horax

The fate of Judas Iscariot

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Rob, we're all aware that mankind progresses in stages through the process of repentance and refinement. I daresay most of us here are also aware of your unorthodox beliefs. You are welcome to them, but please do not represent such beliefs either as LDS doctrine or as truths not yet recognized and embraced by the Church. We all realize that you think you're much cleverer than we are, or the prophets. That's fine. Maybe you're right. Just be silently smug, rather than seeking to broadcast your superiority.

This thread is from years ago, and though I may not agree with many of Rob's thoughts, I do agree on one facet he stated.  In this, that the answer was given already above.  It was stated DIRECTLY by the LORD.

In this, Judas was declared to be a Son of Perdition by the very individual who is the judge who decides these things.  If the Lord himself stated it, who are we to contest it?

Luckily it is the LORD who is the judge, not I.  The final fate of Judas Iscariot is up to HIS judgment...not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even convinced that Judas is unsalvageable. The man was a zealot. He believed that Jesus was the Messiah, in the sense of rescuing the Jews from Roman rule. It's entirely plausible that he acted from a position of misguided faith and was convinced that turning Jesus over would spark the revolution. In other words, he was trying to help move things along without fully comprehending Christ's plan and purpose. If we are to believe the scriptures, he wasn't unique in that regard among the disciples.

As for John's statement, the Gospel of John was written decades later by someone purporting to be the Apostle John,  but the authorship isn't decisively affirmed. Furthermore, we never hear Judas's side of the story, and the statements against his spiritual welfare may originate in the bitterness the disciples felt toward Judas, not necessarily from the feelings of Christ.

I'm not so strong in my opinions as to say Judas Iscariot is doomed or redeemable. I think we'd be wise to leave that to Christ and, instead, open our minds and hearts to the lessons we can learn from either interpretation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it Noble and charitable even that in our hearts we have a love of people, even for the likes of Judas. However, with so much testimony from scripture that Judas is a son of perdition I think it wise on our part to accept it at that and realize the importance of not selling away our salvation. We hear of horrific stories in our day of people who secretly plot and hire hitmen to kill their spouses for money and yet even this pales in comparison to the betrayal of Judas with the Savior of mankind. This wasn't something that developed overnight. He knew who Christ was, what his mission was, and for gain decided that money was more important than the Savior's love. He got his reward just as did Lucifer, now they are both in the same miserable boat. And don't think Judas changed, he is as wicked as they come. This is why it is written it had been better had he never been born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

This wasn't something that developed overnight. He knew who Christ was, what his mission was, and for gain decided that money was more important than the Savior's love. He got his reward just as did Lucifer, now they are both in the same miserable boat. And don't think Judas changed, he is as wicked as they come. This is why it is written it had been better had he never been born.

I've actually read an analysis (I don't remember where) that suggests that Judas' motives may not have been for greed.  The conclusion of this particular analysis was that Judas was expecting Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans, liberating Judea from Roman occupation.  This is what most people believed the Messiah was going to do.  Judas' sin was to be blind to the bigger picture, and sold Jesus out as a way of trying to force the issue - in that by leading the Romans to Jesus, it would force the hand of the Messiah to start the revolt.  That didn't happen, of course, and it was only in hindsight that Judas finally understood.  That was why he went off an hanged himself.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes more sense to me than the idea that he was motivated purely by a desire for a bag of silver coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I've actually read an analysis (I don't remember where) that suggests that Judas' motives may not have been for greed.  The conclusion of this particular analysis was that Judas was expecting Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans, liberating Judea from Roman occupation.  This is what most people believed the Messiah was going to do.  Judas' sin was to be blind to the bigger picture, and sold Jesus out as a way of trying to force the issue - in that by leading the Romans to Jesus, it would force the hand of the Messiah to start the revolt.  That didn't happen, of course, and it was only in hindsight that Judas finally understood.  That was why he went off an hanged himself.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it makes more sense to me than the idea that he was motivated purely by a desire for a bag of silver coins.

Well, it's certainly a Hollywoodesque type of story but our scriptures testify otherwise that it really was over a small sum of money and his motivations were purely evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, it's certainly a Hollywoodesque type of story but our scriptures testify otherwise that it really was over a small sum of money and his motivations were purely evil.

Source, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Right. We don't know. All we can do is theorize. 

I think what it really comes down to is if we really accept the testimonies of scripture or not. If we accept the scriptures then we know Judas is a son of perdition. If we don't accept them then yeah- we can just theorize.

Edited by Rob Osborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, it's certainly a Hollywoodesque type of story but our scriptures testify otherwise that it really was over a small sum of money and his motivations were purely evil.

 

39 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Source, please?

 

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not sufficient. Your reference doesn't address motivations. Please provide the scriptural testimony that "his motivations were purely evil", as you claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vort said:

 

 

Not sufficient. Your reference doesn't address motivations. Please provide the scriptural testimony that "his motivations were purely evil", as you claim.

Did you read the scriptures in the link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think what it really comes down to is if we really accept the testimonies of scripture or not. If we accept the scriptures then we know Judas is a son of perdition. If we don't accept them then yeah- we can just theorize.

Having looked at the verses you referenced, I don't see how they testify that Judas was motivated by greed alone.  (Mind you, I'm not saying he was  or wasn't, only that it isn't stated.)  In fact, looking at the reference in Matthew 27, check out verses 3 and 4.  Judas throws back the money and feels remorse only after Jesus was condemned.

Now, if Judas were motivated only by evil and by greed, why would he care?  More importantly, wouldn't he already have expected that outcome?  The fact that Jesus was condemned doesn't appear to be what he was expecting to happen.   That fits much better with the conclusion I referenced than the simplistic "he was just evil and wanted the silver."

Not saying you can't possibly be right, only that your conclusion isn't supported in the verses provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Did you read the scriptures in the link?

Yes, I did.  And Vort is right, they don't elaborate on his motivations. 

There isn't any dispute over what he did.  Only over why he did it.

You also say "He knew who Christ was, what his mission was," but that isn't at all clear, as even the rest of the disciples were questioning how the crucifixion and disappearance of the body could be. The disciples don't seem to have fully grasped the nature of Christ's work until after the Resurrection and closer to the Ascension. Why would we think Judas was any more intuitive about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

You also say "He knew who Christ was, what his mission was," but that isn't at all clear, as even the rest of the disciples were questioning how the crucifixion and disappearance of the body could be. The disciples don't seem to have fully grasped the nature of Christ's work until after the Resurrection and closer to the Ascension. Why would we think Judas was any more intuitive about it?

Not only that, but the verses @Rob Osborn provides do state that Satan went into Judas, which makes it easier to understand how Judas could have been with Jesus, known Jesus' mission, heard Jesus' teachings, and still be so certain of the idea that Jesus was to be a militarized Messiah that he chose the most underhanded possible method of trying to goad Him into taking up that mantle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Having looked at the verses you referenced, I don't see how they testify that Judas was motivated by greed alone.  (Mind you, I'm not saying he was  or wasn't, only that it isn't stated.)  In fact, looking at the reference in Matthew 27, check out verses 3 and 4.  Judas throws back the money and feels remorse only after Jesus was condemned.

Now, if Judas were motivated only by evil and by greed, why would he care?  More importantly, wouldn't he already have expected that outcome?  The fact that Jesus was condemned doesn't appear to be what he was expecting to happen.   That fits much better with the conclusion I referenced than the simplistic "he was just evil and wanted the silver."

Not saying you can't possibly be right, only that your conclusion isn't supported in the verses provided.

Judas went to the chief priests and captains how he might betray the Savior into their hands. The deal was made with the promise of money. Thus, the act of betrayal was motivated by money. Of course later on his conscious kicked in but it was too late. That is one result of choosing the bad over the good, having a dread feeling. It's one reason why Satan is miserable. But, being miserable doesn't mean one is truly remorseful or repentant, it's just one of the effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Yes, I did.  And Vort is right, they don't elaborate on his motivations. 

There isn't any dispute over what he did.  Only over why he did it.

You also say "He knew who Christ was, what his mission was," but that isn't at all clear, as even the rest of the disciples were questioning how the crucifixion and disappearance of the body could be. The disciples don't seem to have fully grasped the nature of Christ's work until after the Resurrection and closer to the Ascension. Why would we think Judas was any more intuitive about it?

We can theorize every possible thing under the stars. The reality is that Judas betrayed the Christ and for that became a son of perdition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rob Osborn said:

We can theorize every possible thing under the stars. The reality is that Judas betrayed the Christ and for that became a son of perdition

...according to whoever last wrote the transcript that would become the Gospel of John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Judas went to the chief priests and captains how he might betray the Savior into their hands. The deal was made with the promise of money. Thus, the act of betrayal was motivated by money. Of course later on his conscious kicked in but it was too late. That is one result of choosing the bad over the good, having a dread feeling. It's one reason why Satan is miserable. But, being miserable doesn't mean one is truly remorseful or repentant, it's just one of the effects.

Maybe.  He did do all of those things, but that fits the other theory equally well.  

Again, working purely from the references provided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not really.

Well, I was kinda hoping for a specific example of what you mean, but I guess going with "If you don't agree with me you must not have read the verses" approach is okay too.

Not trying to be catty here, and I do appreciate you providing a reference to the verses in question, but I think at this point it's obvious that some of us are getting a different take on them than you did, and we've been trying to get you to focus your point in on exactly where that is.  Just repeating your premise over and over isn't really an argument, brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT SHOCKS me at the number who are willing to tear down the John and try to disbelieve what he wrote.  Or to wrest with the scriptures to try to state something they do not.

The scriptures state (and it was not corrected by the JST as far as I know) that Judas was declared a Son of Perdition.  They state that he was a traitor and betrayed our Lord. 

Now you can either use that, or you can say we do not know, that only the Lord is the judge. 

To say otherwise seems very similar to trying to wrest the scriptures to have them say something exactly opposite of what they do.  John is VERY plain and straightforward.  Even Luke and other scriptures are pretty clear on the problems with Judas Iscariot.

For another explanation that I think is pretty clear, but NOT from the Church...and thus it IS the opinion of whoever wrote the item...

Doctrine and Covenants 76

Quote

One common misconception is that the unpardonable sin can only be a sin against the Holy Ghost. Such is not the case. The unpardonable sin can be a sin against the Holy Ghost or it can be a sin against the Only Begotten Son. Perhaps you remember the words of the Savior, "whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him." (Matt 12:32). Some have concluded from this passage, that sinning against the Son is forgivable, but sinning against the Holy Ghost is not. This conclusion is incorrect. All manner of blasphemies against the Son of God will be forgiven, but denying the Son and crucifying him is an unforgivable sin. This is why the Savior was careful to ask the Father to forgive the Roman soldiers who put him to death, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) He was saying, "these have not committed the unpardonable sin even though they are crucifying me."

Others have thought that Judas Iscariot was not guilty of this sin because he may not have had a sufficient endowment of the Holy Ghost to warrant such a punishment. But Judas' sin was against the Son, and he is clearly referred to as warranting perdition. Speaking of Judas and the Twelve, Jesus said, "none of them is lost, but the son of perdition." (John 17:12)

The scriptures clearly teach this principle. Those who, if they had the opportunity, would crucify Christ again are guilty of this sin. Hereby, they become ex post facto accomplices to the murder of Jesus Christ and receive judgment as if they had personally nailed Jesus to the cross.  "They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb 6:6) The Lord says to them, "ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant." (D&C 132:27,

And from Doctrine and Covenants 76 which uses the wording that it would be better they had not been born...

Quote

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall anot be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

Thus we can see that Judas crucified him, not just would, but actually DID (far more than any other in this life, including Cain who tried to end the line from which to Lord came, but could not actually cause the Lord's crucifixion...which Judas did).  As verse 31 he suffered himself to become overcome by the adversary and to deny the truth and power of the Lord to the point of denying him for 30 pieces of silver.

This answer was already given explicitly in this thread over 5 years ago.  Why then do we try to find excuse on this once again?

What is next, we start trying to excuse Cain?

We can either agree with the Lord and all he has said on the matter or we can leave it blank and say it is the Lord who judges...but to speak against the Lord and his statements?

Are we Saints and followers of Jesus Christ or are we followers of Judas?

I, for one, believe and follow Jesus Christ and trust the words of his apostles and disciples in the New Testament as well as that of the Book of Mormon and the Revelations of the Prophets in our Modern times.

If there is more to come on the matter than it will be revealed by the Lord in his own due time, but for now, on this matter I accept that John wrote it correctly and that the Lord said what he said.  I trust that the Lord MEANT what he said and that this path of trying to prove Judas was otherwise, for now, unless the Lord states something different, is a path that is NOT a good one for someone to pursue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If there is more to come on the matter than it will be revealed by the Lord in his own due time, but for now, on this matter I accept that John wrote it correctly and that the Lord said what he said.  I trust that the Lord MEANT what he said and that this path of trying to prove Judas was otherwise, for now, unless the Lord states something different, is a path that is NOT a good one for someone to pursue.

Then all the Pharisees and Saducees from the comment provided would also be "sons of perdition" if the sin against the Son is similar to that of denying the Holy Ghost. I have understood that these brethren would be Telestial glory, not sons of perdition. Those that slapped their Messiah, spit upon their Messiah, and took him to the Romans would all then be sons of perdition as the sin was against the Son. That is an intriguing application.

I have understood this with regards to sons of perdition, "Standing before the sun, knowing it is the sun (without faith), and then denying and crucifying the son (either figuratively or literally). My hiccup with Judas is that like the other apostles was his knowledge sufficient to truly become a son of perdition (irredeemable)?

But as of right now, it is safe for us to accept scripture as is until we receive further knowledge. This is though from two of God's modern apostles, which is what I have understood regarding Judas:

Quote

It appears that Jesus Christ used the words “son of perdition” to refer to Judas Iscariot, who at this point had left Jesus and the other eleven Apostles in order to betray Jesus to the corrupt Jewish leaders. Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles noted, “Judas … was probably not a son of perdition in the sense of one who is damned forever, but in the sense that he was a son or follower of Satan in this life. See Matt. 26:21–25” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 1:765). (Source)

Quote

President Joseph F. Smith (1838–1918) wrote about whether or not Judas is a son of perdition, after first referring to Doctrine and Covenants 76:31–37, 43, which describes the knowledge that must be understood and then rejected by those who become sons of perdition: “That Judas did partake of all this knowledge—that these great truths had been revealed to him—that he had received the Holy Spirit by the gift of God, and was therefore qualified to commit the unpardonable sin, is not at all clear to me. To my mind it strongly appears that not one of the disciples possessed sufficient light, knowledge nor wisdom, at the time of the crucifixion, for either exaltation or condemnation; for it was afterward that their minds were opened to understand the scriptures, and that they were endowed with power from on high; without which they were only children in knowledge, in comparison to what they afterwards became under the influence of the Spirit” (Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 433). (https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/chapter-27-john-17-19?lang=eng) (emphasis mine)

I lean toward this interpretation of scripture.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anddenex You may note though, he does not try to justify Judas, only to state an opinion (to my mind).  It is not even a statement of thus saith the Lord in this instance, and he does not claim that Judas was acting in any way other than Judas did.  In essence, he is merely indicating that the final judgment is the Lord's and not ours. 

We also have Talmage in his ideas written in "Jesus the Christ", which also state something similar in that it is the LORD who is the final judge, but leans more strongly in regards to what Judas's final fate was proclaimed as...

https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-34?lang=eng

 

Quote

Judas Iscariot.—Today we speak of a traitor as a “Judas” or an “Iscariot.” The man who made the combined name infamous has been for ages a subject of discussion among theologians and philosophers, and in later times the light of psychological analysis has been turned upon him. German philosophers were among the earliest to assert that the man had been judged in unrighteousness, and that his real character was of brighter tint than that in which it had been painted. Indeed some critics hold that of all the Twelve, Judas was the one most thoroughly convinced of our Lord’s divinity in the flesh; and these apologists attempt to explain the betrayal as a deliberate and well-intended move to force Jesus into a position of difficulty from which He could escape only by the exercise of His powers of Godship, which, up to that time, He had never used in His own behalf.

We are not the invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are competent to frame and hold opinions as to the actions of any. In the light of the revealed word it appears that Judas Iscariot had given himself up to the cause of Satan while ostensibly serving the Christ in an exalted capacity. Such a surrender to evil powers could be accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of the man’s transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of God; and in the full light of that conviction he turned against his Lord, and betrayed Him to death. Modern revelation is no less explicit than ancient in declaring that the path of sin is that of spiritual darkness leading to certain destruction. If the man who is guilty of adultery, even in his heart only, shall, unless he repents, surely forfeit the companionship of the Spirit of God, and “shall deny the faith,” and so the voice of God hath affirmed (see D&C 63:16), we cannot doubt that any and all forms of deadly sin shall poison the soul and, if not forsaken through true repentance, shall bring that soul to condemnation. For his trained and skilful servants, Satan will provide opportunities of service commensurate with their evil ability. Whatever the opinion of modern critics as to the good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a thief (12:6); and Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as “the son of perdition” (17:12). See in this connection D&C 76:41–48.

That the evil proclivities of Judas Iscariot were known to Christ is evidenced by the Lord’s direct statement that among the Twelve was one who was a devil; (John 6:70; compare 13:27; Luke 22:3); and furthermore that this knowledge was His when the Twelve were selected is suggested by the words of Jesus: “I know whom I have chosen,” coupled with the explanation that in the choice He had made would the scriptures be fulfilled. As the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God was foreknown and foretold so the circumstances of the betrayal were foreseen. It would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the revealed word to say that the wretched Iscariot was in the least degree deprived of freedom or agency in the course he followed to so execrable an end. His was the opportunity and privilege common to the Twelve, to live in the light of the Lord’s immediate presence, and to receive from the source divine the revelation of God’s purposes. Judas Iscariot was no victim of circumstances, no insensate tool guided by a superhuman power, except as he by personal volition gave himself up to Satan, and accepted a wage in the devil’s employ. Had Judas been true to the right, other means than his perfidy would have operated to bring the Lamb to the slaughter. His ordination to the apostleship placed him in possession of opportunity and privilege above that of the uncalled and unordained; and with such blessed possibility of achievement in the service of God came corresponding capability to fall. A trusted and exalted officer of the government can commit acts of treachery and treason such as are impossible to the citizen who has never learned the secrets of State. Advancement implies increased accountability, even more literally so in the affairs of God’s kingdom than in the institutions of men.

 I may also point out that if Judas did, indeed commit suicide, that also further causes the idea that he was lost.  If one idea of a Son of Perdition is one that cannot accept forgiveness, even when forgiveness is offered, or who will refuse it because of who they are aligned with and who they fight against, then Judas also falls into this camp.  Instead of turning and trying to repent, he instead fell into hoplessness and destroyed his mortal opportunity for repentance in this life...if we believe that he also killed himself by hanging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part I cant fathom- how can someone believe an apostle to walk day to day in Christs presence for a very long time, knowing the love they have for them, and then deny it and altogether turn from that be forgiven? We arent speaking of just being a special witness like our modern prophets but rather more- to be in his continual presence and in company of angels and then deny it. Judas is lost, forever lost. Its a lesson to us to not deny Christ and altogether turn from  it once his love has made itself manifest in our hearts. The ramifications are dire.

Edited by Rob Osborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now