased. So, yes, the Bible does say what Peter did was wrong. He didn't have the Spirit. He was in the flesh. And the flesh is diabolical.

'And when He had said this, He breathed on them,
and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.'
(Joh 20:22-23)

* There is no written proof that Peter was acting according to the flesh, only surmise.

See above.

* Where does it say in the Bible, that the Holy Spirit came to baptize the eleven into the body of Christ?
You have no written proof that Peter was acting, 'in the flesh', at that time, only conjecture.
With the greatest respect to you, jeremiah1five, what you have said is surmise and not written fact.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1 Cor. 12:13.

A person who doesn't have the Holy Spirit is in the flesh.
The Holy Spirit was not sent UNTIL Jesus departed.
The Holy Spirit was sent on the Day of the Feast of Harvest (Day of Pentecost.)

And you're correct. Jesus was on the planet forty days after His resurrection. Since, you claim Jesus is the Head of the body then it is His body, and He is the Head, and it is His prerogative to place someone in the body and this occurred on the day the Spirit arrived to do just that.
Men do not place apostles in the body of Christ. God does.
And if Jesus wanted to replace Judas, He would have done it while He was on the planet forty days, but He did not. Christ doesn't replace in the body, He adds (Acts 2:47).

PS: I don't surmise. I bring the Word of God.
After that, people are free to receive or reject.
There is no medium.

 

[Complete]

' Wherefore of these men which have companied with us
all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John,
unto that same day that He was taken up from us,
must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection.
And they appointed two,
Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus,
and Matthias.'
(Act 1:21)

Hello again, @jeremiah1five,

Thank you for your further response.

In the earthly Kingdom the Lord Jesus had made a promise that the twelve apostles should sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). The number twelve is important in this regard, for it denotes Governmental Perfection.

The qualification for the role of an apostle is seen by comparing Acts 1:21-22 (above) with the Lord's words in John 15:27:-

'But when the Comforter is come,
whom I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth,
which proceedeth from the Father,
He shall testify of Me:'
And ye also shall bear witness,
because ye have been with me from the beginning.'
(Joh 15:26-27)

The purpose therefore in choosing a successor for Judas, was in regard to bearing witness. To bear personal testimony from being an eye-witness to the life and works of the Lord, from the commencement of His public ministry right through to His death and resurrection. Two men fulfilled this condition, and the apostles wisely left it to the Lord to choose between them. The indication of His will led to Matthias taking the place of Judas and the Holy Spirit confirmed this on the Day of Pentecost, for His divine power rested on Matthias equally with the eleven, so if any mistake was made, God endorsed it! There are some who say that the apostles made a mistake. Had they been more patient and waited, Paul would have become the twelfth apostle! But Paul did not fulfil the above condition laid down by the Lord and, as he himself made clear, his ministry was distinct from the Twelve.

What follows is Pentecost, with the coming of the Holy Spirit as promised by the Lord Jesus, and His divine equipment of the Twelve for their further kingdom ministry. It is very important to realize that Pentecost was the third of the feasts of Jehovah, (denoting 'completion') given to Israel and recorded in Leviticus 23. Symbolically they sketch out God's earthly programme for Israel from the beginning with Passover (Calvary) to the setting up of God's kingdom on earth (Tabernacles). The church which is His Body is not foreseen here, for it is linked with the heavenly purpose of God and at this time was still hidden in the mind of God and so was unrevealed (Eph. 3:1-11; Col.1:24-27).

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Complete]

'And when He had so said,
He shewed unto them His hands and His side.
Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
Then said Jesus to them again,
"Peace be unto you: as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you."
And when He had said this, He breathed on them,
and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
(Joh 20:20-23)

Hello again,

This took place 40 days prior to the Lord's ascension into heaven, so to say that Peter acted according to the flesh is simply not true. He and the rest of the eleven remaining disciples had received the Holy Ghost from the risen Christ for the roles they were to fulfill in His absence. During the following 40 days the risen Lord spoke to them concerning the Kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost gave the disciples (now twelve once more - so governmentally complete) the ability to speak in the tongues required for the witness they were to perform, among Jews from all over the diaspora, who would now hear the apostles witness in the language of their native lands (Acts 2:8-12) (Acts 2:14-36).

'How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation;
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord,
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him;
God also bearing them witness,
both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles,
and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His Own will?
(Heb 2:3-4)

Praise God!

 

[mailmandan]

I see your Scripture verses but can you explain how they apply to Judas?

John 6:64 - But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” 66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” 68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

John 13:10 - Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew who would betray Him; therefore, He said, “You are not all clean.”

 

[Handaan]

The Problem Of Judas Iscariot Why Did He Betray His Lord?

John 6:71​

He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon:​

he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.​

This Judas was the son of Simon (John 6:71), and Iscariot is Ish Kerioth, a man of Kerioth (Joshua 15:25). This was in Judah, so he was the only one of the 12 that was not a Galilean.

Judas was a chosen man, chosen to be one of the 12 (Luke 6:13). He was an ordained minister (Acts 1:17, Acts 1:20) . He went out with the other Apostles and cast out evil spirits and healed all manner of sickness and disease (Matt. 10:1).
He lived such an exemplary life that the other Apostles did not suspect anything was wrong, even at the last supper. To all appearances, he was the same as they were.

But he carried the bag (treasurer), and he was a thief (John 12:6). He had the love of money, and it got the best of him. So he began to take money from what he carried for the expenses of the little band and for the poor. But Judas really gave himself away at the feast when Mary anointed the feet of the Lord with some costly spikenard (a fragrant essential oil), and Judas just could not stand seeing that "waste" when it could have been sold and the money put in the bag (John 12:5).

Judas also tried to infect the rest of The Apostles with dissatisfaction but failed. He was so angry about this money slipping away from him that he resolved to hurry along the prophecies of Messiah, Who would set up His Kingdom and rule the world. If he could force Messiah to set up The Kingdom, then The Apostles would be co-rulers with Christ, and he could be treasurer of all the riches of The Kingdom. He thought if he could arrange for Jesus Christ to be captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, The Lord would have to call the mighty angels from heaven and begin The Kingdom and fulfill the prophecies. So he plotted with the Jews to betray Christ.

Judas ate that last supper with his Lord and also had his feet washed at the supper. And as a special favor, the Lord took a piece of bread, dipped it in the bitter herbs, and handed it to Judas (John 13:26). No appeal could be made to Judas to turn him from his purpose. Right after the sop (the host or master of the house would give the sop, a small piece of bread dipped in the communal bowl to the person to whom He wanted to show His greatest love and esteem) was given to him, Satan entered into his heart, and Judas immediately left and went and betrayed his Lord.

When The Lord Jesus did not escape from His foes as Judas planned by forcing his Lord to show He was Messiah, Judas immediately awoke to what he had done and what had happened. He was not really a murderer; he was a moral man, except for his weakness for filthy lucre. So he repented and tried to undo what he had done by going to The Temple and bringing the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, but it was too late (Matt. 27:3-10). The money he had received from them he flung into the sanctuary, which the priests took to buy a potters field for graves.

The money he had been stealing he previously had used to buy a nice property outside Jerusalem. It would have been a nice place to live and commute to and from Jerusalem during The Kingdom, which he was expecting.

But to this nice place, he then went out and hanged himself. That place was avoided as cursed since then by the Jews who called it Aceldama, meaning the field of blood (Acts 1:18-20).

Scripture says that Judas was the betrayer and was called "the son of perdition," a type of antichrist. Another took his bishopric, Matthias. And, of course, his name will never be in the foundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:14). Acts 1:25 should read, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, that he might go to his own place, from which Judas by transgression fell.
Many a one has sold out for less than Judas did.

The Problem Of Judas Iscariot - Believer.com

John 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. This Judas was the son of Simon (John 6:71...

believer.com

I agree with the OP

I think first off is biggest problem was he listened to the enemy. He believes alive that he can force Jesus into establishing his kingdom by defeating the Romans and kicking the Pharisees out of the temple.

At least that's what I've been taught anyway. You're OP Is in much greater detail. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Keiw1]

The Problem Of Judas Iscariot Why Did He Betray His Lord?

John 6:71​

He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon:​

he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.​

This Judas was the son of Simon (John 6:71), and Iscariot is Ish Kerioth, a man of Kerioth (Joshua 15:25). This was in Judah, so he was the only one of the 12 that was not a Galilean.

Judas was a chosen man, chosen to be one of the 12 (Luke 6:13). He was an ordained minister (Acts 1:17, Acts 1:20) . He went out with the other Apostles and cast out evil spirits and healed all manner of sickness and disease (Matt. 10:1).
He lived such an exemplary life that the other Apostles did not suspect anything was wrong, even at the last supper. To all appearances, he was the same as they were.

But he carried the bag (treasurer), and he was a thief (John 12:6). He had the love of money, and it got the best of him. So he began to take money from what he carried for the expenses of the little band and for the poor. But Judas really gave himself away at the feast when Mary anointed the feet of the Lord with some costly spikenard (a fragrant essential oil), and Judas just could not stand seeing that "waste" when it could have been sold and the money put in the bag (John 12:5).

Judas also tried to infect the rest of The Apostles with dissatisfaction but failed. He was so angry about this money slipping away from him that he resolved to hurry along the prophecies of Messiah, Who would set up His Kingdom and rule the world. If he could force Messiah to set up The Kingdom, then The Apostles would be co-rulers with Christ, and he could be treasurer of all the riches of The Kingdom. He thought if he could arrange for Jesus Christ to be captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, The Lord would have to call the mighty angels from heaven and begin The Kingdom and fulfill the prophecies. So he plotted with the Jews to betray Christ.

Judas ate that last supper with his Lord and also had his feet washed at the supper. And as a special favor, the Lord took a piece of bread, dipped it in the bitter herbs, and handed it to Judas (John 13:26). No appeal could be made to Judas to turn him from his purpose. Right after the sop (the host or master of the house would give the sop, a small piece of bread dipped in the communal bowl to the person to whom He wanted to show His greatest love and esteem) was given to him, Satan entered into his heart, and Judas immediately left and went and betrayed his Lord.

When The Lord Jesus did not escape from His foes as Judas planned by forcing his Lord to show He was Messiah, Judas immediately awoke to what he had done and what had happened. He was not really a murderer; he was a moral man, except for his weakness for filthy lucre. So he repented and tried to undo what he had done by going to The Temple and bringing the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, but it was too late (Matt. 27:3-10). The money he had received from them he flung into the sanctuary, which the priests took to buy a potters field for graves.

The money he had been stealing he previously had used to buy a nice property outside Jerusalem. It would have been a nice place to live and commute to and from Jerusalem during The Kingdom, which he was expecting.

But to this nice place, he then went out and hanged himself. That place was avoided as cursed since then by the Jews who called it Aceldama, meaning the field of blood (Acts 1:18-20).

Scripture says that Judas was the betrayer and was called "the son of perdition," a type of antichrist. Another took his bishopric, Matthias. And, of course, his name will never be in the foundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:14). Acts 1:25 should read, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, that he might go to his own place, from which Judas by transgression fell.
Many a one has sold out for less than Judas did.

The Problem Of Judas Iscariot - Believer.com

John 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. This Judas was the son of Simon (John 6:71...

believer.com

Luke 22:3--satan entered Judas.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The Problem Of Judas Iscariot Why Did He Betray His Lord?John 6:71

He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon:​

he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.​

This Judas was the son of Simon (John 6:71), and Iscariot is Ish Kerioth, a man of Kerioth (Joshua 15:25). This was in Judah, so he was the only one of the 12 that was not a Galilean.

Some scholars accept that Kerioth was a settlement found in the plot of land given to Judah by Joshua.

Judas was a chosen man, chosen to be one of the 12 (Luke 6:13). He was an ordained minister (Acts 1:17, Acts 1:20) . He went out with the other Apostles and cast out evil spirits and healed all manner of sickness and disease (Matt. 10:1).
He lived such an exemplary life that the other Apostles did not suspect anything was wrong, even at the last supper. To all appearances, he was the same as they were.

You say Judas was a "chosen man" and I agree. But you miss the statement of Jesus calling him "apostle" and later say he was a "son of perdition" and "antichrist" which is incorrect. Jesus chose 12 men and "NAMED them apostles" which they were true apostles unless you want to contradict Jesus. Jesus did not choose 11 apostles and one devil-apostle. These were apostles of the lamb.

But he carried the bag (treasurer), and he was a thief (John 12:6). He had the love of money, and it got the best of him. So he began to take money from what he carried for the expenses of the little band and for the poor. But Judas really gave himself away at the feast when Mary anointed the feet of the Lord with some costly spikenard (a fragrant essential oil), and Judas just could not stand seeing that "waste" when it could have been sold and the money put in the bag (John 12:5).

This is what the text says. It wasn't that he gave himself away when Mary anointed the Lord's feet, it only revealed his priorities in seeing things from a treasures' standpoint of maximizing profit (and of course his own profit as well) and also, he could not know of Jesus' impending death since they all did not understand Jesus' word of going to Jerusalem and dying.

Judas also tried to infect the rest of The Apostles with dissatisfaction but failed. He was so angry about this money slipping away from him that he resolved to hurry along the prophecies of Messiah, Who would set up His Kingdom and rule the world. If he could force Messiah to set up The Kingdom, then The Apostles would be co-rulers with Christ, and he could be treasurer of all the riches of The Kingdom. He thought if he could arrange for Jesus Christ to be captured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, The Lord would have to call the mighty angels from heaven and begin The Kingdom and fulfill the prophecies. So he plotted with the Jews to betray Christ.

Good surmising's. That could have been his thinking, but I doubt he could have connected "hurry along" to get the kingdom started and the [legions] of angels coming to rescue Him and moving things along to a kingdom result. A more reasonable understanding of Judas going to the priests may have been straight-up maliciousness to betray the Lord for profit, or more acceptable, to bring Jesus and the priests together so Jesus would be able to explain His ministry to the religious leaders.

Judas ate that last supper with his Lord and also had his feet washed at the supper. And as a special favor, the Lord took a piece of bread, dipped it in the bitter herbs, and handed it to Judas (John 13:26). No appeal could be made to Judas to turn him from his purpose. Right after the sop (the host or master of the house would give the sop, a small piece of bread dipped in the communal bowl to the person to whom He wanted to show His greatest love and esteem) was given to him, Satan entered into his heart, and Judas immediately left and went and betrayed his Lord.

First, Scripture is clear the angels that sinned are 'locked up."

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Pe 2:3–4.

Jude says the same thing. As does Isaiah. So, the angels that sinned are locked up and removed from any interaction with humans.
The next thing is the word "devil" in John 13.

2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;
Jn 13:1–2.

The word "devil" is an adjective not a noun or pronoun, meaning there's no personality assigned to this word as an adjective. And the word "devil" is defined as "traducer" or "false accuser" or "one who impugns the character of another" which is correct for if you would think this through the chief priests knew Judas was an apostle/disciple of Jesus. So, reasonably, there was suspicion as to Judas' presence with the religious leaders. Was Jesus trying to trap the leaders? No. Judas is a known disciple of Rabbi Jesus. It was Judas that approached the religious leaders and he did ask what he could do to give them access to Jesus. But Judas could not be trusted being an open disciple of Jesus. Jesus' statement in John 6, "Have not I chose you twelve and one of you is a 'devil'" is Jesus referring to Judas as a false accuser and that is what is what he did to get the priests to believe him. One does not accuse anyone in this religion without "two or three" to validate any accusation. But if the religious leaders hear Judas 'bad-mouth' Jesus - which a disciple would never rightly do to their rabbinic teacher without another to support the first person's claims - so, Judas being an observant Jewish man took to accusing (traducer/"devil" - John 6) Jesus seems more the appropriate understanding of what the text implies in order for the chief priests to accept Judas' more readily in his desire for profit and to bring these two together for exploratory inquiring of Jesus' Ministry and purpose. The religious leaders knew Jesus' credentials about being Israel's Messiah. Jesus did have some support in the Sanhedrin. They were not idiots. They saw the miracles, the signs, heard His words and the words of others. They knew Jesus was Israel's long-awaited Messiah, but they were also corrupt and did not want to relinquish any of the benefits their religious positions in this society brought them. They did not want to share power.

When The Lord Jesus did not escape from His foes as Judas planned by forcing his Lord to show He was Messiah, Judas immediately awoke to what he had done and what had happened. He was not really a murderer; he was a moral man, except for his weakness for filthy lucre. So he repented and tried to undo what he had done by going to The Temple and bringing the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, but it was too late (Matt. 27:3-10). The money he had received from them he flung into the sanctuary, which the priests took to buy a potters field for graves.

If there is breath in our lung's repentance is never "too late." You say Judas "repented" but you miss the significance. Matthew 27:3-5 records what happened.
Judas "saw" (perceived, understood) what he did. He confessed his sin, REPENTED, and brought forth fruits of repentance which was to reject the mammon and throw it back into the faces of the religious leaders and went out and hung himself. You also miss the significance of why he did this.
Under the Torah the penalty of anyone being complicit in the death of an innocent man is death by stoning. But the religious leaders were not interested in doing this and told Judas "See thou to that" which in our vernacular is "You handle it!"
He did. In obedience to the Torah of 'life for life' Judas went out and gave his life for the life of the Master and if the religious leaders were themselves obedient to the Torah that would have been the case, and everyone would have "walked it back" and Jesus released. But we're not dealing with obedient religious leaders, are we? So, Judas did what we in our present grace-dispensation require. He recognized his sin, confessed his sin, repented of his sin, and atoned for his sin as anyone under Torah could do. These are elements of salvation. But these elements are not what bring salvation under Torah. Merely being a Jewish man in salvation covenant with God, Judas was already a 'saved' man as per covenant. This is the purpose of God's covenants with Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) and the Hebrew people (his seed.)

The money he had been stealing he previously had used to buy a nice property outside Jerusalem. It would have been a nice place to live and commute to and from Jerusalem during The Kingdom, which he was expecting.
But to this nice place, he then went out and hanged himself. That place was avoided as cursed since then by the Jews who called it Aceldama, meaning the field of blood (Acts 1:18-20).

Maybe not. I think you've come to an unreasonable conclusion. But if that's what you think have at it, then.

Scripture says that Judas was the betrayer and was called "the son of perdition," a type of antichrist.

The word "perdition" means "ruin." And this word has three senses in which to understand its meaning in the text. The three senses are "physical ruin," "eternal ruin" and "spiritual ruin."
Since there was no Holy Spirit yet spiritual ruin does not apply. And being in salvation covenant with God eternal ruin doesn't apply either.
But "physical ruin" does. He destroyed himself physically. And it says, "his bowels gushed out" most likely a reference to the limb he attached his rope to broke and he fell "headlong down a ravine."

Another took his bishopric, Matthias.

Jesus was on the planet for forty days after His resurrection. Being Head of the Church and of Israel if He wanted to replace Judas, He had ample time to do so but He didn't. Acts 2:47 states Jesus "ADDED to His Church daily such as should be saved" thus teaching that Christ doesn't replace, He ADDS to His Body. What you state is called "Replacement Theology", and this is unbiblical, especially since Jesus Himself ADDS and does not replace, neither souls nor calling and ministry. Besides this, we learn from Saul in 1 Corinthians 12-14 that God is the One who calls and "NAMES an apostle," not man. And if Peter was choosing an apostle or a treasurer in either instance, he was disobedient since Jesus COMMANDED them in Luke 24:49 to return to Jerusalem and TARRY (wait) to be "endued by the Holy Spirit of Promise." The body position of anyone who teaches Torah is to sit down. To officiate one would do this by standing up. Acts 1:15 it says, "Peter stood UP." Instead of waiting as commanded, Peter rushed headlong and disobeyed His Lord. Peter was totally in the flesh as they say. No Holy Spirit to guide. No Holy Spirit to lead them and Peter sinned.
If you believe what Peter did is the correct doctrine tell me why churches don't do this outside of the Catholic and Mormon outfits do. Maybe some fringe churches out there do this, but in Biblical Christianity God calls and makes anyone an apostle, not man. Had Peter waited just one day things would have turned out differently. Scripture says, "those in the flesh cannot please God" and so Peter sinned and led others to sin.

And, of course, his name will never be in the foundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:14).

The passage in Revelation 21:14 states "apostles of the LAMB" which helps us date who these apostles are. Jesus on the planet was called "LAMB of God" by John Baptist and this dates who these apostles are whose names are in the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem. Judas' name will be there along with Andrew, Peter, James, John, Bartholomew, etc.

Acts 1:25 should read, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, that he might go to his own place, from which Judas by transgression fell.
Many a one has sold out for less than Judas did.

"His own place" is where exactly? Here's a clue:

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Mt 19:28.

There are no eleven apostles of the Lamb in heaven and one in "hell" judging the twelve tribes of Israel. There are not eleven disciples/apostles in heaven and one 'devil-apostle' in hell. Judas is right now with the Lord and will be among the "great cloud of witnesses" that return along with Jesus when His time is come.

 

[mailmandan]

What does scripture say about Judas?

Judas was an unbelieving devil who betrayed Jesus. John 6:64-71
Judas was a traitor. Luke 6:16
Judas was a betrayer. Multiple verses.
Judas was a thief and did not care for the poor. John 12:6
Judas was unclean. John 13:11
Judas guilty of a greater sin. John 19:11
Judas was not kept and was the son of perdition. John 17:12

 

[Complete]

'And as they sat and did eat,
Jesus said, Verily I say unto you,
One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
And they began to be sorrowful,
and to say unto him one by one, Is it I?
and another said, Is it I?
And He answered and said unto them,
It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him:
but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!
good were it for that man if he had never been born.'
(Mar 14:18-21)

Hello @mailmandan,

Judas also had a role to fulfill in the purpose of God, which was foreknown and foretold didn't he? All prophecy had to be fulfilled concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, and Judas' part was vital for it's accomplishment.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Complete]

Some scholars accept that Kerioth was a settlement found in the plot of land given to Judah by Joshua.

You say Judas was a "chosen man" and I agree. But you miss the statement of Jesus calling him "apostle" and later say he was a "son of perdition" and "antichrist" which is incorrect. Jesus chose 12 men and "NAMED them apostles" which they were true apostles unless you want to contradict Jesus. Jesus did not choose 11 apostles and one devil-apostle. These were apostles of the lamb.

This is what the text says. It wasn't that he gave himself away when Mary anointed the Lord's feet, it only revealed his priorities in seeing things from a treasures' standpoint of maximizing profit (and of course his own profit as well) and also, he could not know of Jesus' impending death since they all did not understand Jesus' word of going to Jerusalem and dying.

Good surmising's. That could have been his thinking, but I doubt he could have connected "hurry along" to get the kingdom started and the [legions] of angels coming to rescue Him and moving things along to a kingdom result. A more reasonable understanding of Judas going to the priests may have been straight-up maliciousness to betray the Lord for profit, or more acceptable, to bring Jesus and the priests together so Jesus would be able to explain His ministry to the religious leaders.

First, Scripture is clear the angels that sinned are 'locked up."

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Pe 2:3–4.

Jude says the same thing. As does Isaiah. So, the angels that sinned are locked up and removed from any interaction with humans.
The next thing is the word "devil" in John 13.

2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;
Jn 13:1–2.

The word "devil" is an adjective not a noun or pronoun, meaning there's no personality assigned to this word as an adjective. And the word "devil" is defined as "traducer" or "false accuser" or "one who impugns the character of another" which is correct for if you would think this through the chief priests knew Judas was an apostle/disciple of Jesus. So, reasonably, there was suspicion as to Judas' presence with the religious leaders. Was Jesus trying to trap the leaders? No. Judas is a known disciple of Rabbi Jesus. It was Judas that approached the religious leaders and he did ask what he could do to give them access to Jesus. But Judas could not be trusted being an open disciple of Jesus. Jesus' statement in John 6, "Have not I chose you twelve and one of you is a 'devil'" is Jesus referring to Judas as a false accuser and that is what is what he did to get the priests to believe him. One does not accuse anyone in this religion without "two or three" to validate any accusation. But if the religious leaders hear Judas 'bad-mouth' Jesus - which a disciple would never rightly do to their rabbinic teacher without another to support the first person's claims - so, Judas being an observant Jewish man took to accusing (traducer/"devil" - John 6) Jesus seems more the appropriate understanding of what the text implies in order for the chief priests to accept Judas' more readily in his desire for profit and to bring these two together for exploratory inquiring of Jesus' Ministry and purpose. The religious leaders knew Jesus' credentials about being Israel's Messiah. Jesus did have some support in the Sanhedrin. They were not idiots. They saw the miracles, the signs, heard His words and the words of others. They knew Jesus was Israel's long-awaited Messiah, but they were also corrupt and did not want to relinquish any of the benefits their religious positions in this society brought them. They did not want to share power.

If there is breath in our lung's repentance is never "too late." You say Judas "repented" but you miss the significance. Matthew 27:3-5 records what happened.
Judas "saw" (perceived, understood) what he did. He confessed his sin, REPENTED, and brought forth fruits of repentance which was to reject the mammon and throw it back into the faces of the religious leaders and went out and hung himself. You also miss the significance of why he did this.
Under the Torah the penalty of anyone being complicit in the death of an innocent man is death by stoning. But the religious leaders were not interested in doing this and told Judas "See thou to that" which in our vernacular is "You handle it!"
He did. In obedience to the Torah of 'life for life' Judas went out and gave his life for the life of the Master and if the religious leaders were themselves obedient to the Torah that would have been the case, and everyone would have "walked it back" and Jesus released. But we're not dealing with obedient religious leaders, are we? So, Judas did what we in our present grace-dispensation require. He recognized his sin, confessed his sin, repented of his sin, and atoned for his sin as anyone under Torah could do. These are elements of salvation. But these elements are not what bring salvation under Torah. Merely being a Jewish man in salvation covenant with God, Judas was already a 'saved' man as per covenant. This is the purpose of God's covenants with Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) and the Hebrew people (his seed.)

Maybe not. I think you've come to an unreasonable conclusion. But if that's what you think have at it, then.

The word "perdition" means "ruin." And this word has three senses in which to understand its meaning in the text. The three senses are "physical ruin," "eternal ruin" and "spiritual ruin."
Since there was no Holy Spirit yet spiritual ruin does not apply. And being in salvation covenant with God eternal ruin doesn't apply either.
But "physical ruin" does. He destroyed himself physically. And it says, "his bowels gushed out" most likely a reference to the limb he attached his rope to broke and he fell "headlong down a ravine."

Jesus was on the planet for forty days after His resurrection. Being Head of the Church and of Israel if He wanted to replace Judas, He had ample time to do so but He didn't. Acts 2:47 states Jesus "ADDED to His Church daily such as should be saved" thus teaching that Christ doesn't replace, He ADDS to His Body. What you state is called "Replacement Theology", and this is unbiblical, especially since Jesus Himself ADDS and does not replace, neither souls nor calling and ministry. Besides this, we learn from Saul in 1 Corinthians 12-14 that God is the One who calls and "NAMES an apostle," not man. And if Peter was choosing an apostle or a treasurer in either instance, he was disobedient since Jesus COMMANDED them in Luke 24:49 to return to Jerusalem and TARRY (wait) to be "endued by the Holy Spirit of Promise." The body position of anyone who teaches Torah is to sit down. To officiate one would do this by standing up. Acts 1:15 it says, "Peter stood UP." Instead of waiting as commanded, Peter rushed headlong and disobeyed His Lord. Peter was totally in the flesh as they say. No Holy Spirit to guide. No Holy Spirit to lead them and Peter sinned.
If you believe what Peter did is the correct doctrine tell me why churches don't do this outside of the Catholic and Mormon outfits do. Maybe some fringe churches out there do this, but in Biblical Christianity God calls and makes anyone an apostle, not man. Had Peter waited just one day things would have turned out differently. Scripture says, "those in the flesh cannot please God" and so Peter sinned and led others to sin.

The passage in Revelation 21:14 states "apostles of the LAMB" which helps us date who these apostles are. Jesus on the planet was called "LAMB of God" by John Baptist and this dates who these apostles are whose names are in the foundation of the wall of New Jerusalem. Judas' name will be there along with Andrew, Peter, James, John, Bartholomew, etc.

"His own place" is where exactly? Here's a clue:

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Mt 19:28.

There are no eleven apostles of the Lamb in heaven and one in "hell" judging the twelve tribes of Israel. There are not eleven disciples/apostles in heaven and one 'devil-apostle' in hell. Judas is right now with the Lord and will be among the "great cloud of witnesses" that return along with Jesus when His time is come.

Hello @jeremiah1five,

You bring out many thought-provoking considerations, for which I thank you.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[mailmandan]

Hello @mailmandan,

Judas also had a role to fulfill in the purpose of God, which was foreknown and foretold. All prophecy had to be fulfilled concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, and Judas' part was vital for it's accomplishment.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Yes, Judas' role as a betrayer. John 6:70 - Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.

John 13:18 - I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; BUT that the scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.'