What is a faithful translation for "the son of perdition" in John 17:12?

score:5

Accepted answer

Interesting question!

enter image description here

The Greek words used here are huois tes apoleias

"houis"
The Strongs number for this is G5207. Looking at the Vines entry, this definitely means "son". This can mean both "male offspring" or, more generically, "descendant".

"tes"
Strong G3588. This word means "of the". It's just a very simple word.

"apoleias"
Strong G684. This means "destruction", "perishing" or "ruin".

Translation

The literal translation of this phrase would be "son of destruction" or "son of ruin". The choice of using the word "perdition" is acceptable in the old form of the word ("utter destruction"), however it has taken on the connotation of "eternal damnation" and so it's no longer an appropriate translation, in my opinion.

In Context

If we look at what Jesus is saying here, he's saying that he saved and protected all of his disciples except for Judas. He refers to Judas as the "son of perdition" saying that he was the only one who he did not protect.

If we look at this in light of Luke, we find this verse:

Luke 22:3 (NIV)
Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.

Here, we see that Satan entered Judas. After that point (in John 17), Jesus calls Judas the "son of destruction". What he's referring to here is clearly that Judas was of Satan and not of God.

Was Judas innocent?

The problem with looking at things too closely is that we often lose sight of the bigger picture. The question being asked was, essentially, was Judas a product of circunstances or did he play an active role in betraying Jesus. If we read further in Luke we see this passage:

Luke 22:4-6 (NIV) Emphasis added
4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.

Clearly, there was plotting involved, a conscious effort to betray Jesus, and a choice that Judas made. While, yes, he was a "son of destruction" this was due to his actions and his choices.

Jesus was protecting the twelve apostles, except for Judas. But what was he protecting them from? He was protecting them from Satan! Once he stopped protecting Judas, the temptations and desires of Satan entered into him and he was overtaken by the overwhelming temptations, to which he succumbed.

Jesus allowed Judas to be tempted--he withdrew his protection from Judas so that Satan could enter into his heart--and Judas chose to turn away from God and from Jesus.

Summary

Jesus was protecting the apostles from being tempted by Satan. With Judas, he withdrew that protection so that Satan could enter into his heart and tempt him. With that temptation, Judas was allowed to choose to betray Jesus--which he did.

Judas intentionally plotted against Jesus and consented to the betrayal. Therefore was fully guilty of the betrayal.

Upvote:1

The main doctrinal difference between the various interpretations is the one already mentioned: the question of free will. I think some perspective on the matter can be found in Luke:

Luke 17:1

1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

(See also Matthew 18: 7.) This is a warning: even though it's inevitable that "offenses" will happen, do not be the offender! It was necessary that one of the Apostles would become a Son of Perdition and betray Jesus, and it's likely that the Pharisees would have accepted (and even tried to solicit) help from several of the members of their hated rival's inner circle, but Judas was the one who accepted the job.

Given that, it looks like the closest translation into plain English is the one given by the Jerusalem Bible.

More post

Search Posts

Related post