The importance of Judas the Iscariot

[Nefelie]

~~~

According to many, the role of Judas was very important. Judas -which literally means "glorious"- it was he who helped Jesus complete his work. The work of Jesus was prearranged to be completed in a specific way: to be betrayed and crucified, in order to resurrect.

But who would betray him and why? Who could take on this task rather than one of his closest disciples and who of them would accept such a heavy load as this?

The importance of the act of Judas is certainly a difficult concept. The name Judas has been linked with betrayal. He is one who does not understand, who is weak, who remained a prisoner of matter and finally "made a serious and unforgivable mistake". But was it really a mistake?

The wording chosen by John the Evangelist is very interesting:

<<… 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. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly…>> [Jn 13:26-27]​

John the Evangelist is clear: the choice of betrayal was not of Judas but of Satan and Jesus, who seems to been addressing Satan -not in Juda- when telling him to do what he has to do.

Watching the story of Jesus after the betrayal of Judas, we see a series of crucial events, culminating to the death and Resurrection of Christ.
Jesus’ students scattered went to hide [Mt. 26:56]. It seems as if their love for their teacher was superficial.
Peter, who so earnestly earlier had declared his love and faith to his teacher [Mt. 26:35], now denies him [Mt. 26: 69-75].
The whole city is united and calls for condemnation while redeeming the criminal Barabbas. It seems as if humanity chose, showing it’s true face.

The betrayal of Judas triggered a sequence of betrayals. It is he who gave the opportunity to all to prove their faith, but all failed. And, as if that were not enough all this, Judah was the only one who later took responsibility for his actions, imposing on himself the ultimate penalty: death, with no hope of Resurrection.

The entire teaching of Jesus is based on his death and Resurrection. Without Judas there is no death and therefore no resurrection.

If you could go back in time, with the knowledge that you now have the history and the ability to change it, would you stop the betrayal of Judas?

~~~

 

[Tumah]

The name Judas comes from the Hebrew "Yehudah or Judah. Keep in mind, its common to add an /s/ suffix to names in Greek. The word is rooted in the word "להודות" "to thank" or "to admit".
The character of Judas is probably meant to be a metaphor for Judaism. The Hebrew word for Judaism is also cognate of Judah. Judas betrays Jesus (metaphorical for the Jews going against G-d) to the Sanhedrin (metaphorical for the NT claim of 'traditions of men') but without which there can be no climax to the Jesus story (metaphorically the Christian claim to authenticity through their "Jewish" root).

 

[wizanda]

If you could go back in time, with the knowledge that you now have the history and the ability to change it, would you stop the betrayal of Judas?

Nope, as if we read the Apocalypse of Abraham, it is the closest match to what is happening; the betrayal is all there to shorten the days of ungodliness, thus according to prophecy it was supposed to happen that way, to fulfill Zechariah 11.

The book of Judas (Jude) brother of James, thus the same person as Judas in the gospels...

Even goes against the whole Christian ideology, so there is more to what is going on than meets the eye; almost like Judas did it for Yeshua on purpose, as he knew the end affects.

Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they went in the way of Cain (to murder your brother), and ran riotously in the error of Balaam (to believe God requires sacrifice) for hire, and perished in Korah’s (stood against YHVH) rebellion.

 

[Nefelie]

The name Judas comes from the Hebrew "Yehudah or Judah. Keep in mind, its common to add an /s/ suffix to names in Greek. The word is rooted in the word "להודות" "to thank" or "to admit".

Thank you

I was following the BLB Strong’s Lexicon ( https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2455&t=KJV )

The character of Judas is probably meant to be a metaphor for Judaism. The Hebrew word for Judaism is also cognate of Judah. Judas betrays Jesus (metaphorical for the Jews going against G-d) to the Sanhedrin (metaphorical for the NT claim of 'traditions of men') but without which there can be no climax to the Jesus story (metaphorically the Christian claim to authenticity through their "Jewish" root).

Interesting connection!

But, what about the suicide of Judas?

~~~

Nope, as if we read the Apocalypse of Abraham, it is the closest match to what is happening;

So, you would agree that Judas should not be hated?

~~~

 

[Hawkins]

The entire teaching of Jesus is based on his death and Resurrection. Without Judas there is no death and therefore no resurrection.

What? Do you mean that without Judas it is impossible for someone else to betray Jesus?

It is more like to say that without Obama, now the american are in absence of a president.

If you could go back in time, with the knowledge that you now have the history and the ability to change it, would you stop the betrayal of Judas?

~~~

No, as it's pointless. Judas was given the best chance to be saved yet he missed it though God already knows who he is before hand.

 

[Tumah]

Thank you

I was following the BLB Strong’s Lexicon ( https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2455&t=KJV )

I'm not really sure what the basis is for that translation. Praise is a different word.

Interesting connection!

But, what about the suicide of Judas?

I would say its the hoped for end of Judaism.
The Jews finally feel remorseful for their evil ways. Judaism comes to an end, and Christ-ianity reigns among all.

It may be over-reaching, but both of the generally accepted ways that he died, hanging or in a field, could be understood as making a statement.
- The first way, hanging, immediately brings to mind the wicked Haman hung for his plot against the Jews. Here we have the "Jews" hung for their plot against Jesus. Sounds like Biblical justice.
- The second way has Judas dying in a field. The name of the field is "Akeldama" which is meant to be the Aramaic "ḥakel dama" "field of blood". Interestingly, we have statements from two 2nd century Rabbis referring to Heaven as the "field of apples". That presents an interesting dichotomy and perhaps suggest where the evil Jews go at the end. I see on Wikipedia, that there is also suspicion that Acts was being revised into the 2nd century.

 

[Skwim]

~~~

According to many, the role of Judas was very important. Judas -which literally means "glorious"- it was he who helped Jesus complete his work. The work of Jesus was prearranged to be completed in a specific way: to be betrayed and crucified, in order to resurrect.

But who would betray him and why? Who could take on this task rather than one of his closest disciples and who of them would accept such a heavy load as this?

The importance of the act of Judas is certainly a difficult concept. The name Judas has been linked with betrayal. He is one who does not understand, who is weak, who remained a prisoner of matter and finally "made a serious and unforgivable mistake". But was it really a mistake?

The wording chosen by John the Evangelist is very interesting:

<<… 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. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly…>> [Jn 13:26-27]​

John the Evangelist is clear: the choice of betrayal was not of Judas but of Satan and Jesus, who seems to been addressing Satan -not in Juda- when telling him to do what he has to do.

Watching the story of Jesus after the betrayal of Judas, we see a series of crucial events, culminating to the death and Resurrection of Christ.
Jesus’ students scattered went to hide [Mt. 26:56]. It seems as if their love for their teacher was superficial.
Peter, who so earnestly earlier had declared his love and faith to his teacher [Mt. 26:35], now denies him [Mt. 26: 69-75].
The whole city is united and calls for condemnation while redeeming the criminal Barabbas. It seems as if humanity chose, showing it’s true face.

The betrayal of Judas triggered a sequence of betrayals. It is he who gave the opportunity to all to prove their faith, but all failed. And, as if that were not enough all this, Judah was the only one who later took responsibility for his actions, imposing on himself the ultimate penalty: death, with no hope of Resurrection.

The entire teaching of Jesus is based on his death and Resurrection. Without Judas there is no death and therefore no resurrection.

If you could go back in time, with the knowledge that you now have the history and the ability to change it, would you stop the betrayal of Judas?

~~~

The way I read the story is that a man and woman inadvertently sinned (they were very guileless people and really didn't know much better) and infested the whole of humanity with a "virus" that condemned all of mankind to hell.
After some time of watching his creatures toast and roast in the fires of hell god had a change of heart. He decided to give them an "out." So to save some of his creatures from this fate god, in the guise as the human Jesus, came down to earth to do just that.
In order to effect this salvation god determined that, as Jesus, he would need to be crucified. Why a crucifixion in particular is anybody's guess.
But to do so he needed someone to betray him to the powers that be, in this case the Romans, who were quite adept at crucifixions.
This role of betrayer fell to his close friend and disciple, Judas Iscariot (Someone had to do it so why not Judas?)
Fulfilling his role to make sure mankind would be saved from hell, Judas ratted on god (Jesus), a task I'm sure he didn't relish.
In the end then, Judas "betrayed" Jesus so Jesus would be crucified, which in turn made it possible for those who believed his stipulations to be saved from hell.

So, instead of being reviled, Judas should be praised for his pivotal role in god's drama, insuring that the believer has a chance to avoid hell. In fact, one would think there would be a day set aside for just that; the Praise Saint Judas Sunday. July 10th, my birthday, seems to be open on the Calendar of Christian Holidays and Festivals.

What do say Christians? How about giving Judas his just due?

.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm not really sure what the basis is for that translation. Praise is a different word.

The noun הוד (hod), generally meaning splendor, majesty, vigor, glory or honor, occurs frequently in the Bible, from the authority or majesty of the king (Jeremiah 22:18) or a prophet such asMoses (Numbers 27:20), to the divine splendor of God (Psalm 104:1), and the splendor of Israel due to the blessings of God (Hosea 14:7 - his beauty will be like the olive tree).

The root-verb ידה (yada) means to confess, praise, give thanks. HAW Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament reports that 'the primary meaning of this root is "to acknowledge or confess sin, God's character and works, or man's character".'

Originally this verb probably meant to cast or throw (and - intuitively - seems to have to do with the noun יד (yad) meaning hand). Yet another by-form of this verb is ידד (yadad), meaning to cast, which is identical to the verb ידד (yadad), meaning to love; see the name David).

Remnants of this meaning of to cast can be found in Lamentations 3:53 and Zechariah 2:4. Then it moved to mean a private or national confession of sin (for instance in Leviticus 16:21, Aaron will praise over the scapegoat),

Is any of this accurate?

 

[Tumah]

Is any of this accurate?

That's interesting. I didn't think about that possibility. The root word is there, that's for sure. I'm not great at grammar in English, let alone Biblical Hebrew. I won't say its wrong. But since you are asking me, I'm more inclined to say that the translation of "praise" here is used because that's the correct English way of saying what's going on, even though its not a direct translation. For instance, Psa. 99:3 I see is translated as "Let them praise your name..." Its not wrong necessarily, but if I were to give a literal translation I would say, "let them admit your name is..." But that itself is a form of praise and in English, we wouldn't really use "admit" in this context. I can't think of other examples of this off hand, but I've come across it a few times, where an English word is used because it makes more sense in English even though its not a literal translation.

I'm not sure I agree about the connection between the root words יד (hand) and ידה (admit). Its not so rare for words to have similar roots even though the meanings seem to have no connection. Of the top of my head, the word חלב can either refer to 'milk' or a specific type of animal 'fat'. The word שמות can either mean 'names' or 'destruction'. Its just that since most roots only have 3 letters, there's bound to be some overlap. That's what I think anyway, but again, I'm neither an etymologist or an expert at grammar.

 

[wizanda]

So, you would agree that Judas should not be hated?

'We should love our enemies.'

 

[Sleeppy]

That's interesting. I didn't think about that possibility. The root word is there, that's for sure. I'm not great at grammar in English, let alone Biblical Hebrew. I won't say its wrong. But since you are asking me, I'm more inclined to say that the translation of "praise" here is used because that's the correct English way of saying what's going on, even though its not a direct translation. For instance, Psa. 99:3 I see is translated as "Let them praise your name..." Its not wrong necessarily, but if I were to give a literal translation I would say, "let them admit your name is..." But that itself is a form of praise and in English, we wouldn't really use "admit" in this context. I can't think of other examples of this off hand, but I've come across it a few times, where an English word is used because it makes more sense in English even though its not a literal translation.

I'm not sure I agree about the connection between the root words יד (hand) and ידה (admit). Its not so rare for words to have similar roots even though the meanings seem to have no connection. Of the top of my head, the word חלב can either refer to 'milk' or a specific type of animal 'fat'. The word שמות can either mean 'names' or 'destruction'. Its just that since most roots only have 3 letters, there's bound to be some overlap. That's what I think anyway, but again, I'm neither an etymologist or an expert at grammar.

I'm more interested in 'hod'.. Hod does mean glory?

 

[Sleeppy]

@Tumah found this, as well if you might just let me know what you think:

http://m.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379327/jewish/The-Weight-of-Eight.htm

 

[Sleeppy]

@Nefelie Really does seem as though Jesus was using Judas' name as a pun to describe the glorifying act of being delivered up.

 

[Tumah]

I'm more interested in 'hod'.. Hod does mean glory?

I looked it up in a book that explains words that share similar meanings. In this case, the two words in Psa. 21:6, 96:6, 111:3 and 104:1 'hod' and 'hadar'. From the explanation, the word hod refers to inner beauty. So glory can be a good translation of it.

@Tumah found this, as well if you might just let me know what you think:

http://m.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379327/jewish/The-Weight-of-Eight.htm

This is kabbalistic stuff. Its not going to elucidate the meaning of the word. If anything it will make it more complicated.

 

[Sleeppy]

And there was one of his disciples reclining (at meat) in the bosom of Jesus, whom Jesus was loving; Simon Peter, then, doth beckon to this one, to inquire who he may be concerning whom he speaketh, and that one having leant back on the breast of Jesus, respondeth to him, `Sir, who is it?' Jesus answereth, `That one it is to whom I, having dipped the morsel, shall give it;' and having dipped the morsel, he giveth [it] to Judas of Simon, Iscariot. And after the morsel, then the Adversary entered into that one, Jesus, therefore, saith to him, `What thou dost -- do quickly;' and none of those reclining at meat knew for what intent he said this to him, for certain were thinking, since Judas had the bag, that Jesus saith to him, `Buy what we have need of for the feast;' or that he may give something to the poor; having received, therefore, the morsel, that one immediately went forth, and it was night. When, therefore, he went forth, Jesus saith, `Now was the Son of Man glorified, and God was glorified in him; if God was glorified in him, God also will glorify him in Himself; yea, immediately He will glorify him.

Note, apparently 'yadad' means love. Now, consider that the disciple in Jesus' bosom, unnamed for some peculiar reason, is in fact Judas.

When I examined the etymology for all three names: Judas of Simon, Iscariot, I found even more parallels worth considering.

Simon: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Simon.html#.V2MlkvkpDqA
Iscariot: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Iscariot.html#.V2Ml4PkpDqB


Simon Peter asks the disciple reclining on Jesus, whom Jesus was loving, to ask Jesus who the disciple to deliver him up would be. That's an extremely strange thing to do. It only begins to make any sense whatsoever when you consider the name, Simon. Judas hears from Jesus and then reports to Peter, while all being within the same earshot.

 

[Tumah]

Note, apparently 'yadad' means love. Now, consider that the disciple in Jesus' bosom, unnamed for some peculiar reason, is in fact Judas.

Those are two different roots. The root of yedid is y-d-d, the root of Judas is y-d-h.

 

[oldbadger]

Very interesting thread!
Since the discussion is about Judas, I seek as much help as possible about him. I hope you don't mind me butting in.....
Here are some ideas........
I don't think that Judas Iscariot was his real name, but rather a name adapted for a gentile readership.....
Firstly, I think that Judas might have been Judah, and Tumah's post could support this idea.
Although Luke mentions in {22:3} that Judas was surnamed Iscariot........
.............
John mentions in {6:71} that Judas Iscariot was [the

son] of Simon. So his formal Galilean name might have been Judah BarSimon......
......which would mean that Judas Iscariot was a nickname. If you write that as Judah Sicario (say that ten times and it sounds very similar), then this might refer to the fact that the disciples knew that Judas had once been a hired killer or assassin??? They mostly did have nicknames!
So...... if, in the same way that Cephas became hellenised as 'Peter' or Petros, could Judah have become nicknamed 'Sicario'...?
Can ANYBODY tell me what the Galilean Aramaic would be for Hired Killer, or Assassin, or Hit-Man? That could have been Judas' true nickname.
....just a thought....

 

[Sleeppy]

Those are two different roots. The root of yedid is y-d-d, the root of Judas is y-d-h.

Right. It looks like they're saying the root for both words is yad or hand (and/or cast), and then they're attempting to connect the derivatives of that root together.

 

[Tumah]

Right. It looks like they're saying the root for both words is yad or hand (and/or cast), and then they're attempting to connect the derivatives of that root together.

I think roots are supposed to have three letters though. At least, by the time Jesus comes around, the language has developed far enough along as to make these roots distinct. But I guess I could be wrong.

 

[Sleeppy]

I think roots are supposed to have three letters though. At least, by the time Jesus comes around, the language has developed far enough along as to make these roots distinct. But I guess I could be wrong.

Maybe. I wouldn't wait for him.