Gathering all the chief priests and elders he inquired about this king of the Jews. Matthew 2: 1-12.

 If you were hoping for a continued foray into the book of Romans, I must apologize because I am an obsessive multitasker. I had been feeling like I needed to do as I started almost twenty years ago, to read through the New Testament slowly while writing down my thoughts and questions as I went. I really did not want to disrupt your lives if you should be meticulously following me, but since everything in scripture is connected, just as the “New Testament” could NOT exist without the supporting words found in the Old. To my Jewish friends (I wish,) the Torah and Tenach. So it should all be good.

I also know that what I write includes so much of my heart and a strong disgust for religious zealots who add to the law, distort it, and impose their traditional teachings, merely because that is the way we have always taught some portion of scripture. Sadly, this is how I was taught and why I write, so that you and I can hopefully see the truth. 

On a humorous note, there is an old story where on a particular family holiday, one of the younger daughters, helping in the kitchen, asked the great-grandmother why they cut the ends off the roast before putting it in the oven? The reply changed everything that day as great-grandmother replied, I did it because my oven was too small. I will leave you to think about that.

 The next thing we encounter in Matthew’s gospel is,

The Visit of the Wise Men

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”
(Matthew 2:1-2 NASB)

Magi, what did they want and why were they demanding answers from Herod?

One brother in Christ, who is very skillful in the Word of God, explained that one of the roles of the Magi was to be kingdom changers, (Consider that this knowledgeable man had to look at other information, not contained within the pages of the Bible to make his valid assertion. I only point this out because a “brother in Christ” verbally lashed out at me, saying I do not believe that we should use extra-biblical texts and information to form our thoughts about God and scripture.) The Magi were the group of men that Daniel, as a young man, had been assigned to and eventually became the head of, while remaining a captive in Babylon.

Seeing the size of the entourage and perceiving a threat to his power, Herod went into panic mode and called the chief priests and elders before him to tell him what they knew about this situation.

“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.”
(Matthew 2:3-4 NASB)

“When Herod the king heard this.”

What did he hear?

“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”

Since when has the Middle East changed so that you can merely gather up a large, armed crowd and go rolling up to another kingdom’s gates unannounced and immediately expect an audience with a king known to live in fear? It hasn’t, and so I don’t expect that was the case here, but the word was received and taken to the king. 

Now, what does the fearful man, Herod, do? 

He consults the people who most likely know the answer, the Jews, as they should know the prophecy.

All prophecy, like a criminal court case, must have two or three witnesses, one of those witnesses is found in the Book of Daniel. It is not likely that Herod, being a half-Jew, would have studied Daniel chapter seven, as it plays a significant role in testifying to what the angel declared to Mary as he explained the function of the child that she carried.

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have” no end.”
(Luke 1:32-33 NASB)

So, no, Herod would not know these words that we see in Luke’s gospel, as they were written long after Herod’s death, and that makes his fear and the lack of reaction by the elders even more peculiar.

The Magi, on the other hand, may have read Daniel's words with intensity.

“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away, And His kingdom is one Which will not be” destroyed.”
(Daniel 7:13-14 NASB)

The reply of the elders is alarming to me.

“So they, “told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a ruler who will shepherd My people Israel.’”
(Matthew 2:5-6 TLV)

They knew the answer to the question, but do we have any record that they went there and bowed before this new king?

Not at all. Herod responds to this by double-checking. Perhaps because even Herod could see that these magi are taking this king being born seriously and he calls them in to speak with them.

“Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star had appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem “and said, “Go and search carefully for the Child. And when you have found Him, bring word back to me so that I may come and worship Him” as well.”
(Matthew 2:7-8 TLV)

With terminology such as “determined from them the exact time,” Herod now has a ballpark idea of how old this new king is; and nothing will happen until they come back to Herod and give him the word of exactly where to find the child. Watch what the magi do.

“After listening to the king, they went their way. And behold, the star they had seen in the east went on before them, until it came to rest over the place where the Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with” great gladness.”
(Matthew 2:9-10 TLV)

These magi had not yet found the child but they will. They will not go back for the child's protection. Notice where the family is now living.

“And when they came into the house, they saw the Child with His mother Miriam; and they fell down and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their own country by another way.”
(Matthew 2:11-12 TLV)

Never once do you see the number three, what you do see are three specific names: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. A key word here is treasures, as the quantity may have been great and enough to sustain the family for several years. We, because of the age bracket that Herod ordered killed, would logically assume the age of Yeshua to be about two as they take off to the safety of Egypt.

“Now when they had gone (the magi), behold, an angel of Adonai appears to Joseph in a dream (so he has had a couple of these over the last few years), saying, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the Child, to kill Him.” So he got up, took the Child and His mother during the night, and went to Egypt. Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of Adonai appears to Joseph in“a dream, saying, “Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the Child, to kill Him.” So he got up, took the Child and His mother during the night, and went to Egypt. He stayed there until Herod’s death. This was to fulfill what was spoken by Adonai through the“prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My son.” Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became furious. And he sent and killed all boys in Bethlehem and in all its surrounding area, from two years old and under, according to the time he had determined from the magi.”

(Matthew 2:13-16 TLV)

Astronomy.com tells us that “On the morning of August 12 in 3 B.C ., Jupiter and Venus would’ve sat just 1/10th a degree apart in the dawn sky. That’s one-fifth the diameter of the Full Moon. (The December 2020 conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn will have an identical separation, albeit in the evening sky.) That wasn’t the end of the show, either. Venus and Jupiter continued their dance over most of the next year before finally appearing to merge into a single star in June.”

So approximately August of C.5 Christ was born.? (I am still not clear. If time is based on this dramatic change called Jesus birth, all I wanted or needed was a solid time frame that I could start with. If this is based upon Christ, it would seem that this timeline information puts the starting point at five months. An obvious fact is that He was NOT born at six months old, we also know that the shepherds were with their flocks, and that tends to put His birth far enough into the season for shepherds to be working the flocks comfortably in the hillsides.) At the age of two, his family takes him to Egypt to protect him. History, (and I must admit this is rather sketchy), records that Herod died around April 4 B.C., therefore it would seem that the family was only in Egypt for slightly over a year. The presumption then is that Jesus was brought back to Nazareth when He was four or five.

Why is this information important?

First, this has never been clear in my head, and that may be because no one ever talked about it. Secondly, questions occasionally arise about Jesus from toddler to maturity, which in the Jewish culture seems to be about age 13, a time when the sons are required to step up and learn their father's trade. Three, I made the mistake of reading Kahlil Gibran's book Jesus the son of Man. The title alone should tell you something about the lack of understanding and possible disrespect the man had for Jesus. A point that Mr. Gibran tried to make was that Jesus may have been a malicious brat, as he allegedly injured animals and then healed them. Sorry, but that did not sound right then nor does it sound right now. 

After the incident where the family, while in Jerusalem, had to go looking for Jesus, a 12-year-old child, they found Him in the temple where He had been for two days discussing with the Jewish leaders the scriptures. Remember, all they had were the law and the prophets, and they were precious and expensive scrolls, that only the richest of synagogues had copies. So learning the scriptures was almost exclusively through repetitious hearing.

A problem with this entire process. If your child had a disability would you focus on that, merely enabling that they lean upon that disability, or would you focus on their ability? In Jesus' case, He, by those who knew about His birth, would have been called a mumzer – an illegitimate child; and those same people had a long history, based on the law, that allowed them to treat a child like this poorly. As far as I can see, Jesus, had He been known, would have been violently expelled from the temple. An answer to this lies in the outer courts of the temple, as these were accessible to even the gentiles.

The final thought on this tells us that after His parents found Him, and I am sure expressed their displeasure at Him being lost, is that Jesus submitted Himself wholly to their wishes until He was old enough, able to take care of Himself and act on His own accord. I am thinking now of Mary. As the eldest son Jesus would have probably been the one to care for her after Joseph died. Keep in mind that Mary continued to have other children and several of them, including sisters, may have taken that role.

We, don't see support from the other family members, nor do we hear anything about siblings until the day that they came to restrain Him – so to speak.

“When His family heard about this, they went out to take hold of Him; for they were saying, “He’s out of His mind!” 

(Mark 3:21 TLV)

He conflicted with the 600+, additional Jewish laws, but He was amazingly kind to the down and out while excoriating the scribes and the“Pharisees.

“Then His mother and brothers come. Standing outside, they sent word to Him, summoning Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they tell Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.” Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Looking at those sitting in a circle around Him, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.” 

(Mark 3:31-35 TLV)

If Mary (Miriam) had not been the surrogate mother of Jesus we would probably never hear of her either.

I decided to post this, even though it is not, in my mind, done. 

I do not elaborate like this merely to convince you to think negatively about Jesus, just the opposite is true. If you happen to be one that thinks that every God aspect was little more than some high-speed download, I think that is illogical and works in opposition to His mission here on earth. Remember, He came as man and defeated Satan, as a human.

We have learned that Joseph, "his father," was a righteous man, some translations refer to Joseph as a good man. To be deemed a righteous man indicates that he was known among the synagogue crowd, as one that took notes (just kidding) and paid attention. Because of this he fastidiously practiced the scriptures with Jesus. 

So, how did Jesus become so knowledgeable? 

Joseph, his foster father. Let that sink in. 

If you do not know my Jesus He is as close as your breath. Merely submit yourself to the greater power and ask Him into your life, then watch the changes begin to happen because the Holy Spirit has now entered, permanently, and will begin teaching you all things and showing you things to come. 

If the rapture has come, there is no denying when that happened. (Yes, I know that the government has put it off on aliens taking the "bad" Christians off the earth.) 

If the church is gone all hell will begin to break loose. 

Constant rioting in the streets and death will come from multiple directions. Those you thought would be on your side and protect you, will be trying to kill you. Injections will be mandated that are intended to kill you. Efforts to monitor your every move will be demanded. The earth and the water supplies will be poisoned. The oceans will be filled with death. Commerce will come to a halt. The economies will become digital and tightly controlled, but will all, in a matter of time, will collapse. This time on earth, as seen in Revelation six and beyond, will include God's anger against unbelieving humanity and the Jews who rejected God. 

Within days of the Church being removed the antichrist persona will come to the forefront. If you have access to a Bible (it will be a forbidden book,) you can read about the emergence of the antichrist.

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and (then) that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition,"                     (2 Thessalonians 2:3 Geneva)

Yes, I Americanized the old 15th-century wording, and yes, most translations use the phrase falling away. Just this morning, 3/11/23, I saw that the Church of England is now teaching four-year-old children, in their Sunday school class, about transitioning and perverted sex education. Try to convince me that we, the church, have not fallen over the cliff already. 

There is only one hope; it is Jesus, and if nothing else, make your life with Him personal. 

Trust me, once He touches your heart you will want to tell someone about Him.

Judas Iscariot, a character study. Part 3.

Some might ask why I am defending such a man. Primarily it is because an aspect of what we have learned inside the brick walls we call the church, has imposed bad teaching and skewed traditions upon us; in doing so we have developed into some of the most judgmental people you will ever meet. Do we as Christians run around with swords and guns imposing our will on people, as some groups do, hopefully not, but our words and teachings have a comparable effect.
Secondly, the question itself demonstrates a horrendous judgmental attitude by the one doing the asking, but I suppose, to some degree, it is a legitimate question.
I guess you can say I am standing up for Judas-Iscariot because I am a lot like the man. I too am Sick of my government lying to me; I am annoyed to tears about “law enforcement” bullying good people, while no one seems to care about the drug dealer next door to me; I am fed up with most organized religion, as it is no different today than when the chief priests and elders corroborated to kill Jesus; It grieves me that within the church body I scarcely find anyone willing to focus on and talk about the Word of God (I am excluding those who, as one brother experienced, think they are learned, and therefore think they have the right to say whatever they want, including opinion, as they push some skewed teaching on us.) Oh sure, the men will talk sports, cars, and how important they are at their jobs, but God and the reality of life has no place in their lives, and most of these men, whether they have money or not, have credit cards and therefore put their faith in the credit card instead God – they are thus enabled to actively pursue their idols. So when it comes to “men” who will talk about Godly things I am only aware of a handful, and I sit regularly with two of them.

There is a point to most of this ranting; I am painfully aware that the things going on around us are a part of the birth pains, known as Jacob's troubles depending upon the translation you use. (You will find the reference to Jacob's troubles in Jeremiah 30:7.) All this is a lead into the time of God's wrath; the seven-year period we so foolishly call the “Tribulation.”
We, as followers of Christ, have been given the power and authority to stand against much of this onslaught, and it is coming in many forms. Most recently France, with the yellow vest protests, has withstood some ridiculous taxation and it seems, for the moment, they won that battle. Sadly, some of us will die (Matthew 26:52.)

Judas-Iscariot was no worse or better than any of the disciples. Are we not told that “all have sinned and come short”? (Romans 3:23)

I have made comments in defense of Judas-Iscariot below the bulleted points. The original document has, for the most part, been turned into bulleted points and paragraphs are highlighted in bold type.

• In fact, Judas was empowered to do what he did by the devil himself: “As soon as Judas took the bread [that Jesus had given him], Satan entered into him” (John 13:27).

Let's take this verse one step further.
John 13:25-27 NIV Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" (26) Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish."Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.  (27) As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, "What you are about to do, do quickly."
The "he" in this passage is Peter; so can I assume that Peter knew who it was that was going to betray Jesus. The inference is reasonably direct, and yet John 13:28 tells us that NO ONE understood what was happening.
One other thing I noticed as I read John 13:27, “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” We always assumed that Jesus was talking directly to Judas-Iscariot, but what if He wasn't? What if the statement, “what you are about to do, do quickly,” was directed at Satan? Think about the interactions Jesus had with Peter and the demonic. How did he speak? He spoke directly to the demon(s) and ordered them to come out. Anyway, it's just a thought.

If I stick with the NIV, I get a point-blank inference that Satan entered into Judas. So let's examine that and see if it is a true statement.
The Greek word for entered is eiserchomai and means (According to Thayer'sDefinitions) 1) to go out or come in: to enter; 1b) of Satan taking possession of the body of a person.
So, yes, it is true that Satan entered Judas.
What does Satan entering Judas do to the previous three years and events in Judas' life? Nothing. Get serious; there is not a man on the face of the earth that is immune to Satan's deception unless they have accepted Jesus as the Lord of their life, receive the power of the Holy Spirit, and get firmly planted in God's word; then, you stand a chance.

It seems like being a follower of Jesus Christ would be firm and common ground, but spend a little time in recovery and you will see that people fall off the wagon with regularity. Every few months they come dragging themselves back to meetings, not understanding what they did, or what happened in their religious moment at some altar or a church bench. This lack of understanding opens the door for Satan to run them ragged.

How about those who think they are the pillars of the church; can they be deceived and battered about? Absolutely. The Apostle Paul, in his letter to Timothy, instructs the young man about moving in gentleness and wisdom toward people who seem to betray their salvation, when in fact, they have been taken captive by Satan at his will.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, (25) with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, (26) and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

If Satan can snare a believer, then he can catch Judas as well.

• The other disciples had no clue that Judas Iscariot harbored treacherous thoughts.

This idea that the other disciples had no clue seems to be a contradiction to most everything the authors of this treatise have conveyed. It is, however, a true statement, because, as I said moments ago, when I pointed out John 13:28, that none of them understood what was going on.

• When Jesus mentioned a betrayer in their midst, the other disciples worried that it was they who would prove disloyal (John 13:22).

True

• No one suspected Judas. He was a trusted member of the Twelve.

True

• Even when Jesus told Judas, “What you are about to do, do quickly,” (John 13:27), and Judas left the Last Supper, the others at the table simply thought Judas had been sent to buy more food or to give something to charity (verses 28–29).

True

• Judas Iscariot betrayed the Lord with a kiss, perfectly in keeping with his brazen duplicity (Luke 22:47–48).

Again, that word betrayal. Luke indicated a kiss most likely because it was dark (I say this because they had tried or wanted to kill Jesus on several occasions. The Jewish council knew who he was and what he looked like. They may not have known precisely where he was that night,) who Jesus was.
Judas-Iscariot's actions fulfilled several prophetic words that night; and, played precisely into a Godly timeline that was to be achieved only a few hours from this moment.

• After committing his atrocious act, Judas “was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders” (Matthew 27:3). But we learn that remorse does not equal repentance—rather than make amends or seek forgiveness, “he went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5).

The Complete Jewish Bible translation tells us that “he was seized with remorse.” Few other translations treat Judas so kindly. Most read something like this, Matthew 27:3 NASB Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,”

Saw is the Greek word eidō and means to perceive with the eyes, notice, discern, and discover, among others.

Condemned is the Greek word katakrinō and means judged worthy of punishment.

Some questions: if Judas truly wanted Jesus to die because of this so-called “betrayal,” why would he care what became of Jesus?

We are told that Judas-Iscariot saw (perceived) that he had been condemned. From whom and how did this perception come? Did it come from Jesus? I don't think so, and we never see any interaction between the two after the kiss in the garden.

Did the condemnation come from the other disciples? Quite possibly, however, only those who were in the upper room and then the garden would have been aware of what transpired.
Could the condemnation come from the chief priests and elders, the same ones who lured Judas in, that they could have Jesus killed? This type of behavior would have been a common occurrence for them.

Felt and remorse are merely the same Greek word used twice. It is because of conjunctive words, that the meaning can be ascertained as “feeling remorse.” Old English, however, can occasionally be a poor translation and it mandates that we pursue the alternative possibilities from a concordance.
The Greek word is metamellomai and means to care afterward, regret, and repent, denoting a change of place or condition, and mélomai, mid. of mélō (n.f. see mélei[G3199], to concern), to be concerned.
So when we talk of repentance in the Christian community, aren't we talking about 180 degree turns from that troublesome thing or a change in condition?
All these words are religiously applied to repentance, and yet we can't find any room for that in Judas-Iscariot.
So I could read Matthew 27:3 as, when Judas Iscariot determined what the Jewish council's real intent was, he had a deep concern about delivering Jesus over to the Jewish council; as he has now learned their hidden agenda was to have Jesus killed.

© Copyright 2002-2018 Got Questions Ministries.



www.GotQuestions.org

Judas Iscariot, a character study. Part 1.

This study originated from a Bible study on Hebrews, led by a man I know. During the evening's bible study my friend, in reference to eternal security, added his thoughts on Judas-Iscariot, by adamantly declaring, Judas Iscariot went to hell.
I have several problems with a statement like that, but the Holy Spirit told me to hold my tongue until after the meeting was over and I could address his out of line and adamant statement quietly. I did just that and told him briefly the reasons why I disagreed with him.
Having spelled out some aspects of what you will find in this rebuttal, my friend responded with, “well, we just don't know everything,” and I agreed, we don't. I hoped that he would never speak with such adamancy about something he doesn't understand. The next day I got a text message from him. In that message, he said, “my wife and I have discussed this, and Judas may have felt remorse, but he never repented;” he added, “there is a difference you know.” and quickly tried to define those differences. I responded with, “I will study this character Judas-Iscariot more closely soon, but not today. Until then, I must continue to err, if that is what I have done, I will do so on the side of mercy.
My friend then sent this link and said, “I get much of my understanding from this website https://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-Iscariot.html. I obtained the arguments against Judas from these people. Assuming, and it's an easy assumption, that my friend and several thousand others like him, feel just as adamantly about Judas-Iscariot, I decided to pursue this character study on Judas-Iscariot. Let me add, that this is not the first time I have heard such anger, judgment, and lack of understanding about some Biblical character.
I have made comments which can be seen below the bulleted points.
The original document has, for the most part, been turned into bulleted points and highlighted in bold type.

Question: "Who was Judas Iscariot?"

Answer: Judas Iscariot is typically remembered for one thing: his betrayal of Jesus.
If I were to ask you why Judas is only thought of as a betrayer and thief, you might say, well, for one thing, scripture, such as John's gospel, in particular, directs us to think that way.
Alright, that is a reasonable response, that is until you begin looking at the words, as found in concordances. For there you will see that they can have several meanings and I frequently find that the alternate wording better fits the context.
Let's say you cling to the KJV as it is often represented as the authorized version. Yes, it was commissioned by King James, with whom they pleaded against continued efforts as the language alone was outdated by the time they published the limited and expensive copies they could make.
So, the authors answer to his own question is given above, and it statesJudas is typically remembered for one thing: his betrayal of Jesus. There are other things about him such as he was one of the original, handpicked, disciples, but you don't think about that until you do something as peculiar as writing an eleven-page thesis in defense of a man who may not be in hell, as some prescribe.

• He was one of the twelve disciples who lived with and followed Jesus for three years.

And therefore, a part of the inner circle. As far as I can see you never let the spy or betrayer into the inner circle unless you have a higher, more significant plan; and Jesus did.

• He witnessed Jesus’ ministry, His teaching, and His many miracles.

They (the disciples) were all given the mission to go out and heal the sick and cast out demons, and Judah Iscariot was included. However, Judas apparently had to be placed at the back of the listing, and Mark, among the others, had to mention the betrayal.
Mark 3:10-19 MKJV For He had healed many, so that they pressed on Him in order to touch Him, as many as had plagues.  (11) And unclean spirits, when they saw Him, they fell down before Him and cried, saying, You are the Son of God! (12) And He strictly charged them that they should not make Him known. (13) And He went up into a mountain and called near those whom He would. And they came to Him.  (14) And He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them out to proclaim,  (15) and to have authority to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons. (16) And He put on Simon the name Peter.  (17) And He put on James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James, the names Boanerges, which is, the Sons of Thunder.  (18) And HeappointedAndrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite,  (19) and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. And they went into a house.

• He was the treasurer for the group and used this trusted position to steal from their resources (John 12:6).

John was the only one to mention this act. Even under Mosaic law, judgments we make against others, are only legitimized by the mouths of two or three witnesses. Let's say Judas Iscariot's stealing from the bag is a true statement, then what am I to gather from it? That this action on the part of Judas was never a concern for Jesus or most of the disciples. When Jesus told the disciples to provide for the thousands gathered on the hillside that first day, they never said, we do not possibly have enough money.

• Judas was a common name in that era, and there are several other Judases mentioned in the New Testament. One of the other disciples was named Judas (John 14:22), and so was one of Jesus’ half-brothers (Mark 6:3).

The fact that Judas is a common name of the day is an irrelevant point to make; it does, however, address the need to specify which “Judas” you are speaking about.

• To differentiate, John 6:71 and John 13:26 refer to Christ’s betrayer as “Judas, son of Simon Iscariot.”

Sadly, Judas is always mentioned last in the apostolic lists of names and continuously with the notation that he was the one who betrayed Jesus. There is nothing in the gospels to suggest that he was set aside or treated differently from any of the twelve, even though Jesus knew what his future actions would be.
Scholars have several ideas about the derivation of the surname.

• One is that Iscariot refers to Kerioth, a region or town in Judea.
• Another idea is that it refers to the Sicarii, a cadre of assassins among the Jewish rebels. The possible association with the Sicarii allows for intriguing speculation about Judas’ motives.
• The fact that he made a conscious choice to betray Jesus (Luke 22:48) remains the same.
• The surname Iscariot is useful because it leaves no doubt about which Judas is being addressed.

None of the above information, about his name and the town he is from, is provable and therefore pure speculation.
Here are some of the facts we glean from key verses about Judas and his betrayal:

• Money was important to Judas. As already mentioned, he was a thief,

If John had not brought it up, would it even be an issue?
The assertion that money was important to Judas alone is purely conjecture and irrelevant.
People steal all the time; some steal by cheating on the time clock, or by merely taking a pen from a desk. We all have a sin nature, and it drives us, just as it drove Judas Iscariot.
Peter, as we should be aware, had a family to support and a house to maintain; perhaps he needed a steady supply of money as well, and yet, we see very little money involved in the life of Jesus and the disciples, outside of paying taxes on one occasion, and that money came out of a fishes mouth.

• And, according to Matthew 26:13–15, the chief priests paid him “thirty silver coins” to betray the Lord.

None of the disciples were there to hear or witness the transaction between the chief priests and Judas; so all we have is an assumption as to how we came to know what happened in that private meeting. It may be that Judas was vocal enough to convey how he felt, and it seems that his greatest motivation was to force Jesus to step forward as the warring Messiah for which they all longed. Since all the theories put forth about why he did it are conjectural, then this statement I made about Judas motivation is as well; but, it is logical and here is why:
When Jesus rode into town on a young colt that no one had ever ridden before He was riding on the best that could be offered for that period, and, it was a very significant event as all of Israel's kings had done something similar. But this entrance was different, as the first thing He did after the big entrance, was to overthrow the tables of the vendors and money changing thieves, in the outer court of the temple and then verbally accost the Jewish leadership, for two days. The Jews, including Judas, anticipated that He would integrate into their system; and He did not.
Matthew 26:14-16 MSG That is when one of the Twelve, the one named Judas Iscariot, went to the cabal of high priests (15) and said, "What will you give me if I hand him over to you?" They settled on thirty silver pieces. (16) He began looking for just the right moment to hand him over.
The word betray is the Greek word paradidōmi and also means to surrender, that is, yield up, entrust, transmit:- commit, deliver(up).
Odd how the primary function of the word is to surrender. Thanks to the Apostle John's hostility, and some bad choices in translation we are mired down with the idea of betrayal.
For the author of this treatise to try to direct us into a wholehearted acceptance of their thesis demonstrates their lack of faith that we have the ability to think logically when given the facts; that the Holy Spirit is capable of leading and guiding us into truth, and, it establishes their lack of skill in presenting an apologetic.
Everyone, in the course of writing, and this includes the disciples and great theological minds, are trying to convince or direct you to see things their way. Historians, such as Josephus – a Jew under Roman rule, who had the task of recording the events of the day, had a strong motivation to make the one in control - Caesar or the Roman empire, look good. To do that they occasionally skewed history to make the current leader look better than he really was; such was the case with American history, and this skewing of a historical recollection may be the case with Judas Iscariot.
Bullet points and blocks of copy in bold have been extracted from Got Questions Ministries. I have done this to make their information distinct from my own thoughts and comments.
©Copyright 2002-2018 Got Questions Ministries.
www.GotQuestions.org

Why would John have to say that? John 1:18

English: Jesus and Nicodemus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Apostle John had just finished saying,

“John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” John 1:15-17 NASB

What the Apostle John had just said was almost too much to handle, and, keep in mind that John is addressing Jewish converts. A group that before receiving salvation seemed to struggle with the idea that Jesus was the Messiah/God in the flesh. He finished the thought with, “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.”

You can almost feel the tension in the air as they read this last statement.

I imagine the converts wanted to understand, but this needed to be chewed on for a moment. I can just picture John taking an intentional pause, breathing deeply, and then adding this next statement:

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” John 1:18 NASB

Why would John have to say that?

We have to go back to his opening lines and try to grasp how the minds received what he said. Some may have been wondering if Jesus still walked the earth. Besides, we are talking about the all mighty God, right?

You would think that the concepts the Apostle John was setting forth were already understood.

Even I can understand that the law of God came through the mouth of Moses, but if God conveyed what we typically see as anger and wrath through the law, then how do I embrace grace and truth, which almost seems in opposition to the law. Furthermore, how do I accept this “freedom” as being through Jesus, who was also here as God, or at least a representative of Him?

Let's try to grasp this for a moment.

• On two occasions Jesus spoke of how he and the Father are one. We find both of those detailed in John's Gospel: John 10:30 and John 17:22.
  When Jesus made the statement in John 10:30, the religious Jewish crowd (this probably consisted of the chief priests, elders, scribes, Pharisee, and Sadducees) reacted, and poorly. To them Jesus words were blasphemous, and, as you can see by their response, they were willing to stone Jesus to death.

John 10:31-33 NASB, The Jews, picked up stones again to stone Him. 32) Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33) The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

But what is the obvious problem for the religious Jews? They were not going to accept Jesus words. This is not true of all of them because of Nicodemus, one of the elders, came to Him by night. Nicodemus tells us that many believed. Believed what? Jesus word.

• Young's Literal Translation of John 17:22, gives another view of Jesus relating who He was when He said, “And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one as we are one;”
  Fairly direct, wouldn't you say?
• In Luke's gospel, chapter 22 verse 30, it is recorded that Jesus referred to the table of God as His table.

  “that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (NASB)

  
  
  But once again we have a problem.
  To whom is Jesus saying this? The disciples. We make the assumption that this means twelve men, but we find out that by the time the Holy Spirit fell on them all, there was as many as 120 who carried that title. If the message was that Jesus and God were one and they were excited about that aspect, then how and why would that have been prevented? Only through fear, intimidation, and threats, and that is exactly what the religious Jews did.
• I will end this rant with a passage from Mark's gospel.
  Held like a criminal before the high priest and elders, Jesus was challenged.

  Mark 14:60-64 NASB, The high priest, stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"

  
  
  As you can see, He answered them with “I am.”

  61) But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62) And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

  
  
  Those listening, and they were listening intently, heard every word. It didn't take lengthy discussion because they understood the implications of every word, comma, and period, and yes, I know that the Greek has no punctuation. The list of accusations was already sufficient and substantial. As soon as Jesus said these words, “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” the high priest intentionally ripped his garments.
  From Kenneth Wuest's Word Studies in the New Testament, we get this: “This tearing of garments was an old sign of mourning or sorrow first mentioned in Gen_37:29. The law forbad the high priest from rending his garments in the case of private troubles (Lev_10:6; Lev_21:10), but when acting as a judge, he was required by custom to express in this way his horror of any blasphemy uttered in his presence.” - Me, this was, of course, their interpretation, not knowing that Jesus was God.

  63) Tearing his clothes, the high priest *said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? 64) "You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

  
  
  We assume that this was the last straw for putting Jesus to death, but they had tried to kill him on many occasions. What we have to keep in mind is that death was a necessary price to pay for our redemption and a price that He paid willingly.

Now the question, why would the Apostle John have to say the things he said, comes full circle. Hopefully, I presented enough evidence to convince the Bereans among us, that Jesus was God. Do I fully grasp the concept? No, but I am not foolish enough to challenge the idea any longer, and my lack of understanding has created an insatiable desire to learn more completely these things the Jewish leadership understood – and yet repressed. This desire to know the God I choose to serve is the main reason I write, that and the horrific lack of knowledge we "followers" of Christ have about most anything when it comes to the Bible. Simply put, we choose to live in a world of fairy tales, such as David and Goliath, believing that David was just the cutest little twelve-year-old boy. Wake up! What fool would let a child attempt to defend a nation, knowing full well the horrors of enslavement that would befall all of Israel?

Setting the idea of fairy tales aside, the question now is, who do you say this Jesus is?

The answer is important, whether you believe it or not, because:

1. Jesus is coming soon to gather those who belong to him, back to himself.
2. This void left by a praying church will leave many here on earth to suffer the hateful indifference of a godless society; hell bent on the collection of riches. Their decisions, which we are already experiencing, include the killing of those associated with Christ.

While I am not the judge and do not know the hearts of those around me, God does, and the religious practices of these cult religions have shown them enough truth to understand that God is real and that the world around you, at this point, wants you dead.

All my life, practically living in the church, has sheltered me, to some degree, from the world. What that means is that I am thankful I did not develop a taste for most of what the world offers, like drugs and alcohol. What I did find myself consumed by was co-dependency, anxiety, depression, and a Viking-like anger that I used to keep myself safe (so I thought) from people who had the skills to push others around. [This idea of pushing people around is often subtle and done under the guise of people skills.] So, does growing up in church give me an advantage? Hardly, it puts you in the sights of individuals, who have a religious side to them but are almost as twisted and evil as the world.

I am not going to lie to you, growing up in the church was hard, it should not have been, but it was. Later on in life, after a wife cheated on me for the second time, I allowed myself to indulge in some Viking-like rage and ended up in a psych hospital for a month. Thankfully I learned some things about myself that enable me to walk calmly through most of those anger filled moments. To add to my grief, the psych staff asked me how long my parents had been alcoholics. Try to imagine the questions your mind throws at you in a moment like that, when, to my understanding, my parents have never touched alcohol and yet act like they guzzled the stuff. I still have trouble with it, and, have considered going to something like an Adult Children of Alcoholics group, just to see what help I could gain in understanding me.

All-in-all, I consider myself fortunate that I found Christ at such an early age because the life I lived in Christ gave me a foundation that was rich in a diversity that included: the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Because of those experiences I have felt all the emotions, I associate with a God that loves me, but spread over many years. Feelings, by the way, buy you nothing in the long run as we are expected to live this life by faith. The problem with years of experience is that the time frame is broad enough for me to become almost numb to it, or at least not react appropriately to the moving of the spirit. It is in those times that I remind myself, as the song says, of all that he has done. Yes, I remind myself, not only from a historical point of view but also of how Jesus has shown up in my life as well.

Jesus, make me yours!!

Related articles

• God will show up

Were there any witnesses?

That's the kind of question you might ask at a crime scene. Oh man, that just made me think of the safety films we had to watch at the phone company. A company vehicle waits for the train to go by and then pushes the accelerator hard unaware that a train is coming on the second set of tracks. Blam! The next question was, did you as a driver get out of your  vehicle and ask for witnesses.

Alright it wasn't exactly like that but there was a demand placed upon us as drivers to get witnesses because everybody out there was going to look at the large corporation as having deep pockets and  the story will quickly change and it will be your fault.

Wait a minute. The disciples did not put Jesus on that cross; how could anyone possibly say that it was their fault? 

It is an odd world we live in. One where wrong has now become right, if it is not solidly that way the fine citizens our nations are trying to make it so. Consider the demand that the same chief priests that put Jesus on the cross made of Pilate now that Jesus was dead. They demanded that Pilate put a guard at the tomb because those scoundrels talked about him rising from the dead after three days and we do not want them stealing the body and making false claims that it happened that way.

There would  be only one good way to combat false claims, witnesses.

I presented the earlier post with a focus on Mary Magdalene. I believe she is secondary to the theme, but John has given her a status almost on a level with Peter. Peter was a father of the early church; did Mary Magdalene carry that kind of importance or weight? Not that I know of. Why then is Mary focused on here?

I can conjecture, based on knowledge, that Jesus, at a time when women were as useful as cattle, raised them up, showed them respect, and given a golden opportunity to condemn one, (This occurred one Sabbath as he was teaching a crowd that gathered around him in the outer court of the temple.) he diverted those that accused her, forgave her, and sent her on her way.

John 20:2 NASB So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."

This is another place where John tells only what he needs the reader to understand, and here he focuses on Peter by not mentioning her name again.

I suspect that John cared deeply for Peter. After three years you are either like family or you cannot stand the sight of each other, and John was keenly aware of how the events of the last week have affected Peter.

John's gospel, written to the Jewish community of believers, by most accounts almost 90 years after Jesus death, did not focus on the negative impact Jesus death had on Peter, but on Peter's importance. Anyone studying John's gospel has seen Peter's struggles. In fact all the disciples struggled. As much as we want to believe that the thoughts in their heads were filled with sunshine and flowers they were not. One of the prominent examples of this is when Thomas challenges Jesus with what he sees as utter foolishness.

John 11:14-16 NASB  So Jesus then said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead,  (15)  and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him."  (16)  Therefore Thomas, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, so that we may die with Him."

To give Peter the prominence here is notable and may have had a deeper meaning to the early Jewish church.

Mark's gospel does not show Mary Magdalene running with determination to find Peter, but being instructed to do so they fled in bewilderment and seemed to say nothing to anyone for a time. You can read one version and walk away satisfied that you have all the answers in the world; at least for the moment. If I only read John's version then many of the characters get to leave their super hero capes on. But the reality is, they were human.

Mark 16:1-7 NIV When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. (2) Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb (3) and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" (4) But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. (5) As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. (6) "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. (7) But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'" Mark 16:8 NASB They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The fact that the gospels vary in retelling the story merely demonstrates how others interpreted it, or how it affected them. It is said that Mark's gospel was conveyed to him by Peter. Considering that Mark's gospel had been written before John's, and John may have read it, does that diminish what transpired? 

The point is that there were verifiable witnesses, a central focus of John's gospel. 

Ask yourself a question. Given the comparisons of the gospels and that no one indicated Mark was there; how would he have known any of this?

Introduction to Mark's gospel. Written between 50 and 65 AD

".... the writer of it was not one of the twelve apostles, but an evangelist; the same with John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark: John was his Hebrew name, and Mark his Gentile name, Act_12:12, and was Barnabas's sister's son, Col_4:10, his mother's name was Mary, Act_12:12. The Apostle Peter calls him his son, 1Pe_5:13, if he is the same; and he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from him (a), and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by him (b) it is said to have been wrote originally in Latin, or in the Roman tongue: so say the Arabic and Persic versions at the beginning of it, and the Syriac version says the same at the end: but of this there is no evidence, any more, nor so much, as of Matthew's writing his Gospel in Hebrew. The old Latin copy of this, is a version from the Greek; it is most likely that it was originally written in Greek, as the rest of the New Testament." (John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)

"Mark wrote to a community that needed to be reminded that God heard prayers and would work through their witness and faith; they also needed to be reminded that this might cost them their lives in persecution. Finally, they could be reminded through the failure of the disciples in Mark that if they had not yet achieved the radical lifestyle their Lord’s words demanded, he would still work with them patiently to help them get to that level of commitment." (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, Copyright © 1993 by Craig S. Keener)

I add this because I keep hearing it in my head. 

Those that record history tend to show a favorable spin to the one that pays them. You can see some of this as you dip into Josephus or Tacitus' recollections of Jewish interactions with Rome. Mark's gospel may have carried a favorable spin toward Peter. Strangely John's gospel refers to himself often as, "that other disciple whom Jesus loved." But here in John 20 there is a heavy focus on Peter, which makes a tremendous amount of sense, and Mary Magdalene, a person whose name we all recognize but hardly pay attention to until she comes to the tomb. Suddenly John brings her to the forefront. (It might be safer to say the Holy Spirit for some reason has brought her to the forefront. Why is that?)

If you stumbled onto this page and do not know this Jesus of Nazareth who rose from the dead, you can. Ask him to make himself real to you. Accept him as the ruler over your heart and he will come. He promises us a restored life in eternity with Him. It is not difficult. The difficulty comes when others see a change in you and ask you what happened. Many of you will be under the penalty of death for doing something so bold. God will give you courage to open your mouth. I say this because should you ask him to make himself real to you the dream will be vivid and you will recognize him immediately. Your life will not be the same after the man in white comes to you. (Many of you have already seen him. There are those around you that know this man. He will lead you to those who can explain even more. 

This life that I have in Jesus Christ is real.

Related articles

• Red Letter Year 12/26
• St. Mary Magdalene: How the Apostle to the Apostles Subverts Patriarchy