Was Judas a true believer at one point?

Y

yblek Jul 6, 2009

Luke 9:1 states that Jesus called his Twelve Disciples together and gave them authority over all devils (demons) and to cure diseases. Judas was one of the twelve. Jesus, the Son of God, gave Judas authority over demons, which means Judas must have been a yielded vessel. From this, we know Judas at one point was a true believer and follower of Christ. God CAN NOT give that type of authority and power to an unbeliever!

Matthew Chapter 10:1-8 (Cross Reference For Luke 9:1)

* 1.
* He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.

* 2.
* These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;

* 3.
* Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;

* 4.
* Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

* 5.
* These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

* 6.
* Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

* 7.
* As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'

* 8.
* Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Judas did all of these along with the other disciples! He was a true follower of Christ

L

Logic Jul 6, 2009

I agree bro.

Judas was a disciple of the Lord and therefore he left ft all to follow Jesus (Lk. 14:33). He picked up his cross (Lk. 14:27) and even loved Jesus more then his own family (Lk. 14:26). Judas was picked by Jesus specifically to cast out devils, heal, and preach (Matt 10:1-27). Judas was a friend Jesus trusted (Ps. 41:9; Jn 13:18), so Judas kept the money (Jn. 12:6; 13:29). Jesus told Judas that He was shedding His blood for him (Lk. 22:14-20), and previously said that His name was written in the Lambs book of life (Lk. 10:20). Jesus even said that Judas was one of His sheep (Matt. 10:1-4, 16), who received His truth (Matt 10:1-4, 8), who’s Father was God (Matt 10:1-4, 20), who even had a throne in Heaven upon which he would judge Israel (Matt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30). But then later we see that Judas became a devil (Jn. 6:70) and therefore it would have been better for him to have never been born (Mk. 14:21). He even began to steal money from the group (Jn. 12:6). Judas fell from his apostleship by his transgression (Acts 1:25) because He failed to do what Jesus picked him for. His name was blotted out of the book of life (Ex. 23:33; Rev. 3:5). (Jesse Morrell)

"For both Saul and Judas were once good...Sometimes they are at first good, who afterward become and continue evil; and for this respect they are said to be written in the book of life, and blotted out of it." (St. Ambrose)

W

whyme Jul 6, 2009

John 6:70... Jesus says one of the Twelve is a devil referring to Judas. Strange way to refer to a child of God if he were one. Further, in that same chapter John says some of the disciples departed not to return because of Jesus' hard teaching and it says in reference to those departing "disciples" that Jesus knew which of them did not really believe. Disciple does not equal believer in this context and in the same versus, Judas is called a devil before he ever chooses to betray Jesus. Does this not settle this issue?

B

brnagn Jul 6, 2009

I agree.

Was Judas a believer?
1st what makes someone a beliver?

When Jesus asked Peter who they said he was, they gave alot of answers. When Jesus asked Peter he answered and gave the only true answer. Jesus then said only His Father could have revealed this to him.

Was Judas a beliver?
No.

R

rnieman Jul 6, 2009

One can't ignore

Mathew 7:22-23

either in regards to Judas.

B

BlazedbyGod Jul 6, 2009

whyme wrote:
John 6:70... Jesus says one of the Twelve is a devil referring to Judas. Strange way to refer to a child of God if he were one. Further, in that same chapter John says some of the disciples departed not to return because of Jesus' hard teaching and it says in reference to those departing "disciples" that Jesus knew which of them did not really believe. Disciple does not equal believer in this context and in the same versus, Judas is called a devil before he ever chooses to betray Jesus. Does this not settle this issue?

Whyme, let's also remember that Jesus looked at Peter, and said " Matt 16:33 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, ~~[b]~~Satan[/b]: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. If Judas is referred to as "a" devil, and Peter is referred to as "Satan (the devil)" which is worse? Some disciples did depart Jesus because of his hard teachings, but Judas was not amongst that set that left in John 6. Actually, Judas did believe and was sure who Christ was:
John 6:67 67 Then said Jesus unto the ~~[b]~~twelve, Will ye also go away[/b]? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 ~~[b]~~And WE believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.[/b]

WE being all 12 disciples, had that testimony. I would also add, that Jesus once said to Peter :

Matt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Apparently, since ALL 12 of them believed and were sure that Christ was the Son of God-then apparently God the Father would have revealed this to all of them individually as well, and not just Peter. All 12 cast out devils, and Jesus said that Satan CANNOT cast out Satan-Judas was more than a disciple, he was an Apostle (who Apostasized)-his lost his Bishop-prick as Acts 1 states.

sermonindex Jul 6, 2009

It's interesting that you (Logic) quote Jesse Morrell, a sad case of apostasy himself (not saying their can't be repentance though). Jesse denies that God knows the future, that all men are sinful by nature and children of wrath, that Christ actually paid for our sins on the cross, and that regeneration is a miracle of the Holy Spirit. He denies all this with his Moral Government Theology that he got from reading Finney and throwing out the Bible other than to twist his proof texts to fit the ends of proving his heretical beliefs. In fact, Jesse was banned from this message board a long time ago as all could see his departure from Christianity in doctrine and in practice. So seeing he was banned, I don't think it is proper to put his name back on here.

With regard to Judas Iscariot, obvoiously he was never saved. "One of you IS a devil", Jesus said (John 6:70). This was in the midst of all the "wonderful works" he did in the name of Jesus (Mat. 7:21-23). Jesse Morrell's little proof texts again don't cut it, because wherein he tries to put all that in chronological order (as if to say that Judas fell and ~~[i]~~became[/i] a devil), the fact is that Jesus said that Judas was a devil ALL along. Jesus said this about Judas long before he betrayed Him.

Actually, according to the Psalm that Peter quotes in Acts 1, referring to Judas, it looks like he stood condemned before he was ever born. He came for a purpose in the sovereign will of God, a vessel of wrath fit for destruction. It is clear in reading the description of Judas and the curse upon him in that Psalm that he was a very wicked man all along.

~~[i]~~They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19).[/i]

Judas Iscariot never received the indwelling Holy Spirit. He was never born again. Never converted. Never loved righteousness and hated iniquity.

P

PaulWest Jul 6, 2009

The role of Judas was prophesied in the OT as the betrayer, a necessary ingredient along with Christ's entrance on the donkey into Jerusalem and the subsequent rejection by His people in order to fulfill the scriptures.

Have you ever thought about which is worse: publically abandoning and then denying Christ with an pejorative oath like Peter, or secretly stealing some sheckels from a bag?

Why was the moneybag-thief chosen by God to be the accursed betrayer of the Son of Man and the cowardly denyer the "rock" Christ would build His church upon? This really takes on grand proportion as we try to comprehend that God knew about, forsaw, and even wrote about (so we would know He knew) hundreds of years before these things that came to pass. In fact, they were all laid out even before the foundations of the world.

Later we see that another thief (however, this one hung on the cross) would be the first confirmed salvation we read of in the NT.

sermonindex Jul 6, 2009

"Have you ever thought about which is worse: publically abandoning and then denying Christ with an pejorative oath like Peter, or secretly stealing some sheckels from a bag?" Brother Paul

Perhaps I'm mistaken with your post in it's entire context and if so I apologize. But, yes I have though of this.... and it seems that scripture defines Peter's cowardice in a much different light than Judas' heart of depravity. Scripture indicates to me that Peter was zealous for the Lord and Judas was zealous for himself. And this in spite of the individual acts and specific behaviors of each man. I can't find anything that suggests otherwise. Judas was not talked about much in Scripture, but when he was, it was not in any favorable capacity.

Peter, despite all of his pitfalls, loved Christ. Although his flesh oriented zeal in giving an oath to Christ was presumptuous and misguided, it was not without a compassionate 'lesson learned' on the other side of his denial of knowing Christ. Notice that Peter did not deny that Jesus was Christ, the Son of God, but that he knew him or was associated with him. Peter still knew who Jesus was. Although this is not admirable in any aspect, I believe it entails a different kind of betrayal. Christ must have thought so because Peter was forgiven and given the Pentecost realization of the Holy Spirit as it was spoken by the prophet Joel.

Did Judas later have remorse for his actions because he believed that he betrayed His Savior, or because he knew he had shed innocent blood? There is a difference here in my opinion. Peter knew that he had offended His Savior.... the one whom he exclaimed "you are the Christ, the Son of The Living God". This revelation seemed to elude Judas. Calling Jesus 'Rabbi' and not 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world'(or something to that effect as in what Peter proclaimed) ... statements which reflected the true revelation of the Messiah is telling to me.

Perhaps Peter could be more culpable for his actions being that he had the revelation of who Christ was, but his zeal to speak presumptuosly was seen as fleshly arrogance and not an outright malicious opposition to his Savior.

The foreknowledge of God nothwithstanding, if we take the lives of these two individuals in the context of Scripture, I fail to see any moral equality in their intentions towards Christ.

sermonindex Jul 6, 2009

1st what makes someone a beliver?

any one can "believe", even demons believe, the question is, are we "followers".?

sermonindex Jul 7, 2009

It seems that I was mistaken concerning your context brother Paul. Please see my PM message.

sermonindex Jul 7, 2009

God CAN NOT give that type of authority and power to an unbeliever!

This is a bold statement!! How do you know what God can or can not do...I believe God will use any circumstance or person to bring about a purpose. Something about a donkey rings in my mind!

reformer

sermonindex Jul 7, 2009

brnagn wrote:
I agree.
Was Judas a believer?
1st what makes someone a beliver?
When Jesus asked Peter who they said he was, they gave alot of answers. When Jesus asked Peter he answered and gave the only true answer. Jesus then said only His Father could have revealed this to him.
Was Judas a beliver?
No.

John 6:64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus ~~[b]~~knew[/b] from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

P

PaulWest Jul 7, 2009

it seems that scripture defines Peter's cowardice in a much different light than Judas' heart of depravity. Scripture indicates to me that Peter was zealous for the Lord and Judas was zealous for himself. And this in spite of the individual acts and specific behaviors of each man.

My point, dear brother, was that both Peter ~~[i]~~and[/i] Judas were depraved; it was not only Judas. Both had the capacity for betrayal, both could steal. Though Judas stole money, Peter, in essence, stole his life and reputation back by preventing any kind of association with Christ in the garden. If Peter had any inclination at all to repent afterwards, it was because God granted it to him (2 Tim 2:25). Besides, Jesus knew beforehand that he would be restored (Luke 22:32). He knew Peter would fail, and addressed it before the fact, and He knew he would repent. It's important to note that Jesus didn't say "if you are converted again, strengthen your brethren"; He said "~~[i]~~when[/i] you are converted again, strengthen your brethren". He knew Peter's choice irrespective of time, because I believe the knowledge of what would transpire took place even before Peter was born.

Now, if Peter afterward relished in doing the will of God, we know this was also given to him by God, for Paul states that "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

It is my own conjecture that God raised up Judas as a Potter would raise a lump of clay for either a vessel of honor or of dishonor. Whether or not he was born-again and lost his salvation or was never born-again is really a moot case as far as I'm concerned. If one is going to judge his independant motives by his actions, I think a strong nullifying cause can be made from similarly abhorrent accounts in others as well.

I read about Peter, I read about Judas and Thomas and Ananias and Saul of Tarsus and I'm ready to think lofty thoughts about myself in defense. God always tells me to put my hand underneath my bosom in such instances and then pull it out and tell Him what I see. It always comes back white and leperous and I am reminded once again that without the grace of God I am Judas the Betrayer, I am Thomas the Doubter, I am Saul the Self-Rightous Murderer, I am Peter the Coward, and I am Ananias the Greedy Liar. Without the on-going grace of God and the ever-cleansing fountain of blood I am all of these and more.

Btw, I read your PM. Thank you brother.

Brother Paul

sermonindex Jul 7, 2009

I read about Peter, I read about Judas and Thomas and Ananias and Saul of Tarsus and I'm ready to think lofty thoughts about myself in defense. God always tells me to put my hand underneath my bosom in such instances and then pull it out and tell Him what I see. It always comes back white and leperous and I am reminded that without the grace of God I am Judas the Betrayer, I am Thomas the Doubter, I am Saul the Self-Rightous Murderer, I am Peter the Coward, I am Ananias the Greedy Liar. Without the on-going grace of God and the ever-cleanising fountain of blood I am all of these and more.

Well said Paul. Its not so much that we realize how obedient we are, but how weak we are.

sermonindex Jul 7, 2009

"Though Judas stole money, Peter, in essence, stole his life and reputation back by preventing any kind of association with Christ in the garden. If Peter had any inclination at all to repent afterwards, it was because God granted it to him (2 Tim 2:25)." Brother Paul

I guess I'm not seeing this in that context which seems a little more abstract and generalized than my observation of both men. I have to go back to a previous post that quoted Jesus as describing Judas as 'a devil'. Given this, I see no judgment in motives... as the judgment of 'devil' was already given to us by Christ himself. This was before either man betrayed Jesus. I'm not judging Judas' independent actions and motives based on observation on scant information, I'm judging based on what the Bible says about Judas. It calls him a 'devil' and a 'thief'. My interpretation of this goes to the heart of Judas to which the subsequent independent actions bore themsleves out. There is nothing that I see in the Bible's description of Judas that he was a man who had a heart for God but kept flubbing up (not to minimize Peter's mistakes) as in the case of Peter. I believe that we get a glimpse of the heart of each man in their remorse as I wrote below. Peter was never called a 'devil' nor do I believe his denial was tantamount to Judas' betrayal.

"He knew Peter would fail, and addressed it before the fact, and He knew he would repent." Brother Paul

It's agreed that Jesus knew Peter's choice ahead of time, but let's not forget that this speaks to the heart of Peter as someone who was genuinely remorseful and loved Christ, as well as God's sovereignty and foresight to this fact. I just don't see that in Judas. As with David and Saul, God foresaw the choices of both men but one had a heart for God and the other for himself. This, in my opinion, goes beyond the ramifications of a simple choice in sin. One makes a mistake but in that mistake still has a heart for God, the other is self driven, or came to be this way, and was not willing to give 'self' up. The choice is driven in what master they want to serve. Like Peter, David saw right away his sin and was distraught at the offense to his Lord. God's mercy is sovereign but I think it must consider the heart of the offender in genuine remorse and subsequent repentance.

P

PaulWest Jul 7, 2009

Peter was never called a 'devil' nor do I believe his denial was tantamount to Judas' betrayal.

"Get behind me Satan" was the Lord's address to Peter. Of course, the Lord was speaking to Satan at this point and not Peter, but we know Satan had infiltrated Peter's consciousness and was speaking through him, addressing Christ. What we are witnessing is the reciprocation. Peter couldn't have known the diabolic implications of dissuading Christ from going to the cross. We further read that Satan didn't enter Judas Iscariot until during the final Passover.

Like Peter, David saw right away his sin and was distraught at the offense to his Lord.

David did not see right away, and neither did Peter, until God intervened. In David's case, the Lord sent Nathan after an undisclosed period of unrepentant time; with Peter it wasn't until Christ turned and looked him in the courtyard. We see God's active intervention in both cases, but Judas was not restrained, nor was repentance granted, but rather Jesus sent him out to fulfill the scriptures" "What you're going to do, do it quickly."

Brother Paul

sermonindex Jul 7, 2009

Let me clarfy this. When David and Peter realized their sin they were immediately remorseful. You don't get this way from not having a heart for God.

Quote

"We further read that Satan didn't enter Judas Iscariot until during the final Passover."

I believe Satan entered a man with a heart for himself.. one who was labelled a devil and a thief by scripture. Jesus said 'ONE' of you is a devil... not all of you. The one who was proclaimed such was given to Satan. I just fail to see Satan entering anyone who had a heart for God and His Son. I'm not judging Judas, I'm looking at scripture and drawing a conclusion. Tragedy is there for many in the Bible, what that means for their eternity I don't know. But I can't deny the worms that ate up Herod or the devil that came into Judas. And I can't deny the events leading up to this. It is what it is.

This doesn't mean that we are not depraved sinners who don't deserve God's wrath, that's never been my point here. It means that we see this state via the Holy Spirit and love Our Lord with a heart for Him. The bible speaks of men who realize this and those who did not. I'm no better than anyone else and never implied that in my posts, but I do sense that implication here. I thank God for His mercy upon me. But I also have to have wisdom in understanding of the fall of those in the Bible, I'm not sure how that's judgmental... I just see it as a part of an overall perspective and caveat for those who want to glean from God's word.

P

PaulWest Jul 7, 2009

When David and Peter realized their sin they were immediately remorseful

I see what you're saying, and I really don't mean to be pedantic, but remorse is not the same as repentance. Man in his natural state is remorseful when his conscience is transgressed; remorse is possible without God; repentance is not. Although I agree with you about the immediate state of remorse in men (that is, until the conscience becomes seared), you really don't find any verses stating Peter and David were immediately remoreseful.

Jesus said 'ONE' of you is a devil... not all of you.

There was only one betrayer needed to fulfill Zechariah 11, and the man was not Peter; it was Judas. "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born" (Matthew 26:24). "One" was devil, because it was a "man" and not men who betrayed Christ. Though all his disciples abandoned Him in the garden, it was not counted as betrayal to their account. This would be a violation of prophecy.

I'm no better than anyone else and never implied that in my posts but I do sense that implication here. I thank God for His mercy upon me. But I also have to have wisdom in understanding of the fall of those in the Bible, I'm not sure how that's judgmental

I'm sorry if my posts have given you that impression. I think we are generally speaking the same thing, just coming at it through different angles.

God bless!

Brother Paul

sermonindex Jul 7, 2009

"Man in his natural state is remorseful when his conscience is transgressed; remorse is possible without God; repentance is not." Brother Paul

I agree that remorse is possible without God but my point is that both men were remorseful because they offended God. And this comes from having a heart for God. That was the crux of my point. I have to disagree with you though about immediate remorse:

2 Sam 12:12 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." (not a clear indication of remorse here but an immediate realization... and subsequent scripture below puts David's heart in a more contextual light)

2 Samuel 24:10 (New International Version)

"10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, O LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing."

Matthew 26:25

"Immediately a rooster crowed. 75Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: "Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." And he went outside and wept bitterly."

We can split hairs on the definition of remorse or what constitutes 'immediate' but each man realized their sin and reacted in appropriate manner for a man with a heart for God. Paul Washer talked of brokenness over sin as an offense to God as an attribute of a Godly man and I think scripture bears this out here. Again as I mentioned before it seems that Judas was upset over his ransoming of Jesus' whereabouts but identified his act as 'shedding innocent blood' and not 'I have sinned against my Lord'... nor was there any indication that He knew the Lord as Peter did when he said 'you are the Christ, Son of the living God.' I think this is the difference in the two types of remorse. It may not be repentance, as you state, but I think in these cases with David and Peter it was the beginning of repentance. Both proved their faithfulness in moving on in repentance, this isn't so with Judas.

As far as the prophecy with only one betrayer needed to fulfill Zachariah 11 I think we agree. That 'one', as we later see, was Judas as it states in Zachariah. But I don't think this precludes the state of a man's heart that is used for this purpose. I don't think God will use someone who loves Him (as depraved as they may be) and is sincere in their intentions to follow Him to fulfill the betrayal in the garden. God foresaw the heart of Judas and used Him to fulfill a purpose but it was still Judas' heart that was his biggest problem... not God. The simple point, after all my rigmarole, I'm trying to make is that even though God chose 12 men to follow His Son, one was not a true follower. I think this is clear and contradicts the original point of Judas being 'a follower of Christ'. My opinion from scripture was that Judas was a disciple in name only... Again I don't see that as a judgment, and I don't think it's a high minded conclusion, it's just what I glean from Scripture.