Judas Iscariot was the son of Simon Peter?

word_digger · Jun 23, 2001

In the Gospel of John, which was written later than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, there are verses which, if taken on face value, indicate that Judas Iscariot was the biological son of Simon Peter. These verses are: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Joh 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Joh 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Joh 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The possibility that these verses are speaking of Simon Peter, instead of some other person named Simon, is supported by the fact that Simon Peter is the ONLY "Simon" mentioned throughout the Gospel of John, whereas in the other Gospels there are many other Simons mentioned. The conclusion, therefore, is that since John's Gospel only mention's Simon Peter, the verses stating that Judas Iscariot was Simon's son, or the son of Simon, MUST be a reference to Simon Peter.

This would go a long way in explaining Simon Peter's shift in behavior from first defending His Lord with a sword when Judas and the band came to take Jesus, then shortly afterwards publically denying his Lord: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. (John 18:25-27) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imagine how torn Peter must have been, when the Lord he loved was betrayed by the son he also must have loved if, indeed, Judas was his biological son.

swaimj · Jun 23, 2001

I disagree for three reasons.

1. In John 13, John refers to Peter as Simon Peter or Peter. That these references are to the same Peter is clear. So the person named Simon would appear to be someone different.

2. The synoptics and John are clear in the accounts of the calling of the disciples that Peter had a brother named Andrew. They are also clear that James and John are brothers. Why, in these accounts would they never mention that Judas is Peter's son?

3. Judas is from Iscariot which is a town in Judah, but Peter was from Galilee, in the north.

word_digger · Jun 23, 2001

swaimj,
Not to put too finer point on the subject, but what was to prevent Peter, a fisherman from Galilee, from traveling to the region of Keriothite and fathering a child out of wedlock? The man was not exactly a saint before the Lord showed up. Could not Peter be subject to the same temptations as other men? Let's be realistic.

Timotheus · Jun 23, 2001

Word_Digger, by consulting any Bible Encyclopedia you would come to the conclusion that your assumptions listed above are erroneous. First of all, the name Simon was a pretty common name in the Bible. In the New Testament there are no less than 9 different families recorded. They are:

(1) Simon, the son of Jonas, and brother of Andrew, who was surnamed Peter by the Lord Jesus, and Cephas, Aramaic for “rock” (Matt. 4:18, 16:17, 18, etc).
(2) Simon, another disciple of Jesus, called the “Canaanite,” a member of the party later called “the Zealots” (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18).
(3) Simon, the leper of Bethany, in whose house Jesus’ head was anointed (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3).
(4) Simon, a brother of the Lord (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3).
(5) Simon, a man from Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus, who was compelled to carry the cross of Jesus (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26).
(6) Simon, a Pharisee in whose house Jesus’ feet were anointed by the sinful woman (Luke 7:40, 43, 44).
(7) Simon, Judas Iscariot’s father (John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26). And here may I interject that Judas and his father, Simon, were both surnamed “Iscariot” (see John 6:7). Iscariot is commonly thought to be from the Hebrew “Ish Kerioth,” i.e. “a man of Kerioth.” The village of Kerioth was in the south of Judah (Josh. 15:25).
(8) Simon, Simon Magus, a sorcerer at Samaria, with great power and influence among the people (Acts 8:9-13).
(9) Simon, a tanner, who lived at Joppa with whom Peter stayed “for many days” (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 17, 32).

If your hypothesis is correct, then would you be kind to let us know which of these Simons listed was the father of Judas?

Chris Temple · Jun 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by word_digger:
swaimj,
Not to put too finer point on the subject, but what was to prevent Peter, a fisherman from Galilee, from traveling to the region of Keriothite and fathering a child out of wedlock? The man was not exactly a saint before the Lord showed up. Could not Peter be subject to the same temptations as other men? Let's be realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Realistic? No one in 2000 years of orthodoxy has presented this hypothesis. I think there are more realistic matters to discuss.

[ June 23, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

John Wells · Jun 23, 2001

word-digger,

Why don't you open up your heart to God's Word and pray asking God to reveal His truth to you? You'll get where you are seeking, but you must first seek . . . with all your heart, mind, and soul.

word_digger · Jun 24, 2001

Timotheus said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Word_Digger, by consulting any Bible Encyclopedia you would come to the conclusion that your assumptions listed above are erroneous. First of all, the name Simon was a pretty common name in the Bible. In the New Testament there are no less than 9 different families recorded. They are:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my message I have already acknowledged that there were many "Simons" in the Bible. Thank you for wasting your time in listing them. But the point I made is that in the Gospel of John, and throughout John's Gospel, he only mentions one particular Simon, and that is Simon Peter. You will find no reference to any other Simon in John's Gospel. Now if John was referring to another, I would think that there would be a reference to that other within his Gospel. Think about this, if you did not have the other Gospels, and you received this Gospel letter alone, buy itself, would you not also think John was referring to the same Simon mentioned throughout that letter? Of course, I'm making a logical and common sense assumption here.

Chris Temple wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Realistic? No one in 2000 years of orthodoxy has presented this hypothesis. I think there are more realistic matters to discuss. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then go elsewhere and discuss them.

wellsjs wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why don't you open up your heart to God's Word and pray asking God to reveal His truth to you? You'll get where you are seeking, but you must first seek . . . with all your heart, mind, and soul. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You judge me as unsaved and my heart is not open to God's Word simply because I started such a post? I suggest you pray to God to give you some courage to face tough issues, instead of attacking people's character just because they have made you uncomfortable.

Look, dear brethern, Simon Peter was a man, a sinner just like everybody else in the world, and it is entirely possible that he could have fathered a child out of wedlock, and that the grown child was with him when the Lord showed up. It is also very possible that the full truth of the matter was not known to the other disciples at the time.

I say this, because Peter and John later took the ministry to parts north (Babylon) departing from Matthew, Mark and Luke and the others. Since John's Gospel was the last one written, I think it is entirely possible that Peter could have confided this matter to John, and John was disposed to include it in his letter.

Now, if this was the truth, then why would God's word not mention it. I think it does. Throughout the whole Bible God points out men's sin with no reservations. David committed adultry and murdered a man for this wife; another king of Israel fathered his own brother through sexual relations with his mother (you'll find that nugget in the Chronicles, or possibly Kings, I don't have the reference handy at the moment); and there are some even grosser acts in the Bible. The point is, the truth may be ugly, but that does not make it not the truth. So don't get all bent out of shape.
Now, go ahead and burn me at the stake.

Dr. Bob · Jun 24, 2001

Give me a match!

No, I won't burn you for this notion that has 0% Scriptural or Historical support. We Baptist believe in soul liberty (at least some of us do)

My question is WHY you choose, with no merit or foundation, to slur and sully the name of the Apostle Peter with such inquiry?

Among the disciples and early followers of Jesus were only two men described as "young". John Mark was a young man who became an aide to Peter and to Paul. The Apostle John was also young (hence his outliving all the other disciples by 25 years).

A logical assumption could be made that the other 11 disciples were "not young" and probably all within a similar age span. It is more than likely that Peter (from the northern shore of Galilee) and Judas (from southern Judean village of Kerioth) were about the same age.

Not father and bastard son.

Is there some anti-Catholic motivation for your view, Digger? Over the years, many Baptists have tried to denigrate Peter, thinking they were attack the papacy.

Appreciate your thoughts.

true vine · Jun 24, 2001

This is how false doctrines and religions get started. People tried to assume what God meant or was thinking. For one thing if you doing any studing at all you would see that the term "son", was also used to show an understudy or apprentice. For instance, in 1st Timothy 1:2 states "Unto Timothy,my own son in the faith....." now we all understand that Paul never married, so then how did he have a son. If you reference son you will find out what I stated above is correct.Words of advice there digger study before you start assuming, the Bible states that we should not rely on our own understanding but on his.

Chris Temple · Jun 24, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> quote:
Realistic? No one in 2000 years of orthodoxy has presented this hypothesis. I think there are more realistic matters to discuss.

Then go elsewhere and discuss them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real teachable spirit you exhibit there world digger. Which explains where the question came from.

word_digger · Jun 25, 2001

Dr. Bob Griffin wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> My question is WHY you choose, with no merit or foundation, to slur and sully the name of the Apostle Peter with such inquiry?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It was not my intention to "slur and sully" the name of the Apostle Peter. On the contrary, my intention was to give some insight into Simon Peter's behavior on the night the Lord was taken in the garden. And also insight into why Judas betrayed Jesus.

Of all the disciples, Simon Peter showed more faith and enthusiam than all the rest. When the Lord walked on the water, Peter attempted to walk on the water; In the mount of transfiguration, it was Peter who wanted to build shelters for Moses and Elijah and Jesus; When the band came to take the Lord by force Peter drew the sword to defend the Lord. So why did this loyal disciple, who stated he was willing to follow the Lord into prison and death, suddenly turn and deny the Lord on the night He was taken? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. (Luke 22:31-33) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You see, although Peter was loyal, willing, enthusiastic, brave, and all other good qualities, he had yet to be "converted" into a fully righteous disciple. This is hinted at when Peter rebuked Jesus, and note the Lord's response: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Matthew 16:22-23) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Peter's good intentions in his rebuke of the Lord were motivated by the powers of darkness. Peter did not know it, he thought he did the right thing. He was wrong.

The Lord told Peter something that he did not say to any of the other disciples: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Lu 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Judas was, in fact, Simon's biological son, as the Gospel of John seems to indicate, then that would account for Peter's denial of the Lord on that night. You see, Simon Peter said he was willing to do anything and everything for the Lord, but was he really? On that night he was put to the test. Specifically, was he willing to choose between a son of his body, who he had know much of his life, or the Lord Jesus who he had known for only a couple of years?

There have been many men in this world who have fathered children out of wedlock. And although the act was wrong, most of these men loved their offspring like any father should love his son. If Judas was his biological son, would Peter not have loved him and was glad to have him as a companion, even if Peter carried this great secret and burden of shame in his heart?

On the night when Jesus was taken Peter had to make a choice between his son and the Son of God. Initially, he ran from making that decision and denied the Lord. But after the rooster crowed the third time, and he recalled the Lord's prediction of his behavior... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Mt 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...in that moment he was converted. He made the choice.

Now, another point: We all know what great things Peter did after the Lord's ressurection. He certainly lived the life of faith and was a pillar of the early church. But can you imagine how it felt to be preaching Jesus to the world, and being beloved of the Lord, knowing down inside that his past sin of fathering a bastard child would bring forth the man who betrayed the very Lord he now preached? When you think back on some of the sins you committed in the past, don't you still feel a little bit of shame? Don't you still carry the memory? Certainly some things, and their consequences, we all still carry about as baggage. That is human nature. Fortunately for the born again man or woman, we have forgivness and a promise to look forward to, and mostly due to Peter's great foundational work in getting out the Word.

Now, as to why Judas beyrated the Lord Jesus. Jealousy!! When the Lord came on the scene, Judas saw his father's attention becoming more and more focused on Jesus then on him. Judas saw that his father loved Jesus more then him. It is a simple as that.

The bottom line is, even if Judas was Simon Peter's son, Peter was not the one responsible for the actions of Judas. And the actions of Judas should have no bearing on the work, faith, and reputation of Peter.
Placed into a modern context: If the son of a very faithful Pastor killed someone, does that make the Pastor any less of a faithful servent in the Church? I think not, but in many people's minds it would.

[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: word_digger ]

Ransom · Jun 25, 2001

word_digger said:

Think about this, if you did not have the other Gospels, and you received this Gospel letter alone, buy itself, would you not also think John was referring to the same Simon mentioned throughout that letter? Of course, I'm making a logical and common sense assumption here.

Here's an alternative logical assumption:

Considering how much John has to say about Judas (it seems to me that he focuses on Judas more than the other Gospel writers), would referring to Judas as the son of Simon not likely be to distinguish him from Judas, the son of Benjamin, and thereby not falsely accuse the wrong Judas of betraying Christ?

The modern media does the same thing. That's why notorious murderers are usually known by their full name. There's probably a Lee Fred Oswald running a grocery store in Peoria or someplace that is glad not to be implicated in the murder of JFK.

Dr. Bob · Jun 25, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If Judas was, in fact, Simon's biological son, as the Gospel of John seems to indicate . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This continues to be a baseless suggestion on your part, with no "fact" or "indication".

Is your father's name Bob? Then you may be MY son, since my name (and 2 million + baby boomers like me) is Bob. Did I have an illicit adulterous affair and father you?

Of course not. And to even "imply" it with no proof does in fact sully my name. I don't think this thread merits any further real discussion.

word_digger · Jun 25, 2001

Dr. Bob,
I agree. Further posts on this topic would be fruitless. Why don't you just erase the whole thing.
Regards

Ars · Jun 25, 2001

I finally agree with something that Word_digger has said.

Timotheus · Jun 25, 2001

Hey, word_digger, I am sorry for not replying sooner but I was away. Now that I had a chance of reading all your postings I can see where you are coming from. You are proposing a hypothetical situation right? You are saying, "What if?"

word_digger says: "Think about this, if you did not have the other Gospels, and you received this Gospel letter alone, by itself, would you not also think John was referring to the same Simon mentioned throughout that letter? Of course, I'm making a logical and common sense assumption here."

O.K. so you made a logical assumption. But I can not, for I know that there are other Gospels and the Bible is very specific when it comes to details. You yourself said that the Bible discloses the sins of many of the men listed there, such as David, Peter, etc. And you are right. But because your are right, the Bible proves itself faithful in describing (without being silent about specifics) all the sins of those men. The Bible didn’t have to disclose of the adultery of David, but it did. So why would it be silent about the alleged adultery of Peter? To what end? It makes no sense, does it?

But there is an other reason why I can not assume as you do, and that is because I feel strongly about adding or removing anything to this Book. Four men of the Bible wrote about this: Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Gal. 1:6-7; and Rev. 22:19. Let me only quote from one source, Proverbs 30:5-6, “Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” So you see, my dear “word_digger,” I cannot assume anything when it involves the Word of God. I cannot propose the question, “What if?” and then go off on a tangent contrary to His words.

But, as I said, I do understand where you are coming from. I can not say that I do know your motive, but I do understand your supposition. If your motive was to challenge this board, then you have achieved that purpose. If your motive was to entertain us, again you have achieved your goal. But if your motive was to fan the flame of controversy, then as you can see you did not reached your intended target because the men of this board are well versed in the Bible, they possess godly discernment, and they are not wavering in the beliefs. I personally thank you though for the question because it shows me that you are a thinker, and I wish you well in your Bible studies. For that is the ultimate motive isn’t it, to read and study our Bibles and be able to defend the faith?

By the way, the website attached to your profile ( http://www.kjvbible.org/ ) indicate that you believe in a pre-Adamic world – am I correct in assuming (if assumption on our part is permitted)?

[ June 25, 2001: Message edited by: Timotheus ]

Barnabas H. · Jun 25, 2001

Right on!

HeDied4U · Jun 25, 2001

word_digger is quoted as saying, "If Judas was, in fact, Simon's biological son, as the Gospel of John seems to indicate..."

In following this kind of thinking, by "reading" more into the Bible than what it in fact does say, we can come to some pretty far out conclussions. Let's look at Psalm 91:4 for instance.....

Psalm 91:4 states; "He shall cover thee with His feathers, and under His wings shalt thou trust..." Now, if I was reading this, I might come to the conclussion that God is a great big chicken. After all, it's what the Psalmist seems to be indicating

God Bless!!!

Adam

(word_digger, this was not done to offend; it was done tongue-in-cheek. I apologize in advance if you're offended. Adam)

John Wells · Jun 25, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by word_digger:
You judge me as unsaved and my heart is not open to God's Word simply because I started such a post? I suggest you pray to God to give you some courage to face tough issues, instead of attacking people's character just because they have made you uncomfortable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

digger,
If you felt judgment, then it must have been your own conscience. After your post and a brief scan of your website, I am convinced you lack discernment as given by the Holy Spirit, not that you aren't saved. To be a "word_digger" is one thing; to play "what if" with every other sentence in God's Word is quite another. Personally, my plate is quite full trying to understand what God has said. You seem to live in the realm of what God might have implied!

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

word_digger · Jun 26, 2001

To Adam and all:
I'm not offended, and if I have offended anyone I am sorry. And yes, Timotheus, I do believe there was a preadamite world, and have outlined those reasons on my web site. Thanks for visiting.

We are commanded to be good soldiers for the Lord. Christian Soldiers are the only army that bayonets it's own wounded and shoots others in the back who get too far out front of the main forces.

Just joking!!! No more stones, please.

Judas Iscariot was the son of Simon Peter?

word_digger New Member

swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

word_digger New Member

Timotheus New Member

Chris Temple New Member

John Wells New Member

word_digger New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

true vine New Member

Chris Temple New Member

word_digger New Member

Ransom Active Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

word_digger New Member

Ars New Member

Timotheus New Member

Barnabas H. <b>Oldtimer</b>

HeDied4U Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

John Wells New Member

word_digger New Member

Useful Searches

Judas Iscariot was the son of Simon Peter?

word_digger New Member

swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

word_digger New Member

Timotheus New Member

Chris Temple New Member

John Wells New Member

word_digger New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

true vine New Member

Chris Temple New Member

word_digger New Member

Ransom Active Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

word_digger New Member

Ars New Member

Timotheus New Member

Barnabas H. <b>Oldtimer</b>

HeDied4U Well-Known Member Site Supporter

John Wells New Member

word_digger New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

HeDied4U Well-Known Member
Site Supporter