Our view of Judas

John 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

Jesus did tell Judas to go to betray Him. But He knew Judas heart. Judas was the son of perdition

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

 

If Judas had left the Last Supper to follow instruction from Jesus, then Jesus would not have called him a son of perdition, as standingfirminChrist points out above.

Judas' sin was the essence of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, because he was going against what he KNEW to be true, and the Holy Spirit is, as Jesus said, the Spirit of Truth. In Romans 1 we read that God's wrath is poured out on those who suppress the truth (which means they must be aware of it in order to suppress it!) by their wicked actions. These people are eventually given over to the lie.

I hope that helps a bit.

 

Are you referring to some authors who try to excuse Judas?

Jesus did not excuse Judas even though the Scripture was being fulfilled through him.

Matthew 26
24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.

 

But did Judas believe in Jesus enough to realise he was the Christ?

 

Perhaps his works were enough to cause him to lose his salvation? "For by grace are you saved through faith, plus you can't commit certain works..."

 

Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed (Son of Perdition/Judas) and her seed; (Son of God/Jesus) it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Ac 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Ps 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.

12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.

13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

IMO, Judas, like the angels, had been "with God" (Jesus) and still betrayed him, and as there is "NO REDEMPTION" for the Angels, having been "With God", neither is redemption possible for Judas.

The "war" between the "SONS" of Satan/God won't be finished until Jesus returns.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Re 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, (on earth) and is not; (now) and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:

2Th 2:8 whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, (son of perdition) whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

 

I don't think so

John 6
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

 

So, Judas was an accuser; he was an adversary.

How many of us here have never accused someone unjustly, or been an adversary unjustly since becoming a Christian?

I know that I have accused people unjustly, and I've been an adversary unjustly. I repented, but that does not change the fact that I have been a devil.

 

And your point in relation to the debate question Hope of Glory?

.

HankD

 

All a "devil" is is "diabolos". He's an accuser, a slanderer, an adversary.

How many of us on this board have never done these things?

Being a slanderer does not condemn you to the lake of fire, whether you did it before you were saved or after. What determines whether we go to the lake of fire or not is whether we have accepted the free gift of salvation that has been offered to us and paid for by the finished work of Jesus on the cross.

 

I believe any reference to a devil in Scripture comes down to more than simple etymology, there was cultural understanding of the word also. When they spoke of a devil it was not just a slanderer or adversary, it is a very bad person.

In John 13:26-29 you'll notice no one but the disciple closest heard the words that Jesus spake about the dipping of the sop. So was Judas instructed? No, except by greed and Satan perhaps.

This Scripture ends the argument for me:

If Judas had the hope of heaven then I do not see how it could be said that it would have been better if he were never born.

MNW

 

Good point, MNW.

I do not believe heaven was Judas' final destination. In fact, in John 17, Judas is referred to as 'the son of perdition'. Perdition is defined in the Webster's 1828 Dictionary as the utter loss or destruction of the soul.

 

No Christian should ever have a hope of heaven. Every Christian should have an assurance of salvation. The hope is for glory in the coming Kingdom.

Bingo! It's not talking about spiritual salvation, it's talking about peishing. It's talking about losing your life in the coming Kingdom.

That's what Judas forfeited.

 

John 13:2 makes it clear where the betrayal of Jesus originated in Judas.

John 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

As to the meaning of "diabolos" Luke makes it clear what was happening with Judas betrayal of Jesus:

Luke 22:3 Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

The Scripture uses very strong language against Judas and IMO we should leave it at alone.

HankD

 

Hope of Glory,

Like the name by the way. However, I would contest your use and definition of the hope in our present context. The use of it in your name I would agree with... anyway...

If you run a search the NT uses the word hope some 50 times. The majority of those times refers to some thing, which by your definition of hope, would make the Scriptures wrong or inconsistent.

Here are two:

Scriptural hope I define as an assured joyful expectation.

There is a hope which involves chance and possibility, but that is not the Scriptural usage. In my opinion...

MNW

 

The Scriptures are never inconsistent, and the word can never mean what you seem to think it means.

When it comes to power, it is His power that we need, and that power is the power of the resurrection! The ones who are believing (present tense; those who are living faithful lives), those are the ones who need to know the exceeding greatness of power to us-ward who believe, as Scripture tells us in Ephesians 1:19-22.

Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory! God has a glory, but a Christian can also have glory. What is the glory for a child of God? We have the hope of glory. Do we hope that you are saved? You should know that you are saved! [Acts 16:31 gives us that assurance in one verse.] But, the hope of glory has to do with the hope of ruling and reigning in the coming Kingdom. It’s the hope of ruling in the millennial age! We need to be seeking first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness!

Vol. 4: Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament, from Baker's Greek New Testament library, by Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, Louw and Nida’s Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (Vol. 1, Page 295), from the United Bible societies, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Moulton’s Analytical Greek Lexicon, The Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by Greene, and the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (also known as the BDAG for short), all of which are considered standards in the field of Greek Lexicons, define the verb form as “to look forward to something, with implication of confidence about something coming to pass, to hope, or to hope for; to look forward to something in view of the measures one takes to ensure fulfillment; expect”. The noun form is defined as, “the looking forward to something with some reason for confidence respecting fulfillment, hope, expectation, that which is the basis for hoping, foundation of hope, that for which one hopes, something hoped for”. (These definitions are actually from the BDAG, but all the definitions are along these lines; I have the full list quoted above, if you want them.)

Hope means to look forward with confidence to that which is good and beneficial; to hope, to hope for, hope. Some examples can be found in Luke 24:21, which says, “and we had hoped that he would be the one who was going to redeem Israel”; 1 Timothy 4:10, which says, “because we have placed our hope in the living God”; Acts 23:6 in which Paul says, “I am on trial (here) because I hope that the dead will rise to life”; Romans 15:4: “in order that through patience and encouragement given by the Scriptures we might have hope.”

Hope means to expect, with the implication of some benefit; to expect, to hope. In Luke 6:34-35, we find, “And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” An example using “that which is hoped for” can be found in Romans 8:24, which says, “when what is hoped for is seen, there is no longer any need to hope”. The word can be used to reference that which constitutes the cause or reason for hoping; the basis for hope, the reason for hope. 1 Thessalonians 2:19 says, “for who is the basis for our hope or joy?” This expression in 1 Thessalonians 2.19 may be rendered as, “for who is the one who causes us to hope and to have joy [to be happy]?”

 

I do not believe the Word is ever inconsistent I also believe.

I am not so sure our definitions are a world apart.

Strong's Concordance has:

So, even with your definition, why can I not say I have a hope of Heaven.

I want to clarify, I believe hope means a joyful, assured expectation. It does not solely mean a potential future benefit or good.

Are you saying that hope means only to have a wish or desire for something?

I know I am saved and that is why I have hope (a joyful, assured expectation).

Where are we differing here?

MNW

 

In a simplistic form and in different words: Faith has to do with belief and trust of past events RE: The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hope has the same quality of certainty of a future event promised by God as does faith in past events. RE: The Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, etc.

HankD

 

We have assurance of the resurrection, the second coming, etc.

We have a hope of running the race well and receiving crowns.

We also have assurance that if we run well, then treasures will be laid up for us.

Strong's is only a concordance and it relates the way the words are used in whatever it is a concordance of. In this case, the KJV. Young's concordance is a concordance for Young's Literal Translation.

A lexicon, however, defines the words. The BDAG is the ultimate authority on the Greek language, unless your theology requires words to mean "something else".

I have read countless commentaries which are commenting on particular passages who will say, "It says this, which obviously means something else", when there is no reason to think that it's anything but literal.

I don't have a hope of being saved; I am saved. As such, I will be in heaven. However, I do have a hope that if I run the race well, I will receive what I have been promised.