The fate of Judas Iscariot. Was his change of heart genuine, is salvation possible for him?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

After reading and posting on the following thread…Question about the Book of Revelation - #29 by adamjedgar a completely side tracked question popped into my head.

given that I’ve noticed a wide range of Christian habits on this forum, there are those who are quite technical in their religious belief all the way through to others who have managed to avoid allowing the complexity to get in the way of simplifying the essence of the Gospel.

Because of the wide array of thoughts on these forums, id like to ask you guys for your thoughts on whether or not the bible leaves any possibility that Judas may have truly repented and could be saved?

I know that we are not to judge…I’m not seeking that kind of conclusion as such…this is purely a personal study in what ideas you guys have found in the bible and in external writings regarding that “trojan horse” within the disciples ranks.

I have held onto a rather simplistic belief that there will be atheists in heaven. That God will get a real kick out of explaining to them how the heck they got through the pearly gates given they denied the existence of God, and his explanation that “in as much as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me” (to me that’s the gospel…or a very big part of it at least)…

Lets consider the end of the story for Judas…

27 Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people made their plans how to have Jesus executed. 2 So they bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

3 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. 4 “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”

“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.”

5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

6 The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”[a]

Is it possible that Judas, in going back to the priests and throwing the gold at them on the floor and going out and hanging himself may have genuinely repented? The man was obviously in a terrible mental state in order to end his own life in this way. Now i know that we have plenty of examples where convicted criminals have killed themselves in their cells…so there’s that perspective too obviously.

What do you guys think about this man and salvation? When i think of the story Nathan the prophet told to king David about the rich man taking from the poor man…where in response to Davids angry demand “who is this man?” Nathan pointed to the king and yelled “thou art the man”(we know this was about Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba obviously)…but David was forgiven for a very henous crime there…could the same be said of Judas falling from a tree in despair at what he had done?

Im genuinely trying to get away from literal conservative bible understanding on this one (obviously I have that ingrained in my critique of responses…so there’s that problem obviously)…this is why i feel this forum is the ideal place to answer this question. You guys can provide some excellent perspective.

1 Like
2

The Gospel says yes.

According to Jesus there is only one unforgivable sin, that being against the Holy Spiirit.

At the end of the day it is a judgement call.

This is an old chestnut that has been debated to death. The “traditional” view is that Judas was trying to force Jesus to act and got the wrong action (in his eyes). IOW the result was not what he expected or intended despite Christ’s teaching. His repentance would be no less genuine than anyone else’s

It is no different than Hiltler, Stalin or Binladen. God meets them as they are.

The notion that Jesus died for the faithful few contradicts God’s love.

Jesus died for all sins, not just those who know or acknowledge the fact., but I have now crossed the line. I am not God.

Richard

2 Likes
3

We tend to oversimplify the narratives of the Bible. Trying to analyse and understand the behaviour of Judas Iscariot may give some idea of why he did what he did and why he repented. Yet, it will only be guesses as we do not know what God was thinking and decided.

Like the other disciples, Judas Iscariot was probably waiting to get an influential position when Jesus became the king of Israel. When this did not seem to happen, instead Jesus started to speak about his nearing death, that must have been a disappointing experience - investing so much of his life and getting nothing in return. In this situation, he probably went through possible alternatives, like the other disciples. This rationale fits to what the gospels tell.

Judas had a weakness in his character, being a thief (according to John). Planning something that also yielded money must have been tempting. The plan of God and what was promised in the scriptures needed to happen, which suggests that Satan was given more freedom in tempting one of the disciples to make a wrong move. Judas seemed to be the weak part in the chain and the one that broke. What Jesus said revealed that the adversary was getting a grip of Judas.

One speculation about the motives of Judas Iscariot is that he hoped that a direct conflict with the religious leaders would force Jesus to act and step towards his position as the king. If Jesus was the king selected by God, he would be saved and win. If this speculation is true, Judas may have been hoping that what he did would lead to a positive outcome. If true, that would mean that he did not expect that Jesus would die on the cross. When matters turned towards the ugly direction, Judas was faced with the cruel reality of what his betrayal caused. The feeling of quilt must have been very strong and he probably was thinking that the other disciples and God would never forgive what he did. Satan is the accuser and likely strenghtened the accusations in the mind of Judas. This lead to the terrible suicide.

This is speculation but would explain why Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and felt so bad afterwards that he killed himself. However, it does not reveal if he was forgiven by God.

3 Likes
4

I think the best we can do in answering your question, Adam, is to consider a number of possibilities and, perhaps, eliminate some that are just too unlikely.
Eliminatingthe unlikely will depend greatly on one’s theological stance.

2 Likes
5

Which version of the story do you mean? There are two different versions.

1 Like
6

good point Bill…i hadn’t thought about that. Can you elaborate on the two versions? (I’m asking others to do this because for the most part of this question, i want to be open to the ideas of others rather than my own here)

Also, I just want to ensure that i explain…i honestly do not have any loaded gun in posting this question…there is no hidden YEC angle here. Im genuinely interested in the views of those on this forum because i have noticed how you guys tend to avoid legalistic responses and in this case i feel that’s very important.

1 Like
7

Given there is a time zone difference here…I have decided to add the Latin Vulgate version of Acts 1:16-20 from the 4th century as it provides a simple resolution to the two accounts’ criticism of this passage of scripture.

A little background…(I’m rushing this a bit so I’ll fix errors later)

The Latin Vulgate was commissioned approx AD 382 and the other major complete text translated into English that I often reference, Codex Sinaticus, dates after about AD 325.

Both manuscripts are some of the earliest New Testament codexes we have and were written around the same time.

I would suggest that Jerome may have known of Sinaticus when he translated the Vulgate. In any case, it’s almost certain that Jerome would have had access to Alexandrinus from which Sinaticus was most likely copied.

We know at the time of the Latin translations that the two competing bible variants in Greek were the Majority Text (Byzantine/Textus Receptus/KJV) and the Critical Text (Alexandrinus/Sinaticus/NIV etc)

What i find interesting is that Jerome, when he translated the Vulgate for Pope Damasus 1, included “and being hanged” in Acts 1:18 although, neither Alexandrinus/Sinaticus nor the Byzantine text contain this reading in that passage…so this idea doesn’t appear to me to have come from either Critical Text or Majority Text lineage (its not a KJV only insert)

The interesting thing is, that Jerome’s version of the death of Judas aligns with the account in Matthew’s gospel and appears to add to it with the explanatory phrase “and being hanged”.

This suggests an explanation was valid and necessary at the time because even Jerome immediately apparently fixed the dilemma and that may have been because he had access to other earlier manuscripts which contained that phrase that none of the major versions we base our bible upon today had access to when being copied, or that he was convinced that the explanatory phrase he inserted was missing.

I use as evidence for my above conclusion the following from Jeromes prologue regarding the change he made in 1John5:5-9

Jerome’s prologue reads as follows (from Codex Fuldensis):

“For the first of them [the Catholic Epistles] is one [Epistle] of James, [then] two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. Now if the text as written by them [viz. the Apostles] had also been faithfully rendered into Latin by the translators, then they would neither have imposed any ambiguity on their readers, nor have brought condemnation on themselves for varying from it, especially in that place where we read in the first Epistle of John a passage concerning the unity of the Trinity (and, in fact, we find many errors, deviating from the true faith, have arisen in that letter as the result of the work of unfaithful translators), by keeping at this place in their edition only words for three, that is, for water, blood, spirit, and by omitting the testimony of Father, Word and Spirit, the effect of which is that the Catholic faith is greatly strengthened, and, further, that the single substance of the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is thoroughly demonstrated. As for the other Epistles, to what extent the edition of others departs from our own, I leave to the prudence of the reader to discover. O Eustochius, virgin of Christ, when you ask me, without knowing what you ask, to show you what are the true Scriptures, you expose my old age (whatever that may be) to the gnashing of the teeth of enemies, who pronounce me a falsifier and corrupter of the Holy Scriptures. But in such a case as this, I tremble not at the antagonism of my emulators, nor shall I deny the request to those who demand of me, what are the true Holy Scriptures.” 4. JEROME’S VULGATE AS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF TEXTUAL CORRUPTION IN THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD

Anyway, see the Vulgate version of Acts 1 16-20 below

16 viri fratres oportet impleri scripturam quam praedixit Spiritus Sanctus per os David de Iuda qui fuit dux eorum qui conprehenderunt Iesum

Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

17 quia connumeratus erat in nobis et sortitus est sortem ministerii huius

Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 et hic quidem possedit agrum de mercede iniquitatis et suspensus crepuit medius et diffusa sunt omnia viscera eius

And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.

19 et notum factum est omnibus habitantibus Hierusalem ita ut appellaretur ager ille lingua eorum Acheldemach hoc est ager Sanguinis

And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 scriptum est enim in libro Psalmorum fiat commoratio eius deserta et non sit qui inhabitet in ea et episcopatum eius accipiat alius

For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

8

In brief

Matthew 27:2-10
Judas hanged himself and the chief priests bought the Potter’s Field. It is said he felt remorse. Jeremiah is mentioned.

Acts 1:18
Judas bought the field and fell down and burst open. No remorse mentioned. Psalms is mentioned.

If you assume the bible is univocal you can try to make the two stories agree, but you have to add sillyness like the rope/limb broke. I don’t know how you get around the difference in who bought the field.

In terms of your initial question I don’t think we are told enough to know. The point of the two different versions isn’t to address his fate.

1 Like
9

The bowel bursting incident reminded me of another heretic / traiter death story . I wonder if death by bowel expulsion is a trope in other literature of that era? anyone know of others?

The Heretic Arius Dies in a Bathroom

The Byzantine emperor then directed Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius and give him Holy Communion in the city’s cathedral. Patriarch Alexander objected and was put between a rock and hard place. So Alexander prayed that Arius might die before the appointed day on which Arius would present himself for Holy Communion and thereby commit sacrilege with the Body of Christ.

The historian Socrates Scholasticus then tells us how on that weekend Arius experienced loose bowels and had to run to a nearby bathroom. There, there heretic’s bowels came loose and he died in a most dishonorable way. Here’s the account:

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient bathroom nearby, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

1 Like
10

It does seem that Jerome has intentionally attempted to interpret doesn’t it? interestingly enough though, he doesn’t seem to be the only Latin influence who has attempted that reconciliation…i have found that Augustine of Hippo (Bishop - Roman North Africa ) also pushed a similar explanation…

The text of Acts which Augustine read in his dispute with Felix the Manichean contained a similar harmonization: “Therefore, he [Judas] took possession of a field he had acquired with the reward of his iniquity, and he bound himself around the neck [et collum sibi alligavit], and when he had fallen on his face he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” A number of ancient authors and commentators made similar harmonizing efforts.Scriptural Mormonism: The Accounts of Judas' Death and the JST's Attempt at Harmonisation

ew…now that really is rather gruesome…i vaguely think I’ve heard something about this story before.

It seems to me that its hard to distinguish between Judas apparent change of heart once he realised that Christ wouldn’t save himself and the disciples hatred of what Judas had done. Even the early church fathers seemed to put forward the notion that Judas was “rotten to the core” it seems.

I am keen to try to get away from the traditional line that condemns the man to explore whether or not Judas change of heart could have been genuine. It doesnt appear to me that i have any specific biblical support on this man directly, however, I’m wondering if we have other examples that may be used in order to try to reconcile Judas killing himself?

I am really struggling to find a positive outcome for Judas because every which way i turn in researching this story, it just seems to me that the man thought his future was completely hopeless…that’s a very dark place to be and seems to me to be an example of extreme mental suffering. Would you guys agree with such an assessment of his suicide?

When i think of Judas suicide, I’m reminded of King Saul. He went to war knowing his life was lost. The spirit during his meeting with the witch of Endor clearly outlined to Saul he was about to die in battle. A rational minded person would turn and run if they knew that surely?

In a way, to continue into that battle was suicide for King Saul. My understanding of King Sauls ending is that he was lost and there was no hope of salvation for him. Could it be that Judas killed himself because in moments of complete abandonment, we are driven to such actions? Is this what we read about in the media when convicted criminals (who are very obviously guilty of their crimes) do the same?

I hope you guys can see why I’m seeking this forums help on this one…i need a perspective that is less legalistic in order to try to see a different angle…the legalistic angle condemns the man.

1 Like
11
  • When someone can tell me whether Judas felt guilty or felt shame for facilitating the identification of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night that the Roman soldiers arrested Jesus, I’ll venture a guess:
    • If Judas felt guilty, he very possibly would not have hung himself and would have lived long enough to see and touch and speak with the Resurrected Jesus, who would have forgiven Judas in this world, and maybe even explained how Judas had served him in his path to the Cross which was important to his path to the Resurrection.
    • But if Judas felt shame, prompt suicide would have been more likely, and his salvation, i.e. Jesus’ forgiveness would have to have taken place after he hung himself.
  • On Friday November 3, 2000, my wife’s brother, broken by the consequences of his own decisions, took his own life. I was involved personally in the confirmation of his death on Sunday November 5th. In the months following his death, my wife and I both had occasional dreams in which he appeared to each of us. In one, my wife dreamed that he and she were together, and he told her: “I jumped too soon.”
  • And that’s what I believe Judas would tell us today, if he spoke to us: he jumped too soon.
  • I also choose to believe that Jesus forgave him and that that forgiveness saved him.
  • The Difference Between Guilt and Shame
  • Guilt vs. Shame: How Are They Different?
  • Shame vs. Guilt Written by Brené Brown on January 15, 2013
4 Likes
12

Adam, this is another evidence, to me, of your kindness.

I think that God never abandons us. I’m reminded of C S Lewis’ and George MacDonald’s theory of what happens when we die–that there’s no way that we can fully understand or make decisions for eternity while we are here in this blink of an eye on earth, and God is always willing to bring us to Himself, even after we die. I’m not sure how that could work, but I don’t think it’s unorthodox in its base. Some illustrations are in “Mere Christianity” and “The Great Divorce” @Mervin_Bitikofer .

Anyway, thank you for bringing this up.

2 Likes
13

Adam had written earlier…

I am really struggling to find a positive outcome for Judas because every which way i turn in researching this story, it just seems to me that the man thought his future was completely hopeless…that’s a very dark place to be and seems to me to be an example of extreme mental suffering. Would you guys agree with such an assessment of his suicide?

Has the Catholic church ever let up on its harsh judgment against suicide victims? (I.e. - they can’t be buried in the regular church graveyard … or at least that used to be the case? - I’m sure there may be a range of responses on that among various Catholic diocese).

On one hand, I can understand the desire to deter people from ever even considering that. And as there is no chance (after somebody kills themselves) to repent or seek forgiveness (at least not in this life) for their final act of this life - I can see how legalistic theologies would then be unable to see anything but condemnation. It’s a curious dogma, though, for anyone to hold if they want to acknowledge hope in resurrection, and who see some various passages referring to even the ‘dead’ as being “preached to” and reached out to. So to my mind, it’s never a Christian calling to foreclose on all hope (as if that was our call anyway - it’s not!) So, I’m totally with you, Adam, in feeling some discomfort with all the too-easy condemnation, even of extreme acts. For myself, I would even go farther to say I refuse to adhere to legalisms that seem to summon in that direction. For one thing, I think it’s a vacuous notion to think any of us would die at some pristine moment when we’ve shaken free and repented in this life of every last sin we’ve ever done. If that were the only way to abundant life, then heaven will be the lonliest place ever. So I don’t think suicide victims are any more desperate than any of the rest of us. (As in - we’re all in desperate and constant need of grace.) And that is exactly the sort of grace Christ provides - not that we’re let off the hook for repentance and restoration (both here and after, I should suppose), but it will be in response to the grace offered us while still in our sinful state.

3 Likes
14

Suicide and mortal sin/ What is true forgiveness?

3 Likes
15

When you see attempts to “harmonize” realize that the initial assumption, not biblically based, is everything has to speak in a single voice.

2 Likes
16

If we only had Matthew’s gospel account, we might be asking the same question about Peter. His denials are all there to see, along with Jesus nicknaming him “Satan,” but Matthew never tells the end of Peter’s story. He appears to be present at the great commission, but Matthew notes that “some doubted” (Matt. 28:16–17). Fortunately, John does tell us of Peter’s restoration so we aren’t left wondering. Apparently, even someone who repeatedly disowned Jesus and was identified as doing the work of demons can be restored.

Perhaps Peter’s own tortured journey led him to share more about the hope for others. Peter held that every person will

have to give an accounting to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does. (1 Peter 4:5–6)

A couple paragraphs earlier, he’d shared how even the notoriously wicked generation killed by the flood received a chance to hear the gospel – the good news which culminates in Jesus’ resurrection and victory over death – preached by none less than Jesus (3:18–20). It says that “in former times” they “did not obey,” but what will be the outcome after they hear? Peter had earlier made clear that we shouldn’t assume nothing can change after death:

Conduct yourselves honorably among the gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge. (2:12)

Gentiles that maligned believers in their earthly life may glorify God on judgement day. How? Apparently meeting the resurrected Jesus can change someone! And it appears that every person, even Judas, will get that chance.

5 Likes
17

Interesting question, as it impacts how we see salvation. In my mind, salvation requires not only repentance but also acceptance of grace. The thief of the cross had both. Judas it appears did not. Not because it was not available, but because he did not accept it. Had he accepted, I think his status would have been like Peter, who denied Christ yet was forgiven. But Judas’ pride or shame overwhelmed him to the point where he took his life rather than accept forgiveness. We too at times betray or deny Christ and our pride stands in the way of our forgiveness and our salvation from the guilt and bondage of sin.
The question of suicide has been brought up, but i would say it is not the suicide that is unforgivable, as often that is an act of mental derangement, but rather the lack of acceptance of grace. I believe that many who commit suicide (interesting phrase as it is the ultimate commitment) will be in heaven. In any case, I have to remind myself to accept the grace given by God, as well as by those around me on a regular basis.

3 Likes
18

Judas Iscariot

I think part of the difficulty is thinking that salvation means there are no consequences for the things you have done. This is completely wrong. That is not what salvation is about at all.

Salvation is merely getting the help of God to overcome the self-destructive habits of sin which will otherwise consume you (a hellish existence).

I very much believe that all of our actions and choices will have consequences which cannot be escaped regardless of whether we are saved or not. And so we will have very good reason to regret the bad things we have done and be grateful for the good things we have done regardless of whether we are in heaven or hell.

Frankly this is the whole point of believing in an existence after death. Otherwise you might as well go with the atheist belief that death is the end. For me the atheist view sounds great but just a little TOO easy. So there is NO WAY in which I am going to go from the atheist view to one with a belief in life after death where you can somehow escape from all the consequences of the things you have done. Not happening!

2 Likes
19

I find I interesting that you are seeking alternative interpretations rather than literal biblical ones.

John 17:12

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

and
Romans 9:22

What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

and

John 6:70

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
and
Acts 1:25

to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”
and

John 12:6

New King James Version

6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
Matthew 7:13-14

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Although no one is outside the saving power of Gods Grace he leaves many to their own destruction.

2 Likes
20

Do you think that sounds just? :). Thanks. I think it’s very reasonable to ask for reasons of God’s justice.

To quote George MacDonald,

i. If it be said by any that God does a thing which seems to me unjust, then either I do not know what the thing is, or God does not do it…Least of all must we accept some low notion of justice in a man, and argue that God is just in doing after that notion.

Thanks.

4 Likes