What does Luke 22:3 mean?
Judas has spent three years seeing the devastating effects of demon possession. He has watched Jesus free victims from that torment. It's possible he's expelled demons, himself (Luke 9:1–6). For some untold reason, however, he is in such a state of moral brokenness he is vulnerable to the direct control of Satan. We aren't told why, although Jesus calls him "a devil" (John 6:70).Between the religious leaders' strategizing (Luke 22:2) and Judas's offer of betrayal, Matthew 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9 include the account of a woman who anoints Jesus' head with oil. The disciples criticize her for wasting such a valuable gift (Matthew 26:8). A week before, Mary of Bethany had anointed Jesus' feet. In this earlier event, it is Judas who begins the conversation about the foolish use of money. John reveals it is because he is a thief; he wished Mary had given them cash, instead, so he could pilfer it (John 12:1–8). It's not clear why Luke completely skips over the anointings or even if they are Judas's motivation for betraying Jesus. It is interesting how Luke juxtaposes Judas's betrayal with proper, Christlike servant-leadership and how Judas basically sells his birthright of kingdom authority for a bag full of silver (Luke 22:21–30).
Scholars debate about the meaning of "Iscariot." The two most favored interpretations are that either he is from the village of Kerioth or he was a Sicarius. The Sicarii, "dagger-men," are particularly violent Zealots who hide daggers in their cloaks and like to stab and kill Romans and Jewish collaborators before ducking into the crowd. They will have a prominent role in the rebellion against the Romans as well as the civil war inside Jerusalem. That conflict will result in the destruction of the city in AD 70. There's no external evidence that Judas was a Sicarius.
It's worth mentioning that the Bible mentions Satan possessing only two men: Judas and the Antichrist, both of whom are referred to as the "son of destruction" (John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3). The likelihood of Satan, himself, attacking an individual Christian is extremely low. It seems only Judas and the Antichrist are strategically important enough for direct possession.
