Did Satan enter Judas before or during the Last Supper?


According to Luke, Satan had entered Judas prior to the Last Supper:

a Now the feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover,* was drawing near,
b and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking a way to put him to death, for they were afraid of the people.
c Then Satan entered into Judas,* the one surnamed Iscariot, who was counted among the Twelve,d
and he went to the chief priests and temple guards to discuss a plan for handing him over to them.
They were pleased and agreed to pay him money.
He accepted their offer and sought a favorable opportunity to hand him over to them in the absence of a crowd.

Preparations for the Passover.e
When the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread arrived, the day for sacrificing the Passover lamb,–Luke 22: 1-7

(I sure do wish the CAFs Bible BB code still worked. :frowning: )

And according to John, it occurred at the Last Supper:

After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”–John 13: 27

How do we reconcile these 2 passages?


There is no need to reconcile a figure of speech. Judas committed the most famous sin in history…but it was still a human sin. We know that Judas had lost faith from previous events, and we know the apostles were frightened of the potential for unrest and violence in Jerusalem. We strongly suspect that Judas thought of Jesus as a failed messiah at this point. This is more than enough explanation for his actions. To say that ‘Satan entered’ is not a demand that we acknowledge a certain moment in time when Judas was possessed. It is a figure of speech used by his former comrades to explain his actions, but these actions were the result of a change of heart in Judas documented as happening months before.


There are a lot of facts like that that differ among the gospels.
The logical explanation seems to be that…as the stories were passed around in different areas all those decades, before being written down, those details changed.

PS. If Judas had a change of heart and didn’t think Jesus was the Messiah anymore, why is that considered “Satan entering him”.
Can that not just be that he changed his mind about Jesus? As the other disciples did who left the room that day?



Interesting question. Since I believe we all have the potential to store Satan in us at the moment of mortal Sin, I believe Jesus and the Gospel writers are making a point to say that when we Sin, Satan is present therein full regalia. When we consume of Our Lord during communion we are full of Christ. As we Sin especially grave or mortal Sin we are full of Satan. Jesus once told Peter to get away from him and calling him Satan. Was Peter Satan? No, I believe that at moments of these grave times of Sin we can let in the Devil when of course we try to hamper the Will of the Father. The timing of Satan’s entering is possibly given to illustrate a point. In another passage we read of house cleaning of demons that are removed from us. They leave us but if this void in us is not replaced with God, all come back in fury with many more of their friends. So, going back to your question. The precise moment of Satan entering is not as important as to illustrate of what happens at the moments of grave and mortal Sins.


Yes, but all temptation comes from Satan who takes advantage of our weaknesses, so it is both at the least.


Would you go so far as to say that mortal sin is to Satan as the Eucharist is to Christ…? Hmm…:hmmm:


Yes, but all temptation comes from Satan who takes advantage of our weaknesses, so it is both at the least.

And so you agree it is fatuous to ask at what exact moment ‘Satan entered Judas’ because it is a figure of speech?


No, because Satan is not pure evil but the Father of evil, so not all sin IS the devil, although temptation is from the devil.

The Eucharist IS Christ.


Sin and Satan are allies but evil itself is not satan…
Eucharist and Christ are allies because Eucharist IS Christ…
Makes sense. Interesting.


I am not doubting your knowledge or sincerity. If this is taught in Church teaching that it was a figure of speech then how can I? I am simply adding that the Apostles would have been attacked by Satan especially at that time and I think we should believe this because there is progressive teaching out there which attempts to dismiss everything in the Gospels as ‘not real events’ but ‘giving the message that’, only (I am not saying that you are being dismissive). I don’t think being fatuous applies at all from either direction. It is okay to seek, and it is okay to share, one’s knowledge. :slight_smile:


amending post…


Sin is an evil act.

And after we have sinned, we can be in a state of mortal sin - the consequential damage to the soul.

So…an ally of the devil.?..sin is not a living person so it can’t be an ally as such but rather a favoured result of the devil. When we sin, giving into temptation, we ally ourselves with the devil. So sin can be the consequence of temptation, which is the consequence of the devil and his minions, who is the biggest danger to our freewill.

But the devil is not pure evil. This is a heresy that - as another poster pointed out some time ago, and can be found in ‘Confessions’ (I think) - St. Augustine laid waste to. When we commit evil we do not become the devil we are siding with the devil. To do evil is a turning away from God - to sin. The devil doesn’t turn, sin, for us, we choose to turn, sin, despite being tempted we are responsible for our sins. No excuses.

The Eucharist and Christ are not allies because thanks to consubstantiation the bread and wine IS Christ’s body and blood.


my point in that passage is that we are what we consume in our hearts. If we take in evil, then we welcome the Evil one. When we consume Our Lord in the Eucharist, we are welcoming Christ into our hearts and into our lives.


…I have actually just thought of something interesting which makes a change…

…if sin is the ACT of sinning, and yet we remain in a state of sin, does this mean that because sin can be mortal it is a continuous dying?

e.g:- when we are dead, if we die in mortal sin, we are dead but yet alive for punishment, and not growing better in God, but rather facing, growing, or shrinking the other way, and therefore our souls get uglier. So this must mean that sin which took the damned to Hell are in a state of eternal dying, hence the punishment. Can one of these excellent defenders of the R.C Church in this thread fill me in on whether I am correct in this proposed thought, please? Because this would explain why original sin could be carried through the generations. All mortal sin is never an end unto itself but an act that is continuous in its effect in the soul, eternally, as a result of it being an act contrary to God’s grace. Does sin mean an eternal dying and therefore could be a more thorough way of explaining the result of mortal sin?


This would ALSO explain the phenomena of generational curses in general, whether by highly sinful or mostly occultic ancestors…


SO the main difference between Eucharist/Jesus and mortal sin/Satan is…Eucharist is an act of GOD, mortal sin is an act of US.


Yes - what you said:

the Eucharist is by an act of God, but mortal sin is an act of us.


the Eucharist is Christ’s body, but when we sin we don’t eat the devil.


I agree and disagree. All relevant. It can show how Satan is there when we fall. Satan can enter our minds. As you suggested.

But I just thought that Satan entering Judas’s mind and turning his thoughts away from Christ’s Supper is important in the timing. Sin can keep us from Holy Communion.

Also, when Jesus said for Peter to get behind him, this is also very important in the timing.
Jesus had a mission and as disciples we have missions. And there are such things as lesser goods which, when we have a choice, can limit God’s work if we don’t choose the best thing to do. Sometimes people can dissuade us out of their own insecurities, or fear, or even for our safety, but this can be doing the devil’s work. And so the timing is important. In the stories of some saints there were attempts to dissuade them for certain plausible reasons from doing the best thing. And Satan would have been attacking the apostles quite often I think - with the weapon of doubt. And Jesus would have been able to see this. I think what you said was true but I have an aversion to people only saying the general message is what is important, because the context and timing is also vital. St. John said at the start of his Gospel that Jesus did and said all these things, and many more. And so Jesus’ perfect timing would have been thanks to having the Will of the Father in whom all is possible.


Poor Judas, it was not his fault. Didn’t Jesus say that one of his disciples was going to betray him? Jesus came as a sacrifice. A sacrifice needs to die otherwise he isn’t one. So Judas only followed his calling on earth to be the one to betray Jesus. It was all part of the greater plan.


He could have gone to the Cross afterwards and asked Jesus for forgiveness but chose to kill himself instead.

Satan cannot force himself into anyone.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.