Judas

Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary

JUDE, JUDAS

There were two of this name well known in the Scriptures of the New Testament, the one an apostle of Christ, called in Matthew's gospel, (Matthew 10:3) Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus, and by Luke, the brother of James; and he is again noticed by the persons who thought slight of our Lord and his doctrine, as his brother, Matthew 13:55. This was the Judas which spake to Christ in the midst of our Lord's sermon, and said, "Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?" (John 14:22) He is the Jude to whom, under the Holy Ghost, we are indebted for that precious morsel of gospel truth which is contained in the Epistle that bears his name. The other Jude or Judas is he who was surnamed Barsabas, (see Acts 15:22) and who was commissioned by the apostles to go to the church at Antioch. We have the account of his journey in the same chapter,. (Acts 15:30, etc) There is another Judas different from both the former, mentioned Acts 9:11. Lastly, Judas Iscariot, the traitor. Some read it Ish-cariot, the man of carioth; but certainly more properly Ish and corath, the man of murder.

See Iscariot

The awful character of this man is related to us so fully in the gospels, that there can need nothing more than a reference to those sacred records to obtain the most complete account of him, together with his tremendous doom: for what can more fully decide the everlasting ruin of the traitor than the Lord Jesus's account of him, when summing up all in one the most finished picture of misery, Jesus saith "good were it for that man, if he had never been born!" (Mark 14:11)

It hath been a subject of some debate in the early church respecting Judas Iscariot, whether he did or did not receive the Lord's Supper. Some have insisted upon it that he did, and others, equally positive, have asserted that he did not. The best way to determine the point, will be to regard what the Evangelists have said upon the subject; for it must be from their testimony alone a right judgment can be formed. I shall therefore, bring each of them in their relation concerning this matter before the reader, and then leave it to his own determination which opinion to take. Matthew gives a particular account of the whole proceedings of the Supper from first to last, (Matthew 26:20-30) and expressly states that when the twelve: consequently Judas was included. And so unconscious were the rest of the disciples who the traitor was, when the Lord at the table intimated that one of them should betray him, that they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Lord, is it I? And when the Lord to the enquiry of Judas declared that he was the person, there is nothing said of his departure, but that the Lord proceeded to bless the bread and the cup, and said, "Drink ye all of it." After the supper, when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. This is the whole relation as given by Matthew. Mark states the circumstances very nearly to the same amount; (Mark 14:12-26) This evangelist observes, that prior to the supper Judas had been with the chief priests, and covenanted with them to betray Christ unto them. This however did not prevent him from mingling with the other disciples at the table, for Mark saith, that in the evening Jesus "came with the twelve;" and he adds, that "as they sat and did eat" Jesus intimated the circumstance of one of them betraying him. But from this evangelist's account it doth not appear that any discovery was then made of the traitor, neither is there the least idea afforded as if Judas was not present at the whole supper.

Luke is yet more particular in his account of the supper. (See Luke 22:14-39) He saith, that when the hour was come, Jesus sat down, and "the twelve apostles with him." And what is much to the point in respect to the question now under consideration, this evangelist, in his statement of this memorable transaction, represents the Lord as proceeding to the supper, and giving both the bread and the cup to them before he intimated the presence of the traitor. So that, according to this relation of the subject, the Supper was finished when Jesus declared concerning the act of betraying him. John hath said nothing of the Supper itself, except he had respect to it in the opening of John 13:1-38. The reason, no doubt, of his silence was, that as the other evangelists had related the circumstances so particularly, and his gospel being principally intended as supplementary, to record those things of the Lord Jesus which they had omitted, there needed not again the account of the transactions of the Supper. But if the evangelist meant the Lord's Supper in the Passover, when he said, (John 13:2) "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him"-if this was the sacramental supper, then it will follow that all that is subsequent in this chapter was also subsequent to the service. And as the evangelist John saith also in this same chapter, that it was after the sop which Jesus gave him, as a token of the traitor, that "Satan entered into him," then must it have been after the supper. Such are the several relations given by the several evangelists on this memorable point. The reader will now judge for himself, when he hath duly considered the whole taken together. But I cannot see the very great importance of the question, whether Judas Iscariot did or did not receive the Lord's Supper. Put the case that he did-what did he receive? Nothing, surely, more than the mere outward sign. He had no part or lot in the matter. He had no union with Christ, and consequently no communion with him in the ordinance. For as the apostle justly and decidedly states it, "what concord hath Christ with Belial?" (2 Corinthians 6:15) Judas being present at the table, and partaking of the elements of the table, became neither benefited himself, nor was it injurious to others. We read in earlier periods of the church, that "when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6) But was the meeting unhallowed to the sons of God because the devil came in the midst? Were the apostles of Christ less apostles because Judas was "numbered with them, and had obtained part of this ministry?" (Acts 1:17) And surely if the Lord Jesus, well knowing as he did whom he had chosen, was pleased to number him for a time with the apostles, might he not for a time also allow him to sit down with the apostles at the same table? Yea, did not the Lord Jesus expressly tell the church, that these things were his own appointment, and perfectly known in all their consequences by his divine mind, when he said, "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70) If choosing Judas to be an apostle, at the time Christ knew that he was a devil, did not in the least contaminate the rest of the apostles, neither injure the cause of Jesus, it must undeniably follow, that his being present at the supper could not pollute the supper, nor the faithful partakers of the supper. These things can never be injured by outward causes. The "precious and the vile" must necessarily in this world be often brought together, but the ordinance can receive no taint from the worthlessness of partakers. Ordinances of every kind, like the gospel itself, will prove "a savour of life unto life" unto some, whilst "a savour of death unto death" unto others. Here lies the grand discriminating mark, "the Lord knoweth them that are his." (2 Timothy 2:19) And while the Lord knoweth them that are his, he no less knoweth them that are not. And we have already left upon record, the awful sentence which will be read to all such in the great day of God. "Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you I know ye not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." (Luke 13:26-27) Indeed, may we not go farther, and suppose, that from this very appointment the Lord intended special good to his people? Was it not in effect saying, that if in the instance of the Lord Jesus himself a Judas is permitted, yea, appointed to attend his person, can it be wondered at in the minglings up of life, that his people should be so exercised? If in the college of apostles, out of twelve persons one should be a devil, can his people complain that they are sometimes called "to dwell with Mesech, and to have their habitation among the tents of Kedar?" Did Jesus, the Lord of life and glory, who might have commanded twelve legions of angels to attend him, permit, yea, even appoint a known devil to be his servant, to be with him in his miracles and his ministry, yea, to be one of the party at his farewell super-and what doth the meek and gentle Saviour teach thereby all his tried ones upon earth but this, that in their intercourse with the graceless they are to call to mind the unequalled humblings of Jesus in such instances. If he endured such a contradiction of sinners against himself, they are not to be wearied nor faint in their mind. The most blessed purposes are in the design. It hath been so in the church of God from the beginning, and will continue so unto the end. In the family of Adam there was a Cain; in Noah's house there was a Ham; Isaac had his Esau as well as Jacob; and, above all, the Lord Jesus had Judas. Tares are in the church as well as the pure wheat; and it is Jesus himself that saith, "Let both grow together unto the harvest." But then when the harvest comes, the final and everlasting separation takes place; then it will be no longer needful that characters so very opposite should dwell together. "Then will I say (saith the Lord Jesus) to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." (Matthew 13:30)

I cannot dismiss the view we have taken of this subject without making one short observation more on the occasion, namely, to remark how it is in our reading the Scriptures hastily to leap to conclusions, and to frame our opinions according to our supposed fitness of things, and not by the standard of the divine word. Assuming it for granted that Jesus, who knew the hearts of all men, neither needed that nay should shew him, would not have permitted Judas to partake of his supper, they instantly leap to a conclusion, that it could not be, and decide upon it accordingly. We are told by Chrysostom, that a similar offence was taken in his days, by some weak and injudicious Christians, at that sweet passage in St. John's Gospel, (John 11:35) where it is said, that Jesus wept. Concluding, that it was unsuitable and unbecoming the person and dignity of the Lord Jesus to be affected with human passions, they struck it out of their Bibles. But it was happy for us, and the Christian world at large, that when striking it out of their Bibles they could not strike it out of ours. Blessed be the Lord for presiding over his word, and preserving to us the sweet passage; for surely, to all true believers in Jesus, such views of Jesus are among the loveliest and most endearing parts in his divine character. Nothing can be more soothing and consolatory to a poor, sorrowful, afflicted follower of the Lord Jesus in his hours of suffering, than the consideration that he who is now exalted at the right hand of the majesty on high, was once, when on earth, "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." And the highest possible relief to the anguish of the soul under temptation, is the consciousness of the sympathy and compassion of Christ. He who wept when upon earth in beholding the tears of his people, cannot be unfeeling of them now though in heaven. And we have authority to conclude, that this sweet feature in the character of Jesus is as much his as ever; "in that he hath suffered, being tempted, he knoweth how to succour them that are tempted."

Let me only beg to add one observation more in relation to the traitor Judas, and then take a final farewell of his history forever; namely, concerning the awful death of the man, and the judgments that followed in his bowels gushing out. One of the evangelists saith, that he hanged himself. (Matthew 27:3-5) And another adds, "that falling headlong, he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18-19) both events, no doubt, took place: and as by the suffocation induced by hanging, a great swelling might most probably take place, when he fell, the rupture of the lower part of the belly, called the abdomen, gave way, and the bowels gushed out. Think, what a spectacle! How justly the object of detestation both to God and man! And think if possible what followed.-To all the tremendous miseries of eternity he had to add, the special and peculiar aggravation in the everlasting and unceasing thought-that he, of all the creation of God, had this worm of conscience that never dieth, to prey upon him to all eternity, that he it was that betrayed the Lord of life and glory.

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

JUDAS

1. Judas the son of James . The eleventh name in two lists of the Apostles (Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13) is Ἰούδος Ἰακώβου. Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘Judas the son of James’ is a better rendering than Authorized Version ‘Judas the brother of James.’ The note in (Revised Version margin) is ‘Or brother . See Judges 1:1’; but in Judges 1:1 there is no ambiguity; the Gr. text is ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου. The Authorized Version rendering is grammatically possible; but it is improbable that the genitive has two different meanings in one short list of names (cf. Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘James the son of Alphaeus’), and it is noteworthy that in Luke 3:1; Luke 6:14 ἀδελφός is expressed. The Authorized Version rendering may have been caused by Judges 1:1; certainly it has led to the erroneous identification of these two Judases. The evidence of Versions is in favour of Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885. Syrpesh and Theb. have ‘son of’; ‘none suggests the exceptional rendering “the brother of” (Plummer in Smith’s D B [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , vol. i. pt. 2). Syrsin has ‘Judas son of James’ instead of Thaddaeus or Lebbaeus in Matthew 10:4.

In two lists of the Apostles (Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18) ‘Judas the son of James’ has no place; the other names correspond in all four lists. In Mt. and Mk. Thaddaeus ( v.l. , in Mt., Lebbaeus) is one of the Twelve. There is little doubt that ‘Judas the son of James’ had a second name ‘Thaddaeus,’ and perhaps a third name ‘Lebbaeus.’ Jerome ( Com. in loc .) calls him trinomius . Cf. Nestle in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iv. 741.

It is significant that on the only occasion when this obscure Apostle is referred to in the Gospels, he is distinguished from his notorious namesake as ‘Judas, not Iscariot’ (John 14:22). All that we know of ‘Judas Thaddaeus’ is that he asked the question, ‘Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?’ He could not understand how the kingdom was to come unless the Messiah would make a public disclosure (ἐμφανίζω) of His glory. The answer of Jesus explains that in the very nature of the case it is not possible for Him to reveal His glory to unloving and disobedient hearts. The question of Judas Thaddaeus expressed the thought not only of other members of the Apostolic band, but also of many who have since believed in Christ. Our Lord’s words have a message for all disciples whose impatience is an evidence of the influence of the spirit of the world. Well may St. Paul claim to ‘have the mind of Christ’ when he affirms that ‘the natural man’ is not only unable to ‘receive’ and to ‘know’ spiritual things, but is also incompetent to ‘interpret’ and to ‘judge’ them (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:13 ff.).

Concerning the name of this Apostle, who is little more than a name to us, there has been much discussion. In John 14:22 Syrsin has ‘Thomas,’ Syrcur has ‘Judas Thomas.’ Plummer ( op. cit. ) is probably right in regarding the latter as ‘a corrupt reading arising from the fact that the Syrian Christians called Thomas the Apostle, Judas.’ Eusebius ( Historia Ecclesiastica i. 13. 10) refers, in his narrative concerning Abgar, king of Edessa, to ‘Judas who was also called Thomas.’ McGiffert ( Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers , i. 562) suggests that ‘it is possible that Eusebius, or the translator of the document, made a mistake, and applied to Thomas a name which in the original was given to Thaddaeus.’ But Thomas is also called Judas Thomas in Acts of Thomas , c. 11f., 31, 39, and in the Syriac Doctrina Apostolorum . Preuschen (Hennecke, Handbuch zu den NT Apokryphen , p. 562) says: ‘In regard to the name Judas-Thomas, i.e. Judas the Twin, cf. Doctrine of Addai (p. 5, ed. Phillips), Bar-Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecc . iii. 2. The Syriac translation of Eusebius, Ch . Hist. 1:13, 10, renders the Gr. Ἰούδας ὁ καὶ Θωμᾶς by יהוראחאומא which, according to the Nestorian pronunciation of the Syriac, must have been understood to mean Judas the Twin.’ It is possible that these Syriac traditions preserve the personal name of Thomas ‘the Twin’; it is impossible to believe that in the Fourth Gospel the Judas of 14:22 and the doubting Apostle are the same.

2. Judas the brother of James. —In two Gospels (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) ‘James and Joseph and Simon and Judas’ are named as brothers of Jesus. In Judges 1:1 the author of that Epistle is described as ‘Judas … the brother of James’ ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885). The Authorized Version has ‘Jude’; and in Mark 6:3 ‘Juda.’ ‘Judas the brother of James’ is, therefore, a designation both Scriptural and simple, yet sufficient to distinguish the person so named from ‘Judas the son of James,’ who was an Apostle. The use of the full expression ἀδελφὸς Ἰακώβου in the Epistle of Jude, and the statement (Matthew 13:55) that Judas and James were οἱ ἀδελφοὶ [Ἰησοῦ], justifies the limiting of the title ‘the brother of James’ to the Judas who was also a ‘brother of Jesus.’ Much confusion has been caused by the erroneous Authorized Version rendering of Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου(cf. No. 1 above).

Of ‘Judas the brother of James’ as an individual we know nothing; but account should be taken of what is said collectively of our Lord’s brothers. He was probably a son of Joseph and Mary, and a younger brother of Jesus (cf. ‘Brethren of the Lord’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible); he misunderstood the popularity of Jesus (Matthew 12:46 ff.), who was, in his estimation, a foolish enthusiast (Mark 3:21); before the resurrection of Jesus he did not acknowledge his Brother as the Messiah (John 7:3 ff.), but after the resurrection he is found ‘in prayer’ in the upper room (Acts 1:14); his doubts, like those of his brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7), may have vanished in the presence of the risen Lord. The distinct mention of the brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:14) after the Eleven have been named, is another reason for rejecting the tradition which identifies ‘Judas the brother of James’ with Judas Thaddaeus the Apostle.

The authorship of the Epistle of Jude is much disputed. Harnack regards the words ‘brother of James’ as an interpolation added towards the end of the 2nd cent. to enhance the value of the Epistle ‘as a weapon against Gnosticism.’ But ‘the simplest interpretation of the salutation, which identifies the writer … with the brother of the Lord, is the best’ (Chase, Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible ii. 804a).

Eusebius ( Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 19, 20:1–8, 32) quotes from Hegesippus the account of an accusation brought against the grandchildren of Judas; they are described as ‘descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas’; it is further said that ‘after they had borne testimony before Domitian in behalf of faith in Christ … they took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord.’ If ‘Judas the brother of James’ presided over the Church in the city where he lived, he may well have been the author of an Epistle. Mrs. Lewis conjectures that ‘Thomas, the doubting disciple, is identical with Jude, the youngest brother of our Lord’; but this theory involves his exclusion from the statement in John 7:5 that our Lord’s brothers did not believe that He was the Messiah (cf. Exp T [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xiv. 398; also Rendel Harris, The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends ).

3. Judas Iscariot. —See following article.

J. G. Tasker.

People's Dictionary of the Bible

Judas (jû'das). 1. The son of Jacob, "Judah" in R. V. Matthew 1:2; Matthew 3:2. The faithless apostle who betrayed his master. Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16. He was Simon's son, John 6:71, and is called Iscariot, probably from his birthplace, perhaps from Kerioth in Judah, Joshua 15:25, or from Kartan, or Kartah, in Galilee. Joshua 21:32; Joshua 21:34. Of this man's earlier life we know nothing, nor for what reason he was induced to follow Jesus. Why our Lord appointed Judas an apostle, the sacred narrative does not tell us. Jesus knew and expressed his knowledge of Iscariot's character. John 6:64; John 6:70-71. In calling him our Lord acted only in accordance with the general administration of his kingdom. This is illustrated by one of his parables, Matthew 13:24-30; and it is no more than we continually see,—ungodly men in place and power, both in the world and in the church, with gifts which they abuse and responsibilities which increase their condemnation. It has often been a puzzle to those who did not understand the moral government of God, comp. Psalms 73:1-28; but he will eventually vindicate his wisdom and his justice. Meanwhile valuable lessons of warning and circumspection are taught by the fate of such as have perverted their privileges to their own ruin. Judas maintained a fair character among his fellow-apostles, and was entrusted with the custody of their money, John 12:6; John 13:29; nor do they seem to have suspected him even when our Lord was distinctly warning them that one of their number would betray him. Matthew 26:21-24; John 13:22. This was Judas' question to the priests: "What will ye give me?" Matthew 26:15. Satan espied bis opportunity and took it. Luke 22:8. Probably Judas began to see that he was suspected, and, when the Lord in answer to his hypocritical question, had distinctly told him of his treason, full of additional passion, he went recklessly about his work. Matthew 26:25; John 13:26-30. He was fulfilling prophecy, but was unconscious of it. His own evil heart it was that prompted him; and therefore the guilt of his deed was upon himself. When confronted with the results of his base treachery, he was seized with remorse, returned the bribe, and hanged himself. 3. One described as one of the Lord's brethren, Matthew 13:55, called also Juda. Mark 6:3 A. V. An interesting story is related of his family by Eusebius. The emperor Domitian was alarmed by what he had heard of Messiah's kingdom, and ordered some of the descendants of the house of David to be sought out and brought to him. Those so presented to the emperor were the grandsons of Judas; but the hardness of their hands, proving that they were but ordinary peasants, and their description of the spiritual nature of the new sovereignty, removed all apprehensions. They were let go, and lived on, honored as the Lord's relatives, into the reign of Trajan. 4. A brother of James, and one of the apostles; called also Thaddæus and Lebbæus. Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; John 14:22; Acts 1:13; Matthew 13:55. 5. Judas of Galilee, a leader of an insurrection "in the days of taxing "—i.e., the census—a.d. 6, and who, according to Gamaliel, was very successful for a time, but was ultimately completely defeated. Acts 5:37. We find in Josephus an allusion to a man, who is there said to have been born in the city of Gamala in Gaulanitis, and to have been the founder of a new sect, which did not differ from that of the Pharisees save in a fanatical love of liberty and refusal to support the Roman state. 6. The one whose house in Straight street, Damascus, sheltered Paul during his blindness. Acts 9:11; Acts 9:17. This Judas may have kept an inn; it is unlikely that he was a disciple. 7. Judas, surnamed Barsabas, a "chief man among the brethren," a "prophet," who was chosen along with Paul and Barnabas and Silas to carry the decisions of the council of Jerusalem, a.d. 50, to Antioch. Acts 15:22-33.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

JUDAS (in Apocr. [Note: Apocrypha, Apocryphal.] ), the Gr. equivalent of the Heb. name Judah . 1. The third son of Mattathias, called Maccahæus ( 1M Malachi 2:4 etc.). See Maccabees, § 2 . 2 . One of two captains who stood by Jonathan at Hazor ( 1Ma 11:70 ). 3. A Jew holding some important position at Jerusalem; he is named in the title of a letter sent from the Jews of Jerusalem and Judæa and the Jewish Senate to their brethren in Egypt, and to a certain Aristobulus ( 2M Malachi 1:10 ). 4. A son, probably the eldest, of Simon the Maccabee ( 1Ma 16:2 ). In b.c. 135, he, with his father and another brother named Mattathias, was murdered at Dok by Ptolemy, the son of Abubus ( 1Ma 16:11-17 ). 5. Esther 9:23 Esther 9:23 = Judah of Ezra 10:23 .

JUDAS (in NT)

1. Judas Iscariot . See following article.

2. Judas, the son of James (see James 4:1-17 ). one of the twelve Apostles ( Luke 6:16 ), called by Mt. ( Matthew 10:3 ) Lebbæus and by Mk. ( Mark 3:18 ) Thaddæus. The only thing recorded of him is that, when Jesus promised in the Upper Room to manifest Himself to the man that loved Him, he inquired: ‘Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?’ ( John 14:22 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ); showing that he shared the common ideal of the Messianic Kingdom. He pictured it as a worldly kingdom, and was expecting that Jesus would presently flash forth in majesty before an astonished world and ascend the throne of David; and he wondered what could have happened to prevent this consummation.

3. Judas, the Lord’s brother ( Matthew 13:55 = Mark 6:3 ). See Brethren of the Lord. He was the author of the Short Epistle of Jude ( i.e. Judas), where he styles himself ‘the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James’ ( Judges 1:1 ), and, like James, exhibits a stern zeal for morality.

4. Judas, the Galilæan . He is so called both in the NT ( Acts 5:37 ) and in Josephus, though he belonged to Gamala in Gaulanitis on the eastern side of the Lake of Galilee; perhaps because Galilee was the scene of his patriotic enterprise. At the enrolment or census under Quirinius in a.d. 7, Judas raised an insurrection. He perished, and his followers were scattered, but their spirit did not die. They banded themselves into a patriotic fraternity under the significant name of the Zealots , pledged to undying hostility against the Roman tyranny and ever eager for an opportunity to throw off its yoke.

5. Judas, a Jew of Damascus ( Acts 9:11 ). His house was in the Straight Street, and Saul of Tarsus lodged there after his conversion.

6. Judas Barsabbas , one of two deputies Silas being the other who were chosen by the rulers of the Church at Jerusalem to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, and report to the believers there the Council’s decision on the question on what terms the Gentiles should be admitted into the Christian Church ( Acts 15:22-33 ). Judas and Silas are described as ‘chief men among the brethren’ ( Acts 15:22 ) and ‘prophets’ ( Acts 15:32 ). Since they bore the same patronymic, Judas may have been a brother of Joseph Barsabbas ( Acts 1:23 ). 7. An ancestor of Jesus ( Luke 3:30 ).

David Smith.

Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

It seems that, after the treachery of Judas Iscariot in betraying Jesus, the name Judas became unpopular among Christians. Those who already had the name Judas often preferred some other name.

For example, Jesus’ group of twelve apostles included a second man named Judas, but when writers mention him they point out that he was the son of a man named James, and not Judas Iscariot. To avoid confusion, this apostle apparently took another name, Thaddaeus (or Lebbaeus) (Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:16; John 14:22; see THADDAEUS). One of Jesus’ brothers was named Judas, but on becoming a believer he was known by the shorter name, Jude (Matthew 13:55; see JUDE). A prophet named Judas in the Jerusalem church took another name, Barsabbas (Acts 15:22; Acts 15:27). (Concerning Judas the Galilean mentioned in Acts 5:37 see ZEALOT.)

Judas Iscariot

Judas the betrayer was commonly known as Iscariot (meaning ‘man of Kerioth’), after the home town of his father, Simon (Matthew 10:4; John 6:71). As treasurer for the group of twelve apostles, Judas had responsibility for funds donated for the poor. It later became evident that he had been stealing some of the money for himself (John 12:5-6; John 13:29).

Jesus had seen the evil in Judas’ heart long before those final acts of treachery that resulted in Jesus’ crucifixion (John 6:70-71; John 17:12). Judas’ criticism of Mary’s anointing of Jesus showed his lack of spiritual insight (John 12:3-8). The other disciples still did not suspect him of disloyalty, even when Jesus told them a betrayer was among them (Matthew 26:20-25; John 13:2; John 13:21-30).

The Jewish leaders had been wondering how to arrest Jesus without creating a riot (Luke 22:1-2), but the defection of one of Jesus’ apostles made their task easier. Judas demanded payment for his part in the plot, and the Jewish leaders agreed (Matthew 26:14-16; Luke 22:3-6). The vital information that Judas gave the Jews concerned the secret place where Jesus prayed with his disciples. In the middle of the night, when the people of Jerusalem were asleep, Judas led an armed group of temple guards and Roman soldiers to the place. His final act of treachery was to identify the one to be arrested by kissing him (Matthew 26:47-56; John 18:2-12).

Judas gained no satisfaction from his evil work. He knew he had done wrong in helping to crucify an innocent man, but he made no effort to correct the wrong. Instead he committed suicide; though first he tried to ease his conscience by returning the money that the priests had given him (Matthew 27:3-5).

It seems that Judas went into a field and tried to hang himself, but in doing so he injured himself internally and his stomach burst. When his body was found, the priests took the betrayal money Judas had returned and with it bought the field in his name. Originally known as Potter’s Field, the place was renamed Field of Blood and used as a cemetery for Gentiles (Matthew 27:6-10; Acts 1:18-19).

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

1. ISCARIOT, that is, man of Carioth or Kerioth, a city of Judah, Joshua 15:25 . Being one of the twelve apostles of our Lord, Judas seems to have possessed the full confidence of his fellow apostles, and was entrusted by them with all the presents which were made them, and all their means of subsistence; and when the twelve were sent out to preach and to work miracles, Judas appears to have been among them, and to have received the same powers. He was accustomed, however, even at this time, to appropriate part of their common stock to his own use, John 12:6; and at length sealed his infamy by betraying his Lord to the Jews for money. For the paltry sum of about , he engaged with the Jewish Sanhedrin to guide them to a place where they could seize him by night without danger of a tumult. But when he learned the result, a terrible remorse took possession of him; not succeeding in undoing his fatal work with the priests, he cast down before them the price of blood, crossed the gloomy valley of Hinnom, and hung himself, Matthew 27:3-10 . Luke, in Acts 1:18 , adds that he fell headlong and burst asunder, probably by the breaking of the rope or branch. The steep hillside south of the valley of Hinnom might well be the scene of such a twofold death. See Aceldama .

The remorseful confession of Judas was a signal testimony to the spotless innocence of Christ, Matthew 27:4; and his awful end is a solemn warning against avarice, hypocrisy, and all unfaithfulness, Matthew 26:34 John 17:12 Acts 1:25 .

2. One of the apostles, called also Jude, Lebbeus, and Thaddeus, Matthew 10:3 Mark 3:18 Jude 1:1 , the son of Alpheus and Mary, and brother of James the LESS. See James 2,3 . He was the author of the epistle which bears his name, Mark 6:3 Luke 6:16 Acts 1:13 .

3. The brother of our Lord, Matthew 27:56 . Supposed by many to have been only a cousin, and the same as Judas 2. The apostle. But his "brethren" did not believe in him until near the close of his ministry. See James 3 4 . A Christian teacher, called also Barsabas, sent from Jerusalem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15:22,27,32 .

5. Surnamed "the Galilean," called also, by Josephus, the Gaulonite. He was born at Gamala, a city of Gaulonitis near the southeastern shore of the lake of Tiberias. In company with one Sadoc, he attempted to excite a sedition among the Jews, but was destroyed by Quirinus, or Cyrenius, at that time governor of Syria and Judea, Acts 5:37 .

6. A Jew at Damascus, with whom Paul lodged, Acts 9:11 .

Holman Bible Dictionary

Luke 3:302Matthew 13:55Mark 6:3

Acts speaks of five others named Judas. 3. Judas of Galilee was one of those who led a revolt against the Romans and died as a result. The exact year of this revolt is uncertain, perhaps 6 A.D. (Acts 5:37 ). 4 . After his experience on the road to Damascus Paul went to the house of a man named Judas who lived on Straight Street. Ananias found him there three days later. 5. Judas, surnamed Barsabas, was one of those chosen by the Church of Jerusalem to go with Paul and Barnabas to deliver the letter from James to the church at Antioch concerning the important matter of Gentile salvation (Acts 15:22 ).

6. Jesus' twelve disciples include two named Judas. The first is always listed after James the son of Alphaeus, and is called the brother of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13 ). He appears to have been known also by the name Lebbaeus Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18 ). His only recorded words are found in John 14:22 .

7. The last of these was Judas Iscariot. All of the Gospels place him at the end of the list of disciples because of his role as betrayer. Iscariot is an Aramaic word which means “man of Kerioth”, a town near Hebron. He was the only disciple from Judea. He acted as treasurer for the disciples but was known as a miser and a thief (John 12:5-6 ). He was present at the Last Supper, during which Jesus predicted his betrayal (Luke 22:21; Matthew 26:20-21 ). The price of the betrayal was 30 pieces of silver, which Judas returned to Jewish leaders; then he went out and hanged himself. He died in sorrow but without repentance. The money, which could not be returned to the treasury because it was blood money, was used to buy a potter's field in Judas' name (Matthew 27:3-10; compare Acts 1:18-19 ).

Gerald Cowen

Morrish Bible Dictionary

1. The patriarch JUDAH. Matthew 1:2,3 .

2. One of the apostles, brother of James. Luke 6:16; John 14:22; Acts 1:13 . Called JUDE in Jude 1; and apparently the same as 'Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.' Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18 .

3. One of the brethren of the Lord. Matthew 13:55 : called JUDA in Mark 6:3 .

4. Judas of Galilee, who raised an insurrection in the days of the taxing, A.D. 6. He was killed by the Romans and his followers were dispersed. Acts 5:37 .

5. One in Damascus with whom Paul lodged. Acts 9:11 .

6. A 'prophet' sent from Jerusalem to Antioch. Acts 15:22 . See BARSABAS, No. 2.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Ju'das. The Greek form of the Hebrew name, Judah, occurring in the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament.

1. The patriarch, Judah. Matthew 1:2-3.

2. A man, residing at Damascus, in "the street which is called Straight," in whose house Saul of Tarsus lodged, after his miraculous conversion. Acts 9:11.

3. Judas, surnamed Barsabas, a leading member of the apostolic church at Jerusalem, Acts 15:22, endued with the gift of prophesy, Acts 15:32, chosen with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas, as delegates to the church at Antioch. (A.D. 47). Later, Judas went back to Jerusalem.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

A Christian teacher, surnamed Barsabas. He was sent from Jerusalem to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas with the decision of the council (Acts 15:22,27,32 ). He was a "prophet" and a "chief man among the brethren."

Copyright StatementThese dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain.

Bibliography InformationEaston, Matthew George. Entry for 'Judas'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/j/judas.html. 1897.

Fausset's Bible Dictionary

At whose house, in the street called Straight at Damascus (now the "street of bazaars," reaching long, straight, and wide from the S. gate into the heart of the city), Saul of Tarsus lodged after his conversion (Acts 9:11). The house is still professedly shown a few steps out of the "street of bazaars," in an open space, "the sheikh's place." It has a stone floored square room, partly wailed off for a tomb shown as "the tomb of Ananias."

Webster's Dictionary

(1): (a.) Treacherous; betraying.

(2): (n.) The disciple who betrayed Christ. Hence: A treacherous person; one who betrays under the semblance of friendship.

Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types

Matthew 26:47 (c) He is generally used as a type of the ingrate who turns traitor to the friend he should love and becomes an enemy of one to whom he is deeply indebted.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

(Ι᾿ούδας ), the Graecized form of the Hebrew name Judah, and generally retained in the A.V. of the Apocrypha and N.T., as also in Josephus, where it occurs of a considerable number of men. (See Juda); (See Jude).

1. The patriarch JUDAH (See Judah) (q.v.), son of Jacob (Matthew 1:2-3).

2. One of the Levites who renounced his Gentile wife after the captivity (1 Esdras 9:23); the JUDAH of Ezra 10:23.

3. The third son of Mattathias, and the leading one of the three Maccabaean brothers (1 Maccabees 2:4, etc.). (See Maccabees).

4. The son of Calphi (Alphaeus), a Jewish general under Jonathan Maccabaeus (1 Maccabees 11:70).

5. A Jew occupying a conspicuous position at Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristobulus (q.v.) and the Egyptian Jews (2 Maccabees 1:10). He is thought by some to have been the same with

6. An aged person, and a noted teacher among the Essenes at Jerusalem, famous for his art of predicting events, which was confirmed in a remarkable manner by the death of Antigonus (q.v.) at the order of his brother Aristobulus, as related by Josephus (Ant. 13, 11, 2; War, 1, 3, 5).

7. A son of Simon, and brother of John Hyrcanus (1 Maccabees 16:2), murdered by Ptolemaeus the usurper, either at the same time (B.C. cir. 135) with his father (1 Maccabees 16:15 sq.), or shortly afterwards (Josephus Ant. 13, 8. 1; see Grimm, ad Macc. l. c.). — Smith.

8. Son of one Ezechias (which latter was famous for his physical strength), and one of the three principal bandits mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 17, 10, 2; War, 2, 4, 1) as infesting Palestine in the early days of Herod. This person, whom Whitson (ad loc.) regards as the Theudas (q.v.) of Luke (Acts 10:36), temporarily got possession of Sepphoris, in Galilee. What became of him does not particularly appear, but it may be presumed. he shared the fate of the others named in the same connection. 9. Son of one Saripheus, or Sepphoris, and one of the two eminent Jewish teachers who incited their young disciples to demolish the golden eagle erected by Herod over the Temple gate, an act of sedition for which the whole party were burned alive (Josephus, Ant. 17, 6, 2-4; War, 1, 33, 2-4).

10. A person surnamed "the Galiloean" (ὁ Γαλιλαῖος, Acts 5:37), so called also by Josephus (Ant. 18, 1, 6; 20, 5, 2; War, 2, 8, 1), and likewise "the Gaulonite" (ὁ Γαυλονίτης, Ant. 18, 1, 1). He was born at Gamala, a fortified city on the Sea of Galilee, in Lower Gaulonitis; and after the deposition of Archelaus, during the thirty-seventh year after the battle of Actium (Josephus, Ant. 18, 2, l), i.e. A.D. 6, he excited a violent insurrection among the Jews, in concert with a well known Pharisee named Sadok, against the Roman government exercised by the procurator Coponius, on occasion of a census levied by the emperor Augustus, asserting the popular doctrine that the Jews ought to acknowledge no dominion but that of God. He was destroyed, and his followers scattered by Cyrenius, then proconsul of Syria and Judaea. We also learn from Josephus that the scattered remnant of the party of Judas continued after his destruction to work on still in secret, and labored to maintain his free spirit and reckless principles among the people (Josephus, War, 2, 17, 7- 19). (See E. A. Schulze, Dissert. de Juda Galiloeo ejusque secta, Frankf. A.V. 1761; also in his Exercit. philosoph. fasc. non. p. 104.) (See Sicarii).

11. Son of Simon (John 6:71; John 13:2; John 13:26), surnamed (always in the other Gospels) ISCARIOT, to distinguish him from the other apostle of the same name. (See Jude). In addition to this epithet the Evangelists usually distinguish him by some allusion to his treachery toward his Master.

I. Signification of the Surname. — The epithet Iscariot (Ι᾿σκαριώτης ) has received many interpretations more or less conjectural.

(1) From Kerioth (Joshua 15:25), in the tribe of Judah, the Heb. קְרַיּוֹת

אַישׁ, Ish-Kerioth', passing into Ι᾿σκαριώτης in the same way as אַישׁ טוֹב — Ish-Tob, "a man of Tob" — appears in Josephus (Ant. 7, 6, 1) as ῎Ιστωβος. In connection with this explanation may be noticed the reading of some MSS. in John 6:71, ἀπὸ Καριώτου , and that received by Lachmann and Tischendorf, which makes the name Iscariot belong to. Simon, and not, as elsewhere, to Judas only. On this hypothesis, his position among the Twelve, the rest of whom belonged to Galilee (Acts 2:7), would be exceptional; and this is perhaps an additional reason why this locality is noted. This is the most common and probable opinion. (See Kerioth).

(2) From Kartha (A.V. "Kartan," Joshua 21:32), in Galilee (so Ewald, Gesch. Israels, 5, 321).

(3) As equivalent to Issacharite, or Ι᾿σαχαριώτης (Grotius on Matthew 10:4; Hermann, Miscell. Groning. 3, 598).

(4) From the date trees (καριωτίδες ) in the neighborhood of Jerusalem or Jericho (Bartolocci, Bibl. Rabbin. 3, 10; Gill, Comm. on Matthew 10, 4).

(5) From אסקוֹרטיא (=scortea, Gill, 1.c.), a leathern apron, the name being applied to him as the bearer of the bag, and = "Judas with the apron" (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Matthew 10:4).

(6) From אסכרא, ascara = strangling (angina), as given after his death, and commemorating it (Lightfoot, 1. c.), or indicating that he had been subject to a disease tending to suffocation previously (Heinsius, in Suicer, Thes. s.v. Ι᾿ούδας ). This is mentioned also as a meaning of the name by Origen, Tract. in Matt. 35.

II. Personal Notices. — Of the life of Judas, before the appearance of his name in the lists of the apostles. We know absolutely nothing. It must be left to the sad vision of a poet (Keble, Lyra Innocentium, 2, 13) or the fantastic fables of an apocryphal Gospel (Thilo, Cod. Apoc. N.T., Evang. Infant. c. 35) to portray the infancy and youth of the traitor. His call as an apostle implies, however, that he had previously declared himself a disciple. He was drawn, as the others were, by the preaching of the Baptist, or his own Messianic hopes, or the "gracious words" of the new teacher, to leave his former life, and to obey the call of the Prophet of Nazareth. What baser and more selfish motives may have mingled even then with his faith and zeal we can only judge by reasoning backwards from the sequel. Gifts of some kind there must have been, rendering the choice of such a man not strange to others, not unfit in itself, and the function which he exercised afterwards among the Twelve may indicate what they were. The position of his name, uniformly the last in the lists of the apostles in the Synoptic Gospels, is due, it may be imagined, to the infamy which afterwards rested on his name, but, prior to that guilt, it would seem that he externally differed in no marked particular from the other apostles, and he doubtless exercised the same mission of preaching and miracles as the rest (Matthew 10:4; Matthew 26:14-47; Mark 3:19; Mark 14:10; Mark 14:43; Luke 6:16; Luke 22:3; Luke 22:47-48; John 6:71; John 12:4; John 13:2; John 13:26; John 14:22; John 18:2-3). A.D. 27.

The germs (see Stier's Words of Jesus, at the passages where Judas is mentioned) of the evil, in all likelihood, unfolded themselves gradually. The rules to which the Twelve were subject in their first journey (Matthew 10:9-10) sheltered him from the temptation that would have been most dangerous to him. The new form of life, of which we find the traces in Luke 8:3, brought that temptation with it. As soon as the Twelve were recognized as a body, traveling hither and thither with their Master, receiving money and other offerings, and redistributing what they received to the poor, it became necessary that some one should act as the steward and almoner of the small society, and this fell to Judas (John 12:6; John 13:29), either as having the gifts that qualified him for it, or, as we may conjecture, from his character, because he sought it, or, as some have imagined, in rotation from time to time. The Galilaean or Judaean peasant (we have no reason for thinking that his station differed from that of the other apostles) found himself intrusted with larger sums of money than before (the three hundred denarii of John 12:5 are spoken of as a sum which he might reasonably have expected), and with this there came covetousness, unfaithfulness, embezzlement. It was impossible after this that he could feel at ease with one who asserted so clearly and sharply the laws of faithfulness, duty, unselfishness; and the words of Jesus, "Have I not chosen you Twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70) indicate that even then, though the greed of immediate or the hope of larger gain kept him from "going back," as others did (John 6:66), hatred was taking the place of love, and leading him on to a fiendish malignity. The scene at Bethany (John 12:1-9; Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9) showed how deeply the canker had eaten into his soul. The warm out pouring of love calls forth no sympathy. He utters himself, and suggests to others, the complaint that it is a waste. Under the plea of caring for the poor he covers his own miserable theft.

The narrative of Matthew 16, Mark 14, places this history in close connection (apparently in order of time) with the fact of the betrayal. During the days that intervened between the supper at Bethany and the paschal or quasi-paschal gathering, he appeared to have concealed his treachery. He went with the other disciples to and fro from Bethany to Jerusalem, and looked on the acted parable of the barren and condemned tree (Mark 11:20-24), and shared the vigils in Gethsemane (John 18:2). At the beginning of the Last Supper he is present, looking forward to the consummation of his guilt as drawing nearer every hour. All is at first as if he were still faithful. He is admitted to the feast. His feet are washed, and for him there are the fearful words, "Ye are clean, but not all." At some point during the meal (see below) come the sorrowful words which showed him that his design was known. "One of you shall betray me." Others ask, in their sorrow and confusion, "Is it I?" He, too, must ask the same question, lest he should seem guilty (Matthew 26:25). He alone hears the answer. John only, and through him Peter, and the traitor himself, understand the meaning of the act which pointed out that he was the guilty one (John 13:26). After this there comes on him that paroxysm and insanity of guilt as of one whose human soul was possessed by the Spirit of Evil — "Satan entered into him" (John 13:27). The words, "What thou doest, do quickly," come as a spur to drive him on. The other disciples see in them only a command which they interpret as connected with the work he had hitherto undertaken. Then he completes the sin from which even those words might have drawn him back. He knows that garden in which his Master and his companions had so often rested after the weary work of the day. He comes accompanied by a band of officers and servants (John 18:3), with the kiss which was probably the usual salutation of the disciples. The words of Jesus, calm and gentle as they were, showed that this was what embittered the treachery, and made the suffering it inflicted more acute (Luke 22:48).

What followed in the confusion of that night the Gospels do not record. Not many students of the N.T. will follow Heumann and archbishop Whately (Essays on Dangers) in the hypothesis that Judas was "the other disciple" that was known to the high priest, and brought Peter in (comp. Meyer on John 18:15). It is probable enough, indeed, that he who had gone out with the high priest's officers should return with them to wait the issue of the trial. Then, when it was over, came the reaction. The fever of the crime passed away. There came back on him the recollection of the sinless righteousness of the Master he had wronged (Matthew 27:3). He feels a keen remorse, and the gold that had tempted him to it becomes hateful. He will get rid of the accursed thing, will transfer it back again to those who with it had lured him on to destruction. They mock and sneer at the tool whom they have used, and then there comes over him the horror of great darkness that precedes self murder. He has owned his sin with "an exceeding bitter cry." but he dares not turn, with any hope of pardon, to the Master whom he has betrayed. He hurls the money, which the priests refused to take, into the sanctuary (ναός ) where they were assembled. For him there is no longer sacrifice or propitiation. He is "the son of perdition" (John 17:12). "He departed, and went and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5). He went "unto his own place" (Acts 1:25). A.D. 29. See below.

With the exception of the stories already mentioned, there are but few traditions that gather round the name of Judas. It appears, however, in a strange, hardly intelligible way in the history of the wilder heresies of the 2d century. The sect of Cainites, consistent in their inversion of all that Christians in general believed, was reported to have honored him as the only apostle that was in possession of the true gnosis, to have made him the object of their worship, and to have had a gospel bearing his name (comp. Neander. Church Hist. 2, 153; Irenaeus, adv. Hoer. 1, 35; Tertullian, De Proesc. c. 47). For the apocryphal gospel (Epiphanius, Hoer. 38, 1), see Fabricius, Codex Apocr. 1, 352. See GOSPELS, SPURIOUS.

III. Our Lord's Object in his Selection as an Apostle. — The choice was not made, we must remember, without a prevision of its issue. "Jesus knew from the beginning... who should betray him" (John 6:64); and the distinctness with which that evangelist records the successive stages of the guilt of Judas, and his Master's discernment of it (John 12:4; John 13:2; John 13:27), leaves with us the impression that he, too, shrank instinctively (Benel describes it as "singularis antipathia," Gnomon N. Test. on John 6:64) from a nature so opposite to his own. We can hardly expect fully to solve the question why such a man was chosen for such an office, nor is it our province to sound all the depths of the divine purposes, yet we may, without presumption, raise an inquiry on this subject.

(1.) Some, on the ground of God's absolute foreknowledge, content themselves with saying, with Calvin, that the judgments of God are as a great deep, and with Ullmann (Sundlosig. Jesu, p. 97), that Judas was chosen in order that the divine purpose might be accomplished through him. (See Predestination).

(2.) Others, less dogmatic in their views, believe, with Neander (Leben Jesu, § 77), that there was a discernment of the latent germs of evil, such as belonged to the Son of Man, in his insight into the hearts of men (John 2:25; Matthew 9:4; Mark 12:15), yet not such as to exclude emotions of sudden sorrow or anger (Mark 3:5), or astonishment (Mark 6:6; Luke 7:9), admitting the thought "with men this is impossible, but not with God." Did he, in the depth of that insight, and in the fullness of his compassion, seek to overcome the evil which, if not conquered, would be so fatal? It gives, at any rate, a new meaning and force to many parts of our Lord's teaching to remember that they must have been spoken in the hearing of Judas, and may have been designed to make him conscious of his danger. The warnings as to the impossibility of a service divided between God and mammon (Matthew 6:19-34), and the destructive power, of the "cares of this world," and the "deceitfulness of riches" (Matthew 12:22-23), the pointed words that spoke of the guilt of unfaithfulness in the "unrighteous mammon" (Luke 16:11), the proverb of the camel passing through the needle's eye (Mark 10:25), must have fallen on his heart as meant specially for him. He was among those who asked the question, Who, then, can be saved? (Mark 10:26). Of him, too, we may say that, when he sinned, he was "kicking against the pricks," letting slip his "calling and election," frustrating the purpose of his Master in giving him so high a work, and educating him for it (compare Chrysostom, Hon. on Matthew 26, 27, John 6).

(3.) But to most persons these will appear to be arbitrary or recondite arguments. Important reasons of a more practical kind, we may be sure, were not wanting for the procedure, and they are not very far to seek. The presence of such a false friend in the company of his immediate disciples was needed, first of all, to complete the circle of Christ's trials and temptations. He could not otherwise have known by personal experience some of the sharpest wounds inflicted by human perverseness and ingratitude, nor exhibited his superiority to the evil of the world in its most offensive forms. But for the deceit and treachery of Judas he would not have been in all things tempted like his brethren. Then thus only could the things undergone by his great prototype David find their proper counterpart. in him who was to enter into David's heritage, and raise from the dust David's throne. Of the things written in the Psalms concerning him — written there as derived from the depths of David's sore experience and sharp conflict with evil, but destined to meet again in a still greater than he — few have more affecting prominence given to them than those which relate to the hardened wickedness, base treachery, and reprobate condition of a false friend, whose words were smooth as butter, but whose actions were drawn swords, who ate of his meat, but lifted up the heel against him (comp. Psalms 41:9, with John 13:18; and (See Ahitophel) ).

Other prophecies also, especially two in Zechariah (Zechariah 10:12, 13; 13:6), waited for their accomplishment on such a course of ingratitude and treachery as that pursued by Judas. Further, the relation in which this false but ungenial and sharp sighted disciple stood to the rectitude of Jesus afforded an important reason for his presence and agency. It was well that those who stood at a greater distance from the Savior failed to discover any fault in him; that none of them, when the hour of trial came, could convict him of sin, though the most watchful inspection had been exercised, and the most anxious efforts had been made to enable them to do so. But it was much more that even this bosom friend, who had been privy to all his counsels, and had seen him in his most unguarded moments, was equally incapable of finding any evil in him; he could betray Jesus to his enemies, but he could furnish these enemies with no proof of his criminality; nay, with the bitterness of death in his soul, he went back to testify to them that, in delivering up Jesus, he had betrayed innocent blood. What more conclusive evidence could the world have had that our Lord was indeed without spot and blameless? Finally, the appearance of such a person as Judas among the immediate attendants of Jesus was needed as an example of the strength of human depravity — how it can lurk under the most sacred professions, subsist in the holiest company, live and grow amid the clearest light, the most solemn warnings, the tenderest entreaties, and the divinest works. The instruction afforded by the incarnation and public ministry of the Son of God would not have been complete without such a memorable exhibition by its side of the darker aspects of human nature; the Church should have wanted a portion of the materials required for her future warning and admonition; and on this account also there was a valid reason for the calling of one who could act the shameful part of Judas Iscariot.

IV. Motives of Judas in the Betrayal of his Master. — The Scripture account leaves these to conjecture (comp. Neander, Leben Jesu, § 264). The mere love of money may have been strong enough to make him clutch at the bribe offered him. He came, it may be, expecting more (Matthew 27:15); he will take that. He has lost the chance of dealing with the three hundred denarii; it will be something to get the thirty shekels as his own. It may have been that he felt that his Master saw through his hidden guilt, and that he hastened on a crisis to avoid the shame of open detection. Mingled with this there may have been some feeling of vindictiveness, a vague, confused desire to show that he had power to stop the career of the teacher who had reproved him. Had the words that spoke of "the burial" of Jesus, and the lukewarmness of the people, and the conspiracies of the priests, led him at last to see that the Messianic kingdom was not as the kingdoms of this world, and that his dream of power and wealth to be enjoyed in it was a delusion? (Ewald, Gesch. Israels, 5, 441-446). There may have been the thought that, after all, the betrayal could do no harm, that his Master would prove his innocence, or by some supernatural manifestation effect his escape (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 886; and Whitby on Matthew 27:4). Another motive has been suggested (compare Neander, Leben Jesu, l.c.; and Whately, Essays on Dangers to Christian Faith, discourse 3) of an entirely different kind, altering altogether the character of the act. Not the love of money, nor revenge, nor fear, nor disappointment, but policy, a subtle plan to force on the hour of the triumph of the Messianic kingdom, the belief that for this service he would receive as high a place as Peter or James, or John — this it was that made him the traitor. If he could place his Master in a position from which retreat would be impossible, where he would be compelled to throw himself on the people, and be raised by them to the throne of his father David, then he might look forward to being foremost and highest in that kingdom, with all his desires for wealth and power gratified to the full. Ingenious as this hypothesis is, it fails for that very reason. It attributes to the groveling peasant a subtlety in forecasting political combinations, and planning stratagems accordingly, which is hardly compatible with his character and learning, hardly consistent either with the pettiness of the faults into which he had hitherto fallen. It is characteristic of the wide, far reaching sympathy of Origen: that he suggests another motive for the suicide of Judas. Despairing of pardon in this life, he would rush on into the world of the dead, and there (γυμνῇ τ᾿ ψυχῇ ) meet his Lord and confess his guilt, and ask for pardon (Tract. in Matt. 35; comp. also Theophanes, Hom. 27, in Suicer. Thes. s.v. Ι᾿ούδας ). Of the other motives that have been assigned we need not care to fix on any one as that which singly led him on. Crime is, for the most part, the result of a hundred motives rushing with bewildering fury through the mind of the criminal.

V. The question has often been agitated whether Judas was present at the first celebration of the Lord's supper, or left the assembly before the institution actually took place; but with no very decisive result. The conclusion reached on either side has very commonly been determined by doctrinal prepossessions rather than by exegetical principles. The general consensus of patristic commentators gives an affirmative to the question of his partaking of the commemorative meal, that of modern critics a negative answer (comp. Meyer, Comm. on John 13:36). Of the three synoptic evangelists, Matthew and Mark represent the charge of an intention to betray on the part of Judas as being brought against him between the paschal feast and the supper, while Luke does not mention it till both feasts were finished; yet none of them say precisely when he left the chamber. From this surely it may be inferred that nothing very material depended on the circumstance. If Judas did leave before the commencement of the supper, it was plainly not because he was formally excluded, but because he felt it to be morally impossible to continue any longer in such company. As, however, it seems certain, from John 13:30, that he left the moment Jesus brought home the charge to him, and gave him the son, and as it is next to certain that the feast then proceeding was not that of the supper, the probabilities of the case must be held to be on the side of his previous withdrawal. The requisitions of time, too, favor the same view; since, if Judas did not leave till so late as the close of both feasts, it is scarcely possible to conceive how he should have had time to arrange with the chief priests for proceeding with the arrest of Jesus that very night. The matter in this shape came alike on him and on them by surprise; fresh consultations, therefore, required to be held, fresh measures to be adopted; and these necessarily demanded time, to the extent at least of some hours.

VI. Alleged Discrepancy as to the Mode of Judas' Suicide. — We have in Acts 1 another account than the above of the circumstances of his death, which some have thought it difficult to harmonize with that given by Matthew. There, in words which may have been spoken by Peter (Meyer, following the general consensus of interpreters), or may have been a parenthetical notice inserted by Luke (Calvin, Olshausen, and others), it is stated,

(1) That, instead of throwing the money into the Temple, he bought (ἐκτήσατο ) a field with it. As to this point, it has been said that there is a kind of irony in Peter's words, "This was all he got." A better explanation is, that what was bought with his money is spoken of as bought by him (Meyer, ad loc.).

(2) That, instead of hanging himself, "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." On this we have two methods of reconciliation:

(a) That ἀπήγξατο, in Matthew 27:5, includes death by some sudden spasm of suffocation (angina pectoris?), such as might be caused by the overpowering misery of his remorse, and that then came the fall described in the Acts (Suicer, Thes. s.v. ἀπάγχω; Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot, and others). By some this has even been connected with the name Iscariot, as implying a constitutional tendency to this disease (Gill).

(b) That the work of suicide was but half accomplished, and that, the halter breaking, he fell (from a fig tree, in one tradition) across the road, and was mangled and crushed by the carts and wagons that passed over him. This explanation appears, with strange and horrible exaggerations, in the narrative of Papias, quoted by OEcumenius on Acts 1, and in Theophylact. on Matthew 27. It is, however, but a reasonable supposition that (Judas being perhaps a corpulent man), the rope breaking or slipping, he fell (probably from some elevated place, see Hackett, Illustra. of Script. p. 266) with such violence that his abdomen burst with the fall.

(3) That for this reason, and not because the priests had bought it with the price of blood, the field was called Aceldama. But it may readily be supposed that the potter's field which the priests had bought was the same as that in which the traitor met so terrible a death. (See Aceldama).

VII. On the question of Judas's final salvation, it is difficult to see how any dispute could well arise in view of his self murder (comp. 1 John 3:15). But aside from this, two statements seem to mark his fate in the other world as distinctly a reprobate one.

(1.) His unmitigated remorse, as expressed in Matthew 27:5. This passage has often been appealed to as illustrating the difference between μεταμελεία and μετανοία . It is questionable, however, how far the N. Test. writers recognize that distinction (compare Grotius, ad loc.). Still more questionable is the notion that Matthew describes his disappointment at a result so different from that which he had reckoned on. Yet this is nevertheless clearly an instance of "the sorrow of the world that worketh death" (2 Corinthians 7:10). (See Repentance).

(2.) His "going to his own place" (Acts 1:25), where the words ἴδιος τόπος convey to our minds, probably were meant to convey to those who heard them the impression of some dark region in Gehenna. Lightfoot and Gill (ad loc.) quote passages from Rabbinical writers who find that meaning in the phrase, even in Genesis 31:55, and Numbers 24:25. On the other hand, it should be remembered that many interpreters reject that explanation (compare Meyer, ad loc.), and that one great Anglican divine (Hammond, Comment. on N. Test. ad loc.) enters a distinct protest against it. Similarly Dr. Clarke (Commentary, ad loc.) argues against the whole of our conclusions respecting the violent death of Judas; but his reasoning, as well as that of the other critics named, is far from satisfactory.

VIII. Literature. — Special treatises on the character of Judas are the following: Zandt, Comment. de Juda proditore (Lips. 1769); Rau, Anmerk. ü b. d. Charakter des. Judas (Lemgo, 1778); Schmidt, Apologie d. Judas, in his Exeget. Beitr. 1, 18; 2, 342; Lechtlen, De culpa Judoe (Argent. 1813); Daub, Judas Ischarioth (Heidelb. 1816); Schollmeyer, Jesus und Judas (Lü neb. 1836); Augusti, Theol. Bibl. 1, 497, 520; Ferenczy, De consilio proditionis Judae (Utr. 1829); Gerling, De Juda sacroe coenoe conviva (Hal. 1744); Hebenstreit, De Juda Iscar. (Viteb. 1712); Philipp, Ueb. d. Verrä ther Judas (Naumb. 1754); Rü tz, D. Verrä therei d. Judas (Haag, 1789); Jour. Sac. Lit. July, 1863. On his death, see Casaubon, Exerc. antibar. 16, p. 527; Alberti, Observat. p. 222; Paulus, Comment. 3, 506; Barbatii Dissert. novissima Judoe Iscar. fata (Regiom. 1665); Gö tze, De suspendio Judoe (Jen. 1661); Riser, De morte Judoe (Viteb. 1668); Neunhö fer, De Juda lapsu extincto (Chemn. 1740); Oldendorp, De Juda in templo occiso (Hannov. 1754). For other monographs, see Volbeding, Index, p. 32, 54; Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 191. (See Jesus Christ).

12. A Jew residing at Damascus in the Straight street at the time of Paul's conversion, to whose house Ananias was sent (Acts 11:11). A.D. 30. "The 'Straight Street' may with little question be identified with the 'Street of Bazaars,' a long, wide thoroughfare, penetrating from the southern gate into the heart of the city, which, as in all the Syro-Greek and Syro-Roman towns, it intersects in a straight line. The so called 'House of Judas' is still shown in an open space called 'the Sheykh's Place,' a few steps out of the 'Street of Bazaars:' it contains a square room with a stone floor, partly walled off for a tomb, shown to Maundrell (Early Trav. Bohn, p. 494) as the 'tomb of Ananias.' The house is an object of religious respect to Mussulmans as well as Christians (Stanley, Syr. and Pal. p. 412; Conybeare and Howson, 1, 102; Pococke, 2, 119)." (See Damascus).

13. Surnamed BARSABAS, a Christian teacher sent from Jerusalem to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:22; Acts 15:27; Acts 15:32). A.D. 47. He is supposed by some (see Grotius, Wolf, ad loc.) to have been one of the seventy disciples, and brother of Joseph, also surnamed Barsabas (son of Sabas), who was proposed, with Matthias, to fill up the place of the traitor Judas (Acts 1:23); but others (Augusti, Uebers. d. Kathol. Br. 2, 86) identify him with Judas Thaddeus (but see Bertholdt, 5, 2681). Schott supposes that Barsabas means the son of Sabas, or Zabas, which he fancifully regards as an abridged form for Zebedee, and concludes that the Judas here mentioned was a brother of the elder James and of John. Judas and Silas are mentioned together (in the above deputation of the Church to determine the obligation of the Mosaic law) as "prophets" and "chief men among the brethren" at the metropolis, "perhaps a member of the Presbytery" (Neander, P. and Tr. 1, 123). After employing their prophetical gifts for the confirmation of the Syrian Christians in the faith, Judas went back to Jerusalem, while Silas either remained at Antioch (for the reading Acts 15:34 is uncertain; and while some MSS., followed by the Vulgate, add μόνος Ι᾿ούδαςδὲ ἐπορεύθη, the best omit the verse altogether) or speedily returned thither. (See Paul).

14. Son of one Jairus, and leader of a company of Jews during the final siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, from which he escaped by an underground passage; he was afterwards slain while leading the defense of the castle of Machaerus against the Roman troops (Josephus, War, 7, 6, 5).

Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature

Ju′das is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew name Judah.

Judas Maccabeus, 1

Judas Maccabæus [MACCABEES]

Judas Iscariot, 2

Judas Iscar´iot. The object of this article is not to elucidate all the circumstances recorded respecting this person, but simply to investigate his motives in delivering up Jesus to the chief-priests. The evangelists relate his proceedings, but give no opinion. The subject is consequently open to inquiry. Our conclusions must be guided by the facts of the case, and by the known feelings and principles of human nature. The only conceivable motives for the conduct of Judas are, a sense of duty in bringing his Master to justice, resentment, avarice, dissatisfaction with the procedure of Jesus, and a consequent scheme for the accomplishment of his own views. With regard to the first of these motives, if Judas had been actuated by a sense of duty in bringing his Master to justice for anything censurable in his intentions, words, or actions, he would certainly have alleged some charge against him in his first interview with the chief-priests, and they would have brought him forward as a witness against Jesus, especially when they were at so great a loss for evidence; or they would have reminded him of his accusations when he appealed to them after our Lord's condemnation, saying, 'I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood'—a confession which amounts to an avowal that he had never seen anything to blame in his Master, but everything to approve. The second motive supposed, namely, that of resentment, is rather more plausible. Jesus had certainly rebuked him for blaming the woman who had anointed him in the house of Simon the leper, at Bethany (comp.; ); and Matthew's narrative seems to connect his going to the chief-priests with that rebuke : 'Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief-priests;' but closer inspection will convince the reader that those words are more properly connected with . Besides, the rebuke was general, 'Why trouble ye the woman?' Nor was it nearly so harsh as that received by Peter, 'Get thee behind me, Satan' , and certainly not so public . Even if Judas had felt ever so much resentment, it could scarcely have been his sole motive; and as nearly two days elapsed between his contract with the chief-priests and its completion, it would have subsided during the interval, and have yielded to that covetousness which we have every reason to believe was his ruling passion. St. John expressly declares that Judas 'was a thief, and had the bag, and bare (that is, conveyed away from it, stole) what was put therein' (; comp. 20:15, in the original). This rebuke, or rather certain circumstances attending it, might have determined him to act as he did, but is insufficient, of itself, to account entirely for his conduct, by which he endangered all his expectations of worldly advancement from Jesus, at the very moment when they seemed upon the verge of being fulfilled. It is, indeed, a most important feature in the case, that the hopes entertained by Judas, and all the apostles, from their Master's expected elevation, as the Messiah, to the throne of Judea, and, as they believed, to the empire of the whole world, were never more stedfast than at the time when he covenanted with the chief-priests to deliver him into their hands. Nor does the theory of mere resentment agree with the terms of censure in which the conduct and character of Judas are spoken of by our Lord and the evangelists. Since, then, this supposition is insufficient, we may consider another motive to which his conduct is more commonly ascribed, namely, covetousness. But if by covetousness is meant the eager desire to obtain 'the thirty pieces of silver,' with which the chief-priests 'covenanted with him' , it presents scarcely a less inadequate motive. Can it be conceived that Judas would deliberately forego the prospect of immense wealth from his Master, by delivering him up for about four pounds ten shillings of our money, upon the highest computation, and not more than double in value, a sum which he might easily have purloined from the bag? Is it likely that he would have made such a sacrifice for any further sum, however large, which we may suppose 'they promised him' , and of which the thirty pieces of silver might have been the mere earnest ? Had covetousness been his motive, he would have ultimately applied to the chief-priests, not to bring again the thirty pieces of silver with the confession, 'I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood' , but to demand the completion of their agreement with him. We are now at liberty to consider the only remaining motive for the conduct of Judas, namely, dissatisfaction with the procedure of his Master, and a consequent scheme for the furtherance of his own views. It seems to us likely, that the impatience of Judas for the accomplishment of his worldly views, which we conceive to have ever actuated him in following Jesus, could no longer be restrained, and that our Lord's observations at Bethany served to mature a stratagem he had meditated long before. He had no doubt been greatly disappointed at seeing his Master avoid being made a king, after feeding the five thousand in Galilee. Many a favorable crisis had He seemed to lose, or had not dared to embrace, and now while at Bethany He talks of his burial and though none of His apostles, so firm were their worldly expectations from their Master, could clearly understand such 'sayings' yet they had been made 'exceeding sorry' by them . At the same time Judas had long been convinced by the miracles he had seen his Master perform that He was the Messiah . He had even heard Him accept this title from His apostles in private . He had promised them that when He should 'sit upon the throne of His glory, they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel' . Yet now, when everything seemed most favorable to the assumption of empire, He hesitates and desponds. Within a few days, the people, who had lately given Him a triumphal entry into the city, having kept the Passover, would be dispersed to their homes, and Judas and his fellow apostles be, perhaps, required to attend their Master on another tedious expedition through the country. Hence it seems most probable that Judas resolved upon the plan of delivering up his Master to the Jewish authorities, when he would be compelled, in self-defense, to prove His claims, by giving them the sign from heaven they had so often demanded; they would, he believed, elect him in due form as the King Messiah, and thus enable Him to reward His followers. He did, indeed, receive from Jesus many alarming admonitions against his design; but the plainest warnings are lost upon a mind totally absorbed by a purpose, and agitated by many violent passions. The worst he would permit himself to expect, was a temporary displeasure for placing his Master in this dilemma; but as he most likely believed, judging from himself, that Jesus anticipated worldly aggrandizement, he might calculate upon His forgiveness when the emergency should have been triumphantly surmounted. Judas could not doubt his master's ability to extricate Himself from His enemies by miracle. He had known Him do so more than once (;; ). Hence his directions to the officers to 'hold him fast,' when he was apprehended . With other Jews he believed the Messiah would never die accordingly, we regard his pecuniary stipulation with the priests as a mere artful cover to his deeper and more comprehensive design; and so that he served their purpose in causing the apprehension of Jesus, they would little care to scrutinize his motive. All they felt was being 'glad' at his proposal , and the plan appeared to hold good up to the very moment of our Lord's condemnation; for after His apprehension His miraculous power seemed unabated, from His healing Malchus. Judas heard Him declare that He could even then 'ask, and His father would give Him twelve legions of angels' for His rescue. But when Judas, who awaited the issue of the trial with such different expectations, saw that though Jesus had avowed Himself to be the Messiah, He had not convinced the Sanhedrim; and, instead of extricating Himself from their power by miracle, had submitted to be 'condemned, buffeted, and spit upon,' by His judges and accusers; then it should seem he awoke to a full view of all the consequences of his conduct. The prophecies of the Old Testament, 'that Christ should suffer and of Jesus, concerning His own rejection and death, flashed on his mind in their true sense and full force, and he found himself the wretched instrument of their fulfillment. He made a last desperate effort to stay proceedings. He presented himself to the chief-priests, offered to return the money, confessed that he had sinned in that he had betrayed the innocent blood, and upon receiving their heartless answer was wrought into a frenzy of despair, during which He committed suicide. There is much significancy in these words of , 'Then Judas, when he saw He was condemned,' not expiring on the cross, 'repented himself,' etc. If such be the true hypothesis of his conduct, then, however culpable it may have been, as originating in the most inordinate covetousness, impatience of the procedure of Providence, crooked policy, or any other bad quality, he is certainly absolved from the direct intention of procuring his Master's death. 'The difference,' says Archbishop Whately, 'between Iscariot and his fellow apostles was, that though they all had the same expectations and conjectures, he dared to act on his conjectures, departing from the plain course of his known duty to follow the calculations of his worldly wisdom, and the schemes of his worldly ambition.'

Judas or Jude, surnamed Barsabas, a Christian teacher sent from Jerusalem to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas (;; ). He is supposed to have been one of the seventy disciples, and brother of Joseph, also surnamed Barsabas (son of Sabas), who was proposed, with Matthias, to fill up the place of the traitor Judas . Judas and Silas (who was also of the party) are mentioned together as 'prophets' and 'chief men among the brethren.'

Judas [JUDE]

Judas, a Jew of Damascus, with whom Paul lodged .

Surnamed the Galilean , so called also by Josephus, and likewise 'the Gaulonite.' In company with one Sadoc he attempted to raise a sedition among the Jews, but was destroyed by Cyrenius (Quirinus), then proconsul of Syria and Judea.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

jōō´das ( Ἰούδας , Ioúdas  ; Greek form of Hebrew "Judah"):

(1) A L evite mentioned in 1 Esdras 9:23 = Judah (3).

(2) Judas Maccabeus, 3son of Mattathias (1 Maccabees 2:4 ). See Maccabees .

(3) Judas, son of Chalphi, a Jewish officer who supported Jonathan bravely at the battle of Hazor (1 Maccabees 11:70; Ant ., Xiii , v, 7).

(4) A person of good position in Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristobulus (2 Maccabees 1:10 ); he has been identified with Judas Maccabeus and also with an Essene prophet ( Ant ., Xiii , xi, 2; Bj , III, 5).

(5) Son of Simon the Maccabee, and brother of John Hyrcanus (1 Maccabees 16:2 ). He was wounded in the battle which he fought along with his brother against Cendebeus (1 Maccabees 16:1 ff; Ant ., Xiii , vii, 3), and was murdered by Ptolemy the usurper, his brother-in-law, at Dok (1 Maccabees 16:11 ff).

The Nuttall Encyclopedia

Surnamed

ne of the twelve Apostles of Christ, who from some infatuation that unaccountably possessed him, and to his everlasting infamy, betrayed his Master to His enemies for 30 pieces of silver; was designated by Christ as the Son of Perdition.