Posts filed under 'Doctrinal'
Biblical words describing Christians are humbling. Makes you think twice whether you should call yourself leader and what behaviours should shine forth instead.
You will realize that not all words translated as ’servant’ or ‘minister’ have the same meaning.
1.Doulos - a bond servant, one who voluntarily or involuntarily bond himself up to the will of another
a. Paul
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant (doulos) of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God…
b. Apostles
2 Corinthians 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants (doulos) for Jesus’ sake.
c. James
James 1:1 James, a servant (doulos) of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ…….
d. Simon Peter
2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant (doulos) and an apostle of Jesus Christ…
e. Christians
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants(doulos) to obey, his servants(doulos) ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
We become his slaves out of our own free will.We choose to be subservient to Him.
2. Oiketes - house servant, menial servant or in South East Asia we may say “coolie” of a household.
My grandfather used to have a faithful coolie who came from China at a young age. With no family of his own he was just grateful simply because he had a roof over his head and food provided for his hard labour. He remained faithful even to my father after the death of my grandfather.
Luke 16:13 No servant(oiketes) can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant(oiketes)? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
If you are a menial worker for one master who provided for you, how can you serve a master from another house? All coolies are judged based on what the Master has instructed. Coolies listen to the call of the Master.
3. Misthios - hired servant, servant paid for their labour; wage earner.
This word is not used for believers. Used by the prodigal son in his reflection about himself compared to his father’s hired hands.
Luke 15:17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants(misthios) of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
Luke 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants(misthios).
The Prodigal son compares himself with outsiders who were paid for their labour. He did not compare himself with house servants who were part of the family structure. He considered himself as an outsider to the family. Even the outsiders got a better deal than him.
4. Pais - child, servant. This word is derived from beat. Was it because you could easily beat up a slave like a child with no rights?
This is an interesting choice of word.This word was used for Israel, Jesus and David .
Could it also be used in an affectionate way? In Hainanese a younger person addresses himself as “nong” when speaking to an elder. Nong in chinese character is nu meaning slave. Grandparents affectionately call their grandchildren as nong.
Luke 1:54 He hath holpen his servant(pais) Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant(pais), whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Acts 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant(pais) David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
5. Huperestes - under rower , officers, subordinates
It literally means under rower. I can imagine a ship with slaves rowing a ship. They have to row in unison with the beat of the drum, thus subordinate to those in charge. Maybe it is akin to the Hokkien word kah kiah or kah chiu i.e. “hands and legs”. Hands and legs are controlled by the Head. They are under the authority of someone higher, thus subordinate.
Matthew 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer(huperetes), and thou be cast into prison.
Paul the huperetes of Jesus. He had to row to Jesus’ authority, not to his own beat.
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister(huperetes)and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers(huperetes) of Christ, and stewards(oikonomos) of the mysteries of God.
Notice two separate words are used here: huperetes and oikonomos.
5. Leitourgos - a public servant , a functionary in a temple
This is derived from two words laos ( people) and ergon ( work) . He works to serves people. A chrisian is part of God’s civil service.
Romans 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers (leitourgos), attending continually upon this very thing.
Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister(leitourgos), of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers(leitourgos), a flame of fire.
Hebrews 8:2 A minister(leitourgos), of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
6. diakonos - an attendant, servant, one who runs errands, deacon, a person who waits upon or serve tables (diakoneo, diakonia)
This is the most well known word for the English speaking because we are more familiar with the word deacon.
1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers (diakonos) by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
Romans 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (diakonos) of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister ( diakonos)
Colossians 4:7 All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister(diakonos) and fellowservant( sun- doulos) in the Lord:
Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration (diakonia).
Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve(diakoneo) tables.
Acts 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry(diakonia) of the word.
We run errands or do chores for Him. We are His peons. In modern terms, when you diakonos you are doing operational or logstics work to achieve an objective. There is a difference between a responsibility, a role,a title and a full time paid job. Even Phoebe was a diakonos. Was this a responsibility? A role? A title? A full time paid job?
You will notice that the apostles used many words to describe themselves. These words are not titles or full time paid occupation.
We are ALL servants and bond slaves.
With regards to our own will we are doulos. We bond ourselves to Him willingly as His slaves. When we are added into his house we are his house slaves (oiketes) serving only one Master. Although slaves He treats us as His pais. We listen to His voice and act according to His will working together in unison as huperetes rowing to the beat of the shipmaster. We are busy in our Father’s business, serving the public as leitourgos; as diakonos running errands and logistics to do His will according to His beat. We are not hired hands (misthios); we respond to a calling not a job, not a career opportunity.
So tell me what do you mean when you call yourself a church leader?
Is there such a thing as a hyphenated Servant-Leader? One foot in the bible, one foot in the world?
“I’ve got a home in glory land that outshines the sun…”(3X)
Way beyond the blue.
Doulos, O, doulos , O do remember Me?…..(3X)
Way beyond the blue…..”
February 6th, 2008
Does the Holy Spirit work through the word only?
To answer this interesting question requires us to understand and have an agreement on what is this “word”?
There are 2 ways I think we can deal with this question. One is by the scholarly way, i.e. by going Greek,. The second way is the layman’s way of questions in applying what we have been taught by our more scholarly brethren, (without even the need to quote book, chapter and verse).
A. Let’s do the easy one first – The layman’s approach.
When you hear or see this “word”, what do you have in mind?
Most of us in the educated world will probably relate it to the written word i.e. the Bible.
So the question then is, “Does the Holy Spirit work though the “word” i.e. the Bible only?”
Let us use what we have been taught. Those of us who grew up in the church would know the following:
1. We do not have a headquarters
2. Each congregation is autonomous
3. We are of the royal priesthood. There is no separate clergy.
4. The gospel is for all
5. God is no respecter of persons
6. Jesus taught the poor and less educated.
The modern church is very educated. We are very fond of study.
If the Holy Spirit works through the Bible only, it means you have to be educated or at least literate.
Does it mean that some of us who are less smart or not well endowed with opportunities, will not know Jesus and His wisdom? Not smart enough to know Jesus by studing a Book?
If so, it looks like we need a separate clergy. A priesthood of educated to enlighten us ignorant folks.
If that is the case then who decides where to be educated? American bible school? Why American and not British? Why angmoh? Who does the validation? Since we do not have headquarters, so how?
Is God showing favoritism to the educated? Or have the educated misread the Word?
B. The “scholarly”way.
This is my presumption to be scholarly.
John 1:1 The Word is used in the English Bible. The Greek word is LOGOS.
LOGOS means principles or concepts. The King James translators “unfortunately” used “the Word” which confuses modern readers like us. If only another word was used. We in this part of the world do not think like Victorians.
(Similar confusion has arisin with English words like worship and wine. There are more than one word in the Greek for each of them respectively.)
In the Chinese bible, LOGOS is translated as Dao4( way, path, principle) instead of Zi4( word or character) or Yan2(speech or word) or Ci2( term or word). At least this is what I gather from my Chinese dictionary.
So John 1:1 in Chinese will be similar to the original Greek,
In the beginning was the Way or Principle…
There is more than one method to convey a Principle depending on the level of the audience.
How to teach good manners? How do you teach the principle of courtesy or etiquette to a child?
Do you expect a young child who has not learn to read or write to understand ‘please’, ‘thank you’, ‘courtesy’ by reading definitions from a dictionary?
You teach by story telling. You teach by example in an actual situation and with time the child will get “the hang of it”and know under what situation he should say please, excuse me or thank you. They will know even without the ability to define what the words actually mean.
How do you teach the principle of addition?
You can teach either with written words e.g.
In English : One plus one equals two
In Mandarin: Yi jia yi deng er
In Malay: Satu campur satu jadi dua
The actual words vary with the language but the principle of addition is eternal.
You can teach visually or pictorially by drawing one apple , followed by another and articulating the words of the addition principle as mentioned above.
You can also convey the same principle symbolically
1+1 = 2
Or @+& = &+@
Thus a principle may be conveyed in more than one way catering to both the less educated and also the more brainy ones.
There are two other NT Greek words for the English “word”. They are Rhema (utterances, Eph.6:17, Matt. 4:4, 1Pet.1:25) and Graphe (drawings, writings as in 2Tim. 3:16, Jon 13:18)). I suppose graphe is a collection of rhema uttered by God and His messengers, the prophets and apostles.
So does the Holy Spirit work through the LOGOS? YES.
Does the Holy Spirit work through the written word ONLY? NO!
How is the Logos manifested?
1. Written word
2. Living word , Jesus Himself
3. Living epistles ( 2Cor.3:2-3), Christian examples moved by the Holy Spirit indwelling in us. Ro.8:9
I think the layman’s approach in finding an answer to the question is the best. To limit the Holy Spirit to the written word alone means that you have to be educated in order be saved.
The written word is an excellent record to deal with disputes. The Bible is an excellent record for reference through laws, narratives, histories, poetry and letters where the Logos is embedded and revealed to those who have the indwelling.
If we hold the belief that the Holy Spirit work is limited to a book, then God’s treasure is revealed only to those with scholarship.
What do you think?
October 10th, 2007
I don’t like the word “LEADER” as used in the church. The word “Leader” is not found in the scripture the way the secular world operates.
Modern Christian churches love this word. Just look at the number of books written on Leadership. Many church leadership expectations and practices are more towards “Thus saith the latest management bestsellers” than “Thus saith the Lord”.
Did Jesus use this word at all in His teachings? How many books or sermons have you read or heard on servant hood? Being a servant is not grand. No glamour. No visibility. Such books do not sell well. Even when we want to teach servant hood we secularized it with the latest from management bestsellers and called it Servant-Leader. We just find it unpalatable to call someone servant without elevating it somewhat with the word leader inserted. Some folks find submission difficult and so they resurrect their “old self” in a hyphenated name.
As mentioned in another article, the apostles often called themselves slaves or bond servant. A more unglamorous word! The modern Christian is uncomfortable to be lowly. Have you noticed a change in your modern hymn book in Isaac Watts’ famous hymn - “Alas! And did my Saviour bleed”? In the 1st stanza the words “such a worm as I” have been changed to “such a one as I”! Some modern day Christians squirm like a worm to be considered one and could not resist changing the lyrics to be more genteel.
Yes, the church requires people to take the lead but we do not need Leaders per se. It is important in this situation to use biblical words to minimize the strong influence of the world. The biblical word is Steward.
Stewards are leaders BUT Leaders are not necessary steward. This is not a play of semantics. Its implication is great on the discipleship of God’s people.
A steward by his role is and should keenly be aware he is not Owner. He has been entrusted to manage what was given by the Owner. His role requires him to take the lead to manage whatever resources including himself for the service of the Master. Leadership is expected because accountability comes with stewardship. A steward should know his place. When you are called a steward or assume this role, you should know your place. You are oikonomos, manager of the house, NOT the Owner.
A steward by its role and accountability is Necessary condition to conclude that he has to take a lead to what he has been entrusted with. A Leader on the other hand may not give one the Sufficient moral condition to be a steward because personal agenda may come in. The role of a Leader is brings in more glory in the carnal world.
What are Necessary and Sufficient conditions? An example to consider:
1.A normal human being is a creature with two legs.
“Normal human being” is Necessary enough condition for one to conclude it is a creature with two legs
2.A creature with two legs must be a normal human.
Here “two legs” is not Sufficient enough to conclude it human. Birds have two legs too!
We can only conclude it is a Possibility, not a certainty that two-legged creatures may or may not be human. We need more conditions or validations before we can insist certainty.
Likewise stewards as used in the scriptures necessarily require them to take leadership in whatever has been entrusted. The unscriptural word, leader on the other hand may or may not be a good steward by definition.
Words are important because they give life. Whether it is life in the spirit of God or the spirit of the Age depends on how true we are.
How many full time workers feel more respected as Minister instead of the actual meaning - Servant? It is true the word minister is found in the scripture. It is another word hijacked and elevated by the secular world. It is used widely in the government service.
Would you put ‘Church Servant” on your name card? “Church Minister” sounds more respectable isn’t it? Would you feel guilty if you elevate yourself as Senior Minister? It does not feel so bad. does it? But….. you will feel the unease if you try calling yourself Senior Servant or Senior Slave. Doesn’t it make you think twice before you attempt to elevate yourself above the rest of the flock?
Scriptural words are very humbling, aren’t they?
Luke 12:42-43 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant( doulos), whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
A steward is also a doulos, a bond slave. Read Luke 16 on stewardship.
Stewards are leaders BUT leaders are not necessary steward. A leader can only exist if he has followers. To call yourself a leader means the church is your followers. This is outrageous! You become the focus unwittingly instead of Jesus. A leader may want to do great things because he is expected by others. Submitting to him is critical for the success of the church to realize the leader’s plan to bring the church to greater heights. A leader forgets we are not called to be successful. We are called to be faithful. Our calling is to fulfill His will not the church leader’s grand ideas. Pressured to lead, church leaders may be tempted. Modern church leadership brings forth a different fruit of the spirit, one man’s spirit instead of the Holy Spirit’s.
So it is possible for a humble faithful servant, once placed in leadership position with the burden of responsibility may be forced to behave un-Christlike way because of the pressure of expectation comes with the role/title LEADER. With the right biblical term used, you will be constantly think reminded, think twice about your approach because of your place. The burden is indeed great. It is a big dilemma for the modern church especially when size matters to the incumbent ‘leaders’.
We are all Stewards just as we are all priests whether we like it or not. As stewards we do not opt out of “leadership” with excuses e.g. we are not good enough or do not wish to be involved. As stewards we are to take the lead in whatever God has entrusted to us. It may be very unglamorous, even unnoticed. You can “tai-chi” away your leadership responsibility but you have to give an account as a God’s steward.
We tend to limit the word stewardship to money. How often to you hear of lessons with such an association? i.e. a lesson on Christian stewardship is money management? Is this word limited to this usage in the scripture?
1.A steward is a doulos
Luke 12:42-43 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward (oikonomos), whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant(doulos) , whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
2. The apostles saw themselves as ministers. The word used is huperetes meaning subordinate (not leaders!) They are stewards, required to be faithful.
1 Corinthians 4:1-2 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers (huperetes) of Christ, and stewards (oikonomos) of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards(oikonomos), that a man be found faithful.
3. A bishop is an overseer who is a steward entrusted with the flock. To steward what God has entrusted to him. How should be steward himself?
Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward (oikonomos) of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
4.Each of us is a steward and a minister. How faithful are we in taking the lead in what God has entrusted to us?
1 Peter 4:10-11 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards(oikonomos) of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Stewards, slaves, subordinates, servants, ministers are such un-glamorous terms used by the apostles.
How then should be view church leadership? How should the church be organized scripturally?
What do you think?
more thoughts in Part 2
October 4th, 2007
Did Jesus ever say He was God?
What does ‘Son of God’ mean to the ancient people in biblical times? Aren’ t we all sons(children) of God?
A. Testimonies of friends and enemies
The Demons
Lu.4:41 Morever demons came out of many people.,shouting “You are the Son of God! But He rebuked them and would not allow them to speak because they knew He was the Christ.
Son of God = Christ
The Disciples
John 1:49 Nathanael declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel”
Son of God = King of Israel
John 11:27 “Yes Lord,” she told Him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God who was to come into the world”
The Christ =Son of God = The One who was expected to come into the world
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and by believing you may have life in His name.
Jesus=Son of God= The Name which gives life
Acts 8:37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered,I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”.
Jesus Christ=Son of God
Acts 9:20,22 At once he began preaching that Jesus is the Son of God. Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.
Jesus =Son of God=Christ
Jews
Matt.26:63 The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God. Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God
To the Jews, Christ is the Son of God.
John 19:7 The Jews insisted, “We have a law and according to that law he must die because he claimed to be the Son of God”
What law was in the Mosaic Law stating that if a person claimed to be Son of God, they should die?
Remember the only place in the OT that uses Son of God is in Daniel 3:25 spoken a nonJew!
John 5:17Jesus said to them, ” My Father is always at work to this very day, and I too am working”
Here Jesus claims God is His father. What was wrong with that?
John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making hinself equal with God
The Jews saw this as a claim of equality with God even though He did not use the term Son of God. This claim would be blasphemy to the Jews and would be punishable by death unless the person who claimed it is the Messiah Himself. Of course the Jews rejected Jesus as Christ.
John10:30-36
v30 I and my father are one.
v33 “We are not stoning you for any of these” , replied the Jews, “but for the blasphemy because you, a mere man claim to be God”
v36 why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, “I am the Son of God”
Muslims claim that Jesus never said he was God. These verses prove them wrong!
I and my Father are one=a claim he was God=claimed to be Son of God
B. Conclusion
Jesus=Christ=one with God=God=Son of God
Son of God=God
C. The meaning of “only begotten Son”
John3:16 God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten (Greek “monogenes”) Son. The word begotten unfortunately is not used in modern translation eg. NIV but found in KJV
only begotten (”monogenes”) Son = son of a unique relationship
The relationship is unique because the Son of God is God. He is the radiance of God Heb.1:3
We are all sons(children) of God but we are not THE Son of God.
Example: When I sit in a pew, most of my body is blocked from view if you come from the back of the pew. If you see my head when you walk into the church auditorium, you would say that you have seen me even though you did not see the rest of my body. My head is the part of my body which the eye can see(unless you have Superman’s eyes to see my body through a solid wooden pew).When you see a passport photograph of me (just my head or face), you would still say you have seen me but not the real me. To see my head is to see me but the photo is a reflection or an image of me but not James in person. My head has a unique relationship with my body which the photo does not have.
We are God’s image (spiritual photograph!!) but not God Himself. Jesus is part of God which the human eyes can see. The Father and Holy Spirit are beyond our human eyes.But when we see Jesus ,we have seen God because Jesus is God..
Does God have a wife? Please see article under Doctrinal
February 5th, 2007
Beloved, here is something that Allan Ashurst shared with Greater Manchester BBC Radio in 1999 on Judas and I thought it timely that this is shared in the light of current hype about the so called gospel of Judas. ( Comments from a brother from Alabama is included as well)
My thoughts
- Just because it claims to be a gospel does not make it one. Whatever it contains it must not contradict the prophesies in the OT and what Jesus revealed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. People who make an outcry about proofs must themselves be honest to sit down and show proofs too instead of shooting from the hips just because of newspapers and movies.
- The belief that “Christians accused Jews as Christ killer and are anti Jews” is a prejudice and such people are certainly not Christian in their ‘fruit’ – makes no sense for such accusation because Jesus and the 12 disciples were ALL Jews themselves.
- God made him do it? - God is no respecter of person. It is not God’s character to send his own creation to hell without choice. It was prophesied that someone will betray Christ but no one in particular is targeted. If Judas repented and did not commit the crime, someone else would commit the sin because Jesus had a lot of enemies.
- Despite of Judas betrayal, there is no sin so big that God cannot forgive. Both Peter and Judas denied Christ. Peter repented. Judas unfortunately killed himself. How do we know he did not ask for forgiveness prior to his foolish suicide?
- We are all Judas. We have all, some time, in one way or another have denied Jesus and betrayed him by our behaviour. If the arch angel Michael will not rebuke and judge the devil but allow final judgement to God, who are we to judge Judas after his death? We can only judge his action to prevent him from committing the crime (and restore him if we had a chance) . After death, we leave the outcome to God.
Read on and remain steadfast james
*************************************************************************************************************
Here is a brief article on the “Judas Gospel”
On Thursday the National Geographic Society presented to the world the Gospel of Judas, an apocryphal (of unknown origin) document probably written about AD 300. It “purports to record conversations between Jesus and Judas in the last week of their lives — conversations in which Jesus shared religious secrets not known by the other disciples” (“Rediscovered gospel offers radically new look at Judas,” Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times).
Historically, the Gospel of Judas was never received as authoritative due to its obvious and late disagreement with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Now, as then, people will be excited at the prospect of telling or hearing some new thing (cf. Acts 17:21). But, the facts are clear: Judas betrayed Jesus and killed himself. The Gospel of Judas is of human origin.
It offers a distorted and false picture of Judas, who is “the good guy in this portrayal,” said Bart Ehrman, a religion professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “He’s the only apostle who understands Jesus.” “In a key passage, Jesus compares Judas to the other disciples, saying: ‘You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.’ By helping Jesus get rid of his flesh, Judas will help liberate the divine being within.” (Ibid.) –The Bible says…
• Jesus understood Judas; not the other way around (Jno. 6:64, 70-71).
• The devil put it into Judas’ heart to betray Jesus; it was
not Jesus who did so (Jno. 13:2).
• Judas was a thief and betrayer who killed himself (Jno. 12:6; 18:5).
Jesus did not give him special apostolic status.
Gospel means “good news,” but there is no good news in the life of Judas; only betrayal, sin, death and judgment (Matt. 26:24-25). By Dana Chandler. Wedowee Church of Christ, Alabama
************************************************************************************************************* IS JUDAS ISCARIOT UNJUSTIFIABLY MALIGNED ? By Allan Ashurst
The Religious Broadcasts producer of BBC GMR asked me to discuss live on “Easter Sunday” whether Judas is unjustifiably maligned. The counterpart would hold the view that Judas wasreally a very much misunderstood person who really had good intentions at heart. I realised that I would have to brush up on “Judas” and this is a summary of my studies. As it happened no sympathiser came to champion Judas so I had almost ten minutes of broadcasting answering the interviewer.
I did wonder could anything positive come out of taking such a negative position? Would presenting the case against Judas create a negative reaction towards Christianity? WHAT AN UNPLEASANT SUBJECT !
It is said that in early Christianity Judas was seen as the epitome of Jewishness and formed the basis of anti-semeticism. That surprises me because all of the twelve were Semites including our Lord. There are no grounds for anti-semeticism based on the character of Judas. The subject here is, “Was Judas blameworthy?
Uttering the very name Judas makes one feel awkward. That could be why his namesake the Lord’s brother is rendered “Jude” in English translations. Judas was a common name. Another of the twelve Apostles was also named Judas. He was distinguished from Judas Iscariot as “Judas …… not Iscariot”.(John 14:12) Even thinking about the events culminating in Judas’ betrayal and suicide conjures up an uncomfortable sense of horror. [Imagine the depth of the remorse that drove him to plunge himself beyond death into “the awful unknown”. Many outside of Christ see death as the entry into the “awful unknown”].
There is a gut feeling there may be a bit (only a bit, mind you) of a Judas in all of us. Perish the thought - but could we be as blameworthy as he? On the other hand we live in the “no absolutes” era. Any feeling of guilt we might experience is considered to be a psychological malfunction. So it is forcefully asserted that it is wrong to suggest that any action could be considered to be either right or wrong. Is there perhaps a desire to excuse Judas in order to excuse ourselves? The living God says: “Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; ….” Isaiah 5:20
So even if we make the excuse that we are fated or predestined to do evil - sin is still sin - and the least in the kingdom of heaven are those who not only sin but also advocate it. Matthew 5:19. The purpose here is to see if Judas was blameworthy.
BUT SURELY HE HAD TO DO IT DIDN’T HE ?
Does not John, four times in the AV, record Judas as the one who “should betray him”? So it is claimed Judas had to do it - he had no choice because it was part of the Sovereign plan of God. The AV phrase “Who should betray him” would now be better rendered “Who was going to betray him”. FOREKNOWLEDGE AND “WHAT IFs”
But, it is argued, what if Judas had not betrayed Jesus - then there would have been no crucifixion - no resurrection - no Christianity - so he had to do it - Does it not say “The Son of man goes as it is written of him “? Matt.26:24, Mark 14:21 Luke 22:22. However, even though the son of man was to go “as it is written of him”, it does not say that Judas had to be the prime mover. Judas is left without excuse, for it goes on to say “but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed. It is good for that man if he had not been born”.
There are numerous “What ifs” in the scriptures. For example: What if Adam hadn’t sinned and no-one had died - What would have happened to the ever increasing population on this small planet?” We could speculate for ages as to what might have been - but the facts are: Adam did sin, and Judas did betray the Lord. BUT DIDN’T THE SCRIPTURE HAVE TO BE FULFILLED ?
As Jesus said “…. none of them is lost save the son of perdition (i.e. son of ruination); that the scripture might be fulfilled.” John.17:12
There are two things to be borne in mind about God’s predestinations:- 1) God’s character is holy. He is not a respector of persons Acts 10:34. He does not force any person into being damnably sinful against his will. James 1:13-17. Suggesting God arbitrarily damns some and blesses others, risks blaspheming the Holy Spirit of God. Matthew 12:31-32. He is “not willing that any should perish”. 2 Peter 3:9. He has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked should turn from his way and live”. Ezekiel 18:23,32, 33:11.
2) God’s foreknowledge forms the basis of His predestinations (Romans 8:29), not the other way round. Also in the passage quoted - John 17:12 - Jesus “lost” Judas. To be lost - Judas must have been all right to start with, but somewhere along the line he revealed the characteristic here referred to as “the son of perdition”. “Perdition” means ruin/ruination. It became evident he was disposed to
being disruptive. He wasn’t born bad - he transgressed -he “fell” - “Judas by transgression fell” from apostleship. Acts 1:25. He was chosen personally by the Lord (Mark 3:13). He started off on an equal footing with the others. He was entrusted with the communal money bag. Later he was “lost” (John 17:12) and “fell” (Acts 1:25).
BUT DIDN’T JESUS CHOOSE HIM KNOWING HE WOULD BETRAY HIM ?
It’s suggested that Jesus must have known that Judas would betray him when He chose him because “he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.” John 2:24-25. Also didn’t He say in the upper room “I know whom I have chosen - but that the scripture might be fulfilled: He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heal against me.” John 13:18, and early in His ministry say “Did I not chose you twelve and one of you is a devil ?” John 6:71 hese passages do not say that Judas had evil intentions when he was chosen as an apostle. In fact there is a note of sadness in Jesus statement “Did I not choose you twelve..?” coming as it did after many of His followers had forsaken Him and Jesus had asked the twelve “Will ye also go away?” Peter’s impulsive yet beautiful answer ” Lord, to whom shall we go? you hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that you art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” was met with the despondent “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
The word “devil” (diabolos) means a slanderer, maligner, subversive talker. Its the word from which we get diabolical. Already Judas had begun to make disruptive remarks. BUT JESUS SENT HIM OUT TELLING HIM TO GET ON WITH IT.
In the upper room, after saying it was happening “that the scripture might be fulfilled” he told him “What you do, do quickly” John 13:18,27
There comes a point when God’s Spirit stops striving with men (Genesis 6:2) and He abandons them to their own devices to suffer the consequences. Didn’t God abandon the idolaters of old to pursue their alternative lifestyle and to reap the consequences Romans.1:26-27. Another example is when Israel wanted a king like the nations around them in preference to God being their ruler He warned them of the consequences. Then when they were obstinately unrepentant, God “gave them a king in his anger and took him away in His wroth.” 1.Samuel 8:7-20 & Hosea.13:11. Let us be warned - “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” Hebrews 10:31. In the upper room, Judas had already taken on board the Devil’s - the arch-maligner’s idea to betray the Lord. His heart was wide open for Satan to gain entry, which he did after Judas accepted the morsel of food the Lord offered him. From then on it was outright antagonism (”Satan” = Adversary). It was then, when Judas was all keyed up to do his dastardly deed, that the Lord told him “What you do, do quickly” John 13:27
It is possible for those who trust God to be indwelt by God (1.Corinthians 3:16). It should not be thought strange that Judas having taken on board Satan’s plan (John 13:2) should become indwelt by Satan. BUT WAS HE WARNED ?
It is suggested that Judas’ intention was to precipitate a situation which would force the Lord to reveal himself as the mighty royal Messiah. However, several events should have convinced him - that it would run counter to the Lord’s purpose - that His kingdom was “not of this world”. He must have heard the Lord’s answer when Peter’s protested that the Lord would not be executed - “Get thee behind me satan (i.e. obstructionist) you are an offence to me: for you don’t savour the things that are of God, but those that are of men.” Matthew 16:23. And then there was the incident when a Samaritan village refused the Lord hospitality and the sons of thunder (James and John) wanted to consume them with fire from heaven. The Lord’s response was “Ye know not what kind of spirit ye are of, for the son of man hasn’t come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” Luke 9:55-56 - (Sadly, these vitally important clauses are missing from modern liberal translations, even though they were extant in mid second century manuscripts).
When the Lord announced “one of you is a devil (a maligner)” (John 6:67-71) Judas would know he had been rumbled. Even at the last minute - when the Lord, after washing Judas’ feet said “one of you will betray me” he could have backed out. He certainly knew the Lord was severely distressed and that he was the cause of His distress ( John 13:21). Even to the last the other apostles were at a loss to know who would betray their Lord but not Judas. He did not - like the others - sorrowfully, apprehensively asked “Lord - It is I ?” - but after an awkward delay, secretly presented his query - addressing Him formally - “Rabbi - It is I ?” to which the Lord replied “You’ve said it” (Matthew.26:22,25). Despite that response, he went ahead. The rebel no longer acknowledged Jesus as his Lord. BUT, IT IS PROTESTED, AREN’T THE GOSPEL RECORDS BIASED AND UNRELIABLE BEING AN ACCUMULATION OF WRITTEN AND VERBAL TRADITIONS ?
This is a subject in itself . However, as more and more external information comes to light, the historical reliability of the “Gospels” is constantly being verified. Also from internal evidence alone, the sceptic who wrote “Honest to God” - the late John A.T.Robinson - was obliged to re- date them pre-A.D.70.
There are no other manuscripts written in the lifetime of the apostles giving us detailed information on Judas Iscariot. If this sole source of contemporary information on Judas Iscariot is rejected there is nothing to discuss. For more information vindicating the historical truth of the New Testament documents, you can consult the internet address http://members.aol.com/muqaddas/ and click on “Fact Sheets” then on “#01 The Historical Authority of the Bible Documents”
WHAT MOTIVATED JUDAS TO DO IT? WAS IT GREED?
In the last week preceding the crucifixion The Lord Jesus and his apostles visited the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. (John 12:2 ff ). Mary spontaneously washed our Lord’s feet with fragrant ointment worth 300 denarii - an average years wage for a worker. I can understand the disciples’ concern that this seemed to them to be ruinous waste (the AV “ruin” is from the same Greek word as “perdition” in John 17:12, “son of perdition”) Matthew. 26:8, Mark 14:4. No doubt they had genuine concern for the poor who could have benefited from the sale of the ointment. But how come they reacted so badly - showing “indignation”? Who took advantage of their mood and stirred it up. John’s record fills the gap for us: Judas - the “son of ruinous waste” - the disruptive maligner - “cared not for the poor - he was a thief” - he stole from the communal money bag with which he had been entrusted John 12:5-6. Possibly stung into action by Jesus observation “the poor you have always with you” (John 12:8) it was “then” that he consulted the chief priests Matt. 26:14. His question to them was “What will you give me and I will deliver him to you ?” Matt.26:15
They set the price (”covenanted”) - 30 Shekels - 4/10ths of a years wage for a worker (Matthew 27:9) Not a trifling sum of money for a man who would most likely be taking what he considered to be undetectable amounts out of the communal bag. [”spoken by Jeremiah” - note “spoken” not “written”. It was apparently quoted by Zechariah, see Zech.11:12-13 It was not unusual for one inspired prophet to quote another]. BUT THAT WAS ONLY THE PRICE OF A SLAVE? (Exodus 21:32)
A lot of money for a gready man. A paltry sum for a human being - “the son of man”.
Greed causes men to slay the innocent and spare the lives of the guilty for a handful of barley and fragments of bread. Ezekiel 13:19 - to sell the righteous for silver and the poor for a pair of sandals. Amos 2:6 WAS IT MEANNESS?
He had shared loaves of bread with the Lord only to lift up his heal against Him, John 13:18 (Psalm 41:9). Lest there be any confusion as to which person was the Lord, Judas proposed that the “kiss” of friendship be the signal. So that he himself wouldn’t have problems he advised them to “lead him away safely” Mark 14:43-44. Judas accepted a company of officers to carry out the arrest. As he “drew near to kiss Him” the Lord implored “Do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss ?” Luke.22:47,48
IT WAS BETRAYAL - HE HIMSELF RECOGNISED HIS GUILT.
Judas - seeing the chief priests and elders decide on the death penalty - regretted what he had done and tried to return the money back to them saying: “I have betrayed the innocent blood”. Having made no impression on them he committed suicide - plunged himself into “the awful
unknown” Matt.27:1-5 Subversive talk - greed - outright antagonism - meanness - remorse -suicide.
JUDGING JUDAS
When I think of Judas - seeing the Lord’s sorrow over him - I feel sad for him. Should we hate Judas for what he did? Is it for us to dictate the penalty ?
Archangel Michael would not make any accusation even against the arch maligner - the devil himself - but said the Lord rebuke thee, Jude 9. Vengeance belongs unto the Lord. It is His prerogative. Romans 12:19. Could there be a bit of disruptiveness, meanness, greed in each one of us? These evils put the Lord Jesus on the tree. Are we culpable? Yes - we are all guilty.
COULD HE HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN?
If Judas had gone and begged forgiveness of the Lord as He hung on the tree, would He who had washed his feet have said - “sorry - no chance - clear off “? Forgiveness was available even for those who howled for His death, Acts.2.37-38. Forgiveness is available through trust, repentance and immersion, for us too, despite any of our past disruptiveness, meanness, greed or any other damnable sin. The apostle Paul saw himself as the chief of sinners and an example of God’s readiness to forgive to the uttermost those who put their trust in Him, 1.Timothy.1:15-16.
DON’T LET JUDAS BE OUR ROLE MODEL
We live in an age when our young are tempted to see vile pop stars as role models. Judas is a warning to all of us what we should not be. We should not even seek to excuse sins either in Judas or in ourselves or we might finish up going to our “own place”, Acts.1:25. HERE IS THE ONE AND ONLY ROLE MODEL FOR US (Philipians 2:5ff) :-
The Lord of glory - in humility and love - washed even the feet of Judas - “knowing” he had determined to betray Him. John 13:1-5 :-
“Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come that he would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them to the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him; Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; He rose from supper, and put aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. Then that he poured water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.” Would you have washed the feet of Judas? Would you love such a one “to the end”?
May 4th, 2006
Previous Posts
