[03/13/12-03/14/12]

There is almost nothing that can be said about Judas of James that has any certainty. The various encyclopedias disagree as to whether he is son or brother to James, whether these are the James and Judas also noted as being brothers of Jesus, whether, if this be the case, they were brothers or more properly cousins. In short, the simplest conclusion would be to say that nobody apart from the Twelve knows exactly who these two were.

Everything surrounding their identity seems to devolve rapidly to conjecture. That James is of Alphaeus leads some to conclude that Alphaeus was another name for Clopas. Why? Well, because they would make of these two cousins to Jesus, perhaps through Levirate marriage. But, the only thing tying these two together appears to be this supposition. The ISBE particularly insists that we should understand Judas to be the son of James and not the brother. The relationship is not directly noted in the text, but as I have seen elsewhere, the construct ‘name of name’ is used elsewhere to indicate ‘son of’. Does that require us to accept this connection on every occasion? No. But, it does increase the likelihood.

On this point, the ISBE builds the case that, if he is son of James, he cannot possibly be that same Judas noted as brother of James and brother of Jesus. That’s reasonable. However, it is a wholly insufficient argument for declaring that this Judas is therefore clearly not the brother of Jesus. To do so is to insist on an interpretation of circumstantial evidence as making the conclusions reached by that interpretation necessarily so. And it isn’t necessarily so. The evidence of an assumed ‘son of’ hardly counts as conclusive.

There seems a much greater willingness to accept that Judas the apostle is the same man as Thaddaeus the Apostle who is occasionally known by yet a third name. There remains one theory that suggests Thaddaeus died and was replaced by Judas during the course of Jesus’ presence. I should think, though, that such an event would have had some mention in the Gospels. Again, hardly a conclusive line of reasoning, but I am inclined to discount the replacement theory.

What, then, can we say about him? In all honesty, little to nothing. All we have by way of insight into his character is this one question. “What’s happened, that You are decided not to disclose Yourself to the world at large, only to us?” From this, about the most I can draw is that he was observant. He saw what had been happening, the building opposition of those in power. It would have been hard to miss the antagonism on display but a few days ago when Jesus had confronted conditions in the Temple courtyards. It’s also very likely that the apostles were hearing some amount of chatter on the streets during these days in Jerusalem. Even with the efforts to keep things tamped down, the Pharisees and Sadducees were not exactly being coy about their desire to destroy Jesus. If Judas Iscariot knew about it, surely the locals did, too.

But, he is willing to ask. And, he asks in a fashion that seems to impart that he has been not only listening to what Jesus has been teaching, but also watching, assessing. Much has been happening, and frankly, the negative reaction from the authorities has been ongoing. It’s not a sudden change of policy from them. So, of all that has been happening, of all that is coming against Him, what exactly has triggered His change of policy? One might suspect there’s a second question lying behind that which he spoke aloud, that question being how Jesus was going to manage such a feat. How can You show Yourself to us in such a way that the rest of the world won’t notice? Are we going into hiding? Is that it? Are we to become like the bandits in the hills between here and Galilee? What sort of Messiah would do that? How is that the makings of a Victorious Hero?

I find it striking that it is this question that Jesus really answers, not the why, but the how. And, even that is answered in rather oblique fashion. We will come to those who love Us. Those who don’t love Us will not and cannot see Us.

That response actually brings up an interesting line of thought. While I would never reduce the place of God’s Word in our pursuit of knowing God, there is something here that should temper our perspective. God’s Word is foremost, but it is not the ultimate. One can read His Word cover to cover, read with good comprehension, and with the historical, sociological, linguistic and even theological insights to really grasp what the text is saying, and yet be no nearer the Truth. To put it more simply, head knowledge is hardly sufficient for Christian faith. It is not to be discounted or denigrated, but it isn’t enough. The heart must connect. The character must absorb. Those who insist that Christianity is a relationship with God aren’t all that far off the mark. It’s only when relationship is stressed to the exclusion of knowledge that we run into problems. The reverse is equally problematic. All knowledge with no relationship is a losing strategy. It is not faith. It is intellectual egoism.

Judas might be guilty of seeking to grapple with the mystery of Jesus using the power of reason. But, reason must necessarily hit a limit, for reason can only build upon and within the framework of what we already understand. Reason is algebraic in that regard. We assess the new based upon the old. We hear what Jesus is saying, and immediately try to fit it into the framework of how we think things work. Look around at the number of wholly antithetical, wholly ungodly viewpoints that try to claim the backing of Jesus. Why, of course He would support this, or at the very least, He wouldn’t care that we do these things. We have the camp insisting that God would gladly condone gays in the pulpit. We have the camp that insists Jesus would have been an environmental activist, and driven a green car. We have the camp insisting that He wouldn’t be bothered by a bunch of His followers earning their livelihoods by gaming the casinos. Why, name your favorite cause, and Jesus would surely have been there with you, every bit as dedicated to the cause, were He around today. Of course He would be a Republican. And a Democrat, too! Probably a Communist, as well. Never mind that these are orthogonally opposed viewpoints. He would be all of them. Why, we could probably find somebody who would insist that Jesus, were He alive today, would be a Muslim.

How do we arrive at such views? We arrive because whatever grasp we may have on the facts, the data points of Scripture, we have no real understanding. We have not digested the implications. We don’t know God. That’s the sum of it. We don’t know God and therefore what He reveals of Himself fails to reveal Himself to us. We don’t love Him and therefore He doesn’t really reveal Himself. He shows Himself, but He doesn’t reveal Himself.

Judas, presumably a Galilean like the majority of the Apostles, was perhaps more familiar with Greek patterns of thought and philosophy than the average Judean. Being around Gentiles all the time, and being under a regime that had a fairly strong Hellenistic tendencies, is bound to have an effect on one’s thinking. Society does impact worldview, even when we are most diligently trying to reject the effect. We are very rarely as counter-cultural as we like to think we are. Jesus, on this occasion, is truly counter-cultural, and He does it by being utterly true to His culture. He does not reject the Hellenistic approach. Neither does He blindly embrace the traditional Hebraistic approach. He applies both. Or, am I now insisting that He would clearly believe what I believe?

I had, perhaps, best leave this. I find I am saying very little about Judas. That is inevitable, because very little is said about him. But, given that this was intended as a ‘meet the people’ study, it seems I am meeting mostly myself. So be it.