He spoke of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Jump to: Alford • Barnes • Bengel • Benson • BI • Calvin • Cambridge • Chrysostom • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Exp Grk • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • ICC • JFB • Kelly • KJT • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Meyer • Parker • PNT • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • Teed • TTB • VWS • WES • TSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)Judas Iscariot the son of Simon.—The best MSS. read, Judas, the son of Simon Iscariotes. On the name see the list of the Apostles in Matthew 10:4. If we accept the most probable interpretation of Iscariot as Ish K’rīoth, a man of K’rīoth,—and this is supported by the variation of MSS. in this place, some of which read “from Kariotes,” and the best of which, as we see, apply the title Iscariot to Simon—then Judas belonged to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:25), and is the only one of the Apostles who was not a Galilean (Acts 2:7). This connects itself with the antagonistic position of the Jews from Jerusalem.
That should betray him.—Not indicating that Judas was then planning the betrayal. (Comp. John 13:2.) This remark is made by the writer to explain the strong words of the previous verse.
Being one of the twelve.—Or, although he was one of the Twelve, the exact shade of meaning of the participle being defined by the context. It marks, again, the tragic contrast between what might have been expected and what was actually realised. One of the Twelve, devil! one of the Twelve, the betrayer!John 12:6; John 13:29; and at the table, when Jesus said that one of them would betray him, the rest did not suspect Judas until Jesus pointed him out particularly, John 13:26. Jesus spoke of one, to put them on their guard, to check their confidence, and to lead them to self-examination. So in every church, or company of professing Christians, we may know that it is probable that there may be some one or more deceived; but we may not know who it may be, and should therefore inquire prayerfully and honestly, "Lord, is it I?"
Should betray - Would betray. If it be asked why Jesus called a man to be an apostle who he knew had no love for him, who would betray him, and who had from the beginning the spirit of a "devil," we may reply:
1. It was that Judas might be an important witness for the innocence of Jesus, and for the fact that he was not an impostor. Judas was with him more than three years. He was treated with the same confidence as the others, and in some respects even with superior confidence, as he had "the bag" John 12:6, or was the treasurer. He saw the Saviour in public and in private, heard his public discourses and his private conversation, and he would have been just the witness which the high priests and Pharisees would have desired, if he had known any reason why he should be condemned. Yet he alleged nothing against him. Though he betrayed him, yet he afterward said that he was innocent, and, under the convictions of conscience, committed suicide. If Judas had known anything against the Saviour he would have alleged it. If he had known that he was an impostor, and had alleged it, he would have saved his own life and been rewarded. If Jesus was an impostor, he ought to have made it known, and to have bean rewarded for it.
2. It may have been, also, with a foresight of the necessity of having such a man among his disciples, in order that his own death might be brought about in the manner in which it was predicted. There were several prophecies which would have been unfulfilled had there been no such man among the apostles.
3. It showed the knowledge which the Saviour had of the human heart, that he could thus discern character before it was developed, and was able so distinctly to predict that he would betray him.
4. We may add, what benevolence did the Saviour evince - what patience and forbearance - that he had with him for more than three years a man who he knew hated him at heart, and who would yet betray him to be put to death on a cross, and that during all that time he treated him with the utmost kindness!he spake of Judas Iscariot, ( so called, as most think, from the name of the city where he lived), and to distinguish him from the other Judas, the brother of James, who wrote the Epistle that goeth by his name, and is a part of holy writ: for he
being one of the twelve, chosen and sent out with the rest to preach the gospel, and empowered by miraculous operations to confirm the truth of it; yet it was he that was to betray Christ, as we largely read in all the evangelists’ relation of the passion: to teach us, that no office to which God calleth us, no gifts (except those of special grace) with which God blesseth any man, can secure him of an eternal happy state; nothing can do that but a true saving faith in Jesus Christ, with the obedience of a holy life becoming the gospel of Christ.
for he it was that should betray him: as it was determined and foretold, and which Christ knew full well, and therefore said the above words:He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)John 6:71. Using the knowledge brought by subsequent events John explains that Judas was meant, ἔλεγε δὲ τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτην [better Ἰσκαριώτου, which shows that the father of Judas was also known as Iscariot], ἔλεγε with the accusative, meaning “He spoke of,” is classical, and see Mark 14:71. The word “Iscariot” is generally supposed to be equivalent to אִישׁ קְרִיּו̇ת, Ish Keriyoth, a man of Kerioth in the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:25). Cf. Ishtob, a man of Tob (Joseph., Ant., vii. 6, 1, quoted in Smith’s Dict.). The name Judas now needs no added surname.71. Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon] The better reading is; Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. If, as seems probable, the name Iscariot means ‘man of Kerioth,’ a place in Judah, it would be natural enough for both father and son to have the name. Assuming this to be correct, Judas was the only Apostle who was not a Galilean.
that should betray] That was to betray; not the same phrase as in John 6:64.
being one of the twelve] ‘Being’ is of doubtful genuineness. The tragic contrast is stronger without the participle: for he was to betray Him, one of the Twelve.
With regard to the difficulty of understanding Christ’s words in this sixth chapter, Meyer’s concluding remark is to be borne in mind. “The difficulty is partly exaggerated; and partly the fact is overlooked that in all references to His death and the purpose of it Jesus could rely upon the light which the future would throw on these utterances: and sowing, as He generally did, for the future in the bosom of the present, He was compelled to utter much that was mysterious, but which would supply material and support for the further development and purification of faith and knowledge. The wisdom thus displayed in His teaching has been justified by History.”John 6:71. Σίμωνος, of Simon) The other evangelists are silent as to what name the father of the traitor bore: John supplies it. The article is opposed to the reading, Ἰσκαριώτην: for in that case it would be Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος τὸν Ἰσκαριώτην, not τὸν Ἰούδαν Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτην. The article is placed between the name and surname. I have mentioned at Matthew 10:4, but not approved of, the derivation given by Ludovicus de Dieu. Both Judas and his father had the surname of Iscariot,  read ΤῸΝ ἸΟΎΔΑΝ ΣΊΜΩΝΟς ἸΣΚΑΡΙΩΤΟΥ: Rec. Text, ἸΣΚΑΡΙΏΤΗΝ.  has Σκαριωθ.]
 the Vatican MS., 1209: in Vat. Iibr., Rome: fourth cent.: O. and N. Test. def.
 Ephræmi Rescriptus: Royal libr., Paris: fifth or sixth cent.: publ. by Tisch. 1843: O. and N. T. def.
 Cod. Reg., Paris, of the Gospels: the text akin to that of B: edited by Tisch.
 Bezæ, or Cantabrig.: Univ. libr., Cambridge: fifth cent.: publ. by Kipling, 1793: Gospels, Acts, and some Epp. def.
 Vercellensis of the old ‘Itala,’ or Latin Version before Jerome’s, probably made in Africa, in the second century: the Gospels.
 Veronensis, do.Verse 71. - Now he spake concerning Judas the son of Simon the Iscariot being one of the twelve. (For this use of ἔλεγε, see John 9:19; Mark 14:71.) Iscariot is most probably "of Kerioth," a town of Judah, mentioned in Joshua 15:25, though Westcott cites another Kerioth in Moab (Jeremiah 48:44). If this Kerioth, which Simon and his son Judas have degraded, be the Kerioth-Hezron, then it would seem that Judas was the only Judaean among the apostles. For he it was that was about to betray him being one of the twelve (cf. ver. 64). Ὁ παραδώσων gives a somewhat different turn of description to the futurity of the deed. Had it yet fully dawned on the soul of the traitor? Had he laid any plans to bring his Master to the point from which he turned so divinely? We know not.
The correct reading is Ἱσκαριώτου, Iscariot, agreeing in the genitive case with Σίμωνος, of Simon. Render, as Rev., Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Iscariot denotes the name of Simon's town: a man of Kerioth. See on Matthew 10:5.
LinksJohn 6:71 Interlinear
John 6:71 Parallel Texts
John 6:71 NIV
John 6:71 NLT
John 6:71 ESV
John 6:71 NASB
John 6:71 KJV
John 6:71 Bible Apps
John 6:71 Parallel
John 6:71 Biblia Paralela
John 6:71 Chinese Bible
John 6:71 French Bible
John 6:71 German Bible