Is Judas Iscariot saved?

[Quid est Veritas?]

I know this is a tough one.
People would want to have revenge if a close associate betrayed them, but Jesus would just turn the other cheek.

Judas followed Christ throughout his ministry, was considered one of the twelve close disciples.

In Matthew 19:28 Jesus tells the disciples that they will have twelve thrones in the afterlife. Obviously Judas had been present at this discussion.

In all four gospel accounts Judas is present at the last supper. He leaves according to John, but he had already eaten by then. All the accounts seem to have him present during the first Eucharist (I know traditional accounts have him already gone by then, but if you read all four gospel accounts, I don't think thats justified).

He was familiar with Jesus to the point of calling Him master and of course the kiss of betrayal. Obviously he listened and understood Jesus' message as much as any other disciple.

He was repentent. He returned the money to the priests and was so tortured by his betrayal that he committed suicide. Now whether someone is saved that committed suicide is its own thorny problem, but if you see it as only another sin (which won't neccesarily doom you for having one sin on your slate, unless you hold mortal sins exist) or if you believe in once saved always saved, is it not possible we might meet Judas in heaven instead of the coldest circle of hell?

I would love to hear some thoughts on this matter.

 

[EmSw]

I know this is a tough one.
People would want to have revenge if a close associate betrayed them, but Jesus would just turn the other cheek.

Judas followed Christ throughout his ministry, was considered one of the twelve close disciples.

In Matthew 19:28 Jesus tells the disciples that they will have twelve thrones in the afterlife. Obviously Judas had been present at this discussion.

In all four gospel accounts Judas is present at the last supper. He leaves according to John, but he had already eaten by then. All the accounts seem to have him present during the first Eucharist (I know traditional accounts have him already gone by then, but if you read all four gospel accounts, I don't think thats justified).

He was familiar with Jesus to the point of calling Him master and of course the kiss of betrayal. Obviously he listened and understood Jesus' message as much as any other disciple.

He was repentent. He returned the money to the priests and was so tortured by his betrayal that he committed suicide. Now whether someone is saved that committed suicide is its own thorny problem, but if you see it as only another sin (which won't neccesarily doom you for having one sin on your slate, unless you hold mortal sins exist) or if you believe in once saved always saved, is it not possible we might meet Judas in heaven instead of the coldest circle of hell?

I would love to hear some thoughts on this matter.

Plus, Judas believed Jesus, which some say is the only prerequisite for salvation.

John 2:11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

John 8:31
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, if ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

 

[football5680]

No, he is not saved.

The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. (Matthew 26:24)

If Judas is in heaven then it would be a good thing for him to be born so that he could experience this. If he is in Hell then what Jesus said makes sense.

If Judas believed that Jesus was the Son of God and Messiah then he wouldn't have betrayed him. Judas felt guilty because he recognized the fact that Jesus was an innocent man, not because he was the Son of God so his repentance does not show that he actually believed.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

It is not for us to know or make judgements about these things, but we can certainly hold out hope that the mercy and love of God will ultimately win out.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, he is not saved.

The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. (Matthew 26:24)

If Judas is in heaven then it would be a good thing for him to be born so that he could experience this. If he is in Hell then what Jesus said makes sense.

If Judas believed that Jesus was the Son of God and Messiah then he wouldn't have betrayed him. Judas felt guilty because he recognized the fact that Jesus was an innocent man, not because he was the Son of God so his repentance does not show that he actually believed.

I don't think Matthew 26:24 neccesarily means Judas is condemned because it may just be referring to his earthly life which will end in ignominy and a painful death. It does not say anything about the hereafter. It is a possible interpretation of that text though, but it is not at all clear cut.
Judas was still alive at that point, so the point of it being a good thing he was born since he was going to enjoy heaven does not apply. It clearly was set in the present tense.

 

[football5680]

I don't think Matthew 26:24 neccesarily means Judas is condemned because it may just be referring to his earthly life which will end in ignominy and a painful death. It does not say anything about the hereafter. It is a possible interpretation of that text though, but it is not at all clear cut.
Judas was still alive at that point, so the point of it being a good thing he was born since he was going to enjoy heaven does not apply. It clearly was set in the present tense.

Then he would have said the same thing to every other apostle except for possibly Saint John because they all died painful deaths. This interpretation does not make sense because Jesus did not promise us happiness in this life, he said the opposite. He said we would suffer for his name but this is no reason for us to wish that we were never born. What Jesus said only makes sense if Judas is in hell, or if heaven isn't that great of a place. If Heaven is the paradise we think it is, then we wouldn't wish non-existence upon ourselves. If Hell is as bad as we think it is, then we probably would wish we were never born if we were sent there. Judas did not fulfill his role as an apostle and died an apostate.

 

[JackRT]

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. Paul does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul suggests here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.

If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit inMatthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.

Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testamentreferences. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.

One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple and had not been for over 200 years. They were replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Then he would have said the same thing to every other apostle except for possibly Saint John because they all died painful deaths. This interpretation does not make sense because Jesus did not promise us happiness in this life, he said the opposite. He said we would suffer for his name but this is no reason for us to wish that we were never born. What Jesus said only makes sense if Judas is in hell, or if heaven isn't that great of a place. If Heaven is the paradise we think it is, then we wouldn't wish non-existence upon ourselves. If Hell is as bad as we think it is, then we probably would wish we were never born if we were sent there. Judas did not fulfill his role as an apostle and died an apostate.

I understand what your saying, but I still think it isn't that clear. Judas' fate is much worse than any other as he died a traitor abandoned by everyone. No other apostle died in such a manner. They were revered by their co-religionists and loved even if the authorities hated them.

 

[JackRT]

The deaths of the apostles are more legendary than historical.

 

[Winter_Rose]

No, he is not saved.

The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. (Matthew 26:24)

If Judas is in heaven then it would be a good thing for him to be born so that he could experience this. If he is in Hell then what Jesus said makes sense.

If Judas believed that Jesus was the Son of God and Messiah then he wouldn't have betrayed him. Judas felt guilty because he recognized the fact that Jesus was an innocent man, not because he was the Son of God so his repentance does not show that he actually believed.

But if Judas didn't betray him, the crucifixion wouldn't have taken place.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. Paul does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul suggests here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.

If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit inMatthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.

Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testamentreferences. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.

One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple and had not been for over 200 years. They were replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value.

You are mistaken. Antiochan Staters were in use in the temple right up to its destruction. Other forms of currency were exchanged for them by those notorious money changers that Jesus threw from the temple courts. They depicted Augustus and as the the temple did not want pagan imagery in its money box they were exchanged for neutral currency. This does not mean that these Antiochan Slaters were the coin used however.
Another option is the Tetradrachm of Tyre (Tyrian Shekel). This had a higher silver content and was thus favoured by the temple authorities to pay tithes. Both these coins are recorded in Jewish and Pagan sources as in use in the temple precincts.
These coins weren't allowed in the sanctuary itself but were widely circulated in the outer courts of the Temple.

As to the betrayal of Judas: there is something called the Criterion of Embarrassment. It is unlikely that something would be made up that embarrasses a group or idea. The betrayal of a key follower is thoroughly embarrassing and has often been used against Christianity. It is highly unlikely it would have been invented and there is very little in the old testament that would suggest a betrayal of the messiah in such a manner. Judas as a myth is highly unlikely for the nascent Christian movement had no need to invent him and every reason not to.

What you have said regarding Paul is thus interesting. The Matthew account does not explicitly say when Judas' commits suicide so he may therefore have been alive after the crucifixion and therefore a witness of the Resurrection and then thereafter committing suicide. This scenario is equally plausible.
The chance that Judas would be invented does not make sense and as Luke, which mentions him, writes from a Pauline perspective this merely deepens the mystery.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The deaths of the apostles are more legendary than historical.

We have no other source than church tradition for the deaths of the Apostles and a lot of it is contradictory as one or another church claimed their Martyrdom or foundation. There is a lot of myth here.

However, certain traditions are recorded so early and so widely held, that they likely have a grain of truth. These are Peter and Paul's death in Rome and Thomas in India for instance.
Multiple places did not try and claim them as it had early on become established what had happened to them and therefore they probably died where they are held to have died by tradition although obviously the accounts were likely embellished some.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

But if Judas didn't betray him, the crucifixion wouldn't have taken place.

You raise an interesting point. If Judas did not betray Christ than the events leading to His crucifixion and the Salvation of the world could not take place.
This means that his betraying Christ was perhaps fulfilling his destined role as an Disciple.

 

[football5680]

But if Judas didn't betray him, the crucifixion wouldn't have taken place.

Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is just! (Romans 3:8)

The intentions of Judas were evil so he is still condemned even if something good came out of it. He did not intend to do anything good so he is still guilty.

 

[PsychoeDial]

It is not for us to know or make judgements about these things, but we can certainly hold out hope that the mercy and love of God will ultimately win out.

Well said.
Also, when Jesus' mission in the beginning was to serve as that final sin sacrifice, how else but through Judas actions could the son of man, the son of God, die on the cross?

Are those Jews who condemned Jesus to death in Hell now? Are the Roman's who carried out the sentence?

 

[Winter_Rose]

Also we probably don't know much about Judas's background or what he was like as a person.

 

[JackRT]

Are those Jews who condemned Jesus to death in Hell now?

Following his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus was dragged before the high priest and the “elders’. It is quite unlikely that there was any kind of formal trial at this time. To begin with there was no substantive religious charge that could be brought against him. It was not blasphemy to claim to be the "messiah" or a "son of God". If there was a blasphemy, a trial before the Sanhedrin would have brought that out and a sentence of death by stoning could have been brought down. The Sanhedrin did not lose the right to impose the death penalty until the year AD 39. The execution would have to be ratified by the Roman governor. This was just a rubber stamp procedure, after all what did the Romans care about Jews stoning one of their own to death for some obscure religious crime?

We also must take into account the nature of the Sanhedrin itself. It was a very dignified body of seventy elders somewhat in the nature of a supreme court. The high priest chaired but did not control the Sanhedrin, the majority of whose members were Pharisees. The Pharisees opposed the high priest at just about every turn. The high priest was in fact perhaps the most hated man in Judea. Under Roman administration, the high priest was personally appointed by the Roman governor. Caiaphas was the personal choice of Roman procurator Valerius Gratus. The Pharisees regarded Caiaphas as a collaborator and a traitor. The Sanhedrin was not likely to respond to a sudden midnight summons from the high priest. As a matter of fact, it was explicitly forbidden for the Sanhedrin to meet at night or on a religious holiday. They were also not to meet in any place but the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount.

While the high priesthood (not "the Jews") certainly collaborated with the Romans, they did not condemn or execute Jesus.

Also we probably don't know much about Judas's background or what he was like as a person.

We can get a hint about Judas from the word "Iscariot" appended to his name. This is not a family name but a sort of nickname. It seems to be derived from the Latin word "Sicarii" meaning "Knifemen" which refers to the Zealot sect within Judaism. Judas was likely a Zealot.

 

[stephen583]

I don't know if this is proven in the Scripture or anywhere else, but I remember hearing in church sermon once that Judas Iscariot was a temple scribe before he became a disciple of Christ. Also, as far as I remember, to my knowledge, none of the other disciples had any formal religious training or temple service, did they ???

Saul of Tarsus, later renamed the Apostle Paul (after his incredible conversion to Christianity), was at one time paid by the temple to persecute Christians, but he wasn't formally trained as a temple priest or scribe. He was just a fanatical member of the temple laity, the way I understand it, right ? I don't think his position as persecutor of Christians was an official temple title, was it ? I think he was paid in sort of a shady, under the table arrangement, wasn't he ???

So it is interesting, the only disciple who turned against Jesus was the one who had formal religious training, isn't it ?! Doesn't say very much for organized religion, does it ?!

Maybe that's what the message was about when Jesus withered the Fig Tree ? You know, the parables used by Jesus were also prophecies, don't you ?!

 

[JackRT]

See my post #7 above.

 

[stephen583]

See my post #7 above.

I really don't see where post #7 addresses any of the questions I posed. Unless there's something there I'm not seeing.