“Iscariotism” and “yoking” might not be a couple of terms you’re too familiar with at first glance and you may not find much on the subjects if you research it.
This research behind “ Iscariotism” started about a decade ago, taking several weeks, when I first worked on it. I never really did anything with it, but it was a fascinating journey. There’s not much more today than what could be found back then on this subject, so it had to be pieced together. If there is some “conspiracy theory” out there on this, I am not aware of it, so any similarities are purely coincidental.
Iscariotism is linked to Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus.
Now this is not all a religious, philosophical article, It’s roots are in political/social causes of the day which can be traced backed to religion. “Yoking” is defined as ‘to be or become joined, linked, or united as one or new whole’, and connects neatly with Iscariotism.
For my research, I use electronic copies of the bible to perform word and phrase searches and I use an old printed 1960’s bible for cross reference, because that was before man started changing single words that changed entire meanings. My use of the bible for things less than inspiration and spiritual won’t win me any gold stars, but sometimes you just gotta do it.
I rarely speak about Iscariotism because most people are not familiar with it and they have a tendency to roll their eyes if you mention it. Its pronunciation often throws people off which is “Iscario tism” with the o sounding more like an ‘a’. Iscariotism is named after “Judas Iscariot” the traitor of Jesus in the Gospels.
Iscariotism has a vague definition. The definition variations you find are very lame, all over the place, and varies with people trying to describe it. Many people have never heard the word to start with, but once they hear it, they can immediately explain what it means, without study. Go figure!
Despite your findings to the contrary, it is “anyone or any concept that is a betrayal of Jesus by aligning themselves with the enemies of Christ.” This definition parallels with actions of Judas Iscariot in the Gospels and is more fitting. Any definition to the contrary is questionable.
Iscariotism seeks to make people unwittingly side with the enemies of Christ and has had phenomenal success. You can test your pastor/minister’s knowledge by asking him what it is, but expect an initial blank stare on his/her face, before you get some ‘on the fly’ explanation. Before continuing I must explain there is no organized group called “ Iscariotists International” or nothing of the sort”. It’s not something you willingly join, but rather a trap you fall into as an individual or a group. Granted there are groups of Iscariotists but they go by other names and do not openly consider the principals of Iscariotism as one of their ethos. Their actions tell a different story. “You will know them by their fruits”.
Iscariotism is rooted in the story that does not get a great deal play except during the Easter season and not much even then, because it is drowned out by the story of the resurrection. It is that of Judas Iscariot the betrayer. In Jesus’ words when he said, “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.” (Matthew 26:24 Also found in Luke and Mark). Jesus spoke in several forms, as in parables, he spoke plainly or answered a question with a question. This one is plainly spoken. You cannot take it out of context when your reading it as written. There is no parable here.
In the word translations that I found, for “woe to that man”, the word “that” is actually “the”, so the word “that” and “the” are interchangeable. So “that man” (Judas) and “THE man”, (all men) are the same in who it speaks to. Some bibles depending on the age of them and which version, will use “that” or “the” in this verse. This is very important word distinction because it is not just a statement aimed at Judas Iscariot but also about all of Jesus followers. I do not see any exclusions for the followers of Christ, as Judas was one of them. Afterall Jesus spoke for the moment and for all time, as we have been taught…right? Iscariotists are not always betrayers themselves, but often like “betrayer sympathizers” for the lack of a better explanation.
The message then suggests that anyone who betrays Christ, by siding with the enemies of Jesus, then the verse would apply. “woe to that man, it would be better if that man had never been born”. Contrast this against “love thy enemy”, from Matthew 5:43-48 on the Sermon on the Mount but it shouldn’t confuse us. There is no evidence that, “Love your enemy” means to take them into your fold or “yoke with your enemy”, which would of course end in catastrophe for you and your family. Its more logical that it simply means to not carry hate for your enemy or the enemies of Christ.
This brings up numerous questions we must ask ourselves like, how do you betray Jesus like Judas did? You can ask that question to many people and they will all give you differing explanations. It’s easy to find some interpretations by clergy or individuals attempt to soften what he said and hold Judas Iscariot in a better light, but it’s usually a sign they fell into the trap of Iscariotism?
Another question might surface like, if Judas had NOT accepted 30 pieces of silver for his betrayal, but still agreed to show the Sanhedrin where Jesus was, would it have still been a betrayal? Would it still had been a betrayal even if Judas had simply told the Sanhedrin where Jesus was hiding as a favor? Had Judas, not took the 30 pieces of sliver and not greeted him with a kiss and simply told the Sanhedrin where Jesus was hiding would it have been any less of a betrayal? The answer to all these questions should be a resounding NO!
The money and the kiss made the betrayal deeper, wider, taller and so there was no confusion and no way for future historians to explain away the action of Judas’ betrayal. When Judas stood up from the table of the last supper to walk out the door, the betrayal began. This was before the 30 pieces of silver, before Judas led the mob to the garden, and before the greeting kiss. His betrayal was compounded after that. Then the betrayal was, at its core, in its simplest form….Judas sided with the enemies of Christ. Those that despised Jesus and everything he stood for.
Defenders of Judas, Iscariotists, would quickly point out that if not for him, Christ would not have been crucified so that our sins could be forgiven. This lessens Judas’ guilt and I won’t go along with that. Its Iscariotism echoing from the hole/trap they fell into.
Another question is, why did the Sanhedrin need information from Judas Iscariot anyway? They could have arrested Jesus as any time when he was in Jerusalem teaching! Jesus was in hiding from those who sought his death and they were in a rabid hurry to find him, give him a mock trial, and crucify him, all before Friday at sunset when Passover began. They needed Judas because they were in a hurry and had no time to launch a manhunt in the countryside. That explanation is pretty standard learning.
For his act of treachery Judas Iscariot earned his “better if he had not been born”, curse. Judas’ return of the silver, did not redeem him. Any defense of “I didn’t know”…was of no consequence. There is no evidence that hanging himself even redeemed him. There are some huge teachable moments in these often-overlooked words that Jesus spoke and in the story of the Iscariot.
This “ Iscariotism” uses “inclusion” as leverage. It is an infiltration, a parasitic invasion of Christianity. It exploits Christs teachings and that of scripture for its own gain. It seeks to obtain alignment with Christianity to call it one and the same under an inclusive name. It seeks to remain a member of the fold while it attempts to destroy it from within. Iscariotism’s goals are not so different than its namesake. Judas, was a member of the fold, the elect, but in the end he really wasn’t.
In 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 there is specific instruction. zDo not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For awhat partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
(Important to read in its entirety all the way through verse 18, as it contains more important instruction in the parable section).
Many Christians will use this verse to attack other Christian religions. They tend to internalize and disconnect. They look inward instead of outward, because they think these “unbelievers” referred to are fellow Christians who do not believe the same as they do. Pay attention to the single word “unequally” in this verse. Some Christians confuse this equal yoking with unequal yoking which are separate. Iscariotism and the unequal yoking of other religious beliefs are closely aligned. In this yoking that already exists there is a hope and a belief in this alignment, but reality is something totally different.
Iscariotism’s pursues the goal to get laws passed to protect it from criticism and its aims. It will be dressed as something else. Christians will go along because it is painted as inclusiveness and will deceptively think they are included in those protections. Iscariotisms inclusiveness is only to their benefit. Several protections have already been implemented dating back decades, and more are coming. Once complete, the real assault on Christianity will begin and Christians will not be able to fight back, because the protection laws, the ones they agreed to, will prohibit them from resisting.
Christianity began ignoring the instruction of 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 about 5 decades ago with disastrous effect.
Conspiracy theory? If so, then it might be the greatest of all time. This is all BS? Maybe so, depending on what you were taught, but with the penalty of “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”, personally its not worth the gamble. Yoking with the wrong crowd can have a disastrous effect which is already being played out. If your uncertain about this Iscariotism and yoking, then by all means ask me about it the next time you see me. I can explain it with a simple sentence, now that you have the jest of it.