Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJames Hastings Dictionary of the NT: Judas Iscariot
Subjects in this Topic:
The only biblical reference to Judas Iscariot by name outside the Gospels is Act_1:16-20; Act_1:25, and there he is called neither ‘Iscariot’ nor ‘the traitor’ ( ðñïäüôçò , as in Luk_6:16), nor is his action spoken of by the term ðáñáäéäüíáé . He is described in Luk_6:17 as the one who ‘became guide ( ὁäçãüò ) to them that arrested Jesus,’ and in Luk_6:20 as having ‘fallen away ( ðáñÝâç ) from the ministry and apostleship to go to his own place’ (see Place). It is interesting, however, to note the other allusions to our Lord’s betrayal in the Acts and in the Epistles. (1) In Act_3:13 St. Peter attributes it virtually to the Israelites themselves ( äí ὑìåῖò ðáñåäþêáôå êôë .; cf. Act_2:23), and so again (2) in Act_7:52 does St. Stephen ( ôïῦ äéêáßïõ ïὗ íῦí ὑìåῖò ðñïäüôáé êáὶ öïíåῖò ἐãÝíåóèå ). (3) In Rom_4:25 St. Paul, quoting Isa_53:12 (Septuagint ), says less definitely that Jesus our Lord ðáñåäüèç äéὰ ôὰ ðáñáðôþìáôá ἡìῶí ; (4) but in 1Co_11:23 the very act and time of betrayal are alluded to in connexion with the institution of the Last Supper ( ἐí ôῇ íõêôὶ ᾗ ðáñåäßäåôï êôë .). On the other hand, St. Paul three times describes the betrayal from the point of view of our Lord’s own voluntary submission, viz. (5) Gal_2:20 : ðáñáäüíôïò ἑáõôὸí ὑðὲñ ἐìïῦ ; (6) Eph_5:2 : ðáñÝäùêåí ἑáõôὸí ὑðὲñ ἡìῶí ; (7) Eph_5:25 : ἐáõôὸí ðáñÝäùêåí ὑðὲñ ἐêêëçóßáò (cf. 1Pe_2:23 : ðáñåäßäïõ ôῷ êñßíïíôé äéêáßùò , and see Joh_10:17-18; Joh_17:19 etc.); and once (8) even of the Father Himself ( ὑðὲñ ἡìῶí ðÜíôùí ðáñÝäùêåí áὐôüí , Rom_8:32).
As to Judas’s grievous end itself, as recorded in the Acts, it is not necessary here to compare it in detail with the account given in Mat_27:3 ff.; it is sufficient to say that in the present state of our information the two accounts are well-nigh, if not quite, irreconcilable. But various points in the Lucan record remain to be reviewed.
(a) St. Peter in his opening address at the election of St. Matthias infers that the inclusion of the traitor in the number of the apostles and his obtaining a share in their ministry was a mysterious dispensation by which was fulfilled the prediction of Psa_41:9, so recently quoted by our Lord Himself (Joh_13:18), together with its necessary consequences as foreshadowed in two other Psalms (Psa_69:25; Psa_109:8): that is, if Joh_13:20 be an original part of St. Peter’s speech, and not, as is possible, a part of the Lucan (or later) elucidation of the passage contained in Joh_13:18-19. In any case, all three quotations, but specially for our purpose now, the last two, are of interest as illustrating the free use made of the text of Scripture and its secondary application. In Psa_41:9 the actual wording bears little likeness to the Septuagint , being a more literal rendering of the Hebrew, while its original reference is to some treacherous friend (e.g. Ahithophel, the unfaithful counsellor of David). In Psa_69:25 the text is more exact, but the original figure employed ( ἡ ἔðáõëéò áὐôῶí , not áὐôïῦ ) suggests a nomad encampment of tents rendered desolate because of the cruel persecutions which their occupants had practised, while Psa_109:8 has in view one particular official, like Doeg or Ahithophel, who has been false to his trust, and therefore it is, to our modern notions, more appropriately and with less strain transferred to the case of Judas.
(b) The passage Joh_13:18-19, with or without Joh_13:20 (see above), would seem to be an editorial comment inserted in the middle of St. Peter’s address either by the author of the Acts himself or, as has been thought, by some later glossator or copyist. Of the latter view there is, we believe, no indication in the history of the text. If, as is more likely, therefore, it is due to St. Luke, he has here adopted an account of the traitor’s grievous end which is independent of, and in some details apparently irreconcilable with, St. Matthew’s (Mat_27:3 ff.), but to a less extent, we are inclined to think, than is sometimes held. For it is not out of keeping with eastern modes of treating facts for St. Luke to speak of the ‘field of blood’ being acquired by the traitor himself with the price of his iniquity (qui facit per alium, facit per se), which St. Matthew more accurately says was actually purchased by the chief priest, whilst the horribly graphic description of his suicide is little more than a conventional way of representing St. Matthew’s simple ἀðåëèὼí ἀðÞãîáôï .
(c) For the title Akeldama and its interpretation see separate article, s.v.
It remains to remark that St. Peter’s expression, as recorded in his address, and the apostolic prayer of ordination, for which he was probably responsible and the mouthpiece, breathe much more of the spirit of primitive Christianity in their restrained and chastened style than the more outspoken and almost vindictive statements of Joh_13:18-19, so that one would not be altogether surprised to find that the latter are, as has been suggested, a less genuine tradition of a later age.
C. L. Feltoe.