Short answer: According to John 13:21–30, Judas Iscariot's father was Simon Iscariot. Jesus identifies Judas as "the son of Simon Iscariot" when he hands him the dipped piece of bread at the table. No other father is named for Judas in this scene. The identification comes from Jesus himself, spoken in the same breath as the announcement that one of the twelve will betray him.
A supper table, a dipped piece of bread, and a departure into night
John places this scene at a meal table during Passover season, after Jesus has washed the disciples' feet and spoken about receiving the one he sends. The narrative moves in tight steps: Jesus speaks, the disciples look at one another, Peter signals, the beloved disciple asks, Jesus answers with a dipped piece of bread, and Judas goes out. John tells us Jesus was troubled in spirit as he made the announcement, so the betrayal is not a surprise that caught him off guard but a sorrow he felt and named in advance. He says he tells them beforehand so that when it happens they may believe.
The detail about the money box matters for the shape of the story. Some at the table assume Judas is being sent to buy what is needed for the feast or to give something to the poor, which shows he handled the group's funds and was trusted with them. That makes the disclosure land harder, not as an obvious outsider being exposed but as someone seated among them. The disciples are perplexed rather than certain; nobody at the table understands why Jesus speaks to him as he does. The scene keeps the reader inside that confusion.
Judas receives the piece of bread and goes out immediately, and John closes the verse with three plain words: it was night. Only then does Jesus speak of the Son of Man being glorified. The betrayal is not allowed to sit outside the purpose of the hour; it is folded into it. The text holds together real guilt, since Judas does what he does, and the purposeful hand of God, who is glorified in it. That is a sober pair to keep together, neither excusing the betrayal nor turning it into a club against people who have failed.
The Son of simon iscariot: what the wording shows
At the supper Jesus has just washed the disciples' feet, and the text turns solemn. He is troubled in spirit and says plainly that one of them will betray him. The disciples look at one another, perplexed. The question on the table is not whether betrayal is possible but who among them would do it. John tells us that one disciple, the one Jesus loved, is leaning against him, and Peter signals for him to ask. Jesus answers with a sign rather than a name at first: the one who receives the dipped piece of bread.
Then the answer comes, and it is a family description as much as a personal one. Jesus gives the bread to Judas, and the text identifies him as the son of Simon Iscariot. The label Iscariot appears elsewhere in the Gospels as a distinguishing name for Judas, and here it is attached to his father as well, so father and son share the identifying name. The wording does not explain the name or speculate about its origin. It simply ties Judas to a household, which fits the sober way the Gospels speak of him: a real man, from a real family.
The verses that follow are heavy. After the bread, Satan enters him, and Jesus tells him to do quickly what he is going to do. The others at the table do not understand; some suppose, because Judas keeps the money box, that Jesus is sending him to buy what is needed for the feast or to give something to the poor. He goes out, and John notes that it was night. The passage holds together two things without easing either: Judas is genuinely guilty, and God's purpose is not caught off guard. That is where we stand with this text, soberly, not using Judas as a club against people who have failed.
When he has gone out, Jesus speaks of glory. The Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. The betrayal does not interrupt the story of glory; it becomes the doorway to it. Reading the earlier verses in that light keeps us from turning Judas into a mere cautionary tale about someone else. The text shows a man who shared the table, received the bread, and walked into the night, and it shows a Savior who knew all of it beforehand and went forward anyway.
The Father named at the table
The question of Judas's father is answered here, and answered by Jesus. As the disciples recline at the meal, Jesus announces that one of them will betray him, and the bread identifies the man: he gives it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot (13:26). No other father is named for Judas anywhere in this scene. The detail is not gossip passed along by the disciples or a conclusion drawn later by the Gospel writer. It comes from the Lord himself, spoken in the same breath as the warning that a betrayer sits among them. The text supplies the name plainly and moves on.
The setting sharpens what the disclosure costs. Jesus has just washed the disciples' feet and taught them that whoever receives the one he sends receives him (13:20). Now he is troubled in spirit as he testifies that one of the twelve will betray him (13:21). The disciples look at one another, perplexed. Peter signals the beloved disciple, who leans back and asks who it is (13:23–25). Judas holds the money box, so the others assume Jesus is sending him to buy for the feast or give to the poor (13:29). He is trusted with the group's funds, which makes the announcement land harder, not easier.
Judas takes the bread and goes out, and John notes simply that it was night (13:30). The betrayal is not a loose thread outside God's purpose. Once Judas leaves, Jesus speaks of the Son of Man being glorified and of God being glorified in him (13:31–32). The hour moves forward through this act rather than around it. That holds two things together without softening either: Judas is genuinely guilty, and God is genuinely at work. The passage gives a sober answer to the question. Judas was the son of Simon Iscariot, named by Jesus at the table, and the night that followed did not catch heaven off guard.
Where readers disagree about the bread and the betrayer
Careful readers part ways over the dipped bread. Some see a last gesture of table fellowship, an offer Judas could still refuse; others see only the promised sign of identification, since Jesus had just said the one who receives the piece is the man. The text does not settle which reading is right. What it does show plainly is that Jesus was not caught off guard. He named the betrayal before it happened so the disciples might believe, and he sent Judas out with a command, not a startled reaction. The initiative in this scene belongs to Jesus.
The hardest line is that Satan entered Judas after the bread. Readers differ on how to hold that together with Judas' guilt, and the passage refuses to resolve the tension for us. It does not say the devil made him do it, and it does not say Judas was merely a pawn. Luke likewise ties Satan's work to a real act of betrayal. John presents both without canceling either: a purposeful God and a responsible man. That should make us sober rather than smug, since the same text that exposes Judas warns every disciple who thinks he stands.
The disciples at the table understood none of it. Some assumed Judas was running an errand for the feast or giving to the poor, which tells us he had managed the money and been trusted. The beloved disciple is not named here either, and readers still debate who he was. None of that uncertainty touches the center: Jesus knowingly and willingly went to the cross, Judas was truly one of the twelve, and God's purpose did not excuse the sin. Handle this figure with restraint. The text gives no license to despise people who fail, only reason to watch and pray.
The betrayer at the table and the glory beyond the night
The upper room scene turns on what Jesus knows and says. He has just told the disciples that he speaks before events unfold so that they may believe, and then, troubled in spirit, he testifies that one of them will betray him (13:19–21). The disciples look at one another, perplexed. Peter signals the disciple leaning near Jesus, who asks who it is. Jesus answers by dipping a piece of bread and giving it to Judas, son of Simon Iscariot (13:23–26). The betrayer is not discovered by accident or caught off guard. Jesus names him at his own table, and the bread passes from his hand to the man who will sell him.
Judas receives the morsel, and then the text says Satan entered into him. Jesus tells him, "What you do, do quickly" (13:27). The others at the table do not understand; some suppose Judas, keeper of the money box, is being sent to buy for the feast or to give to the poor (13:28–29). He goes out immediately, and the narrator adds a plain, heavy line: it was night (13:30). The passage holds two things without softening either. Judas is genuinely guilty of betraying a friend who had just handed him bread. And God's purpose is not derailed by that guilt; the betrayal sets in motion what God had determined. Sober restraint belongs here: the text names real sin, and it also shows a sovereign hand, and neither cancels the other.
The moment Judas leaves, Jesus speaks of glory. The Son of Man has now been glorified, he says, and God has been glorified in him; God will glorify him in himself, and do it immediately (13:31–32). The departure into night leads straight into that declaration. The gospel in this scene is not that betrayal is small, but that the Son of Man is lifted up through it. The friend sold at the table becomes the Savior who goes to the cross, and the darkness of that night does not have the last word. Grace comes first: God acts in Christ, and our response is to believe the One who told us beforehand.
Trusting the plain text and examining ourselves
John gives the family name without apology: Judas is identified as the son of Simon Iscariot (13:26). The Gospels tell us what we need about this man and leave the rest alone. Faithful reading follows that pattern. We take the details Scripture supplies, including names and relationships, and we resist the urge to fill the gaps with guesses about motives or hidden history. Where the text is silent, our speculation should be silent too. That is not dullness; it is trust. The same restraint shapes how we speak of Judas himself, holding his real guilt without turning him into a club against people who have failed.
The upper room also teaches sober self-examination. Judas sat at the table, received the dipped bread from Jesus' hand, and kept the money box, yet the text says plainly that Satan entered him (13:27). Proximity to Jesus is not the same as loyalty to him. Peter, who moments earlier was beckoning to ask who it was, would also fail, though differently. The passage does not invite us to sort the room into villains and heroes but to ask where our own hearts stand. Grace is the ground of that question, not a reward for asking it well.
Notice too that Jesus was troubled in spirit as he testified (13:21). His obedience to the cross was not cold or detached; the betrayal cost him something. When he told Judas to act quickly and the man went out into the night (13:30), Jesus did not lose control of the moment. He named what was coming before it happened so that his disciples might believe. Our faithful response is small and ordinary: read the plain details, examine yourself honestly, and reverence the troubled Savior who went to the cross on purpose. No particular outcome is promised beyond the faithfulness of God himself.
Biblical fidelity check
Read closely, John 13:21–30 answers the question in a single identifying phrase: Jesus names the betrayer as "Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot" (13:26). The label Iscariot marks Judas elsewhere in the Gospels, and here it is fastened to his father Simon, so father and son share the family name. The dipped bread is the sign Jesus gives in answer to the question at the table, and the text states plainly that after the bread Satan entered him. The money box explains why the others misread the command as a purchase or a gift to the poor.
The interpretive risks here are real. Readers differ over whether the bread was a last offer of fellowship Judas rejected or simply the promised sign of identification, and over how Satan's entry relates to Judas' own guilt; the text does not resolve that tension. The beloved disciple is not named in this scene, so certainty about his identity is not available from these verses. What stays central is that Jesus knowingly went to the cross, that Judas truly belonged to the twelve, and that divine purpose and human guilt stand together without canceling either.
Reading John 13:21-30 alongside other passages
For further study, compare the parallel accounts of the betrayal announcement in John 10: Jesus the Good Shepherd and Door and John 11: Jesus Raises Lazarus from the Dead, and trace how John describes Judas earlier in his Gospel at John 12: Love, Death, and Glory. Reading the farewell discourse that follows in John 13: Jesus Washes Feet and Predicts Betrayal shows how quickly the upper room turns from grief to glory.
Frequently asked questions
Who was Judas Iscariot's father according to the Bible?
The Gospel of John names him as Simon Iscariot. In John 13:26 Jesus identifies the betrayer as the one to whom he will give the dipped bread, and the verse adds that this is Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. John 6:71 also calls Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, so the two references agree. The name "Iscariot" is attached to both father and son in the text, which suggests it identified the family and not only the man.
Why does John mention Simon Iscariot at the Last Supper?
John gives the father's name to pin down exactly which disciple Jesus meant. When Jesus said one of the twelve would betray him, the disciples looked at one another, perplexed about whom he spoke (13:22). Naming Judas as the son of Simon Iscariot removes any ambiguity about the person being identified. The detail also anchors the moment in a real family and a real man, not a vague warning. John is not adding gossip about a household; he is recording how the Lord named the betrayer at his own table.
What did the dipped bread signify when Jesus gave it to Judas?
In this scene the dipped piece of bread functions as the sign Jesus gave to identify the betrayer. He said it was the one to whom he would give the bread after dipping it, and then he handed it to Judas (13:26). At an ordinary meal, handing a morsel to a guest could express favor, which makes the moment sting: the sign of identification came wrapped in a gesture of table fellowship. The text does not say the bread itself caused what followed. It says that after the piece of bread, Satan entered into Judas (13:27), and Judas went out immediately, and it was night (13:30).
