She ran back to the bar and the horrid life she left behind. Yes, there are many things in The Chosen, that are not spelled out in scripture.

This morning, 03/16/23, as usual, I met with the guys from church. As a group, we watch The Chosen and comment on what we notice and how it affects us. No one has much to say, so I do most of the talking. A brother I consider a friend always asks me if I am done; I tell him I am never done, but occasionally I have to stop.

This day's episode focused almost entirely on preparing and planning for the sermon on the mount. When it ended, and the television was shut off, there was, once again, dead silence. Typically, I can't handle the silence, and we generally only have about ten minutes to say anything.

This particular morning, a brother who, because he co-leads with our leader in a marriage class at night, rang out with, “I am sorry, but I don't see anywhere in scripture where we see the disciples going around putting up placards and inviting the public to a big evangelistic rally on the hill; nor do we see Jesus having to prepare and practice “the sermon on the mount.”

I agreed with him. It is not in scripture, but we have been through discussions like this on multiple occasions, as we have gone through several seasons of The Chosen leading up to this point.

The reality is there are many things in "The Chosen" that we don't see in scripture, but does that mean they didn't happen?

Some things in scripture are well defined, but there are others that we can't immediately substantiate, one way or the other. One example of this is found in Genesis 4, where Cain murders his brother and then bemoans that “My iniquity is too great to bear.” Cain then says people will kill him.

How is that possible when we will fight to say that, at this point in the “chronological timeline,” there are only three people on the earth?

As you can see, there are no straightforward, scriptural answers as to why Cain has an understanding that people would kill him. Perhaps a portion of the answer lies in the Apostle John's gospel.

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (John 21:25 KJV)

So, what do we do with unverifiable information, occurrences, or settings?

We need to ask, does it diminish the ministry of God or Jesus, and, therefore, demand that we call all of it false teaching and throw it out?

Not necessarily.

One of the scenes that caught the attention of a member of our group that morning was the character Mary (of Magdalena), who, as they were sitting in a tent, was actively teaching another female how to read and write Hebrew. (We have nothing in scripture that tells us that.) At one point, Mary quotes a passage to assist the young lady's understanding, to which she responds, how did you memorize that? The assumption that we are left to make is that she, now living in the encampment with Mary, sees that Mary is busy doing other things, as she is, and cannot figure out where Mary finds the time.

Mary’s response to this young lady went something like this, “I was going to commit suicide when Jesus found me; having failed Him once already, I never want to go back there again. So, rehearsing and quoting scripture keeps my mind off those things and places that can trap me.”

In a previous episode, Mary was so an emotionally shaken because of a traumatic event with a demoniac in the camp that she ran back to the bar and the horrid life she left behind. Jesus sent Peter and Matthew to go and retrieve her.

I think we all agreed that rehearsing scriptures that bring us life is an outstanding and scriptural idea, a motivation that I think Dallas, the producer/director, intended.

The Apostle Paul speaks to the idea of keeping your mind focused on Godly things.

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any virtue and if there is anything worthy of praise—dwell on these things.” (Philippians 4:8 TLV)

At this point, I said, I HATE telling you guys this, but the enemy has been tormenting my mind for the last couple of days. As a side note, several years ago, I heard the Holy Spirit telling me to speak out and be honest, as we men have this nasty tendency to say, while the screwdriver is protruding out of your rib cage, “that don’t hurt.” Oh yes, it does, and nothing is served by you living a lie. Sometimes the screwdriver protrudes from your marriage or your lack of relationship with your children. It hurts, and my calling, alongside teaching, is to point that out by using myself as an example.

Yes, I frequently get mocked and rebuffed, especially by those who love the lie.

My “bad week” started with looking at high school reunion pictures online, reminding me of how shy, quiet, and naive I was in high school. Thank God I am not that person now, but seeing people who knew me like that was torture. That was day one; day two involved some fool that could not wait behind a car in the busy Sam’s club parking lot as I tried to lead my disabled wife and disabled grandson back to the car. I thought the driver was going to run the three of us over, and none of us could jump out of the way fast enough. You got it; I did not talk like much of a Christian at that moment.

As I drove the grandson back to his home, I knew the Holy Spirit was speaking to me because He reminded me, like Mary, to focus on the good things. We should all see the purpose and benefit of rehearsing what God says about us. So again I go to Paul.

But the fruit of the Ruach is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control—against such things, there is no law.
(Galatians 5:22-23 TLV)

I mentioned to the men that seeing Judas come into the scene in The Chosen is the thing that gave me that punched-in-the-gut feeling. I found myself looking at his smiling face on the screen and thinking, I know what you will do.

Many would think that Jesus knew what Judas would do; if He did, it would have to be because the Father had told Him in at least one of His prayer times.

Because of the foolish misconceptions we have about Jesus, I think we believe that God merely downloaded all that heavenly information into His head and heart, and, therefore, Jesus knew all things. That would be great, except that it severely diminishes the fact that He had to:

• Lower Himself and become a man.

• Be the Son of God and yet be retrained.

• Be punished by death to pay the price for our salvation and freedom. 

“Now since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil,” (Hebrews 2:14 BSB)

He became human, and He is still human today. This download idea would have given Jesus an advantage and undermined God's legal system, which Satan was using against Him. But, nope, He could not go that route.

“Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.”
(Hebrews 2:17-18 NASB)

If you think Jesus was skillful with the Word and walked in constant communion with the Father as Enoch did, then you would be correct, but He did it as a man, just like you and I. The only advantage Jesus had that we cannot have, is that He did not have the same damaged genetics that drives us to sin. Was He capable of sin, yes, but He was NOT driven to sin.

You would think it was a great morning, but it wasn't over yet.

I cannot remember how we got to this point, but something got said about hell. I know many who think God has already thrown people into hell, but that has NOT happened yet, and, in general, it will NOT happen until the great throne event at the end of the thousand-year reign of Christ. So, at least for now, I can exclude Judas, who hung himself from hell.

Some are too quick to say he committed suicide and was immediately sent to hell, no questions asked. Having done a character study on Judas, the problem I have with a “theology” like this, which sends people immediately to hell, is that I can see that he did repent and acknowledged his wrongdoing. This not-so-brief premise was not meant to discuss Judas’s fate, so I will pull the plug on this path quickly. Still, far too many of us have a traditional religious standard for repentance, almost to the point of putting Jesus back on the cross or getting baptized all over again. It seems that this is what we demand of people. The thief on the cross did not have much time, but he did something comparable to Judas; we give the thief grace merely because Jesus was involved. 

So a common problem I see is that some of us believe we have been appointed judges and have the right to send people to hell. The fact that all sin was forgiven on the cross should shut many mouths or at least change their condemning hearts. But, unfortunately, I just stated what far too many of us are willing to do, especially when this job of judging is for Jesus alone. 

Wow, is that in the Bible?

“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever He wants. The Father does not judge anyone, but has handed over all judgment to the Son.” (John 5:21-22 TLV)

There are two outstanding aspects of these passages. First, here is one you may have yet to notice. So, not only does the Son do all the judging, but He gives life “to whomever He wants,” and He is NOT asking your permission to whom He can give life. One more thing I see here, there are NO limitations on whom the Son can give this life to. 

Are you kidding me; Jesus can give life to anyone? 

Yes, and in Matthew 25, you see just that at the sheep and goat judgment. So, much to your dismay, He may have freed Judas because it is His nature.

In my comments to the small group, I added, what do you do with the fact that Jesus, at His death, went to hell, preached to the captives, and led many free.

With that, I shut up.

It only took a few seconds for the co-leader to come up with an angry retort.

He looked at me and said, Jesus, did NOT go into hell! After several seconds of glaring, he added it was the place of the dead.

Quickly the Holy Spirit pointed out to me that I am one who tells people that no one is in hell yet. I mentally had to agree that there was some logic to what he said, but I was not able to respond as yet.

I hate being wrong and had, just the previous day, told my wife that I know what I am talking about, so I simply responded to his angry assertion with, okay. This is what I say when I will study this once again and get back to you.

I pulled out my phone, and the first thing I came to was Revelation 1:18. The King James Version reads like this:

“I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”

Well, look at that, there is that word hell, and how did Jesus get those keys?

But I am an advocate of checking the origins of every simple word.

Why, you ask?

Because the King James version was a rewrite ordered by the state church of England. This rewrite was done in opposition to people leaving the Catholic church and going to Protestantism. Prior to that, those that could afford it had the same Bible that the pilgrims used in Plymouth Rock, the Geneva Bible, and they had the Geneva Bible for over 100 years before the King James version.

So hell is actually the Greek word hadēs and means the abode of departed spirits. Since the KJV was the standard Bible for the longest time, then hell would have been the common assertion and expected answer. Because we, as the church in general, DO NOT READ our Bibles, then we would probably not know the origin of the word hell, which we just discussed to be hades, the place of the dead.

I think many of us believe that the lake of fire is hell, but we do not allow for an abode of departed spirits. A common word picture comes from Revelation 19:20.

“And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshiped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.” (Revelation 19:20 KJV)

The final scene is found in Revelation 20.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
(Revelation 20:13-15 KJV)

Something notable in Revelation 20:13-15, death and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Once again, we are constrained to use the word hell, which is Greek the word hades, the place of the dead. Is it any wonder that we call this place of the dead hell? So at some point, death and the place of the dead will cease to exist.

In The Chosen, there is a discussion between Jesus and Matthew about the substance of “the sermon on the mount.” Matthew humorously elaborates on this portion by adding you would have a city full of people with only one eye.

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:27-29 KJV)

The point here is not the eye but things that we cannot validate from scripture. In this case, the conversation leaned toward potentially being sent to hell over poor decisions. Hell, in this case, is NOT hades but a reference to Gehenna, the place of perpetual burning or the lake of fire.

In all honesty, I find it rather cruel to expect people to juggle which word they should use in front of certain people.

A piece of information to help confuse you about hell is the narrative about the beggar Lazarus (a person that the audience of that day may have been well aware of) and the rich Jew.

Luke 16:22-23 KJV  “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;  (23)  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeing Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”

Hell, as used here, is hades, the place of the dead. To the Jews, the idea that a rich man would go to hell is unacceptable; now, the beggar, maybe. But they also had the understanding that heaven initiated with Abraham's bosom, and yet, there is our rich man, in torment, which we seem to associate with hell.

The Companion Bible, by (E. W. Bullinger), tells us, "The Pharisees taught that there were three sets of angels for wicked men; and others for good men."

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible says what several others say, "The Jews held the opinion that the spirits of the righteous were conveyed by angels to heaven at their death."

An interesting point, but why show a preference for the rich? Because they had money, and everyone knows that God holds "His" people in high regard and, therefore, blesses them ( I am being facetious.) Obviously, this rich man missed the mark.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments elaborates on the so-called benefits of wealth that the Jews believed. "into Abraham’s bosom — So the Jews styled paradise; the place or state where the souls of good men remain from death to the resurrection. The expression alludes to the way of representing the felicities of heaven by sharing a magnificent banquet with Abraham and the other patriarchs;"

Historical evidence informs us that a pauper like Lazarus would have been thrown, without ceremony, into the Valley of Gehenna, where the trash always burns. There is no reason to think that this poor man was treated any differently. There is, however, thanks to Jesus, evidence that tells us angels carried Lazarus into the arms of Abraham, a treatment that was thought to be reserved for the righteous, something Lazarus was not seen as, primarily because of his financial condition, one that did not allow for frequent bathing and fine clothes.

Now, what am I to make of a statement that tells me that the dead lie in a condition of inactivity after what Jesus told us about Lazarus and the rich man?

A piece of substantiating evidence comes from King David. I am using the Amplified, in this case, as it typically has other defining terms or words.

“Let me not be put to shame, O Lord, or disappointed, for I am calling upon You; let the wicked be put to shame, let them be silent in Sheol (the place of the dead).”
(Psalms 31:17 AMP)

First, an awareness that this was written in Hebrew, which used Sheol instead of Hades, which means the same thing, to define where David wishes these people would go.

The writer of Ecclesiastes 9:5 gives us a clue.

“For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing;..” (CJB)

To know is to have comprehension, care, or recognition. But the Hebrew word m^e'ûmâh, meaning nothing, puts the entire thought into the negative and implies that they do not know a speck of anything.

Another passage that affirms the prophetic qualities of Ecclesiastes comes from Job.

“Yes, I know that You will bring me down to death, to the place appointed for all the living.” (Job 30:23 BSB)

The general idea, it would seem, is that this place Job is speaking of is little more than the earth, as we are to return to dust. Notice how Job refers to them as living. Because of conversations I have had, someone will say, see, there are two places in hades; one for the dead and one for those who are still alive in their spirits. Can't you see how illogical a theory like this is? To enforce this thought look at Luke 20:38.

“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive.”
(Luke 20:38 BSB)

At least, we can agree that there is an appointed collection place for the dead, and, since we should understand that the spirit or soul never dies, then even in hades, Sheol, or hell, depending on your preferred language and Bible translation, your soul lives on forever. Now, if you are a part of the body of Christ, then it's an entirely different matter, as upon your graduation from this earth, you are in the presence of Jesus.

"having courage, then, at all times, and knowing that being at home in the body, we are away from home from the LORD— for we walk through faith, not through sight— we have courage, and are well pleased, rather, to be away from the home of the body, and to be at home with the LORD."
(2 Corinthians 5:6-8 LSV)

If our atoms separate as they return to dust, then what's left to stand before that great white throne?

Well, that's a great question, and the answer lies in the idea that the spirit never dies. No, I can't tell you which atom it attaches to; this truly applies to the sailors in WW2, who, under radio silence, had to jump off a sinking, burning ship into shark-infested waters; their atoms got scattered all over the ocean as the currents carried the shark feces. Nothing is impossible with God, and He can handle the problem.

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that there is a place for the dead, but even that will come to an end.

Where else would all these people that we see in Revelation 20 come from?

“I saw the dead, both important and unimportant people, standing in front of the throne. Books were opened, including the Book of Life. The dead were judged on the basis of what they had done, as recorded in the books.” (Revelation 20:12 GW)

Keep something in mind; they missed the catching away of the church, the rapture for those unaware. So these have NO association, so to speak, with the church. I was taught that missing the rapture and choosing not to accept Christ during the seven years of wrath leaves you hopeless. But what do we see in the passages above? Books being opened. If those books were knowingly opened and offered no help, then this is just a cruel joke. God should simply send them to the lake of fire – hell and be done with it. If you have any grasp of who God is, then you know that this train of thought does not match His character. I can see this because I understand that God knows the end from the beginning and, therefore, knows whose names are in these books already.

If this is comparable to Matthew 25 and the sheep and goat judgment, then you must be aware that all these same people are called “the nations,” as they are all alive. 

There is no distinction between the dead of Revelation 20 and the nations of Matthew 25.

Right now (03/18/2023), I am still here on earth. But, unfortunately, the church has not been caught up as yet; and my understanding of Biblical terminology has me thinking about the three people groups of the Bible: the Jews; the nations; and the church. 

When the church is gone, and it may include many Jews, who is left? 

The Jews and the nations. 

Since the dead in Christ will rise in the “rapture,” who are these dead people? 

There will be some from the Jewish side of the house, and the rest will fall under the category of the nations.

As I type this, I can hear the confused questions. But what about …?

Think of it like cars; some are considered crossovers. If a Jew accepts Yeshua, then they are followers of Christ the Messiah and part of the church. The same logic applies to those from the nations. If the narrative of the ten virgins who were called by invitation to the wedding applies, then 50% do not make it into the wedding. There are many reasons for their exclusion, and most of those exclusions have to do with not caring or being lax in their preparations. As I spend more time listening to people talk about the rapture, I have come to understand that those who have been called and responded will get in. All have been called, but few have responded.

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 2

This examination of Judas Iscariot is the outgrowth of a recent group Bible study on Hebrews. During the evening's interactions on Hebrews my friend, in reference to eternal security, adamantly contrasted Judas-Iscariot, declaring, Judas Iscariot went to hell. I have several problems with a statement like that and spoke to the man privately about them after the study was over. Several days later that brother in Christ sent me a text message which directed me to a website he declared offered sound information on the subject of Judas Iscariot. What that website did, was to affirm my friend's arguments. 
I obtained the arguments against Judas from this source https://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-Iscariot.html.
Assuming, and it's a natural assumption, that my friend and several thousand others like him, feel so resolute and judgmental aboutJudas-Iscariot, I decided to pursue this character study on the man.
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.

The overarching question is, Who was Judas Iscariot? 

As I began to respond to the thesis, which seems to have one goal - to have your opinion harmonize with theirs, my answers progressively turned into a ten-page treatise. I have learned that I cannot inundate you, the reader, with something that lengthy, as you will leave my site and probably never come back. Therefore, it is separated into parts. This is part two.

• Jesus knew from the very beginning what Judas Iscariot would do. Jesus told His disciples, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (John 6:70).

Look how the Message conveys John 6:70, “Jesus responded, "Haven't I handpicked you, the Twelve? Still, one of you is a devil!"

Handpicked, now there's a visual image for you. Jesus, fully aware of the end of this chain of events, choose Judas-Iscariot intentionally. Why is that? Could it be that Jesus was the one with the plan and not Judas-Iscariot?

The plan, since the rebellion and fall of the angels that followed Satan, has been to restore peace, and redeem humanity - a necessary move since one man gave it all away. But then, God knew that would happen, just as He knew Judas would be manipulated into playing the role he did. All of it for the purpose of gaining eternal salvation for all who would follow after Jesus Christ.

What of this idea that one of you is the devil?

Luke 22:1-6 NET. Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. (2) The chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find some way to execute Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. (3) Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve. (4) He went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers of the temple guard how he might betray Jesus, handing him over to them. (5) They were delighted and arranged to give him money. (6) So Judas agreed and began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus when no crowd was present.

If I look up the word devil I get diábolos; to accuse. A false accuser, used for the devil. It is simply one who accuses. Judas did not accuse Jesus; he did, however, try to push Him to act irrationally and prematurely. How could Jesus have acted prematurely? By taking the throne without going to the cross and redeeming us all.

It seemed that the dramatic change in Judas-Iscariot came when Satan entered him. My perception is always tainted by my humanity and so I see things rather black and white. As Judas Iscariot walked with Jesus, he acted and spoke just as he always did; James and John, the "sons of thunder," were both capable of demonstrating a violent edge; Peter, much like James and John, was accustomed to the harsh, mouthy world associated with the fishing industry. These guys were just men and God saw the potential in them all.

Would God, knowing that He had Satan within His inner circle of leadership, be someone we should think highly of? Of course not. Common sense tells you that you never, knowingly, let the enemy close enough to disrupt your plans; and that is precisely what Satan was trying to do. 

The Tree of Life Version of the Bible uses the term deliver instead of betray. The definition of deliver is to hand over or convey into someone's possession formally. Since the word betray means:

v. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against or betray one's country.

v. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: 

v. To be false or disloyal to:

Can I then say that the act of delivering Jesus over, not to the Romans, but the Jewish council, was a betrayal? Since Judas never truly fit any of these definitions, especially when Jesus knew all along what Judas would eventually yield to; it does not feel like much of a betrayal, but a man with a mission, who was trying to provoke Jesus into a fight – one which he thought Jesus would quickly win.

You must remember that God's agreements with us were never dependent upon our actions. Yes, there has always been a benefit for following after the covenants, but regardless of our efforts, or lack thereof, God was always going to remain faithful to His end of the deal. Such was the case with God's end plan for the salvation of man. We know that Jesus went to the cross willingly, and would have been put there on that cross by some other means if necessary. Judas merely played a role.

• And at the Last Supper, Jesus predicted His betrayal and identified the betrayer: “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 Iscariot, son of Simon” (John 13:26).

Again, the annoyance is that this is stated as though Judas was some random, last-minute alteration in the course of events. When it came to the Jews, Jesus told those who wanted to hang him, do you not realize that I could call legions of angels to come and rescue me. There is nothing that is happening to me that I have not approved and allowed. So to place words like betrayal and betrayer upon Judas is merely inciting anger and rage in the reader.

• Jesus said that Judas Iscariot was not “clean”; i.e., he had not been born again and was not forgiven of his sins (John 13:10–11).

Jesus did not say, “Judas was not clean,” He merely said one of you.

What does John 13:10-11 say? (MKJV)  Jesus said to him (Peter,) He who is bathed has no need except to wash his feet but is clean every whit. And you are clean, but not all.  (11)  For He knew who would betray Him. Therefore He said, You are not all clean.

The bulleted statement above, unwisely states, “he (Judas,) had not been born again and was not forgiven of his sins.” None of them were born again. Since Jesus had not gone to the cross, they were all living under the law, not grace.

Bathed and washed are translations; however, the Greek word is louō and means to bathe the whole person. We probably perceive this as water baptism. The idea behind the word is an immersion into a wholehearted acceptance, something that none of the disciples did. In contrast to Judas, who clearly was not 100% invested, we have Peter, who betrayed Christ three times; and John, who stayed near the cross and Mary, as Jesus was dying. The problem with thinking that any of them “got it,” is that none of them did, and scripture proves that out.

Has no need – G2192 echō A primary verb (including an alternate form σχέω scheō skheh'-o used in certain tenses only); to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition.) -

So I understand there not being a need to hold desperately onto sick relationships or possessions if I have been washed already, but to merely wash your feet as needed what did this mean? It meant that Jesus, through His word, had already cleansed them; but then, there is the daily, trivial nonsense, such stealing from the treasury bag - the stuff we call sin. In no way do I get a sense of ominous retribution worthy of separation from God. In the environment of that day, where you would sit on pillows, next to each other, to dine, I can completely understand why washing your feet would be an exceptional idea.

Would betray Him – paradidōmi - From G3844 and G1325; to surrender, that is, surrender, deliver, give over.

Yes, I am aware that paradidōmi also carries the idea of betrayal, but I do not believe that Jesus saw Judas' actions as insidious. If that were the case, then Peter would have been a write off as well. In general, I could easily say that Judas surrendered or delivered Jesus to the Jewish council; however, I do not believe Judas meant for Him to be killed. Everything I see, as I study Judas' life, demonstrates that Judas intended to force Jesus to rise on their behalf.

Consider this idea of delivering someone over to an authoritative force. 
The Jewish leadership had temple guards, and this is who took Jesus captive that night. The Romans, on the other hand, were under orders to rapidly suppress any violent acts. Would the activities of the Jewish leadership have been seen in that light? This potential of misconduct is one of the reasons that Pilot so “rapidly” relented to the chief priests cries to crucify Jesus.

Luke 22:52 NIV  Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?

One of the pieces of evidence we have that demonstrates that the Chief priests and elders took Jesus in the garden, is the fact that they brought Jesus to the “jail” beneath Caiaphas' home. Archaeology has proven that this place existed. Here is where Jesus was challenged over His claims to be God's son, and therefore God - a blasphemous claim worthy of death according to Jewish law. The result is that the Jewish temple guards beat Jesus, based upon claims that have nothing to do with what Romans consider rebellion before they ever handed Him off to Pilot.

Judas knew full well what the Romans could, and would do to those that caused trouble, but Jesus never did any of those things; he also knew that the Jews had no power to put someone on a cross and this was, therefore, a moot issue in the mind of Judas.

Judas, just like all the others, walked beside Jesus in a state of puzzlement. 
Just a few days before this, what had taken place? At Jesus direction they had secured an unridden colt (Matthew 21) – this would have been comparable to borrowing a new Mercedes luxury car, just as dignitaries might arrive in, and placing Jesus in it. Just the sight of such an event triggered off a mad rush of onlookers, many of whom had experience with Jesus and the miracles He performed. But now He is riding into town as a King might. This moment has to be significant, and it is a long enough ride for many to have the time necessary to gather palm branches to spread upon the ground before Him.

Now, put yourself in the place of the disciples, especially Judas, as none of them were sure how this entrance into Jerusalem was going to end; for some, I am sure they were hoping for some kind of overthrow. The underlying motive is the possibility that they would hold important cabinet positions under the rule of Jesus.

Did Jesus step up and rule? 
No, but He did overthrow the tables of the money changers and chased the vendors out of the outer court. The blind and lame came to Him in the Temple, and He healed them.  (Matthew 21:12) Jesus then became embroiled, for two days, with the chief priests and elders about His authority to do what He did, and who He was. All this was the lead into what we see in Matthew 24 and 25, and the questions the disciples asked, “when will all these things come to pass and what will the sign of your return?” You see, they expected Him to step up and reign two days before; obviously, based upon what you are telling us now when you come back it will be to reign, so when is that going to happen?

When the disciple John wrote “For He knew who would betray Him. Therefore He said, You are not all clean,” it was understood to mean, Jesus could see the end result. In the perfect tense, the word see, meant to know. Can I surmise Jesus knowing or seeing to be comparable? Yes.

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.