Judas

Judas the one that would betray Jesus, one that honestly I have put off because of this is the one that betrayed Jesus. Before we deal with who he is, lets deal with who he is not. He is not someone that just got caught up in moment. Judas is said..

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”

Luke 22:3 Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve.

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

Perdition - 684 ἀπώλεια [apoleia /ap·o·li·a/] n f. From a presumed derivative of 622; TDNT 1:396; TDNTA 67; GK 724; 20 occurrences; AV translates as “perdition” eight , “destruction” five times, “waste” twice, “damnable” once, “to die + 1519” once, “perish + 1498 + 1519” once, and “pernicious” once. 1 destroying, utter destruction. 1A of vessels. 2 a perishing, ruin, destruction. 2A of money. 2B the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell. 1

Acts 1:25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”

To his own place (εἰς τον τοπον τον ἰδιον [eis ton topon ton idion]). A bold and picturesque description of the destiny of Judas worthy of Dante’s Inferno. There is no

n n: noun or neuter f f: feminine TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament TDNTA Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger AV Authorized Version 1Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G684). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship. doubt in Peter’s mind of the destiny of Judas nor of his own guilt. He made ready his own berth and went to it. 2

His own place. Compare “the place in this ministry.” Τὸν ἴδιον, his own, is stronger than the simple possessive pronoun. It is the place which was peculiarly his, as befitting his awful sin — Gehenna. 3

------

HIS NAME

Judas’s name is a form of Judah. The name means “Jehovah leads,” which indicates that when he was born his parents must have had great hopes for him to be led by God. The irony of the name is that no individual was ever more clearly led by Satan than Judas was.

His surname, Iscariot, signifies the region he came from. It is derived from the Hebrew term ish (“man”) and the name of a town, Kerioth—“man of Kerioth.” Judas probably came from Kerioth-hezron (cf. Joshua 15:25), a humble town in the south of . He was apparently the only one of the apostles who did not come from Galilee. As we know, many of the others were brothers, friends, and working companions even before meeting Christ. Judas was a solitary figure who entered their midst from afar. Although there is no evidence that he was ever excluded or looked down upon by the rest of the group, he may have thought of himself as an outsider, which would have helped him justify his own treachery.

The Galilean disciples’ unfamiliarity with Judas would have aided and abetted him in his deception. The others knew little about his family, his background, or his life before he became a disciple. So it was easy for him to play the hypocrite. He was able to work his way into a place of trust, which we know he did, because he ultimately became the treasurer of the group and used that position to pilfer funds (John 12:6).

Judas’s father was named Simon (John 6:71). This Simon is otherwise unknown to us. It was a common name, obviously, because two of the disciples (Peter and the Zealot) were also named Simon. Beyond that, we know nothing of Judas’s family or social background.

2Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Ac 1:25). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. 3Vincent, M. R. (2002). Word studies in the New Testament (Vol. 1, Page 3-447). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. Judas was ordinary in every way, just like the others. It is significant that when Jesus predicted one of them would betray Him, no one pointed the finger of suspicion at Judas (Matthew 26:22–23). He was so expert in his hypocrisy that no one seemed to distrust him. But Jesus knew his heart from the beginning (John 6:64). 4

------

Sicarii

Some believe that "Iscariot" came not from Aramaic but derived from the Greek word Sicarios which means "Dagger" these scholars speculate that Judas came from a family of terrorists who took as there surname the principal instrument of their trade. They are lead to believe that Judas was a fanatical Zealot who was attracted to Jesus because he expected him to lead a revolution5

------

From the of the lex Cornelia published under Sulla sicarius as a tt. in Roman law denotes not only the assassin in the narrower sense but also more generally the violent murderer or inciter to murder;1 the weapon proves the intent.2

The lex Cornelia applied also against armed robbers (latrones) banded in groups. Among these, acc. to the Roman view, were guerillas in Italy and esp. the provinces who rebelled against the government without declaring war on Rome officially as hostes or without being considered worthy of a Roman declaration of war.3 As a punishment or latrones, esp. when they were slaves or provincials, were put to death by crucifixion in the imperial period.4

2. The Sicarii in .

Josephus adopts the standpoint of Roman law when he calls the hated freedom- fighters of the first Jewish revolt (→ II, 884, 32 ff.) “robbers” (→ IV, 258, 18 ff.) and “assassins” (σικαρίους). He justifies the term sicarii by explaining that they carried

4 MacArthur, J , Twelve ordinary men 5 The Twelve - C Bernard Ruffin pg. 160 tt. terminus technicus. 1 Quint.Inst. Orat., 10, 1, 12: Per abusionem sicarios etiam omnes vocamus, qui caedem telo quocumque commiserint. Cf. T. Mommsen, Röm. Strafrecht (1899), 629. 2 Only the intentional deed came under the lex Cornelia, Mommsen, 626. esp. especially. 3 Pomponius acc. to Justinianus Digesta, 50, 16, 118 (ed. T. Mommsen [1870]): Hostes hi sunt, qui nobis aut quibus nos publice bellum decrevimus; ceteri “latrones” aut “praedones” sunt. 4 Paulus Sententiae, V, 23, 1 (ed. P. E. Huschke in Jurisprudentiae Anteiustinianae quae supersunt5 [1886], 551): … humiliores vero aut in crucem tolluntur aut bestiis obiiciuntur. daggers under their cloaks with which they stealthily stabbed their opponents in the bustle of pilgrimage feasts.5

Sicarii are first said to have appeared under the procuratorship of Felix. They are introduced as a new breed of robbers; their first victim was the then high-priest .6 Later when the Jewish insurgents split up into groups after the victory over Cestius Jos. uses the term sicarii for the followers of Menahem who after his assassination retreated into the fortress of , Bell., 4, 399–405, 516; 253, 275, 297, 311. He then uses it for the partisans who escaped to Egypt, 7, 409–419 and finally for the rebellious in Cyrene, 7, 437–446. Yet he does not always keep to this special use.7,8 The depiction of the sicarii in Jos. is defective and not wholly consistent; hence their peculiar features do not emerge with clarity.

In all probability the sicarii were neither an independent party9 nor the extreme left of the patriots.10 They were fighting groups banded together by an oath. the guerillas in the Zealot movement.11 What distinguished them was not doctrine—they shared this with Judas, the founder of the Zealot party12—but the courageous nature of their effort, which held life cheap, whether their own or that of others (τολμᾶν, Ant., 20, 165).13 The weapon of

5 Bell., 2, 254 f.: acc. to Ant., 20, 186 the weapon was as big as the Persian akinake but –mentioned in 1 QM 5:11 (כידן) was curved and like the Roman . The curved sword 14 is too big for assassination. 6 Bell., 2, 252, 256; acc. to Ant., 20, 185 f. the sicarii flourished esp. under Festus; acc. to Ant., 20, 204 Albinus extirpated many of them. Bell. Bellum Judaicum. 7 This also applies to the use of “” which later Jos. mostly reserves for the priestly group which fought in the temple, Bell., 5, 5–105. 8 Jos. uses interchangeably sicarii and bandits, the most common expression for the rebels, Bell., 2, 653; Ant., 20, 185 f., 208–210. In Ant., 20, 163–165 he has λῃστάς for definite assassins. Jos. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in Greek of and Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff. 9 So Jackson-Lake, I, 422 f.; Zahn. Ag. on 21:38. 10 So Klausner, 134, 228–230. On his view the sicarii, unlike the religious nationalists (the Zealots), supported a communism adopted from the Essenes, espousing a new order of society and property which was to be brought in by force, and having Simon bar Giora as their leader. 11 Cf. Bell., 4, 408: συναθροιζόμενοί τε καὶ συνομνύμενοι κατὰ λόχους. Acc. to Ant., 15, 282–291 ten men swore to slay King Herod with hidden daggers. 12 Cf. Bell., 2. 118 with 7, 418 f. In Bell., 7, 254 Jos. associates the sicarii chronologically with Judas. Since their leaders Menahem and Eleazar b. Ari were relatives of this Judas (Bell., 2, 433; 7, 253) their link with him was also dynastic and organisational, Hengel, 50. Finally Judas, like his son Menahem (Bell., 2, 433 f.), forced his followers to carry weapons, Bell., 2, 56; Ant., 17, 251 f. Ant. Antiquitates. assassination was used esp. when Felix took steps of ruthless severity against the bands in open country, Bell., 2, 253. But it came into force only during the yrs. before the outbreak of the war and it was directed against Jews friendly to the Romans rather than the Romans themselves. The designation sicarii, however, derived from the Romans.

The reasons which drove the sicarii to act were not blind nationalism nor an excessive Just for domination.14 This common view is due to the polemically distorted account in Jos. The sicarii were motivated, not by ungodliness, unrighteousness or fanaticism (Bell., 7, 260 and 437), but by passionate zeal and active self-sacrifice for God’s honour and the . The maxim that God alone is to be honoured as Lord was consistently applied. Even Jos. must admit that they accepted suicide or martyrdom rather than the yoke of Roman rule, Bell., 7, 386–401, 410, 418 f. According to their view the majesty of God was infringed not merely by the Romans, who wanted the emperor to be recognised as ruler (7, 418 f.) and who desecrated the land by taxes, coins, statues and the census, but also by Jews friendly to the Romans, who as renegades were regarded as the equivalent of Gentiles (7, 255). Indeed, for the sicarii the priests who engaged in a politics of compromise were seducing the people into idolatry, and what Jos. ascribed to a propensity to cruelty (7, 256) really derived from obedience to God’s Law, which commanded that apostates and even whole districts which were idolatrous should be rooted out by fire and sword, Dt. 13:7–19. By purgative action of this kind they sought to prepare the way for God’s coming and to prevent the land from being smitten with a ban through God’s wrath, cf. Mal. 3:24. Stealing and confiscating the goods of the rich (Bell., 4, 402–405, 516; 7, 254; Ant., 20, 185–187), destruction of palaces and burning of archives with promissory notes (Bell., 2, 426–432), cannot be set to the account of greed (7, 256) but were meant to serve the overthrow of the unrighteous mammon and the establishment of the eternal jubilee of freedom and equality.

3. The Sicarii in the Rabbinic Writings.

It .(קַ נָאִ ים) is used of the Zealots (סִ יקָרִ ימ/ין) In the Rabb. writings the name sicarii is meant to express the violence in attitude and acts of supporters of the first revolt, who are here sharply condemned. Nevertheless, there is no mention of assassination.

Acc. to Maksh, 1, 6 the population of kept fig-cakes concealed in water because of the sicarii. Acc. to Eka r. on 4:4 the sicarii destroyed the conduit which supplied Jerusalem from Etam.15 Acc. to Ab RNat, 7 they burned the grain stocks which a rich man of

13 Jos.Bell., 2, 254–260 contrasts with the sicarii the fanatics and deceivers whose “hands were purer”; these popular charismatic leaders feared the use of violence and counted on a divine miracle which would announce symbolically the of the age of salvation. 14 Zeal for the purity of was also a motive in the war against the Romans, but there were many degenerate forms esp. in the last yrs. of the war. Rabb. , Eka r. Eka rabbati, on Lamentations (Strack, Einl., 212). and מִסִ יקָרִ ים one should read (1899) מדרש איכה רבה ,With S. Buber 15 here. Possible this was against the conduit Pilate had built with מֵעֵיטָ ם temple funds, cf. Bell., 2, 175; Hengel, 51. Jerusalem had stored up in the event of siege.16 Jos. confirms these violent acts: confiscation and destruction of stocks occurred esp. in struggles between the various rebel groups, Bell., 5, (ראֹׁש cf. Tac. Hist., V, 12. Acc. to Qoh. r. on 7:12 the head of the sicarii ;26–21 Ben Battiach, the son-in-law of R. Jochanan b. Zakkai, was responsible for the 17 ,סִקָרִ ים) burning of the grain. This Zealot, identified by some as Simon bar Giora,18 is called the “ .in the par. b.Git., 56a (אַבָא סִ יקָרָ א) ”daddy’ of assassins‘

.is also mentioned in the Rabb. in Bik., 1, 2; Git., 6, 5; S (סִ יקָרִ קֹון) A sicaricon law Dt., 297 on 26:2 etc. It relates to property, esp. landed property, which during and after the first revolt had been expropriated by the Romans. This law has ref. to the Jewish sicarii only to the degree that the property confiscated was mostly that of zealous patriots who had fled to the desert.19

4. The Sicarii in the New Testament.

a. According to Ac. 21:38 the tribune of the Roman cohort stationed in the Antonia suspected that Paul was the who a short time before had incited 4000 sicarii to rebellion and led them out into the desert.

Jos. tells of the enterprise of an Egyptian in 2 accounts which differ from one another in details. Acc. to Bell. 2, 261–263 this Egyptian claimed to be a prophet (→ VI, 826 f.), gathered together 30,000 men, and went via the desert to the Mt. of , from which pt. he sought to force his way into the city, overpower the Roman garrison, and set himself up as dictator. Not very probable is the account in Ant., 20, 169 that the pseudoprophet from Egypt preached revolt in Jerusalem itself and led its inhabitants to the Mt. of Olives. But the mention of 400 slain and 200 captured in Ant., 20, 171 sounds more plausible, as is also the

Ab RNat Abot of Nathan—an extracanonical Rabbinic tractate (Strack, Einl., 72). were responsible acc. to the קַ נָאִ ים Ed. S. Schechter (1887), 20, 2nd version. The 16 1st version. Tac. Cornelius Tacitus, the historian, contemporary of Plutarch, ed. C. Halm-G. Andresen5 (1929/30). Qoh. r. Qohelet rabba, Midrash on Ecclesiastes (Strack, Einl., 213). .קְ סָרִ ין To be read instead of 17 R. Rabbi. b. ben, when between the personal and family names of rabbis. 18 Klausnet, 230. par. parallel. b. Babylonian when before tractates from the . Git. Gittin. Bik. , Mishnah-, -, Talmud tractate First-fruits (Strack, Einl., 36). S. Dt. Sifre Deuteronomium, Tannaitic Midrash on Deuteronomy (Strack, Einl., 200 f.). thinks סִיקָרִ יקֹון .Cf. the Exc.: “Das Sikarikongesetz” in Hengel, 52–54; Jastrow, s.v 19 the word is a corruption of καισαρίκιον. ref. to the promise of the Egyptian that at his behest the walls of Jerusalem would fall down and make entry possible, 20, 170. Luke agrees with Jos. in simply speaking of “the Egyptian,” in dating his venture under Felix,20 and in making a link with the wilderness. The numbers in both might have been originally the same as well.21 Hence there is no doubt that the two have the same event in view; from Ac. 21:38 one might suppose that the people hoped for the return of the Egyptian.22 Luke, however, follows his own tradition, for acc. to Jos. the march of liberation was not into the desert but from the desert to the Mt. of Olives, which was of eschatological significance in view of verses in the Bible like Ez. 11:23 and esp. Zech. 14:4. Again, the sicarii are not mentioned in either of Jos.’ accounts. Yet there is ref. to them in the context of both (Bell., 2, 254–257; Ant., 20, 163–165); in Ant., 20, 185– 188, just after a description of the sicarii, there is ref. to the destruction of a goes whose expedition bears some resemblance to that of the Egyptian; and finally Jos. says the unarmed followers of Jonathan, who led the Jews of Cyrene into the desert, were sicarii, Bell., 7, 437– 446.

It is quite understandable that Luke should use the term sicarii, especially on the lips of a Roman officer, for whom, as for the procurators, even unarmed participants in such freedom marches were sicarii.

b. It is also worth considering whether the oath of 40 Jews to destroy Paul in Ac. 23:12– 15 is not a genuine example of the work of the sicarii. The time, method and goal of the plot all support this. It took place under the procuratorship of Felix when the movement was at its height. The participants banded themselves together by a common oath. Their objective was to remove a false teacher and desecrator of the temple who had also been taken under protective custody by the Gentiles.

5. The Sicarii in the Church Fathers. Hippolyt. mentions the sicarii in an account of the Essenes which he took from Jos.; he equates them with the Zealots but erroneously thinks they were a class of Essenes.23 They are characterised by the dogma of God’s sole sovereignty, which they maintained even to death, and by sharp hostility to images. Men who speak of God and His laws, but will not accept circumcision, are mentioned as the victims of assassination.24 Orig. refers to the sicarii in a different connection.25 6

20 The chronological note πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν is ambiguous, but the context shows it must have been shortly before. On the other hand Felix must have been some time in office (from 52) when Paul was arrested. 21 Acc. to Jackson-Lake, IV, 277 the very high number in Jos. was perhaps due to misreading Δ == 4(000) as Λ == 30(000). 22 → VI, 826, 28 ff. That the Jewish people helped to thwart this Messianic undertaking (Bell. 2, 263) is certainly not in accord with the facts. This observation may be traced back to the dogma of the Bellum that the Zealots alone were to blame for every disaster while the people as a whole repudiated the revolt, Hengel, 237. 23 Ref., IX, 26, 2, cf. Jos.Bell., 2, 119–161. In reality the features here ascribed to the different groups are probably all characteristic of the Zealots, Hengel, 74 f. 24 Ps. 50:16 was probably given as a reason: “To the wicked God saith: Why dost thou proclaim my statutes and take my covenant in thy mouth?” ------

HIS CALL7

The call of Judas is not recorded in Scripture. It is obvious, however, that he followed Jesus willingly. He lived in a time of heightened messianic hope, and like most in Israel, he was eager for the Messiah to come. When he heard about Jesus, he must have become convinced that this must be the true Messiah. Like the other eleven, he left whatever other enterprise he may have been engaged in and began to follow Jesus full-time. Judas even stayed with Jesus when less-devoted disciples began to leave the group (John 6:66– 71). He had given his life to following Jesus. But he never gave Jesus his heart.

Judas was probably a young, zealous, patriotic who did not want the Romans to rule and who hoped Christ would overthrow the foreign oppressors and restore the kingdom to Israel. He obviously could see that Jesus had powers like no other man. There was plenty of reason for a man like Judas to be attracted to that.

It is equally obvious, however, that Judas was not attracted to Christ on a spiritual level. He followed Jesus out of a desire for selfish gain, worldly ambition, avarice, and greed. He sensed Jesus’ power, and he wanted power like that for himself. He was not interested in the kingdom for salvation’s sake or for Christ’s sake. He was interested only in what he could get out of it. Wealth, power, and prestige were what fueled his ambitions.

It is clear, on the one hand, that he chose to follow. He continued following even when following became difficult. He persisted in following even though it required him to be a more clever hypocrite in order to cover up the reality of what he really was.

On the other hand, Jesus also chose him. The tension between divine sovereignty and human choice is manifest in Judas’s calling, just as it is manifest in the calling of the other apostles. They had all chosen Jesus, but He chose them first (John 15:16). Judas had likewise chosen to follow Jesus. And yet he had also been chosen by Jesus, but not for redemption. His role of betrayal was ordained before the foundation of the world and even prophesied in the Old Testament.

Orig. Origen, of Alexandria (185–254 A.D.), pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and most learned and fruitful representative of ancient Christian scholarship and culture, ed. by different scholars in Die griech, christl. Schriftsteller der ersten 3 Jahrhunderte, 1899 ff. 25 Cels., II, 13 (GCS, 2, 142, lines 10–22). He says the were thought to be sicarii because they clung fast to circumcision. Hadrian compared this to castration, which had been forbidden since Domitian and placed under the penalties of the lex Cornelia. 6Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (Vol. 7, Page 278-279). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 7 MacArthur, J , Twelve ordinary men Psalm 41:9, a messianic , says, “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” Jesus cited that verse in John 13:18 and said its fulfillment would come in His own betrayal. Psalm 55:12–14 says, “For it is not an enemy who reproaches me; then I could bear it. Nor is it one who hates me who has exalted himself against me; then I could hide from him. But it was you, a man my equal, my companion and my acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together, and walked to the house of God in the throng.” That passage also foretold the treachery of Judas. Zechariah 11:12–13 says, “They weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’; that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter.” Matthew 27:9–10 identifies that as another prophecy about Judas. So Judas’s role was foreordained.

Scripture even says that when Jesus chose Judas, He knew Judas would be the one to fulfill the of betrayal. He knowingly chose him to fulfill the plan.

And yet Judas was in no sense coerced into doing what he did. No invisible hand forced him to betray Christ. He acted freely and without external compulsion. He was responsible for his own actions. Jesus said he would bear the guilt of his deed throughout eternity. His own greed, his own ambition, and his own wicked desires were the only forces that constrained him to betray Christ.

How do we reconcile the fact that Judas’s treachery was prophesied and predetermined with the fact that he acted of his own volition? There is no need to reconcile those two facts. They are not in contradiction. God’s plan and Judas’s evil deed concurred perfectly. Judas did what he did because his heart was evil. God, who works all things according to the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11), had foreordained that Jesus would be betrayed and that He would die for the sins of the world. Jesus Himself affirmed both truths in Luke 22:22: “Truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

Spurgeon said this about the tension between divine sovereignty and human choice:

If … I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.1

1 Charles H. Spurgeon, “A Defense of Calvinism” in Susannah Spurgeon and Joseph Harrald, eds., The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, 4 vols. (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1895), 1:177. God ordained the events by which Christ would die, and yet Judas carried out his evil deed by his own choice, unfettered and uncoerced by any external force. Both things are true. The perfect will of God and the wicked purposes of Judas concurred to bring about Christ’s death. Judas did it for evil, but God meant it for good (cf. Genesis 50:20). There is no contradiction.

From a human perspective, Judas had the same potential as the others. The difference is that he was never really drawn to the Person of Christ. He saw Him only as a means to an end. Judas’s secret goal was personal prosperity—gain for himself. He never embraced Jesus’ teaching by faith. He never had an ounce of true love for Christ. His heart had never been changed, and therefore the light of truth only hardened him.

Judas had every opportunity to turn from his sin—as much opportunity as was ever afforded anyone. He heard numerous appeals from Christ urging him not to do the deed he was planning to do. He heard every lesson Jesus taught during His ministry. Many of those lessons applied directly to him: the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1–13); the message of the wedding garment (Matthew 22:11–14); and Jesus’ preaching against the love of money (Matthew 6:19–34), against greed (Luke 13:13–21), and against pride (Matthew 23:1–12). Jesus had even candidly told the Twelve, “One of you is a devil” (John 6:70). He cautioned them about the woe that would come to the person who betrayed him (Matthew 26:24). Judas listened to all of that unmoved. He never applied the lessons. He just kept up his deceit.

------

HIS DISILLUSIONMENT8

Meanwhile, Judas was becoming progressively more disillusioned with Christ. No doubt at the start, all the apostles thought of the Jewish Messiah as an oriental monarch who would defeat the enemies of Judea, rid Israel of pagan occupation, and reestablish the Davidic kingdom in unprecedented glory. They knew Jesus was a miracle worker. He obviously had power over the kingdom of darkness. He also had authority to command the physical world. No one ever taught the way He taught, spoke the way He spoke, or lived the way He lived. As far as the disciples were concerned, He was the obvious fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic promises.

But Jesus did not always fulfill their personal expectations and ambitions. To be perfectly honest, their expectations were not all spiritually motivated. We see evidence of this from time to time, such as when James and John asked for the chief seats in the kingdom. Most of them had hoped to see an earthly, materialistic, political, military, and economic kingdom. Although they had left all to follow Jesus, they did so with an expectation that they would be rewarded (Matthew 19:27). The Lord assured them they would be rewarded, but their full and final reward would be in the age to come (Luke

8 MacArthur, J , Twelve ordinary men 18:29–30). If they were counting on immediate, material rewards, they were going to be disappointed.

The rest of the apostles had begun to catch on slowly that the true Messiah was not what they at first expected. They embraced the su-perior understanding of the biblical promises Jesus unfolded to them. Their love for Christ overcame their worldly ambitions. They received His teaching about the spiritual dimension of the kingdom, and they gladly became partakers.

Judas, meanwhile, simply became disillusioned. For the most part, he hid his disappointment under his blanket of hypocrisy, probably because he was looking for a way to get some money out of the years he had invested with Jesus. The worldliness in his heart was never conquered. He never embraced the spiritual kingdom of Christ. He remained an outsider, albeit secretly.

The few glimpses of Judas that are shown to us from time to time in the Gospels suggest that he had long been growing progressively more disillusioned and embittered but kept it hidden from everyone. As early as John 6, during Jesus’ Galilean ministry, Jesus referred to Judas as “a devil.” Jesus knew what no one else knew: Judas was becoming disgruntled already. He was still unbelieving, unrepentant, and unregenerate; and he was growing more and more hardhearted all the time.

By the time Jesus and the apostles went to Jerusalem for the Passover in the last year of Jesus’ earthly ministry, Judas’s spiritual disenfranchisement was complete. At some point in those final few days, his disillusionment turned to hate, and hate mixed with greed finally turned to treachery. Judas probably convinced himself that Jesus had stolen his life—robbed him of two years of money-making potential. That sort of thinking ate away at him until finally he became the monster who betrayed Christ.

------

HIS AVARICE

Shortly after the raising of Lazarus, and just before Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Jesus and the disciples returned to Bethany, on the outskirts of the city. This was the place where Lazarus had been raised and where he lived with his sisters, Mary and Martha. Jesus was invited to a meal at the home of one “Simon the Leper” (Matthew 26:6). His dear friend Lazarus was present with Mary and Martha, who were helping serve the meal.

John 12:1-11

------1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. 2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him. ------

Served = Greek , act as slave….

Her love manifested itself in her serving the Lord

Do you think that Martha walked into the room what do you want, coke, sprite, this is the lord that we are talking about. You would want to serve him , you would make sure that everything is just right , this is how Martha feels, Lord I want to serve you !!!,

------3 Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. ------

Without warning Mary begins to pamper the feet of Jesus with an extravagant lotion. John (a likely eyewitness to this event) describes the lotion as a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume. The actual measurement is a λίτρα (litra, Latin = libra), a Roman “pound.” This is equivalent to approximately 325 grams. In equivalent liquid measure a Roman libra would be roughly .5 liters or a pint according to our modern standards. Nard was a highly prized perfume imported from the Himalayan region of India. Its color may range from amber to deep blue. Nard’s aroma is characterized as a heavy, sweet-woody and spicy animal odor. Such out-of-the-ordinary luxuries were highly prized in the ancient world by both men and women.4 The author emphasizes Mary’s lavish extravagance. She is not miserly with her treasure. She applies so much costly nard to Jesus’ feet that she must use her hair to mop up the excess.5 The author also records that the experience was a pleasant one for all present, for the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. Mary is presented to us as an example of no-holding-back devotion and unashamed humility.

4 4See the references to nard in the luxurious royal court of Solomon found in Song of Solomon 1:12; 4:13–14. This attests to the antiquity of this costly aromatic oil. 5 5Both Mark 14:3 and Matthew 26:7 record that the nard was applied to Jesus’ head rather than his feet. While some have seen this as an irreconcilable contradiction of details, this view is unnecessary. It seems reasonable that she applied the nard to both his feet and his head. Both acts would have been interpreted as gestures of hospitality. The attention to feet demonstrated by Mary anticipates the foot-washing lesson of Jesus in chapter 13, thus this particular detail is more important to John than the anointing of Jesus’ head. 9 A pound of ointment of spikenard. Mary took twelve ounces (the weight of a Roman pound) of this perfume and anointed the feet of Jesus. This perfume was extracted from the root of the nard plant which is grown in India. It was a costly import. This was an act of love and devotion to the Lord. Nothing is wasted if it is given to the Lord.10

The “pound” (NASB) or “pint” (NIV) may have been about twelve ounces. A flask would normally contain not more than an ounce, so Mary is tremendously extravagant here.11 this particular nard was worth 300 denarii (the equivalent of a year’s wages of a working man)12

2004 35,648.55

This was worth about 30,000 WOW that cost

Your worship will be sacrificial and spiritual,

When giving to Jesus with true love, you never consider the cost. How can I do less than give Him by best, and live for Him completely after all He's done for me.

David , I will not give to the lord that which cost me nothing. In your giving is Worship

sacrificial what does that mean: from time to time God will knock on your heart and what you offer to him, it may not be finances, many it is time, there is times with you just don't feel like praising him, and he knocks on your heart, that is a sacrifice.

9Bryant, B. H., & Krause, M. S. (1998). John. The College Press NIV commentary (Jn 12:3). Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co. 10KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994 (2105). Nashville: Thomas Nelson. NASB New American Standard Bible NIV New International Version 11Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (Jn 12:3). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. 12Barton, B. B. (1993). John. Life application Bible commentary (247). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House. Hebrews 13:15-16 15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. 16 But do not forget to do good and to share, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. (NKJV)

this is the same old song, it is a heart, your right lord, I will offer it, I don't feel like , bless your holy name, and the joy is there, it is a sacrifice, he is pleased there is a connection, we are, the same old song service is not a joy, and you look over to someone else come on get with it. sing away, this is the way to go. It is sacrificial , just to see if you are willing to be sacrificial.

This is a opportunity, who you are with God, I want you to call so and so, they will talk forever, I am self-centered. To reach out to those who are hurting

Sacrificial Christianity we don't see that, why we are so self center in our society, it does not cost us something.

Who criticized , Judas, never understand the world to understand,

MARY HAD A HEART OF WORSHIP when ever we see Mary in the scriptures we see her at the feet of Jesus, Luke 10:39// Matt 28:9/// John 11:32 /// here she at Jesus feet,

------she undoes her hair, this is a no , no in this culture, she did not care what people thought, that those guest at the dinner party were saying look at marry, she is not self conscience. What love.. a Jewish woman never let down her hair except for her husband, the whole room smells like the aroma and what is she doing , she is pouring out her heart/

------4 5 Then one of His disciples, , Simon's son, who would betray Him, said, "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. ------

He feigned concern for the poor. Apparently, his protest seemed reasonable to the other apostles, too, because Matthew 26:8 says they all echoed Judas’s indignation. What an expert Judas had become in his hypocrisy! The apostle John, reflecting on this incident years later, wrote, “This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it” (John 12:6). Of course, neither John nor any of the other apostles saw through Judas’s deceit at the time, but in retrospect, and writing his book under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, John told us plainly what Judas’s motive was: sheer greed.13

A. When he saw this expensive perfume poured on the feet of Jesus, he indignantly said, "Why was not this perfume sold for 16,000 dollars and the money given to the poor?" 1. That sounds very spiritual doesn't it. 2. Watch out for spiritual sounding words, people who use spiritual platitudes. 3. Many times people seek to hide their true motives with spiritual sounding talk. 4. It completely took away from this lovely sacrifice that Mary had offered to Jesus. 5. It made Mary look to be carnal, and him very spiritual. B. John immediately adds his commentary he tells us that Judas said this not because he cared for the poor, but because he was holding the bag with the money that they kept for their expenses and that he had been stealing out of the bag. 1. Jesus was on to Judas from the beginning. a. He said, have I not chosen you twelve, yet one of you is a devil? b. Jn 6:64 Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray Him. 2. When it says concerning the bag that he bare what was put theirin. The word bare should be better translated lifted, as in shop-lifting. Speaking of a pick pocket, you would say, "He lifted that man's wallet. 3. He was a thief, a betrayer, a devil, a hypocrite. a. He was seeking to sound very spiritual as he put down this act of love and devotion by Mary. b. In reality he was angry that more money was not given to the bag that he might pilfer from it.

One years wage

13 Ibid. here’s money that should have been given to me, I thought I was going to spend that money, very self-centered. The point here, while you are judging others and not being involved lifting your hands, giving of yourself, you will continue to be barren in your life, rather than being involved, your indignation, comes , you are looking for someone to Minster to you instead of ministering to someone else, don't you know you will never be satifyed if you continue to look INWARD !!! It is only when you begin to look outward and see opportunities all around you for ministry that you will find yourself satifyed,

A heart to criticize, a heart to Judge, a heart to serve self, lord Help us

According to Matthew and Mark, all the disciples were offended that Mary had “wasted” this expensive ointment (Matthew 26:8; Mark 14:4).14

Matthew 26:8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? Mark 14:4 But there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this fragrant oil wasted?

------7 But Jesus said, "Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. 8 "For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always." ------doing it now, did he tell her, did she know, tell them now wait, do it now, love does not wait, do it now.

D. Jesus then added some strange words, "Against the day of My burying has she kept this." 1. This event took place six days before Jesus was put to death. 2. Perhaps Mary saw the troubled expression in the eyes of Jesus as He sat at the table. A little futher in this same chapter Jesus admitted to the fact that His soul was troubled. 3. Perhaps Mary noticed this and decided upon this great sacrifice of love, to encourage Him and bouy His Spirit. 4. Love is so perceptive. 5. It is interesting that the burial of Jesus was so quick after His death that they did not have time to

14Barton, B. B. (1993). John. Life application Bible commentary (247). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House. annoint His body with spices, and that is just what the women were planning to do when they came to the tomb and found it empty. Mary had already done it in advance.

Jesus responded to Judas in verse 7: “Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.” Given the circumstances, and since Jesus knew perfectly well what was in Judas’s heart, this seems a rather mild rebuke. He could have blasted Judas with a fierce condemnation and exposed his real motives, but He did not.

Nonetheless, the gentle reprimand seems to have made Judas resent Jesus even more. He did not repent. He did not even examine his own heart. In fact, this incident seems to have been the turning point in his thinking. Three hundred denarii would have been a lot to add to the treasury, offering a prime opportunity for Judas to skim money for his own pocket. Because of Jesus’ willingness to receive such lavish worship, Judas missed a prime opportunity to embezzle funds.

It appears to have been the last straw as far as Judas was concerned, because immediately after telling the story of Jesus’ anointing, Matthew says, “Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?’ And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him” (Matthew 26:14–16). He crept away, left Bethany, walked about a mile and a half to Jerusalem, met with the chief priests, and sold Jesus to His enemies for a pocketful of coins. Thirty pieces of silver. That is all he could get. According to Exodus 21:32, it was the price of a slave. It was not much money. But it was all he could negotiate.

The contrast is staggering: Our Lord is anointed with overwhelming love by Mary and betrayed with overwhelming hate by Judas at the same time.

Notice that this is the first time Judas had ever exposed himself in any way. Up to that point, He had blended in perfectly with the rest of the group. This is the first time on record that he spoke out as an individual, and it is the first time he merited any kind of direct rebuke from Christ. Apparently, that is all that was needed to provoke his betrayal. He had kept his bitterness and disillusionment bottled up as long as he could. Now it spilled forth in secret treachery.

------

HIS HYPOCRISY

John 13:1 begins the apostle John’s lengthy account of what happened in the Upper Room on the night of Jesus’ arrest. Having already taken money to betray Christ, Judas came back, blended into the group, and pretended nothing unusual had happened. John says it was the devil who put it in the heart of Judas to betray Jesus (v. 2). That is no surprise. Again, Judas did what he did willingly, without any coercion. Satan could not force him to betray Jesus. But Satan through some means suggested the plot, tempted Judas to do this thing, and planted the very seed of treachery in his heart. Judas’s heart was so hostile to the truth and so filled with evil that Judas became a willing instrument of Satan himself.

It was at this very point that Jesus gave the apostles a lesson in humility by washing their feet. He washed the feet of all twelve, which means He even washed the feet of Judas. Judas sat there and let Jesus wash his feet and remained utterly unmoved. The world’s worst sinner was also the world’s best hypocrite.

Peter, on the other hand, was deeply moved by Jesus’ act of humility. At first he was ashamed and refused to let Jesus wash his feet. But when Jesus said, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me,” (v. 8), Peter replied, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!” (v. 9).

Jesus replied, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you” (v. 10, emphasis added). A buzz must have gone around the room when He said that. There were only twelve of them, and Jesus was saying that someone in the group was not clean. Matthew adds, “For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, ‘You are not all clean’ ” (v. 11).

In verses 18–19, Jesus spoke even more directly: “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.’ Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He.” Of course, He was saying Judas’s act was the fulfillment of Psalm 41:9.

All of that seems to have gone over the heads of most of the apostles. So in verse 21, Jesus makes an even more explicit prediction about the impending act of betrayal: “When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.’” All the disciples except Judas were perplexed and deeply troubled by this. They apparently began to examine their own hearts, because Matthew 26:22 says, “They were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, ‘Lord, is it I?’” Even Judas, ever careful to keep up the appearance of being like everyone else, asked, “Rabbi, is it I?” (v. 25). But in his case there had been no sincere self-examination. He asked the question only because he was worried about how the others perceived him; he already knew that he was the one of whom Jesus spoke.

The apostle John concludes his account of this incident:

Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke. Then, leaning back on Jesus’ breast, he said to Him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.” And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.” But no one at the table knew for what reason He said this to him. For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to him, “Buy those things we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. Having received the piece of bread, he then went out immediately. And it was night. (John 12:23–30)

The day of salvation closed for Judas. Divine mercy gave way to divine judgment. Judas was in essence handed over to Satan. Sin had triumphed in his heart. Satan moved in.

Notice, however, that even though Jesus had just spoken of the betrayer and had given Judas the morsel to identify him, it still did not compute in the minds of the apostles. No one seemed to anticipate that Judas would be the traitor. So expert was he in his hypocrisy that he fooled everyone but Jesus, right up to the very end.

Jesus sent him away. That is easy to understand. Jesus is pure, sinless, spotless, and holy. Here was this wretched, evil presence into whom Satan had literally entered. Jesus was not about to have the first communion service with the devil and Judas present in the room. Get out.

Only after Judas had left did our Lord institute the Lord’s Supper. To this day, when we come to the Lord’s Table, we are instructed to examine ourselves lest we come hypocritically to the table and bring judgment upon ourselves (1 Corinthians 11:27–32).

The apostle John says that throughout this entire episode, until Judas left the company of apostles, Jesus was deeply “troubled in spirit” (John 13:21). Of course He was troubled! This wicked, wretched, Satan-possessed presence was polluting the fellowship of the apostles. Judas’s ingratitude, His rejection of Jesus’ kindness, the hate Judas secretly harbored for Jesus, the repulsiveness of the presence of Satan, the heinousness of sin, the horrors of knowing that the gaping jaws of hell were awaiting one of His closest companions—all of that troubled and agitated Jesus. No wonder he sent Judas away.

------

HIS BETRAYAL

THE PROPHECY OF 30 PIECE OF SILVER,

Zechariah 11:12-13 12 Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter.

Judas apparently went straight from the Upper Room to the . He reported to them that the final breach had been made, and he now knew where they could apprehend Jesus under cover of darkness. Judas had been secretly seeking a convenient opportunity to betray Jesus ever since making his bargain with the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:11). Now the time had come.

Remember, Judas did not act in a moment of insanity. This was not a sudden impulse. It was not an act borne only out of passion. This dark deed was deliberately planned and premeditated. He had been planning this for days, if not or even . He had already taken the money for it (Matthew 26:15). He had just been waiting for an opportune . Along the way, he had continued his campaign of embezzlement, kept up the hypocritical facade, and carried on with the rest of the apostles as if he were truly one of them. But now Jesus had spoken openly to the other disciples about Judas’s plot to betray Him. Judas had nearly been unmasked in front of the others. It was time for him to act.

What had he been waiting for anyway? According to Luke 22:6, Judas had been seeking an opportunity “to betray [Jesus] to them in the absence of the multitude” (emphasis added). He was a coward. He knew the popularity of Jesus. He was afraid of the crowd. Like every hypocrite, he was obsessed with concerns about what people thought of him, so he was hoping to betray Jesus as quietly as possible. He was looking for the doorway to hell that was most convenient. And when he found it, he plunged right in.

So at the very moment when Jesus was instituting the Lord’s Supper in the Upper Room, Judas was making arrangements for His capture. He knew Jesus regularly went to Gethsemane to pray with His disciples. Luke 22:39 says it was Jesus’ custom to go there. John 18:2 says Judas “knew the place; for Jesus often met there with His disciples.” So Judas knew exactly where to bring the authorities to capture Jesus.

The next time we see Judas is in John 18, when his conspiracy of betrayal reaches its culmination. The evening was at its end. Jesus had gone from the Upper Room to His customary place of prayer in the little grove known as Gethsemane. There He poured out his heart to the Father in such agony that His sweat became as great drops of blood. He had left eight of the disciples some distance away and gone deep into the garden with Peter, James, and John (Mark 14:32–33).

“Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and , came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons” (John 18:3). The “detachment of troops” was most likely a Roman cohort from the Antonio Fortress, adjacent to the temple. A full cohort numbered about six hundred men. No exact figure is given, but all the Gospel writers say it was a great multitude (Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; Luke 22:47)—probably hundreds of soldiers. They obviously expected the worst. They came armed to the teeth.

“Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, ‘Whom are you seeking?’” (John 18:4). He did not wait for Judas to single him out; He did not try to hide; He “went forward,” presenting Himself to them, and said, “I am He” (v. 5).

Judas had a prearranged signal to identify Jesus: “Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him” (Matthew 26:48). What a diabolical way to point out Jesus! But his wretchedness was so profound and his hypocrisy so malicious that he seemingly had no conscience. Furthermore, since Jesus stepped forward and identified Himself, the signal would have been unnecessary, but Judas—cynic and scoundrel that he had become— kissed Him anyway (Mark 14:45).

“Jesus said to him, ‘Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?’” (Luke 22:48). Kissing is a mark of homage, love, affection, tenderness, respect, and intimacy. Judas’s feigned feelings for Christ only made his deed that much darker. It was a devious hypocrisy, trying to keep up the veneer of respect even to the bitter end.

Jesus, ever gracious, even addressed him as “Friend” (Matthew 26:50). Jesus had never been anything but friendly to Judas, but Judas was no true friend of Jesus (cf. John 15:14). He was a betrayer and a deceiver. His kisses were the kisses of the worst kind of treachery.

Judas profaned the Passover that night. He profaned the Lamb of God. He profaned the Son of God. He profaned the place of prayer. He betrayed his Lord with a kiss.

------

HIS DEATH

Judas sold Jesus for a pittance. But as soon as the deal was complete, Judas’s conscience immediately came alive. He found himself in a hell of his own making, hammered by his own mind for what he had done. The money, which had been so important to him before, now did not matter. Matthew 27:3–4 says, “Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ ”

His remorse was not the same as repentance, as subsequent events clearly show. He was sorry, not because he had sinned against Christ, but because his sin did not satisfy him the way he had hoped.

( Godly sorrow and worldly sorrow )

Later Judas would be sorry for this , he would have regret.

Matthew 27:4-5 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!” 5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.

The regret was devoid of any true Repentance.

A ago we saw Simon Peter, we was repentant, but Judas was sorry it turned out the way it did . there is true and false repentance,

2 Corinthians 7:8-10 8 For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it. For I perceive that the same epistle made you sorry, though only for a while. 9 Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death..

There are two types of sorrow, two types of repentance

Judas when he betrayed Jesus he was sorry.

Matthew 27:3 3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, The King James Version

Matthew 27:3 3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, The New King James Version he regretted in getting himself into this mess but he did not change,

------

WHY did he do it.. The great interest of this passage is the fate of Judas. What exactly the Greek here means is uncertain, but in Matthew’s account (Matthew 27:3–5) we are left in no doubt that Judas committed suicide. It must always be a matter of wonder why Judas betrayed Jesus. Various suggestions have been put forward.

(i) It has been suggested that Iscariot means man of Kerioth. If it does, Judas was the only non-Galilaean in the apostolic band. It may be that he felt himself the odd man out and grew so embittered that he did this terrible thing.

(ii) It may be that Judas turned king’s evidence to save his own skin and then saw the enormity of what he had done.

(iii) It may be that he did it simply out of greed for money. If he did, it was the most dreadful bargain in history, for he sold his Lord for thirty pieces of silver which was less than £4.

(iv) It may be that Judas came to hate Jesus. From others he could disguise his black heart; but the eyes of Jesus could penetrate to the inmost recesses of his being. It may be that in the end he was driven to destroy the one who knew him for what he was.

(v) It may be that Iscariot is a form of a Greek word which means a dagger-bearer. The “dagger-bearers” were a band of violent nationalists who were prepared to undertake assassination and murder in a campaign to set Palestine free. Perhaps Judas saw in Jesus the very person who could lead the nationalists to triumph; and when he saw that Jesus refused that way he turned against him and in his bitter disappointment betrayed him.

(vi) It is likeliest of all that Judas never meant Jesus to die but betrayed him with the intention of forcing his hand. If that be so, Judas had the tragic experience of seeing his plan go desperately wrong; and in his bitter remorse he committed suicide.

However it may be, Judas goes down to history as the blackest name among men. There can never be any peace for the man who betrays Christ.

15

------

The chief priests and elders were unsympathetic. “They said, ‘What is that to us? You see to it!’ ” (v. 4). They had what they wanted. Judas could do what he liked with the money. Nothing would undo his treachery now.

15The Acts of the Apostles. 2000, c1976 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Matthew says, “Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself” (v. 5). Judas was already in a hell of his own making. His conscience would not be silenced, and that is the very essence of hell. Sin brings guilt, and Judas’s sin brought him unbearable misery. Again, his remorse was not genuine repentance. If that were the case, he would not have killed himself. He was merely sorry because he did not like what he felt.

Sadly, he did not seek the forgiveness of God. He did not cry out for mercy. He did not seek deliverance from Satan. Instead, he tried to silence his conscience by killing himself. This was the grief of a madman who had lost control.

Matthew concludes his account of Judas: “But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, ‘It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.’ And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day” (Matthew 27:6–8).

Acts 1:18–19 adds a final note to the tragedy of Judas, with more detail about his death and the acquisition of the Field of Blood: “This man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.”

Some have imagined a contradiction between Matthew and Acts, but all apparent discrepancies are easily reconciled. Matthew indicates that the priests purchased the field with Judas’s blood money. Thus it is true that Judas acquired the field “with the wages of iniquity.” It was purchased for him by the chief priests, but the purchase was made with his money. The field became his possession. His heirs—if he had any—would inherit the field. So it is correct to say that “purchased a field with the wages of iniquity,” even though the field was purchased for him, by proxy.

Why this particular field? Because it was the very place where Judas hanged himself. Apparently he chose a tree on an overhang above some jagged rocks. (There is a place that precisely fits that description in the field in Jerusalem where tradition says Judas hanged himself.) Either the rope or the tree branch broke, and Judas fell headlong onto the rocks. The biblical description is graphic and ugly: “He burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out” (Acts 18:1). Judas was such a tragic figure that he couldn’t even kill himself the way he wanted to. Nonetheless, he died.

This is virtually the last word in Scripture about Judas: “His entrails gushed out.” His life and his death were grotesque tragedies. He was a child of hell and a son of perdition, and he went to his own place where he belonged. Jesus said these chilling words: “It would have been good for that man if he had never been born” (Mark 14:21). 16

16MacArthur, J. (2002). Twelve ordinary men : How the Master shaped his disciples for greatness, and what He wants to do with you (Page 181). Nashville, TN: W Pub. Group.

Fell to his death (or: “swelled up”). At Mt 27:3–10 we read that the cohanim bought the field and used it as a cemetery for foreigners, hence its name (v. 19), and that Y’hudah from K’riot died by hanging himself. The differences between the two accounts can be resolved thus: the cohanim considered the money Y’hudah returned as his and bought the field in his name. The Greek for “fell to his death” means, literally, “having become prone.” Augustine harmonizes by suggesting he hanged himself and then fell. 17 The section set off by parentheses was not part of Peter’s speech but rather was an insertion by Luke explaining the suicide of Judas, the resulting spread of the news, and the naming of the place where it happened. Matthew reports that Judas hung himself (Matthew 27:5); here Luke says that he fell. The traditional explanation proposed by Augustine of this seeming contradiction is that both reports are true: when Judas hung himself, the rope or branch broke, Judas fell, and his body burst open. As is so often the case, when two (or more) different writers record an event, they write from different perspectives, have different purposes in their writing, and have different sources for their information. When confronted by such seeming contradictions, we must remember that the eyewitnesses of the events (who were the first recipients of these records) evidently had no problem reconciling the differing accounts. If there had been a real contradiction that could not be cleared up by an unmentioned factor, the witness (that is, the writer and his book) would have been discredited and subsequently discarded by the church. Such is certainly not the case with the book of Matthew or the book of Acts.18

Luke provided us with the story of Judas’s demise in vv. 18–19. Judas purchased a field (literally, “an estate or farm”) with “the reward he got for his wickedness.” The reference is clearly to the money the temple officials agreed to pay Judas for leading them to Jesus (Luke 22:5). The language is more obscure in the remainder of v. 18: “And becoming prone, he burst in the middle, and all his entrails poured out” (literal translation). The NIV probably is right in interpreting the strange phrase “becoming prone” as “fell headlong.”59 The picture is that of a fall so severe as to open his body cavity and cause his inner organs (splanchna) to spill out. In consequence of this gory death the field became known by Jerusalem locals as Akeldama. For his non-Semitic readers, Luke translated the Aramaic word—“that is, Field of Blood.” Matthew gave a

17Stern, D. H. (1992). Jewish New Testament commentary : A companion volume to the Jewish New Testament. Includes index. (1st ed.) (Ac 1:18). Clarksville, Md.: Jewish New Testament Publications. 18Barton, B. B., & Osborne, G. R. (1999). Acts. Life application Bible commentary (Page 16). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House. 59 Evidence exists that some of the early versions of Acts took πρηνὴ⌟ (“prone”) as πρησθε῏⌟ (“swollen”); for the Syriac, Georgian, and Armenian versions translate it as “having swelled up.” Perhaps this was an early attempt to explain how a headlong fall could lead to rupture. There may be some connection with a later tradition of Judas’s death, attributed to Papias by Apollinarius of Laodicea, according to which Judas became ill and swelled up to such enormous proportions that even an ox cart could not negotiate past him in a narrow street. See Beginnings 5:22–30. One should also not overlook the parallel with the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in 2 Macc 9:8. fuller account of Judas’s death. Despite significant differences in detail, the main emphases are the same in the two accounts—the purchase of a field with Judas’s blood money, the grisly death of the betrayer, the naming of the field “Field of Blood.”60 For Peter the recollection of Judas’s gruesome end must have been a grim reminder of his own denial of his Lord as he now sought to lead the assembly to fill the abandoned post.

19

The word means, not “headlong,” but “flat on the face” as opposed to ὑπτιος [huptios] on the back (Hackett). Hackett observes that the place suits admirably the idea that Judas hung himself (Matt. 27:5) and, the rope breaking, fell flat on his face and burst asunder in the midst (ἐλακησεν μεσος [elakēsen mesos]). First aorist active indicative of λασκω [laskō] old verb (here only in the N.T.), to clang, to crack, to crash, like a falling tree. Aristophanes uses it of crashing bones. Μεσος [Mesos] is predicate nominative referring to Judas. Gushed out (ἐξεχυθη [exechuthē]). First aorist passive indicative of ἐκχεω [ekcheō], to pour out.

20

ANOTHER VIEW

Judas in hanging himself profane the city before the morning of . So the body was cast over the wall into the hinnom valley, the results was the body burst open.21

------

( Michael Cards song - the betrayers kiss ) don't look down on Judas, look at who we are, I am haunted by who Judas is……..

60 The most significant difference between the two accounts is that Judas hung himself in the Matthean version. An early attempt to deal with this is found in the early Latin Vulgate, where “prone” is translated “suspended.” Augustine likewise suggested that the rope by which Judas hung himself broke, causing him to fall headlong and burst open. For a harmonization of all the differences between the two accounts, see C. W. Carter and R. Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 20–21; A. B. Gordon, “The Fate of Judas According to Acts 1:18,” EvQ 43 (1971): 97–100. For the view that the Judas tradition originated as a midrash on Akeldama, see M. Wilcox, “The Judas Tradition in Acts 1:15–26,” NTS 19 (1973): 438–42; F. Manns, “Un Midrash Chrétien: Le Recit de la mort de Judas,” RSR 54 (1980): 197–203. 19Polhill, J. B. (2001, c1992). Vol. 26: Acts (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 92). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. 20Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament. Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Ac 1:18). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. 21 Dr. Arnold Fruitenbulm

Traitor’s Look Michael Card

How did it feel to take the place of honor at the meal. To take the sop from His own hands a prophecy to seal? Was it because He washed your feet that you sold him as a slave, the son of Man, the lamb of God. Who’d only come to save ? the silver that they paid to you, from out their precious till, was meant to buy a spotless lamb, A sacrifice to kill, How heave was the money bag that couldn’t set you free ? It became a heavy millstone as you fell into the sea.

Now, Judas, don't you come too close I fear that I might see. The traitors, look upon your face might look to much like me Cause just like you I’ve sold the lord, and often for much less and like a wretched traitor, I betrayed Him with a kiss.