You are hereThe Death of Israel in the Death of Judas

The Death of Israel in the Death of Judas


By Virgil - Posted on 08 November 2005

by Virgil Vaduva
When it comes to "Replacement Theology," Judas the Iscariot, of all people, seems to be the epitome of this theological construct; furthermore, a look into Judas’ origins, life and death can really help us understand how first-century Israel has indeed been utterly destroyed and how the followers of Christ replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.When it comes to "Replacement Theology," Judas the Iscariot, of all people, seems to be the epitome of this theological construct; furthermore, a look into Judas’ origins, life and death can really help us understand how first-century Israel has indeed been utterly destroyed and how the followers of Christ replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.Many Christians over the centuries have been fascinated by Judas. The truth is that we know very little about him, but what we do know could perhaps help us learn more about God’s way of relating to mankind. I say this because there are aspects to Judas’ life that are being overlooked by most believers, perhaps out of ignorance, aspects that are important when it comes to studying the Word of God.

Judas was also called Iscariot. Iscariot in Hebrew means "a man of Carioth;" Carioth being a city in Judea (Joshua 15:25). Likewise, Judas (Ioudas) is a Greek transliteration of Judah, which in Hebrew means "praised." Furthermore, in a highly-relevant way, Judas was the only one of the twelve apostles who was not from Galilee; rather he was Judean, as most Temple priests were. In fact, many Judeans, because of their priestly heritage were arrogantly looking down on Galileans.

Some scholars have proposed that Judas was even from the tribe of Dan. Hermann Olshausen attempts to narrow down Judas’ exact origin when he writes: "Perhaps the passage, Gen. xlix. 27, Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward, is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan." (Bible Commentary 2, s. 458 Anm.) This is a viable possibility that shouldn’t be ignored.

We see that Judas was in a very distinctive situation in relation with the other apostles. Perhaps that is why Judas is often perceived by Christians to be arrogant and faithless, or even a crook. When depicted in art, Judas is often portrayed with a large nose and hunched over. In John Fiester's Apostolic Clock, Judas’ height is half of the other apostles’ and we again see him hunched over, and having an exaggerated nose. This was purportedly because the artist viewed Judas as "less of a man" than the other apostles.

In Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper, there is an upside-down salt-cellar painted in front of Judas, which signifies bad-luck or bad-news and in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, Shylock, the Jewish money-lender has, "Judas-colored" red hair. Likewise, in Dante’s Inferno, Judas is condemned to the last circle of hell where a three-headed Satan is chewing him for eternity.

Ultimately, whatever the reasons may be, the common references to Judas are meant to be demeaning and indicative of the evil this man represented.

But my questions regarding Judas are not as much about how evil his actions were, but about their prototypical meaning within the context of the entire Scripture. Some liberal scholars even suggested that the Judas character has been added later to the New Testament narrative in order to promote anti-Semitism. The English word “Jew” is based on the Latin "Judaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" which both mean "Judean" or "someone from Judea." There is evidence that the author of the Gospel of John went out of his way to even point out the link between Judas and the Jewish people:

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas (Ioudan) Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry (Ioudaia), because the Jews (Ioudaioi) sought to kill him." (King James Version)

If this is a coincidence, it is truly fascinating, but perhaps the coincidence is only in the minds of those willing to see anti-Semitism everywhere, including in the Bible. Perhaps these are not coincidences, and they are teaching us a more important lesson about God’s relationship to humanity today.

Interestingly enough, while many Christians recognize that Judas betrayed Christ, they rarely teach that Judas also repented of his sin and professed Christ’s innocence. (Matthew 27) What is even more remarkable, some Church Fathers believed that there was a very good reason behind Judas’ early demise. Origen for example peculiarly believed that Judas hanged himself before the Resurrection of Jesus in order to await Him in Hades and ask His pardon (In Matt., tract. xxxv).



Betrayal of Christ by Judas by Theophanes of Crete
16th Century at Stavronikita Monastery, Mt. Athos

Leaving his repentance aside, there seems to be evidence of Judas’ betrayal being representative of Israel’s global betrayal and rejection of Christ. The High Priests were obviously involved in the betrayal process. In fact, when Judas’ repented of his deed, he "threw the thirty pieces of silver into the naon," naon being the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies areas of the temple. Since only a priest was allowed to enter that area of the temple, we can only speculate as to the level of corruption within the ranks of Israel’s priests since they allowed the betrayer of the Messiah to enter the Holy Place.

Furthermore, as we know, the thirty pieces of silver were used to purchase a piece of land called "The Field of Blood" or "Potter’s Field." Interestingly enough, this field is mentioned in Jeremiah 18 and 19 where imagery of the potter and the clay is being used to describe how God viewed Israel:

"Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something on the wheel. But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make." (New American Standard Version)

In chapter 19 we read something along the same lines:

"Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods..."I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who seek their life; and I will give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. "I will also make this city a desolation and an object of hissing; everyone who passes by it will be astonished and hiss because of all its disasters. "I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them. Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who accompany you and say to them, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Just so will I break this people and this city, even as one breaks a potter's vessel, which cannot again be repaired; and they will bury in Topheth because there is no other place for burial. "This is how I will treat this place and its inhabitants," declares the LORD" (New American Standard Version)

There is no questions that there are many hard-headed believers among us, but I believe that they are the reason for God’s use of typological language. There is clearly very little question regarding the relation of those verses with Israel’s demise in the first century, but if that is not enough, we need to consider the purpose of the Potter’s Field purchased with Judas’ money: Potter’s Field was ultimately used for the burial of gentiles in Israel. If this is just another literary coincidence, then the odds must be astronomical! Apparently God's exact promise of voiding the counsel of Judah in that place can be taken at face value. Judas' actions are evidentiary for voiding God's relationship with Judah and Israel, and for the remaking of Israel into something pleasing to God, the Potter.

Judas’ betrayal and death are the epitome for Israel’s betrayal of the Messiah and Israel’s death in relation to their God. This in itself demonstrates that what Dispensationalists call "Replacement Theology" is in fact a valid theological construct. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Scripture is truly inspired, and that Judas is not a "late-developing legend" created by Christians in order to blame the Jews for Christ’s death, as some liberal theologian are suggesting but a beautiful and amazing story written by God in an attempt to show us more of what is in His heart.

Judas, the lone outsider of the twelve, the deceiver and betrayer, the one bearing the name of his people, and the one who repented and called Jesus "innocent" in the Holy Place is personifying Replacement Theology. Judas made it possible for gentiles to be buried in Israel, and his life, story and death are representative of God’s punishment of first-century Israel, and the cessation of the unique relationship with the unbelieving Israel. How typical of us humans to turn God's word upside down and villify a person who at the very least repented and asked for forgiveness, and at most was used by God to personify the beautiful extension of God's grace and forgiveness to us gentiles.

psychohmike's picture

Bravo brother. Keep crankin em out...

SoCal Mike imapreterist@gmail.com

leo724's picture

That was a very enlightening article. So often we miss meaningful insights into God's plan by only looking on the surface of the depths of His word.

For a while I have thought that Judas has been badly misreprented in Christian thought. Your article clearly demonstrates the complexity of Judas' character. I had never noticed the striking parallel between Judas and Israel, but now that you've brought it out so clearly it seems obvious. It's refreshing when someone who has been reading the Bible for as many years as I have gets treated to such a profound new way of looking at something.

I've written a similar article about the meaning of the contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus. I would appreciate if you would read it and maybe offer some comments. As I've said many times I think that the heart of Preterism is the contrast between the Old and New Covenants. My article demonstates this contrast in the lives of John and Jesus.

It can be found here.

http://billsbloggins.blogspot.com/2005/04/johnny-law.html

Kyle Peterson's picture

If John the Baptist represented the old covenant, what does this say about water baptism?

Flakinde's picture

I've actually thought about this myself, Kyle . . . wonder if anyone has anything to say about this.

A. Rodríguez

leo724's picture

Kyle,

That's a great question. I haven't specifically thought about it before. I do think that John's baptism is part of the Old Covenant and that baptism is different under the New Covenant.

There's a passage in Hebrews that (I think) makes this distinction.

Hebrews 6:1,2

Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

I understand this passage to be referring to the Old Covenant foreshadowings of Christ. The washings refer to the cleansing rituals of the Old Covenant which were carried forward by John as the forerunner of the Messiah.

In Christ our cleansing is complete. We have been identified with His righteousness and are now clean. I understand baptism under the New Covenant to be a visual representation of our spiritual inclusion in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Through Christ we have been much more than cleansed. We have actually become a new creation in Him.

If what I've said raises any more questions I'll be more than happy to clarify further.

Bill

Kyle's picture

I fully agree, which is why I've never been immersed in water for the sake of baptism.

I'm not very welcome in certain congregations, though.

Flakinde's picture

Have you guys considered Mark 10:38-39?

"But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:" (KJV)

Contextually, I understand that Jesus assured his disciples that they would be baptized in the death of Christ, not in water (as Christ had already been baptized in water before he said this).

I think this is further developed by Paul in Romans 6:3-4:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (KJV)

I think as a further point of evidence is the dichotomy that Jesus himself set between John's baptism and His own baptism:

Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (KJV)

Which, of course, John the Baptist himself had foretold this dichotomy:

Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:" (KJV)

I'm still searching in the apostolic writings, but as far as I have been able to see, I do not see evidence of a continuation of water baptism . . . though I might be wrong, so please, any comments and corrections are certainly welcome.

Peace,

A. Rodríguez

davo's picture

I have some thoughts on Jesus' words here: Baptised for the Dead

davo – pantelism.com –

JL's picture

You can't find John's baptism in the OT.

I understand that the Pharisees invented baptism around the time of the Maccabees.

John subverted it, making it "the baptism of repentance." Jesus carried John's baptism over to the New Covenant. Not all of John's converts were required to be baptized, but Paul required it.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Kyle's picture

JL:
Perhaps not, but you can find baptism throughout the mosaic law.
Leviticus 14:6-9
Leviticus 15:16
Numbers 8:5-15
Numbers 19:13,17-21

JL's picture

In Lev 14:6, the bird is baptized. In vss 7-9, the person is pluno-ed, katharized, and louo-ed but not baptized.

In Lev 15:16, the man is louo-ed.

In Num. 8:7, the Levites pluno.

In Num. 19:13, the man was not rhantized.

In Num. 19:17-21, the hyssop is baptized, the tent, furnishings, and people are not.

Try http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/ and use the LXX.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

coderguy's picture

Talk about being out of touch on an issue, you have acchieved it with this article. You are living in your own little preterist world.

Virgil's picture

Hey...it certainly beats teaching people that barcode labels and credit cards are the mark of the beast, or predicting the end of the world every few years.

If you can't see typology in the Bible, don't shoot the messenger; it would be nice to get over the anti-Semitic charges that dispensationalists keep throwing out and get some quality dialogue from you guys. I could make a wise-guy, denigrating comment too, but it hardly shows respect for another brother in Christ, and it's quite unconstructive.

Tell me how I am out of touch, and I'll be happy to "talk."

coderguy's picture

You say: "Hey...it certainly beats teaching people that barcode labels and credit cards are the mark of the beast, or predicting the end of the world every few years."

I too am opposed to such things as a dispensationalist. I understand typology as a secondary approach after the text has been interpreted literally (i.e., historical-grammatical). A typological meaning is not what the author intended in that text.

You keep speaking as if anti-Semitism is just rhetoric made up by dispensationalists. You then just dismiss it as if it has no verification in real history. Further, you fail to realize that within Christendom it was replacement theology that facilitated the rise of anti-Semitism in the past and has a similar potential in the future. Is such an attitude due to your preterism?

Virgil's picture

A typological meaning is not what the author intended in that text.

How do you know that? The Hebrew language and culture at its very core is a language rich in symbolism and the story of Israel is nothing but types and shadows.

Is such an attitude due to your preterism?

How can it be since you claim that Preterism was invented by Ed Stevens? Anti-semitism has been around for thousandsof years...if Preterism is a new heresy, how can Preterism be responsible for it?

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 31