Is Judas in Heaven?

Is there clear biblical evidence that Judas truly repented?

Someone recently posted on the social media, saying that Judas, who betrayed Jesus, had repented. It was suggested that he had gotten right with God in the end, and so he could well be in heaven. Is this the case? Did he properly repent, was he in fact forgiven, and did he end up in heaven? Taking all the biblical evidence together, it seems that the answer to all three questions is no.

Some folks of course will reply by saying that he was remorseful and sorry for what he had done. They will cite Matthew 27:3-4 which says: “When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. ^‘I have sinned,’ he said, ‘for I have betrayed innocent blood’.”

He admits to his sin and returns the money. And it says he was remorseful. However, we could simply stop at this point and share 2 Corinthians 7:10 which might help bring this discussion to an early end. The passage says this: “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.”

That verse makes it pretty clear that not all sorrow, grief or remorse is an indication of true repentance. Plenty of folks feel bad about stuff – especially if they are caught after doing something wrong. But that in itself is not biblical repentance. I have discussed this matter more fully elsewhere: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/04/15/true-repentance-true-conversion/

So at best we would have to be quite cautious about assuming Judas ended up getting right with God. But we do have other biblical texts to consider. Taken together they seem to pretty strongly indicate that Judas was not saved. There are many texts that speak about Judas. In the gospel of John we find this interesting passage. The final paragraph of John 6 says this (verses 66-71):

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him.

To say that Judas is a devil sounds pretty bad. What did Jesus mean by this? Moreover, why did Jesus select him in the first place if he was so aligned with evil? The bigger issue of election and predestination cannot be entered into here, but God can use all sorts of people for his purposes. He can even use things, such as Balaam’s ass.

He used the wicked brothers of Joseph as well. They did real evil against him, but it fully served God’s larger purposes. So too here with Judas. Edward Klink makes this comment on verse 70:

With the stroke of one forceful rhetorical question, Jesus not only reminds [the Twelve] that they were “chosen” by him but also declares their faith to be still lacking – for “one of you is the devil”. What v. 71 will explain is that Judas, “the one,” will serve as a pan for Satan, who so operates behind failing humans that his malice becomes theirs. By combining the chosen eleven with “the one,” Jesus positions the sovereign work of God on both sides of faith. Not only were the Twelve sovereignly elected by God to have faith, but even the unfaithfulness of Judas is to be subsumed under the election of God, even if for a contrary task.

And two passages speak of Satan entering into Judas. In John 13:21-30 we find this:

After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side, so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.

D. A. Carson says the following about this portion of Scripture:

The reason Jesus chose one who would betray him was to fulfil Scripture. The text cited, Psalm 41:9, ascribed to David, is part of a plaintive lament called forth by the painful experience of being mocked by enemies when already suffering debilitating and life-threatening illness. Worse yet is the treason of friends: ‘Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.’…

 

Although he is about to be betrayed, Jesus is not a hapless victim. Even the treachery of Judas can only serve the redemptive purposes of the mission on which Jesus has been sent. Here Jesus explains to his disciples that the reason why he is telling them of the impending betrayal is so that when it does happen you will believe that I am he. In the event, the disciples found it desperately difficult to come to terms with the cross; they would have found it impossible without this preparation, preparation that recurs in the next chapters. Only Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation and his gift of the Spirit would utterly clear their minds and answer their questions, but the careful groundwork Jesus here lays proved sufficiently strong to keep the disciples together. They did not scatter immediately after the crucifixion, but kept together until his resurrection fully vindicated him and established their faith.

Or as Craig Keener remarks:

The devil had already put it into Judas’s heart to betray Jesus (13:2), and once Judas prepares to execute his mission, Satan enters him to enable him to carry it out (13:27). The entrance of spirits into individuals to empower them for a task, good or evil, was already familiar in the Mediterranean world. More important, Satan’s entrance into Judas contrasts starkly with the promise of God’s Spirit entering the other disciples (14:20, 23). Yet, as in the OT and general early Jewish perspective in which God is sovereign over the devil, Jesus here remains in control, so that the devil, like Judas, essentially (even if perhaps unwittingly) executes Jesus’ will concerning the passion (13:26-27).

And Luke 22:1-6 says this:

Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death, for they feared the people. Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them. And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. So he consented and sought an opportunity to betray him to them in the absence of a crowd.

In his commentary on Luke, F. Scott Spencer says this about the text:

What possesses Judas to turn against Jesus? Though we have known since the original roll-call of the Twelve that Judas “became a traitor” (6:16), nothing in the narrative to this point has signalled how or why this would happen. In fact, Judas’s name has not been mentioned between 6:16 and 22:3. He has simply been lumped in with the apostolic group, without distinction, in their good and bad times; we have no substantive cause to suspect him more than anyone else. Theories about motive . . . . remain speculative and distractive in the absence of clear evidence. Luke suggests none of these options. From his perspective, what possesses Judas to betray Jesus is actual possession by the Evil One: “Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot” (22:3). Is Judas somehow more open to satanic influence, more inclined to disloyalty than the other apostles? Perhaps, but again Luke doesn’t say that. Judas “consented” to the financial deal offered by the authorities (he’s a willing participant not simply the devil’s puppet), but this move is something first “agreed to” among the officials themselves, not a condition set by Judas (22:5-6). He may well have been hoping for a payout and thus spurred by greed, but again that goes beyond Luke’s account.

And other passages can be brought into this discussion. Two of them speak of it being better that Judas was never even born! Matthew 26:20-25 puts it this way:

When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

And a parallel account in Mark 14:17-21 says this:

And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” They began to be sorrowful and to say to him one after another, “Is it I?” He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me. For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

Commenting on Mark’s passage, Eckhard Schnabel writes:

Jesus states the consequences of the act of betrayal for himself and for his betrayer. Jesus had asserted in 9:12 that the suffering, rejection and death of the Son of Man were in accordance with the Scriptures (cf. the word ‘’must’ in 8:31). The word go is here not a neutral term (‘to go away’): it summarizes the fate Jesus predicted for himself in 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34 in terms of his rejection, trial and death; in the context of the following pronouncement it is functionally equivalent to ‘betray’. If betrayal is in view, the phrase it is written could refer to Psalm 41:9 or to Zechariah 13:7; Isaiah 53:11; Daniel 7:13-14; 9:26. Jesus’ death which results from the betrayal is not a tragedy that should never have taken place: it fulfils God’s purposes.

 

The woe formula introduces the severe condemnation that Jesus pronounces on the betrayer. It indicates disaster resulting from God’s judgment. Even though Jesus’ betrayal, arrest, trial and death are the fulfilment of God’s plan, Judas is responsible for his actions and will be judged accordingly by God, who will consign him to death, ruin and destruction.

Once again, we find some pretty strong words being used about Judas and what he had done. Yes, the purposes of God are being carried out, but woe to those who have chosen to take part in such betrayal.

A final, and much more conclusive passage is John 17:11-12: “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”

Some versions render that “son of perdition”. George Beasley-Murray writes:

One alone has been lost, Judas “the son of perdition,” and that not through fault of Jesus, but through the ingrained evil of the man. His destiny is to fulfil the scripture referred to in 13:18, namely Ps. 41:9; and indeed he has already set in motion that fulfilment; having “lifted up his heel” against his Master, the death of the Lord and his own destruction are already on the way.

And the exact same Greek phrase rendered “the son of destruction” is used of the Antichrist figure in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4: “Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” Surely that figure will have no ability to repent and get right with God.

In sum, it seems that this activity was very serious indeed, and from the various texts that speak to this, there is no clear evidence that somehow in the end everything came good, that Judas sincerely and deeply repented, was forgiven, and is now with the saints in glory.

[2341 words]