There were two of this name well known in the Scriptures of the New Testament, the one an apostle of Christ, called in Matthew’s gospel, (chap. x. 3.) Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus, and by Luke, the brother of James; and he is again noticed by the persons who thought slight of our Lord and his doctrine, as his brother, Matt. 13, 55. This was the Judas which spake to Christ in the midst of our Lord’s sermon, and said, "Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? (John 14. 22.) Heisthe Jude to whom, under the Holy Ghost, we are indebted for that precious morsel of gospel truth which is contained in the Epistle that bears his name. The other Jude or Judas is he who was surnamed Barsabas, (see Acts xv. 22.) and who was commissioned by the apostles to go to the church at Antioch. We have the account of his journey in the same chapter, ver. 30, &c. There is another Judas different from both the former, mentioned Acts ix. 11. Lastly, Judas Iscariot, the traitor. Some read it Ish - cariot, the man ofcarioth; but certainly more properly Ish and corath, the man of murder. See Iscariot. The awful character of this man is related to us so fully in the gospels, that there can need nothing more than a reference to those sacred records to obtain the most complete account of him, together with his tremendous doom: for what can more fully decide the everlasting ruin of the traitor than the Lord Jesuss account of him, when summing up all in one the most finished picture of misery, Jesus saith good were it for that man, if he hadnever been born! (Mark 14. 11.)
It hath been a subject of some debate in the early church respecting Judas Iscariot, whether he did or did not receive the Lords Supper. Some have insisted upon it that he did, and others, equally positive, have asserted that he did not. The best way to determine the point, will be to regard what the Evangelists have said upon the subject; for it must be from their testimony alone a right judgment can be formed. I shall therefore, bring each of them in their relation concerning this matter before the reader, and then leave it to hisown determination which opinion to take. Matthew gives a particular account of the whole proceedings of the Supper from first to last, chap. 26. 20 - 30, and expressly states that when the twelve: consequently Judas was included. And so unconscious were the rest of the disciples who the traitor was, when the Lord at the table intimated that one of them should betray him, that they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Lord, is it I? And when the Lord to the enquiry of Judas declared that hewasthe person, there is nothing said of his departure, but that the Lord proceeded to bless the bread and the cup, and said, Drink ye all of it. After the supper, when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. This is the whole relation as given by Matthew. Mark states the circumstances very nearly to the same amount; the fourteenth chapter, from the twelfth to the twenty - sixth verse. This evangelist observes, that prior to the supper Judas had been with the chief priests, and covenanted with them tobetray Christ unto them. This however did not prevent him from mingling with the other disciples at the table, for Mark saith, that in the evening Jesus came with the twelve; and he adds, that as they sat and did eat Jesus intimated the circumstance of one of them betraying him. But from this evangelists account it doth not appear that any discovery was then made of the traitor, neither is there the least idea afforded as if Judas was not present at the whole supper. Luke is yet more particular in his account of the supper.(See Luke xx2: 14 - 39.) He saith, that when the hour was come, Jesus sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And what is much to the point in respect to the question now under consideration, this evangelist, in his statement of this memorable transaction, represents the Lord as proceeding to the supper, and giving both the bread and the cup to them before he intimated the presence of the traitor. So that, according to this relation of the subject, the Supper was finished when Jesus declared concerning the act of betraying him. John hath said nothing of the Supper itself, except he had respect to it in the opening of the thirteenth chapter of his Gospel. The reason, no doubt, of his silence was, that as the other evangelists had related the circumstances so particularly, and his gospel being principally intended as supplementary, to record those things of the Lord Jesus which they had omitted, there needed not again the account of the transactions of the Supper. But if the evangelist meant the Lords Supper in the Passover, when he said, (chap. 13. 2.) And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simons son, to betray himif this was the sacramental supper, then it will follow that all that is subsequent in this chapter was also subsequent to the service. And as the evangelist John saith also in this same chapter, that it was after the sop which Jesus gave him, as a token of the traitor, that Satan entered into him, then must it have been after the supper. Such are the several relations given by the several evangelists on this memorable point. The reader will now judge for himself, when he hath duly considered the whole taken together. But I cannot see the very great importance of the question, whether Judas Iscariot did or did not receive the Lords Supper. Put the case that he didwhat did he receive? Nothing, surely, more than the mere outward sign. He had no part or lot in the matter. He had no union with Christ, and consequently no communion with him in the ordinance. For as the apostle justly and decidedly states it, what concord hath Christ with Belial? (2 Cor. vi. 15.) Judas being present at the table, and partaking of the elements of the table, became neither benefited himself, nor was it injurious to others. We read in earlier periods of the church, that when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan came also among them. (Job i. 6.) But was the meeting unhallowed to the sons of God because the devil came in the midst? Were the apostles of Christ less apostles because Judas was numbered with them, and hadobtained part of this ministry? (Acts i. 17.) And surely if the Lord Jesus, well knowing as he did whom he had chosen, was pleased to number him for a time with the apostles, might he not for a time also allow him to sit down with the apostles at the same table? Yea, did not the Lord Jesus expressly tell the church, that these things were his own appointment, and perfectly known in all their consequences by his divine mind, when he said, Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (John vi. 70.) If choosing Judas to be an apostle, at the time Christ knew that he was a devil, did not in the least contaminate the rest of the apostles, neither injure the cause of Jesus, it must undeniably follow, that his being present at the supper could not pollute the supper, nor the faithful partakers of the supper. These things can never be injured by outward causes. The precious and the vile must necessarily in this world be often brought together, but the ordinance can receive no taint from the worthlessness of partakers. Ordinances of every kind, like the gospel itself, will prove a savour of life unto life unto some, whilst a savour of death unto death unto others. Here lies the grand discriminating mark, the Lord knoweth them that are his. (2 Tim. li. 19.) And while the Lord knoweth them that are his, he no less knoweth them that are not. And we have already left upon record, the awful sentence which will be read to all such in the great day of God. Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But heshall say, I tell you I know ye not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. (Luke 13. 26, 27.) Indeed, may we not go farther, and suppose, that from this very appointment the Lord intended special good to his people? Was it not in effect saying, that if in the instance of the Lord Jesus himself a Judas is permitted, yea, appointed to attend his person, can it be wondered at in the minglings up of life, that his people should be so exercised? If in the college of apostles, out of twelve persons one should be adevil, can his people complain that they are sometimes called to dwell with Mesech, and to have their habitation among the tents of Kedar? Did Jesus, the Lord of life and glory, who might have commanded twelve legions of angels to attend him, permit, yea, even appoint a known devil to be his servant, to be with him in his miracles and his ministry, yea, to be one of the party at his farewell superand what doth the meek and gentle Saviour teach thereby all his tried ones upon earth but this, that in their intercourse with the graceless they are to call to mind the unequalled humblings of Jesus in such instances. If he endured such a contradiction of sinners against himself, they are not to be wearied nor faint in their mind. The most blessed purposes are in the design. It hath been so in the church of God from the beginning, and will continue so unto the end. In the family of Adam there was a Cain; in Noahs house there was a Ham; Isaac had his Esau as well as Jacob; and, above all, the Lord Jesus had Judas. Tares are in the church as well as the pure wheat; and it is Jesus himself that saith, Let both grow together unto the harvest. But then when the harvest comes, the final and everlasting separation takes place; then it will be no longer needful that characters so very opposite should dwell together. Then will I say (saith the Lord Jesus) to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. (Matt. 13. 30.)
I cannot dismiss the view we have taken of this subject without making one short observation more on the occasion, namely, to remark how ill - judged it is in our reading the Scriptures hastily to leap to conclusions, and to frame our opinions according to our supposed fitness of things, and not by the standard of the divine word. Assuming it for granted that Jesus, who knew the hearts of all men, neither needed that nay should shew him, would not have permitted Judas to partake of his supper, they instantly leap to a conclusion, that it could not be, and decide upon it accordingly. We are told by Chrysostom, that a similar offence was taken in his days, by some weak and injudicious Christians, at that sweet passage in St. Johns Gospel, (chap. xi. 35.) where it is said, that Jesus wept. Concluding, that it was unsuitable and unbecoming the person and dignity of the Lord Jesus to be affected with human passions, they struck it out of their Bibles. But it was happy for us, and the Christian world at large, that when striking it out of their Bibles they could not strike it out of ours. Blessed be the Lord for presiding over his word, and preserving to us the sweet passage; for surely, to all true believers in Jesus, such views of Jesus are among the loveliest and most endearing parts in his divine character. Nothing can be more soothing and consolatory to a poor, sorrowful, afflicted follower of the Lord Jesus in his hours of suffering, than the consideration that he who is now exalted at the right hand of the majesty on high, was once, when on earth, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And the highest possible relief to the anguish of the soul under temptation, is the consciousness of the sympathy and compassion of Christ. He who wept when upon earth in beholding the tears of his people, cannot be unfeeling of them now though in heaven. And we have authority to conclude, that this sweet feature in the character of Jesus is as much his as ever; in that he hath suffered, being tempted, he knoweth how to succour them that are tempted.
Let me only beg to add one observation more in relation to the traitor Judas, and then take a final farewell of his history forever; namely, concerning the awful death of the man, and the judgments that followed in his bowels gushing out. One of the evangelists saith, that he hanged himself. (Matt. 27. 3 - 5.) And another adds, that falling headlong, he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out. (Acts i. 18, 19.) both events, no doubt, took place: and as by the suffocation induced by hanging, a great swelling might most probably take place, when he fell, the rupture of the lower part of the belly, called the abdomen, gave way, and the bowels gushed out. Think, what a spectacle! How justly the object of detestation both to God and man! And think if possible what followed.To all the tremendous miseries of eternity he had to add, the special and peculiar aggravation in the everlasting and unceasing thoughtthat he, of all the creation of God, had this worm of conscience that never dieth, to prey upon him to all eternity, that he it was that betrayed the Lord of life and glory.
Ju′das is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew name Judah.
Judas Maccabeus, 1
Judas Iscariot, 2
Judas Iscar´iot. The object of this article is not to elucidate all the circumstances recorded respecting this person, but simply to investigate his motives in delivering up Jesus to the chief-priests. The evangelists relate his proceedings, but give no opinion. The subject is consequently open to inquiry. Our conclusions must be guided by the facts of the case, and by the known feelings and principles of human nature. The only conceivable motives for the conduct of Judas are, a sense of duty in bringing his Master to justice, resentment, avarice, dissatisfaction with the procedure of Jesus, and a consequent scheme for the accomplishment of his own views. With regard to the first of these motives, if Judas had been actuated by a sense of duty in bringing his Master to justice for anything censurable in his intentions, words, or actions, he would certainly have alleged some charge against him in his first interview with the chief-priests, and they would have brought him forward as a witness against Jesus, especially when they were at so great a loss for evidence; or they would have reminded him of his accusations when he appealed to them after our Lord’s condemnation, saying, ’I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood’—a confession which amounts to an avowal that he had never seen anything to blame in his Master, but everything to approve. The second motive supposed, namely, that of resentment, is rather more plausible. Jesus had certainly rebuked him for blaming the woman who had anointed him in the house of Simon the leper, at Bethany (comp. Mat 26:8-17; Joh 12:4-5); and Matthew’s narrative seems to connect his going to the chief-priests with that rebuke (Mat 26:14): ’Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief-priests;’ but closer inspection will convince the reader that those words are more properly connected with Mat 26:3. Besides, the rebuke was general, ’Why trouble ye the woman?’ Nor was it nearly so harsh as that received by Peter, ’Get thee behind me, Satan’ (Mat 16:23), and certainly not so public (Mar 8:32-33). Even if Judas had felt ever so much resentment, it could scarcely have been his sole motive; and as nearly two days elapsed between his contract with the chief-priests and its completion, it would have subsided during the interval, and have yielded to that covetousness which we have every reason to believe was his ruling passion. St. John expressly declares that Judas ’was a thief, and had the bag, and bare (that is, conveyed away from it, stole) what was put therein’ (Joh 12:6; comp. 20:15, in the original). This rebuke, or rather certain circumstances attending it, might have determined him to act as he did, but is insufficient, of itself, to account entirely for his conduct, by which he endangered all his expectations of worldly advancement from Jesus, at the very moment when they seemed upon the verge of being fulfilled. It is, indeed, a most important feature in the case, that the hopes entertained by Judas, and all the apostles, from their Master’s expected elevation, as the Messiah, to the throne of Judea, and, as they believed, to the empire of the whole world, were never more stedfast than at the time when he covenanted with the chief-priests to deliver him into their hands. Nor does the theory of mere resentment agree with the terms of censure in which the conduct and character of Judas are spoken of by our Lord and the evangelists. Since, then, this supposition is insufficient, we may consider another motive to which his conduct is more commonly ascribed, namely, covetousness. But if by covetousness is meant the eager desire to obtain ’the thirty pieces of silver,’ with which the chief-priests ’covenanted with him’ (Mat 26:15), it presents scarcely a less inadequate motive. Can it be conceived that Judas would deliberately forego the prospect of immense wealth from his Master, by delivering him up for about four pounds ten shillings of our money, upon the highest computation, and not more than double in value, a sum which he might easily have purloined from the bag? Is it likely that he would have made such a sacrifice for any further sum, however large, which we may suppose ’they promised him’ (Mar 14:11), and of which the thirty pieces of silver might have been the mere earnest (Luk 22:5)? Had covetousness been his motive, he would have ultimately applied to the chief-priests, not to bring again the thirty pieces of silver with the confession, ’I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood’ (Mat 27:4), but to demand the completion of their agreement with him. We are now at liberty to consider the only remaining motive for the conduct of Judas, namely, dissatisfaction with the procedure of his Master, and a consequent scheme for the furtherance of his own views. It seems to us likely, that the impatience of Judas for the accomplishment of his worldly views, which we conceive to have ever actuated him in following Jesus, could no longer be restrained, and that our Lord’s observations at Bethany served to mature a stratagem he had meditated long before. He had no doubt been greatly disappointed at seeing his Master avoid being made a king, after feeding the five thousand in Galilee. Many a favorable crisis had He seemed to lose, or had not dared to embrace, and now while at Bethany He talks of his burial (Joh 12:7); and though none of His apostles, so firm were their worldly expectations from their Master, could clearly understand such ’sayings’ (Luk 18:34); yet they had been made ’exceeding sorry’ by them (Mat 17:23). At the same time Judas had long been convinced by the miracles he had seen his Master perform that He was the Messiah (Joh 7:31). He had even heard Him accept this title from His apostles in private (Mat 16:16). He had promised them that when He should ’sit upon the throne of His glory, they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Mat 19:28). Yet now, when everything seemed most favorable to the assumption of empire, He hesitates and desponds. Within a few days, the people, who had lately given Him a triumphal entry into the city, having kept the Passover, would be dispersed to their homes, and Judas and his fellow apostles be, perhaps, required to attend their Master on another tedious expedition through the country. Hence it seems most probable that Judas resolved upon the plan of delivering up his Master to the Jewish authorities, when he would be compelled, in self-defense, to prove His claims, by giving them the sign from heaven they had so often demanded; they would, he believed, elect him in due form as the King Messiah, and thus enable Him to reward His followers. He did, indeed, receive from Jesus many alarming admonitions against his design; but the plainest warnings are lost upon a mind totally absorbed by a purpose, and agitated by many violent passions. The worst he would permit himself to expect, was a temporary displeasure for placing his Master in this dilemma; but as he most likely believed, judging from himself, that Jesus anticipated worldly aggrandizement, he might calculate upon His forgiveness when the emergency should have been triumphantly surmounted. Judas could not doubt his master’s ability to extricate Himself from His enemies by miracle. He had known Him do so more than once (Luk 4:30; Joh 8:59; Joh 10:39). Hence his directions to the officers to ’hold him fast,’ when he was apprehended (Mat 26:48). With other Jews he believed the Messiah would never die (Joh 12:34); accordingly, we regard his pecuniary stipulation with the priests as a mere artful cover to his deeper and more comprehensive design; and so that he served their purpose in causing the apprehension of Jesus, they would little care to scrutinize his motive. All they felt was being ’glad’ at his proposal (Mar 14:11), and the plan appeared to hold good up to the very moment of our Lord’s condemnation; for after His apprehension His miraculous power seemed unabated, from His healing Malchus. Judas heard Him declare that He could even then ’ask, and His father would give Him twelve legions of angels’ for His rescue. But when Judas, who awaited the issue of the trial with such different expectations, saw that though Jesus had avowed Himself to be the Messiah, He had not convinced the Sanhedrim; and, instead of extricating Himself from their power by miracle, had submitted to be ’condemned, buffeted, and spit upon,’ by His judges and accusers; then it should seem he awoke to a full view of all the consequences of his conduct. The prophecies of the Old Testament, ’that Christ should suffer and of Jesus, concerning His own rejection and death, flashed on his mind in their true sense and full force, and he found himself the wretched instrument of their fulfillment. He made a last desperate effort to stay proceedings. He presented himself to the chief-priests, offered to return the money, confessed that he had sinned in that he had betrayed the innocent blood, and upon receiving their heartless answer was wrought into a frenzy of despair, during which He committed suicide. There is much significancy in these words of Mat 27:3, ’Then Judas, when he saw He was condemned,’ not expiring on the cross, ’repented himself,’ etc. If such be the true hypothesis of his conduct, then, however culpable it may have been, as originating in the most inordinate covetousness, impatience of the procedure of Providence, crooked policy, or any other bad quality, he is certainly absolved from the direct intention of procuring his Master’s death. ’The difference,’ says Archbishop Whately, ’between Iscariot and his fellow apostles was, that though they all had the same expectations and conjectures, he dared to act on his conjectures, departing from the plain course of his known duty to follow the calculations of his worldly wisdom, and the schemes of his worldly ambition.’
Judas or Jude, surnamed Barsabas, a Christian teacher sent from Jerusalem to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas (Act 15:22; Act 15:27; Act 15:32). He is supposed to have been one of the seventy disciples, and brother of Joseph, also surnamed Barsabas (son of Sabas), who was proposed, with Matthias, to fill up the place of the traitor Judas (Act 1:23). Judas and Silas (who was also of the party) are mentioned together as ’prophets’ and ’chief men among the brethren.’
Judas, a Jew of Damascus, with whom Paul lodged (Act 9:11).
Surnamed the Galilean (Act 5:37), so called also by Josephus, and likewise ’the Gaulonite.’ In company with one Sadoc he attempted to raise a sedition among the Jews, but was destroyed by Cyrenius (Quirinus), then proconsul of Syria and Judea.
1. ISCARIOT, that is, man of Carioth or Kerioth, a city of Judah, Jos 15:25 . Being one of the twelve apostles of our Lord, Judas seems to have possessed the full confidence of his fellow apostles, and was entrusted by them with all the presents which were made them, and all their means of subsistence; and when the twelve were sent out to preach and to work miracles, Judas appears to have been among them, and to have received the same powers. He was accustomed, however, even at this time, to appropriate part of their common stock to his own use, Joh 12:6 ; and at length sealed his infamy by betraying his Lord to the Jews for money. For the paltry sum of about $15, he engaged with the Jewish Sanhedrin to guide them to a place where they could seize him by night without danger of a tumult. But when he learned the result, a terrible remorse took possession of him; not succeeding in undoing his fatal work with the priests, he cast down before them the price of blood, crossed the gloomy valley of Hinnom, and hung himself, Mat 27:3-10 . Luke, in Mal 1:18, adds that he fell headlong and burst asunder, probably by the breaking of the rope or branch. The steep hillside south of the valley of Hinnom might well be the scene of such a twofold death. See ACELDAMA.\par The remorseful confession of Judas was a signal testimony to the spotless innocence of Christ, Mat 27:4 ; and his awful end is a solemn warning against avarice, hypocrisy, and all unfaithfulness, Mat 26:34 Joh 17:12 Mal 1:25 .\par 2. One of the apostles, called also Jude, Lebbeus, and Thaddeus, Mat 10:3 Mar 3:18 Jud 1:1, the son of Alpheus and Mary, and brother of James the LESS. See Jas 2 and 3. He was the author of the epistle which bears his name, Mar 6:3 Luk 6:16 Mal 1:13 .\par 3. The brother of our Lord, Mat 27:56 . Supposed by many to have been only a cousin, and the same as Judas 2. The apostle. But his "brethren" did not believe in him until near the close of his ministry. See Jas 3 4. A Christian teacher, called also Barsabas, sent from Jerusalem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Mal 15:22,27,32 .\par 5. Surnamed "the Galilean," called also, by Josephus, the Gaulonite. He was born at Gamala, a city of Gaulonitis near the southeastern shore of the lake of Tiberias. In company with one Sadoc, he attempted to excite a sedition among the Jews, but was destroyed by Quirinus, or Cyrenius, at that time governor of Syria and Judea, Mal 5:37 .\par 6. A Jew at Damascus, with whom Paul lodged, Mal 9:11 .\par
Ju’das. The Greek form of the Hebrew name, Judah, occurring in the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament.
1. The patriarch, Judah. Mat 1:2-3.
2. A man, residing at Damascus, in "the street which is called Straight," in whose house Saul of Tarsus lodged, after his miraculous conversion. Act 9:11.
3. Judas, surnamed Barsabas, a leading member of the apostolic church at Jerusalem, Act 15:22, endued with the gift of prophesy, Act 15:32, chosen with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas, as delegates to the church at Antioch. (A.D. 47). Later, Judas went back to Jerusalem.
At whose house, in the street called Straight at Damascus (now the "street of bazaars," reaching long, straight, and wide from the S. gate into the heart of the city), Saul of Tarsus lodged after his conversion (Act 9:11). The house is still professedly shown a few steps out of the "street of bazaars," in an open space, "the sheikh’s place." It has a stone floored square room, partly wailed off for a tomb shown as "the tomb of Ananias."
Judas (jû’das). 1. The son of Jacob, "Judah" in R. V. Mat 1:2; Mat 3:2. The faithless apostle who betrayed his master. Mat 10:4; Mar 3:19; Luk 6:16. He was Simon’s son, Joh 6:71, and is called Iscariot, probably from his birthplace, perhaps from Kerioth in Judah, Jos 15:25, or from Kartan, or Kartah, in Galilee. Jos 21:32; Jos 21:34. Of this man’s earlier life we know nothing, nor for what reason he was induced to follow Jesus. Why our Lord appointed Judas an apostle, the sacred narrative does not tell us. Jesus knew and expressed his knowledge of Iscariot’s character. Joh 6:64; Joh 6:70-71. In calling him our Lord acted only in accordance with the general administration of his kingdom. This is illustrated by one of his parables, Mat 13:24-30; and it is no more than we continually see,—ungodly men in place and power, both in the world and in the church, with gifts which they abuse and responsibilities which increase their condemnation. It has often been a puzzle to those who did not understand the moral government of God, comp. Psa 73:1-28; but he will eventually vindicate his wisdom and his justice. Meanwhile valuable lessons of warning and circumspection are taught by the fate of such as have perverted their privileges to their own ruin. Judas maintained a fair character among his fellow-apostles, and was entrusted with the custody of their money, Joh 12:6; Joh 13:29; nor do they seem to have suspected him even when our Lord was distinctly warning them that one of their number would betray him. Mat 26:21-24; Joh 13:22. This was Judas’ question to the priests: "What will ye give me?" Mat 26:15. Satan espied bis opportunity and took it. Luk 22:8. Probably Judas began to see that he was suspected, and, when the Lord in answer to his hypocritical question, had distinctly told him of his treason, full of additional passion, he went recklessly about his work. Mat 26:25; Joh 13:26-30. He was fulfilling prophecy, but was unconscious of it. His own evil heart it was that prompted him; and therefore the guilt of his deed was upon himself. When confronted with the results of his base treachery, he was seized with remorse, returned the bribe, and hanged himself. 3. One described as one of the Lord’s brethren, Mat 13:55, called also Juda. Mar 6:3 A. V. An interesting story is related of his family by Eusebius. The emperor Domitian was alarmed by what he had heard of Messiah’s kingdom, and ordered some of the descendants of the house of David to be sought out and brought to him. Those so presented to the emperor were the grandsons of Judas; but the hardness of their hands, proving that they were but ordinary peasants, and their description of the spiritual nature of the new sovereignty, removed all apprehensions. They were let go, and lived on, honored as the Lord’s relatives, into the reign of Trajan. 4. A brother of James, and one of the apostles; called also Thaddæus and Lebbæus. Mat 10:3; Mar 3:18; Luk 6:16; Joh 14:22; Act 1:13; Mat 13:55. 5. Judas of Galilee, a leader of an insurrection "in the days of taxing "—i.e., the census—a.d. 6, and who, according to Gamaliel, was very successful for a time, but was ultimately completely defeated. Act 5:37. We find in Josephus an allusion to a man, who is there said to have been born in the city of Gamala in Gaulanitis, and to have been the founder of a new sect, which did not differ from that of the Pharisees save in a fanatical love of liberty and refusal to support the Roman state. 6. The one whose house in Straight street, Damascus, sheltered Paul during his blindness. Act 9:11; Act 9:17. This Judas may have kept an inn; it is unlikely that he was a disciple. 7. Judas, surnamed Barsabas, a "chief man among the brethren," a "prophet," who was chosen along with Paul and Barnabas and Silas to carry the decisions of the council of Jerusalem, a.d. 50, to Antioch. Act 15:22-33.
[Ju’das]
1. The patriarch JUDAH. Mat 1:2-3.
2. One of the apostles, brother of James. Luk 6:16; Joh 14:22; Act 1:13. Called JUDE in Jud 1:1; and apparently the same as ’Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.’ Mat 10:3; Mar 3:18.
3. One of the brethren of the Lord. Mat 13:55: called JUDA in Mar 6:3.
4. Judas of Galilee, who raised an insurrection in the days of the taxing, A.D. 6. He was killed by the Romans and his followers were dispersed. Act 5:37.
5. One in Damascus with whom Paul lodged. Act 9:11.
6. A ’prophet’ sent from Jerusalem to Antioch. Act 15:22. See BARSABAS, No. 2.
JUDAS
1. Judas the son of James. The eleventh name in two lists of the Apostles (Luk 6:16, Act 1:13) is
In two lists of the Apostles (Mat 10:4, Mar 3:18) ‘Judas the son of James’ has no place; the other names correspond in all four lists. In Mt. and Mk. Thaddaeus (v.l., in Mt., Lebbaeus) is one of the Twelve. There is little doubt that ‘Judas the son of James’ had a second name ‘Thaddaeus,’ and perhaps a third name ‘Lebbaeus.’ Jerome (Com. in loc.) calls him trinomius. Cf. Nestle in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iv. 741.
It is significant that on the only occasion when this obscure Apostle is referred to in the Gospels, he is distinguished from his notorious namesake as ‘Judas, not Iscariot’ (Joh 14:22). All that we know of ‘Judas Thaddaeus’ is that he asked the question, ‘Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?’ He could not understand how the kingdom was to come unless the Messiah would make a public disclosure (
Concerning the name of this Apostle, who is little more than a name to us, there has been much discussion. In Joh 14:22 Syrsin has ‘Thomas,’ Syrcur has ‘Judas Thomas.’ Plummer (op. cit.) is probably right in regarding the latter as ‘a corrupt reading arising from the fact that the Syrian Christians called Thomas the Apostle, Judas.’ Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica i. 13. 10) refers, in his narrative concerning Abgar, king of Edessa, to ‘Judas who was also called Thomas.’ McGiffert (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, i. 562) suggests that ‘it is possible that Eusebius, or the translator of the document, made a mistake, and applied to Thomas a name which in the original was given to Thaddaeus.’ But Thomas is also called Judas Thomas in Acts of Thomas, c. 11f., 31, 39, and in the Syriac Doctrina Apostolorum. Preuschen (Hennecke, Handbuch zu den NT Apokryphen, p. 562) says: ‘In regard to the name Judas-Thomas, i.e. Judas the Twin, cf. Doctrine of Addai (p. 5, ed. Phillips), Bar-Hebraeus, Chronicon Ecc. iii. 2. The Syriac translation of Eusebius, Ch. Hist. 1:13, 10, renders the Gr.
2. Judas the brother of James.—In two Gospels (Mat 13:55, Mar 6:3) ‘James and Joseph and Simon and Judas’ are named as brothers of Jesus. In Jud 1:1 the author of that Epistle is described as ‘Judas … the brother of James’ ( Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ). The Authorized Version has ‘Jude’; and in Mar 6:3 ‘Juda.’ ‘Judas the brother of James’ is, therefore, a designation both Scriptural and simple, yet sufficient to distinguish the person so named from ‘Judas the son of James,’ who was an Apostle. The use of the full expression
The authorship of the Epistle of Jude is much disputed. Harnack regards the words ‘brother of James’ as an interpolation added towards the end of the 2nd cent. to enhance the value of the Epistle ‘as a weapon against Gnosticism.’ But ‘the simplest interpretation of the salutation, which identifies the writer … with the brother of the Lord, is the best’ (Chase, Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 804a).
Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 19, 20:1–8, 32) quotes from Hegesippus the account of an accusation brought against the grandchildren of Judas; they are described as ‘descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas’; it is further said that ‘after they had borne testimony before Domitian in behalf of faith in Christ … they took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord.’ If ‘Judas the brother of James’ presided over the Church in the city where he lived, he may well have been the author of an Epistle. Mrs. Lewis conjectures that ‘Thomas, the doubting disciple, is identical with Jude, the youngest brother of our Lord’; but this theory involves his exclusion from the statement in Joh 7:5 that our Lord’s brothers did not believe that He was the Messiah (cf. ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xiv. 398; also Rendel Harris, The Dioscuri in the Christian Legends).
3. Judas Iscariot.—See following article.
J. G. Tasker.
JUDAS (in Apocr.
JUDAS (in NT)
1. Judas Iscariot.—See following article.
2. Judas, the son of James (see Jas 4:1-17). one of the twelve Apostles (Luk 6:16), called by Mt. (Mat 10:3) Lebbæus and by Mk. (Mar 3:18) Thaddæus. The only thing recorded of him is that, when Jesus promised in the Upper Room to manifest Himself to the man that loved Him, he inquired: ‘Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?’ (Joh 14:22 RV
3. Judas, the Lord’s brother (Mat 13:55 = Mar 6:3).—See Brethren of the Lord. He was the author of the Short Epistle of Jude (i.e. Judas), where he styles himself ‘the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James’ (Jud 1:1), and, like James, exhibits a stern zeal for morality.
4. Judas, the Galilæan.—He is so called both in the NT (Act 5:37) and in Josephus, though he belonged to Gamala in Gaulanitis on the eastern side of the Lake of Galilee; perhaps because Galilee was the scene of his patriotic enterprise. At the enrolment or census under Quirinius in a.d. 7, Judas raised an insurrection. He perished, and his followers were scattered, but their spirit did not die. They banded themselves into a patriotic fraternity under the significant name of the Zealots, pledged to undying hostility against the Roman tyranny and ever eager for an opportunity to throw off its yoke.
5. Judas, a Jew of Damascus (Act 9:11).—His house was in the Straight Street, and Saul of Tarsus lodged there after his conversion.
6. Judas Barsabbas, one of two deputies—Silas being the other—who were chosen by the rulers of the Church at Jerusalem to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, and report to the believers there the Council’s decision on the question on what terms the Gentiles should be admitted into the Christian Church (Act 15:22-33). Judas and Silas are described as ‘chief men among the brethren’ (Act 15:22) and ‘prophets’ (Act 15:32). Since they bore the same patronymic, Judas may have been a brother of Joseph Barsabbas (Act 1:23). 7. An ancestor of Jesus (Luk 3:30).
David Smith.
(1) A Levite mentioned in 1 Esdras 9:23 = JUDAH (3).
(2) Judas Maccabeus, 3rd son of Mattathias (1 Macc 2:4). See MACCABEES.
(3) Judas, son of Chalphi, a Jewish officer who supported Jonathan bravely at the battle of Hazor (1 Macc 11:70; Ant., XIII, v, 7).
(4) A person of good position in Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristobulus (2 Macc 1:10); he has been identified with Judas Maccabeus and also with an Essene prophet (Ant., XIII, xi, 2; BJ, III, 5).
(5) Son of Simon the Maccabee, and brother of John Hyrcanus (1 Macc 16:2). He was wounded in the battle which he fought along with his brother against Cendebeus (1 Macc 16:1 ff; Ant., XIII, vii, 3), and was murdered by Ptolemy the usurper, his brother-in-law, at Dok (1 Macc 16:11 ff).
(or Jude - Hebrew, Judah)
- Six Judas’:
(1) Judas Iscariot, the apostle who betrayed Jesus;
(2) The apostle Judas (or Thaddaeus), son of James;
(3) Judas (Matt 13; or Jude), brother of Jesus and traditionally author of the Letter of Jude; and
In the Acts of the Apostles:
(4) Judas of Galilee who led a Jewish rebellion in AD6;
(5) Judas of Damascus, in whose house the blinded Saul (the apostle Paul) stayed after Jesus had appeared to him in c AD34; and
(6) Judas Barsabbas, a prominent member of the church in Jerusalem who travelled with Paul to Syrian Antioch after the Council at Jerusalem in c AD49. See also Judas Barsabbas following.
Mat 26:47 (c) He is generally used as a type of the ingrate who turns traitor to the friend he should love and becomes an enemy of one to whom he is deeply indebted.
It seems that, after the treachery of Judas Iscariot in betraying Jesus, the name Judas became unpopular among Christians. Those who already had the name Judas often preferred some other name.
For example, Jesus’ group of twelve apostles included a second man named Judas, but when writers mention him they point out that he was the son of a man named James, and not Judas Iscariot. To avoid confusion, this apostle apparently took another name, Thaddaeus (or Lebbaeus) (Mat 10:3; Luk 6:16; Joh 14:22; see THADDAEUS). One of Jesus’ brothers was named Judas, but on becoming a believer he was known by the shorter name, Jude (Mat 13:55; see JUDE). A prophet named Judas in the Jerusalem church took another name, Barsabbas (Act 15:22; Act 15:27). (Concerning Judas the Galilean mentioned in Act 5:37 see ZEALOT.)
Judas Iscariot
Judas the betrayer was commonly known as Iscariot (meaning ‘man of Kerioth’), after the home town of his father, Simon (Mat 10:4; Joh 6:71). As treasurer for the group of twelve apostles, Judas had responsibility for funds donated for the poor. It later became evident that he had been stealing some of the money for himself (Joh 12:5-6; Joh 13:29).
Jesus had seen the evil in Judas’ heart long before those final acts of treachery that resulted in Jesus’ crucifixion (Joh 6:70-71; Joh 17:12). Judas’ criticism of Mary’s anointing of Jesus showed his lack of spiritual insight (Joh 12:3-8). The other disciples still did not suspect him of disloyalty, even when Jesus told them a betrayer was among them (Mat 26:20-25; Joh 13:2; Joh 13:21-30).
The Jewish leaders had been wondering how to arrest Jesus without creating a riot (Luk 22:1-2), but the defection of one of Jesus’ apostles made their task easier. Judas demanded payment for his part in the plot, and the Jewish leaders agreed (Mat 26:14-16; Luk 22:3-6). The vital information that Judas gave the Jews concerned the secret place where Jesus prayed with his disciples. In the middle of the night, when the people of Jerusalem were asleep, Judas led an armed group of temple guards and Roman soldiers to the place. His final act of treachery was to identify the one to be arrested by kissing him (Mat 26:47-56; Joh 18:2-12).
Judas gained no satisfaction from his evil work. He knew he had done wrong in helping to crucify an innocent man, but he made no effort to correct the wrong. Instead he committed suicide; though first he tried to ease his conscience by returning the money that the priests had given him (Mat 27:3-5).
It seems that Judas went into a field and tried to hang himself, but in doing so he injured himself internally and his stomach burst. When his body was found, the priests took the betrayal money Judas had returned and with it bought the field in his name. Originally known as Potter’s Field, the place was renamed Field of Blood and used as a cemetery for Gentiles (Mat 27:6-10; Act 1:18-19).