I found a book called “Judas Iscariot: Revisited and Restored” by Ivan Roger, and though I have read it once before, this time the authors points seem to be sinking in a bit more.

The general theme of the book is that much of the popular understanding of Judas, and his relationship within Christianity, is colored by theological presuppositions and general bias against Judas.

In our previous discussion, we considered the Greek word translated as “woe” within the gospel of Matthew, along with a grammar lesson on pronouns, and who they belonged to.

In this post we will consider John 13:27, where the Lord commands Judas to quickly do what he needs to do. Let’s take a moment to read the verse.

John 13:27 ESV – Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”

Our author makes the point of Jesus statement as being a command to Judas, to go do it quickly. The word “do” is a Greek word that means “to ordain, to appoint or to deal”. It does not have any implication of rejection, as if Jesus was “kicking him out of the upper room”, as it sometimes is communicated to me by well meaning friends. No, per the language, it appears Jesus is actually commissioning Judas to perform his task. A task of “delivering the sacrificial lamb” to the priest. The author’s detailing of this deliverance is worth the purchase of the book and I shall not expand on it here.

Note also two additional items to consider.

Warning?

Jesus gave Peter advance notice of his impending failure and denial. When other disciples were in the midst of failing a particular task, the Lord corrected them. In this instance, Jesus commissioned or encouraged(?) Judas to perform his assignment. No discouragement, no warning, no statement from Jesus that would restrict Judas from his endeavor. Judas was told to do it quickly!

Woe?

As soon as Judas left the room, Jesus spoke the following.

John 13:31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him.

Jesus understood Judas’ mission. If I was in the room, knowing the same, I would expect “Woe is me” from the Master. But after Judas left the room, setting in motion the deliverance of the lamb to the high priest, Jesus spoke of glorification, both of Himself and of God. Glorification, in this context is speaking of the crucifixion, and the wheels had begun to turn. Judas set the stage for the priests to begin the process.

And God is glorified!

So help me in understanding from this passage where Judas is standing in relation to Jesus. Is he the enemy? Is he Satan? What think ye? Leave me a comment below.

I look forward to your return for our next posting on this book at Considering the Bible, and if you have found my ruminations to be a blessing (or a challenge), invite your friends to join us.

---

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

I found a book called “Judas Iscariot: Revisited and Restored” by Ivan Roger, and though I have read it once before, this time the authors points seem to be sinking in a bit more.

The general theme of the book is that much of the popular understanding of Judas, and his relationship within Christianity, is colored by theological presuppositions and general bias against Judas.

In our previous discussion, we considered the Greek word translated as “betray” within the gospel of Matthew, and offered the possibility that it could be translated as deliver, as opposed to betray.

In this post we will consider Matthew 26:24, where the Lord speaks of “woe” on the one who will deliver Him to the high priest. Let’s take a moment to read the verse.

Mat 26:24 ESV – The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

The author of the book provides two questions to consider. Does the term woe carry with it a sense of responsibility? And secondly, what is the message “…would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”?

Woe

As Jesus comes to the end of His ministry, He begins to pronounce His woes on those who will enter into judgement. The Pharisees, the Scribes, Judas, pregnant women and young mothers. What? Pregnant women and young mothers? Entering into judgement? Am I assuming something I shouldn’t?

Mat 24:19 ESV – And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!

The word “woe” (or “alas” as translated in this verse) is a translation of οὐαί ouaí and is a primary exclamation of grief. I have always introduced the idea of judgement with this word, but that is an additional concept Carl brings into the verse, especially when I hear it about those dang Pharisees! (Don’t forget your pharisaical tendencies Carl!)

The term strictly carries with it the idea of grief, and not necessarily that of responsibility. The Lord expresses His grief, even when it comes to those opposing Him. Jesus, in pronouncing woe on those who would be instrumental in His crucifixion, was expressing grief over their future. And He was pronouncing grief over the future of Judas, but is He pronouncing an eternal judgement of hellfire and condemnation on Judas? I have to admit that I find it difficult to see this interpretation as a clear teaching from this verse. His heart is breaking over the suffering His disciple was going to experience in the future. Like those pregnant women and young mothers. But Carl, the next phrase is where we get the judgement and condemnation poured out on Judas! So let us consider the phrase “better for that man if he had not been born”.

Better for that man if he had not been born.”

The author associates “that man” with Judas, which I also have as I read through this passage. He refers to Judas as a representative man, a man that stands in the place of all humanity in being a traitor to the Messiah, and that each of us deserves judgement. I get this, yet it didn’t seem to make a difference for me in my understanding of Jesus statement.

A few years ago, I was looking at this verse and stumbled over an alternate translation that associates “that man” with Jesus. Hold up now before you think I have flipped my lid. Consider a literal translation, such as Youngs Literal Translation.

Matthew 26:24 YLT – the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but wo to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born.’

Did you catch the difference in who “that man” is?

…good it were for him (Judas) if that man (Jesus) had not been born. That is a completely different message!

Consider all that is going on in this portion of the verse.

First off, it speaks of life, and not simply existence. There is a difference. It is not that “that man” was never conceived, but that he had not been born. A still born baby existed, but never lived outside of the womb. I am not sure if this fine point makes a difference, or if this is simply a Hebrew prophets way of describing no existence better than having existed, even for a short duration. Yet even with that, to assign the hell fires of eternal condemnation to Judas based on this turn of phrase, seems like we just can’t wait to get Judas into hell. We sure like to hate him!

Secondly, the turn of phrase, that of “better to not have been born”, may not be referring to Judas if I am understanding the literal translations. No matter, based on both my preconceived ideas of “woe” and identifying who should have not been born, this verse is not so clear as I thought regarding Judas’ destiny of eternal torment.

What think ye? Leave me a comment below

In my next posting, we will consider the command Jesus gave to Judas at the last supper. Somewhat of a challenge to our (my) thinking, to say the least.

I look forward to your return for our next posting on this book at Considering the Bible, and if you have found my ruminations to be a blessing (or a challenge), invite your friends to join us.

---

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

I found a book called “Judas Iscariot: Revisited and Restored” by Ivan Roger, and thought I have read it once before, this time the authors points seem to be sinking in a bit more.

The general theme of the book is that much of the popular understanding of Judas, and his relationship within Christianity, is colored by theological presuppositions and general bias against Judas.

In our introductory post on this book, I mentioned some presuppositions that color our understanding of Judas. With this post, I would like to consider the description of Judas as the betrayer.

In each of the listings of the apostles, Judas is always the last named, and is usually described as the one who betrayed Jesus.

Betrayal. Such a loaded term! But is this a required translation of the Greek? The word translated as betrayal, in the gospel of Matthew is from the Greek word παραδίδωμι paradídōmi (Strong’s G3860).

A number of the verses that have G3860 in them follows, with the translation of the term underlined for the readers convenience

Mat 26:15 and said, “What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?” And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.
Mat 26:16 And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.
Mat 26:21 And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”
Mat 26:23 He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me.
Mat 26:24 The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
Mat 26:25 Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”
Mat 26:45 Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Sleep and take your rest later on. See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
Mat 26:46 Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.”
Mat 26:48 Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.”
Mat 27:2 And they bound him and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate the governor.
Mat 27:3 Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
Mat 27:4 ESV – saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.”
Mat 27:18 ESV – For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up.
Mat 27:26 ESV – Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, delivered him to be crucified.

Notice that throughout the previous verses the Greek word paradídōmi has been translated as betray or deliver. Are these the same concepts in the original intent of the author?

Let’s take for example Matthew 27:26 and replace deliver with betray.

Matthew 27:26 Then he released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, betrayed him to be crucified.

Does that make sense? Might the translators be taking a liberty that is not necessarily justified? The same might be said of Matthew 27:2.

Mat 27:2 And they bound him and led him away and betrayed him over to Pilate the governor.

Yet, if the term paradídōmi is consistently translated as “delivered”, the verses above continue to make sense, and open up an allowable scenario for Judas to perform a task that is not so emotionally charged as with the word betray, and in my opinion reinforces the Kingship of Jesus. For you see, this understanding may elevate His complete control over a situation that was at all appearance completely out of His control. Even at the time of seeming defeat, God was orchestrating a deliverance of mankind that no one saw coming, and had a depth of old covenant teaching in it I had never realized.

For Judas to be a “deliverer” has old covenant implications that I found quite astounding, and is expanded in the book. For those who have an open mind, I would suggest picking up a copy.  I am confident you may read it more than once.

In my next installment, we will consider another of the presuppositions the author brings to the table, (the woe of Matthew 26:24).  I hope you get a chance to visit and let me know your thoughts.

---

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.

I found a book called “Judas Iscariot: Revisited and Restored” by Ivan Roger, and though I have read it once before, this time the authors points seem to be sinking in a bit more.

The general theme of the book is that much of the popular understanding of Judas, and his relationship within Christianity, is colored by theological presuppositions and general bias against him.

It is a difficult book to take seriously at first, for my opinion of Judas has been established via cultural and religious teaching from the very first time I heard of this wicked evil betrayer.  As the author notes, within the western world, no-one names his child Judas due to the association of evil the name carries with it.  He is the ultimate betrayer, a toxic man of shear evil.

Somewhere in Dante’s Inferno, the writer describes Judas’ place in the lowest bowels of hell, being feasted on by Satan himself for all eternity!  Surely there is no place for Judas amongst the redeemed! Such is my opinion, and to be honest, I do not know why I purchased this book. But I did, and I am thankful for the challenge it has put in front of me

As I venture through this book, I will occasionally bring to the reader some interesting points to consider.  For those who have an open mind to consider alternate Christian views on this most hated of the apostles, I would suggest picking up a copy.  I am confident you may read it more than once.

In my next installment, we will consider one of the presuppositions the author brings to the table, and helped me begin to consider an alternate view of and for Judas.  

---

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.