Judas Iscariot – Judges

Judas Iscariot

One of the Twelve, son of Simon Iscariot (John 6:71 13:26 RV). Iscariot (more correctly Iscarioth) means ‘the man of Kerioth.’ Kerioth was a town in the south of Judsa, and Judas was the only one of the Twelve who was not a GalilEean. He had an aptitude for business, and acted as treasurer of the Apostle-band (John 12:6 IS’").

Judas turned traitor, and sold the Lord to the high priests for thirty pieces of silver, the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32) and this dire treachery constitutes one of the hardest problems of the Gospel history. It seems to present an inevitable dilemma: either Jesus did not know what would happen, thus failing in foresight and discernment; or, as St. John expressly declares (6). He did know, and yet not only admitted Judas to the Apostolate, but appointed him to an offlce which, by exciting his cupidity, facilitated his crime. A solution of the problem has been sought by making out in various ways that Judas was not really a criminal.

(1) In early days it was held \>y the Clainites, a Gnostic sect, that Judas had attained a higher degree of spiritual enlightenment than his fellows, and compassed the death of Jesus because he knew that it would break the power of the evil spirits, the rulers of this world. (2) Another ancient theory is that he was indeed a covetous man and sold the Master for greed of the pieces of silver, but never thought that He would be slain. He anticipated that He would, as on previous occasions, extricate Himself from the hands of His enemies; and when he saw Him condemned, he was overwhelmed with remorse. He reckoned, thought Paulus in more recent times, on the multitude rising and rescuing their hero from the rulera. (3) He shared the general wonderment of the disciples at the Lord’s procrastination in coming forward as the King of Israel and claiming the throne of David, and thought to force His hand and precipitate the desired consummation. ‘His hope was,* says De Quincey,’ that Christ would no longer vacillate; he would be forced into giving_ the signal to the populace of .Terusalem, who would then rise unanimously.’ Cf . Kosegger, INRI, Eng. tr. p. 263. (4) His faithin his lUaster’s Messiah-

£02 ship, thought Neander, was wavering. If He were really the Messiah, nothing could harm Him; if Hebrews 7 not. He would perish, and it would be right that He should.

Such attempts to justify Judas must be dismissed. They are contrary to the Gospel narrative, which represents the Betrayal as a horrible, indeed diabolical, crime (cf. John 6:70. Luke 22:3, 4). If the Lord chose Judas with clear foreknowledge of the issue, then, dark as the mystery may be, it accords with the providential ordering of human affairs, being in fact an instance of an ancient and abiding problem, the ‘irreconcilable antinomy’ of Divine foreknowledge and human free will. It is no whit a greater mystery that Jesus should have chosen Judas with clear prescience of the issue, than that God should have made Saul king, knowing what the end would be.

Of course Judas was not chosen because he would turn traitor, but because at the outset he had in him the possibility of better things; and this is the tragedy of his career, that he obeyed ills baser impulses and surrendered to their domination. Covetousness was his besetting sin, and he attached himself to Jesus because, hke the rest of the disciples, he expected a rich reward when his Master was seated on the throne of David. His discipleship was a process of disillusionment. He saw his worldly dream fading, and, when the toils closed about his Master, he decided to make the best of the situation. Since he could not have a place by the throne, he would at least have the thirty shekels.

His resolution lasted long enough to carry through the crime. He made his bargain with the high priests (Matthew 26:14–16 = Mark 14:10, 11 = Luke 22) evidently on the Wednesday afternoon, when Jesus, after the Great Indictment (Matthew 23), was occupied with the Greeks who had come craving an interview ( John 12) ; and promised to watch for an opportunity to betray Him into their hands. He found it next evening when he was dismissed from the Upper Room (John 13:27–30). He knew that after the Supper Jesus would repair to Gethsemane, and thither he conducted the rulers with their band of soldiers. He thought, no doubt, that his work was now done, but he had yet to crown his ignominy. A difficulty arose. It lay with the soldiers to make the arrest, and, seeing not one man but twelve, they knew not which to take; and Judas had to come to their assistance. He gave them a token: ‘The one whom I shall kiss is he’; and, advancing to Jesus, he greeted Him with customary reverence and kissed Him effusively (Matthew 26:47–50 = Mark 14:43–46 = Luke 22:47–49).

It must have been a terrible ordeal for Judas, and in that hour his better nature reasserted itself. He realized the enormity of what he had done; and he followed his Master and, in an agony of remorse, watched the tragedy of His trial and condemnation by the Sanhedrin. It maddened him; and as the high priests were leaving the Hall of Hewn Stone, the Sanhedrin’s meeting-place, he accosted them, clutching the accursed shekels in his wild hands. ‘I have sinned,’ he cried, ‘in that I betrayed innocent blood." He thought even now to annul the bargain, but they spurned him and passed to the Sanctuary. He followed, and, ere they could close the entrance, hurled the coins after them into the Holy Place; then rushed away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:3–5).

Such is St. Matthew’s account. The tragedy was so appalling that legends grew apace in the primitive Church, and St. Luke has preserved one of these in a parenthesis in St. Peter’s speech at the election of Matthias (Acts 1:18, 19). One is glad to think that St. Matthew’s is the actual history. Judas sinned terribly, but he terribly repented, and one wishes that, instead of destroying his miserable life, he had rather tied to the Cross and sought mercy at the feet of his gracious Lord. There was mercy in the heart of Jesus even for Judas.

Was Judas present at the Eucharist in the Upper Room? St. John alone mentions his departure; and since he does not record the Institution of the Supper, it is open to question whether the traitor ‘went out’ after It or before it. From Luke 22:17–21 jt has been argued that he was present, but St. Luke’s arrangement is different from that of St. Matthew and St. Mark, who put the institution after the announcement of the Betrayal (Matthew 26:21–29 Mark 14:18–25). According to St. John’s account, Judas seems to have gone out immediately after the announcement, the institution following 13, and oh. 14 being the Communion Address. David Smith.

Jude, Epistle of

This short epistle is an earnest warning and appeal, couched in vivid and picturesque language, addressed to a church or a circle of churches which have become suddenly exposed to a mischievous attack of false teaching.

1. Contents.— (1) Text — For its length Jude offers an unusual number of textual problems, the two most important of which are in v.*- and vv.^^ m. Though the RV is probably right in translating ‘Lord* In v.^, many ancient authorities read’ Jesus.* Also, the position of ‘once’ is doubtful, some placing it in the following clause. In vv.^*- m editors differ as to whether there are two clauses or three. The RV, following the Sinaitic, has three; and Weymouth also, who, however, follows A in his ‘resultant’ text based on a consensus of editorial opinion. But there is much in favour of a two-claused sentence beginning with either ‘have mercy’ or ‘refute.’

(2) Outline. —

(i.) Salutation, w.*- K The letter opens moat appropriately with the prayer that mercy, peace, and love may increase among the readers, who are guarded by the love of God unto the day when Jesus Christ will appear.

(ii.) Occasion of the Epistle, w.*- With affectionate greetmg Jude informs his readers that he was engaeed upon an epistle setting forth the salvation held by alTCnTistians — Jews and Gentiles — when he was surprised by news which showed him that their primary need was warning and exhortation; for the one gospel which has been entrusted to the keeping of the ‘saints’ had been endangered in their case by a surreptitious invasion of false teachers, who turned the gospel of grace into a plea for lust, thereby practically denying the lordship of Jesus Christ. It had long been foretold that the Church would be faced by this crisis through these persons. (This was a common expectation in the Apostolic age; see 2 Thessalonians 2, 1 Ti 4i, 2 Timothy 3:1 f. 4:3, 2 Peter 3. Mt 24.),

(iii.) Warnings from history, w.^-^. Versed as they are in Scnpture, they should take warning from the judgments of God under the Old Covenant. His people were destroyed for apostasy, though they had lately been savedfrom Egypt. Even angeb were visited with eternal punishment for breaking bounds, and for fornication like that for which afterwards the cities of the plain perished. These are all awful examples of the doom that awaits those guilty of apostasy and sensuality.

(iv.) Description of the invaders, w.^-‘^. Boasting of their own knowledge through visions, these false teachers abandon themselves to sensuality, deny retribution, and scoff at the power of a spiritual world. Yet even Michael the archangel, when contending with Satan for the body of MOses. did not venture to dispute his function as Accuser, but left him and his blasphemies to a higher tribunal. But these persons, professing a knowledge of the spiritual realm of which they are really ignorant, have no other knowledge than that of sensual passion like the beasts, and are on their way to ruin. Sceptical like Cain, greedy inciters to lust like Balaam, rebellioiis like Korah, they are j^lunging into destruction. Would-be shepherds, they sacrilegiously pollute the love-feas1»; delusive prophets, hopelessly dead in sin, shameless in their apostasy, theirs is the doom foretold by Enoch on the godless. They murmur against their fate, which they have brought upon themselves by lewdness, and they bluster, though on occasion they cnnge for their own advantage.

(v.) The conduct of the Christian in this crisia, w.^‘-^. The Church need not be surprised by this attack, since it was foretold by the Apostles as a sign of the end, but should resist the disintegrating influence of these es^ent^lly unspiritual persons. The unity of the Church is to be preserved by mutual edification in Divine truth, by grayer through the indwelling Spirit, by keeping within the range of Divine love, and by watching for the day *‘hen Christ will come in mercy aa Judge. Waverera must be mercifully dealt with; even the sensual are not past hope, though the work of rescue is very dangerous.

(vi.) Doxology, w.**- s*. God alone, who can ^ard the waverer from stumbling, and can remove the stains of sin and perfect our salvation through Jesus Christ, is worthy of all glory.

2. Situation of the readers. — The recipients of Jude may have belonged to one church or to a circle of churches in one district. They were evidently Gentiles, and of some standing (vv.) The Epistle affords very little evidence for the locality of the readers, but Syria or the Hellenistic cities of Palestine seem to suit the conditions. Syria would be a likely field for a distortion of the Pauline gospel of grace (v. 4). Also, if Jude was the brother of James of Jerualem, whose influences extended throughout Palestine and probably Syria (Galatians 2:9, 12), the address in v. 1 la explained. Syria was a breeding-ground for those tendencies which developed into the Gnostic systems of the 2nd century. Even as early as 1 Cor. ideas similar to these were troubling the Church (1 Corinthians 5:10 11:17 ff.), and when the Apocalypse was written the churches of Asia were distressed by the Nicolaitans and those who, like Balaam, led the Israelites into idolatrous fornication (Revelation 2 "■ "). In 3 Jn. there is further evidence of insubordination to Apostolic authority. New esoteric doctrine, fornication, and the assumption of prophetic power within the Church for the sake of personal aggrandizement, are features common to all. Jude differs in not mentioning idolatry. Possibly magic played no inconsiderable part in the practice of these libertines. We know that it met the gospel early in its progress (Acts 8:9–24 13:6–12 19:18, 19). There is, however, no trace in Jude of a highly elaborated speculative system like those of the 2nd cent. Gnosticism. These persons deny the gospel by their lives, — a practical rather than an intellectual revolt against the truth. The inference from vv. 5–7 is that these errorists would not refuse to acknowledge the OT as a source of instruction; being in this also unlike Gnostics of the 2nd century. The phenomenon, as it is found in Jude, is quite explicable in the last quarter of the 1st century.

3. Authorship. — The author of this Epistle is very susceptible to literary Influence, especially that of Paul. Compare Jude > with 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 2 Thessalonians 2) Jude "• with 1 Corinthians 2:14; Jude with Romans 5:5 S", Colossians 2:7) Jude "■ with Romans 16:25–27, Colossians 1:22) and with the Pastoral Epistles frequently, e.g., 1 TI 1 5 6, 2 TI 3 4:3 f.: His relation to 2 Peter is so close that one probably borrowed from the other, though there is great diversity of opinion as to which. See Peter [Second Ep. of], 4. (e). Bigg suggests ‘that the errors denounced in both Epistles took their origin from Corinth, that the disorder was spreading, that St. Peter took alarm and wrote his Second Epistle, sending a copy to St. Jude with a warning of the urgency of the danger, and that St. Jude at once issued a similar letter to the churches in which he was personally interested.’ Jude is also unique In the NT in his use of apocryphal writings — the Assumption of Moses in v. 9. and the Book of Enoch In vv. almost In the same way as Scripture.

The Jude who writes cannot be the Apostle Judas (Luke 6:16. Acts 1), nor does he ever assume Apostolic authority. James (v. 1) must be the head of the Jerusalem Church, and the brother of our Lord. Jude probably called himself ‘servant’ and not ‘brother’ of Jesus Christ (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3), because he felt that his unbelief In Jesus in the days of His flesh did not make that term a title of honour, and he may have come to understand the truth that faith, not blood, constitutes true kinship with Christ. The difficulty of accounting for the choice of such a pseudonym, and the absence from the letter of any substantial Improbability against the traditional view, make it reasonable to hold that Jude the brother of our Lord was the author. He may have written it between a.d. 75 and 80, probably before 81, for Hegesippus (170) states that Jude’s grandsons were small farmers in Palestine, and were brought before Domitian (81-96) and contemptuously dismissed. 4. External testimony. — In the age of the Apostolic Fathers the only witness to Jude is the Didache, and that is so faint as to count for little. By the beginning of the 3rd cent, it was well known in the west, being included in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 200), commented upon by Clement of Alexandria, and accepted by Origen and by Tertullian. Eusebius places it among the ‘disputed’ books, saying that it had little early recognition. It is absent from the Peshitta version. The quotations from apocryphal writings hindered its acceptance, but the early silence, on the assumption of its genuineness, is to be accounted for chiefly by its brevity and its comparative unimportance. R. A. Falconer.

Judges

An examination of Exodus 18 shows that the Hebrew word for to ‘judge’ means originally to pronounce the oracle; thus, when we read of Moses sitting to ‘judge the people’ (v."), a reference to vv.’*- shows that what is meant is the giving of Divine decisions:’. . . the people come unto me to inquire of God:’ when they have a matter they come unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbour, and I make them know the statutes of God, and his laws’ (cf. vv.’>- ""). In the next place, the same chapter shows the word in process of receiving a wider application; owing to the increasing number of those who come to seek counsel, only specially difficult cases are dealt with by Moses, while the ordinary ones are deputed to the heads of the families, etc., to settle (vv.^s^‘). A’ judge’ was therefore originally a priest who pronounced oracles; then the elders of the people became judges. But at an early period the functions of the ‘judges,’ at any rate the more important of them, were exercised by a chief, chosen from among the elders probably on account of superior skill in warfare, — an hereditary succession would, however, naturally tend to arise — who was to all intents and purposes a king. So the probability is that those who are known as the ‘judges’ in popular parlance were in reahty kings in the ordinary sense of the word. In connexion with this it is interesting to note that in somewhat later times than those of the ‘judges’ one of the main duties of the king was to judge, see e.g. 2 Samuel 15:1–6, "... there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover. Oh that I were made judge in the land. . . . And-on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment’ (cf., further, 1 Kings 3:9. 2 Kings 15:5) moreover, ‘judge’ and ‘king’ seem to be used synonymously in Amos 2:3. Hosea 7:7. Psalms 2:10. The offer of the kingship (hereditary) to the ‘judge’ Gideon (Judges 8:22 ff.) (ully bears out what has been said. The fact probably is that the Deuteronomic legislators, on theocratic grounds, called those rulers ‘judges’ who were actually kings in the same sense as Saul was; fundamentally there was no difference between the two, but nominally a difference was implied.

W. O. E. Oesteeley.