From: Probing the Mystery of Judas Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2016
Part 2:
The Betrayal Process
(chapters 3-7)
[In Current Section:]
Chapter 3: Judas
Volunteers to Betray Jesus
Chapter 4: The
Deal with the Enemies of Jesus
Chapter 5: Judas at the Passover Meal: Repeated
Opportunities to Back Out of Betrayal
Chapter 6: Betrayal with a Kiss
Chapter 7: Judas Repudiates His Betrayal and Is Mocked
Chapter Three:
Judas Volunteers to Betray Jesus
--
The context in Matthew: 1 Now it came
to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, that He said to His disciples, 4 “You know that after two days
is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”
3 Then the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of
the people assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 and plotted to take Jesus by trickery and kill Him. 5 But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an
uproar among the people.”
6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon
the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an
alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured it on His head as He sat at the table. 8 But when His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? 9 For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much
and given to the poor.”
10 But when Jesus was aware of it, He said to them, “Why do you
trouble the woman? For she has done a
good work for Me. 11 For
you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 For in
pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did it for My burial. 13 Assuredly,
I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this
woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to
the chief priests 15 and said, “What are you willing to give me if I
deliver Him to you?” And they counted
out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray
Him. (Matthew 26)
--
The context in Mark: 3 And being in Bethany at the house of
Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask
of very costly oil of spikenard. Then
she broke the flask and poured it
on His head. 4 But
there were some who were indignant among themselves, and said, “Why was this
fragrant oil wasted? 5 For it might have been sold for more than
three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they criticized her sharply.
6 But Jesus said, “Let her
alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me. 7 For you have
the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me
you do not have always. 8 She
has done what she could. She has come
beforehand to anoint My body for burial. 9 Assuredly, I
say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this
woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her.”
10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the
chief priests to betray Him to them. 11 And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. So he sought how he might conveniently betray
Him. (Mark 14)
--
The context in Luke: Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is
called Passover. 2 And the
chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared
the people. 3 Then
Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. 4 So he went his way and conferred with the chief
priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. 5 And
they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So
he promised and sought opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the
multitude. (Luke 22)
--
Both the anointing incident and the role of Judas as betrayer are
mentioned in John but the two are not chronologically linked by the narrator as
in the previous accounts: 1 Then, six
days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was who had been
dead, whom He had raised from the dead. 2 There they made Him a supper; and Martha
served, but Lazarus was one of those who sat at the table with Him. 3 Then
Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus,
and wiped His feet with her hair. And
the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, 5 “Why was this
fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and
given to the poor?” 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but
because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put
in it.
7 But Jesus said, “Let her
alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. 8 For the poor
you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.” (John 12)
Analysis
The religious
leadership in
Even
under the best of conditions, the very crowding and religious intensity of the
period always made the feasts periods of potential civil disturbance.[2] Josephus referred to this reality in
connection with a specific incident, “The Jewish populace rose in revolt
against him [Alexander Jannaeus] at one of the
festivals; for it is on these festive occasions that sedition is most apt to
break out.”[3]
Other
factors also argued for caution. The
gospel accounts mention repeated conflicts between the religious authorities
and Jesus while in
The reference to not carrying out
their intentions during the feast could logically indicate a wavering between
seizing Him before or after the Feast.[5] Strictly speaking the latter would be after
the “feasts” (plural). Since that of
Unleavened Bread began the day after Passover, the two observances tended to be
lumped together as one event. Legally
and theoretically, two separate celebrations; in practice and everyday
nomenclature, the two were merged into one.[6]
Acting
either before or after the feast had built in difficulties. Because of the uncertainties of long distance
travel the crowds would aim for arriving earlier than the Feast lest they miss
its beginning. Yet locating a specific
individual in the crowd before the public observance began would be a chancy
matter. Afterwards would not be easy
either. Leaving was likely to be prompt
and immediately afterwards since few residing in
On
the other hand, by this point they might--hopefully--have the exact location of
Jesus pinpointed and be able to track His movements. Hence at the time, the authorities were
probably thinking in terms of a post-Feast arrest. Perhaps they were anticipating Jesus
remaining in the city for a few days after the Passover was over because of His
passionate religious concerns or were discussing the alternatives for arrest
outside the city as the crowds dispersed to their homes.
A
possibility that usually goes unnoticed also deserves passing attention. Because of the obvious difficulty of seizing
their target either before or after the religious festival, “not during
the feast” might mean “not during the public observances
connected with the feast.” In other
words, at night or somewhere away from the temple. A public arrest in the temple posed the
greatest danger of course.
Yet
an arrest any time during the week had its hazards as well. The fires of religious zeal would only have
mellowed at the end as the pilgrims were departing. (Making it psychologically the best time for
an arrest.) Yet the fact that one of the
inner circle of Jesus’ movement was willing to act, provided them a golden
opportunity they had not anticipated. If
they moved fast enough and involved the Romans deep enough, successful
retaliatory action would either be impossible or swiftly crushed by the
occupying government. It wasn't the
moment they preferred, but it was one that offered the maximum chance of
success and, potentially, the minimum of backlash.
*
The
chronological setting of Judas volunteering his services to the religious
leaders is not mentioned in Luke. There
the Satanic influence is given as the reason for the action, but nothing
is stated as to when and where he acted on this malevolent
encouragement.
In
the gospel of John the anointing of Jesus is mentioned and Judas’ loud role in
protesting the “waste” of money involved.
He is also identified as the betrayer and that could well be read as
John’s hint that we should look upon the anointing as the immediate
precipitating event.
In
the accounts of both Matthew and Mark, however, the incident is narrated and
Judas’ betrayal comes immediately afterwards.
Although the gospel narratives do not always follow strict chronological
order, the linkage of the two events in Matthew and Mark and the fact that it
could easily have been in John’s mind as well, argues that in the ancient
tradition there was a firm linkage of the two events together.
*
Matthew
speaks of how the woman “poured [the ointment]on His head” (26:7), a picture
also painted in Mark (14:3). This could
easily be read--at least in sermonic exposition--as a kind of regal anointing
to the kingship.[7] A classic example of this is 2 Kings 9:6,
“Then he arose and went into the house.
And he poured the oil on his head, and said to him, ‘Thus says the Lord
God of
Perhaps
to avoid this connotation of regal anointing (and its possible
misunderstanding), John stresses the fact that the woman “anointed the feet”
instead (12:3). Of course in the
preparation for burial--which Jesus stresses is, in a sense, what was really
being done--both would be anointed.
Indeed without John’s mentioning of this element the parallel with death
preparations would be even vaguer than it is in the Synoptics. Perhaps if she had overheard some teaching of
Jesus that stressed His upcoming death she may even have intentionally
meant this as a kind of death anointment (consider John 12:7),[8]
preferring to do it while Jesus was conscious and had appreciation of it rather
than doing it merely for an inanimate body.
*
The
estimate of the value of the ointment--three hundred denarii--reveals
that this was no trivial substance that had been purchased. As we count things today, the dollar value of
it would vary and soon become outdated by deflation or inflation. Hence it is better to translate it not into
dollars or any other currency but into purchasing power: about a year’s wages for the typical worker
of the day.[9] (Since they would not have worked on the 52
Sabbath days each year, the figure is very close indeed.)
Hence the description of the liquid as
“very costly” in the texts, though accurate, is an expression that barely
touches the hem of the garment.[10] The cost, though immense, was, comparatively
speaking, not an unreasonable figure when one factors in its quality, amount,
and distance it had to be transported[11] The most exquisite gifts are rarely
inexpensive.
In
the abstract the indignation over the use of expensive ointment could be looked
upon as a policy difference: To Jesus,
an appropriate honor in light of His approaching death; to Judas, as a betrayal
of their obligations to the poor. In
Matthew the text speaks as if this were a widespread opposition: “when His disciples saw it, they were
indignant” (26:8). The language is vague
enough to encompass a number or all of the apostles.
Mark limits it, noting that “there were some
who were indignant among themselves” (14:4).
In John only Judas’ personal opposition is mentioned and that it was
based upon his own ulterior motive of abusing his position as treasurer to
steal from the group’s revenue reserve (12:4-6). This, of course, could not have been known at
the time and would have been exposed only in hindsight.
*
Judas’
thievery raises interesting questions in and of itself. An obvious beginning point is that it is
unmentioned in the Synoptics. This and the fact that John repeatedly
stresses the “devilish” aspect of the betrayal (6:70; 13:2, 27;
Probably
not. If one wishes to see the intense
extremes to which true contempt and spitefulness toward Judas could lead, one
should consider the dark picture of Judas in the post-Biblical writings
purporting to describe what had happened.[13] In comparison, John is extraordinarily
restrained.
As to
why John alone finds the fact interesting enough to mention, but the others
pass by it in silence, this is a phenomena that affect all the gospels. To give perhaps the clearest example, entire chapters
of Luke concern part of Jesus’ ministry that goes undocumented anywhere
else.
In Luke’s case, it has sometimes been
suggested that his sources had special knowledge of that part of the ministry,
but if one wishes to discredit him because he is the “only” writer to refer to
the material, that could easily be done by the same reasoning. After all, weren’t those sources also
available to the other writers as well?
As a matter of fact, at least some almost certainly were--unquestionably
if one accepts the traditional attributions of gospel authorship and “probably”
if one does not.
The
reason for John’s passing mention can only be speculative. Perhaps the memory especially rankled
him. Especially if the gospel was
written anywhere near as late in the century as often supposed. It was bad enough for the betrayal to have
occurred but for him and the other apostles to have missed the thievery
as well--it does not require a great deal of imagination to recognize that a
few decades of recalling that fact could make it a specially sore point in
John’s memory. Yet “spitefulness” it is
not: he merely refers to it and avoids
the elaboration that could have pictured it in the kind of “loving” detail that
normally characterizes the spite driven individual.
Even
so there are a goodly number who believe that the thievery is vastly
exaggerated as part of an effort to make the other apostles look good by making
Judas look worse--in reality it’s barely mentioned.[14] Furthermore, there is certainly no effort to
make the other apostles look good.
Peter’s denials, for example, are spelled out in far more detail and at
far greater length than Judas’ behavior.
If anything, this recognition of their own failures that night, may have
reigned in the lavish denunciation that could otherwise have occurred.
*
Then
there is the matter of why would Jesus appoint some one treasurer who was
subject to any serious temptation of theft? This line of reasoning has itself been used
to implicitly argue that the accusation must be one of character assassination.[15]
By the same logic, why would Jesus
appoint men who would quarrel among themselves as to who was the most important
apostle? Or have their mother intercede
with Jesus to give them the number two and three places in the leadership? Why choose a man like Peter who broke under
the stress of the arrest of Jesus, repeatedly denying even knowing Him?[16]
In all such cases the potential for
failure was present. If Jesus had waited
to find “perfect” apostles, He would never have chosen any at all. Alfred Edersheim,
in one of the older and classic studies of Jesus’ life, suggests that, “It was
not only because he was best fitted--probably, absolutely fitted--for such
work, but also in mercy to him, in view of his character. To engage in that for which a man is
naturally fitted is the most likely means of keeping him from brooding,
dissatisfaction, alienation, and eventual apostasy.”[17]
Another
older work reminds us that the Biblical writers clearly depict Jesus as having
the ability to penetrate appearances to the inner essence of individuals even
during His earthly ministry, “Did He not describe Nathanael’s
character before a personal acquaintance with him had been made? Did He not know the inmost thoughts of those
disciples when they were mystified by His teaching? Did He not read the deep desires that lay
beneath the rubbish of the years filling the heart of the Samaritan woman?”[18]
Oddly enough, this same person still
embraces the idea that the incarnation resulted in Jesus’ loss of His previous
omniscience[19] and
makes no attempt to reconcile this scenario with the evidence he himself cites
as to Jesus’ supernatural insight.
Call
that perceptivity of the Lord by any term one wishes, if Jesus actually
possessed it in these cases how in the world did He come to lack it in regard
to Judas? Hence, even if this were only
the record of what the disciples claimed about Jesus rather than
revealing His actual powers, it is clear that they took is “as a given”
that Jesus could never be fooled by outward demeanor. Whatever the reason that Jesus accepted
Judas, it had nothing to do with successful deception or ignorance of Judas’
limitations and weaknesses. We have to
look for another factor, such as those we have already examined.
Some attempt to avoid this whole area of
speculation by shifting the responsibility to the apostles. Frederick L. Godet,
for example, wondered, “Is there clear proof that Jesus intervened directly in
the choice of Judas as the treasurer of the company? Might not this have been an arrangement which
the disciples had made among themselves and in which Jesus had not desired to
mingle.”[20]
This
would certainly have been a reasonable course to follow. The apostles needed to learn to take on
responsibility. This was an area of
“earthly” (versus “spiritual”) wisdom in which they could try out their skills
with minimal supervision.
On
the other hand, He could just as reasonably have intervened discretely
and suggested it was the better part of wisdom to allow them to take turns or
to have two or more of them rotate the responsibility so that the task would
not be exclusively on one person’s shoulders.
There would have been no necessity of pointing out Judas’ ethical
weakness.
Hence, at best, this alternative
alleviates the power of the argument being considered: it is no longer “why did Jesus appoint
Judas?” but “why did He permit the appointment?” We would still have to answer the underlying
“problem” of why Jesus tolerated their decision.
*
There
is also the question of when it was discovered.
A German commentator of the nineteenth century was convinced that “he
must have often (our emphasis, rw) given
occasion for such a suspicion; but his fellow-disciples, observing the law of
love, had kept down this fearful suspicion, receiving his justification,
however little plausibility it might have.”[21]
This
is very pious, but very unrealistic.
Once or twice it might have worked or been called into play, but not on
a repeated basis. The treasury bag
represented both their own living expenses as well as their help for the poor. Do we really believe that a fiery temperament
such as Peter's would have endured serious suspicions for long without
protest?
It seems far more likely, then, that
clear cut evidence only emerged after Judas’ death.[22] Alternatively, that there had been
incongruities in behavior that were dismissed at the time (things that were odd
but just below the level of protest), but which only made full sense in
retrospect.
*
How much
Judas stole is unknown and unknowable.
If it had been a large sum or had resulted in conspicuous expenditures,
then it is hard to see how he could possibly have hidden it. Modest size “rake offs” on at least an
occasional basis best fits Judas’ need to keep the thievery secret while simultaneously
enriching himself.[23]
Nor
does his dishonesty necessarily rule out an element of sincerity in his
protests of the expensiveness of the ointment used on Jesus.[24] Indeed, Frederick D. Bruner goes so far as to
wonder whether this incident pushed him over the edge from disagreement into actual
hatred. “Judas may have actually
thought Jesus was betraying the poor (and God’s ‘preferential option for the
poor’ engraved in the prophets) and that Jesus was preening Himself messianically when He let Himself be fawned on by a
groupie. That may be why Judas said the
almost otherwise unthinkable, ‘What do you want to give me if I turn Him in to
you?’ ”[25] Jesus hated the poor so Judas hated
Jesus.
Judas
may well have wanted the poor to be helped--so long as he could remove a
“reasonable” percentage in the process.
Barring him being extraordinarily hard-hearted in such matters, he needed
a rationalization by which he could reconcile dishonesty and his
self-respect. He desperately needed a
philosophical fig-leaf to hide behind.
Only if the bulk of the money went where it was supposed to would he
have it.
*
Furthermore,
what was he stealing for? Damuel T. Habel suggests that
upon various occasions “he needed money for his own personal affairs.”[26] W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann seem to think
it significant that “[w]e are not told that the money was used for personal
gain.”[27] Yet what non-personal use would be
likely?
The
improbability of such a scenario makes us look for something in the personal
realm that required, necessitated, or simply made desirable, such
expenditures. Yet what were they? What special expenses did he have that were
not faced by all the others? (For that
matter while traveling with the apostolic company, would he have had
separate expenses at all?)
Certainly, if unusual situations arose
Judas was probably the most vulnerable of them all. All the others being from
These
expenses could have come in either of two forms. First, there would have been the broad field
of honorable expenses. Assuming that
Judas followed the normal pattern of the period, he was a married man. There would have been ongoing financial needs
of the wife and, perhaps children, he left behind on his travels. Largely counterbalancing this is the fact
that it was a cash poor society in which cash payments did not play the
dominant role found in the modern world.
To require significant sums of cash
would have been a very rare need.
Furthermore, it was a society that believed in extended family
relationships both of parent to children (and vice versa) and of children to
each other and each other's families.
Hence family and friends would have surely been available to provide for
the immediate welfare of Judas' family if an emergency arose.
Another
form of expenses comes under the broad category of “dishonorable.” Gambling.
Sexual misconduct. Anything that
he knew to be wrong or which was out of character for those claiming to be
Jesus’ apostles. Yet if there was such
behavior in the case of Judas, could he possibly have kept it a secret? Jesus endured repeated character
assaults--the charge of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub being the
most obvious. If His foes could have
gotten at Him through discrediting the apostles would they not have done
so?
Hence
there is no really satisfactory answer as to why Judas felt he needed to resort
to graft. On the other hand, even in
today's world much larceny grows out of egotistical and psychological
"needs" rather than "real" and "concrete"
motives. People typically do it because
they want a better car or home rather than because they have none. They steal because they want the prestige of
dining in the finest restaurants rather than because they are going
hungry. Yet others do it to prove that
it can be done and that they are "smarter" than those who they work
for.
Whatever
drove Judas to such dishonorable behavior, it was likely something in this broad
type of motivation. Some of the apostles
came from reasonably prosperous families (who had hired servants to help with
the fishing trade). Did Judas come from
a poorer family and resented his compatriots?
Or did Judas envy the attention given to Peter, James, and John--the
inner circle--and extort his psychological revenge by hidden theft? He probably wanted the money not as an end in
itself but a means of assuaging psychological sores that tore at his soul.
Chapter Four:
The Deal with the Enemies of Jesus
-- Matthew’s account: 14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. 16 So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him. (Matthew 26)
--
Mark’s account: 10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of
the twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Him to them. 11 And when they heard it,
they were glad, and promised to give him money.
So he sought how he might conveniently betray Him. (Mark 14)
--
Luke’s account: 3 Then Satan entered Judas,
surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. 4 So he went his way and
conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to
them. 5 And they were glad, and
agreed to give him money. 6 So he promised and sought
opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the multitude. (Luke 22)
Analysis
Locating Jesus
represented a major potential problem.
It was feast time and the city’s population immediately multiplied. As Galileans from afar, they might be
residing in the city, in some nearby village or town that lay within convenient
walking distance, or even camping somewhere nearby.[28] The press of the crowds was so large that
even if they knew where Jesus had stayed on His last visit, there was still no
guarantee that He would be there this time.
The host might have made other arrangements.
Jesus Himself could easily have made a
new set of commitments or intentionally changed His plans. Furthermore, as a bitterly controversial
figure among the religious elite, it was not in Jesus’ own interests to
let word spread as to His exact location.
It did not require His prophetic ability for Him to recognize that there
was a potential danger to Him within the city.
Both
Mark and Luke speak of how “glad” the religious leaders were to receive Judas’
offer (Mark
The
fear of a disastrous public backlash also explains the fragrant violation of
judicial procedures that were utilized to push through the arrest, trial,
conviction, and sending to Pilate during the overnight hours. Such a night time meeting was blatantly
illegal; it was also probably illegal to hold the hearings in Caiaphas’ private residence as well.[30]
The
judicial procedures on these and other matters are preserved in the Talmud, but
there has been much discussion of which go back to the days of Jesus and the
extent to which these were ideals rather than the norm.[31] Even under the most generous reading of the
evidence, however, they were so convinced that the execution was essential to
their self-interest, they were willing to act in a manner that--under other
circumstances--would have been unlikely or even rejected.
The unique situation, in their minds,
required such deviations. They
desperately wanted the matter firmly settled before there could be an
organized public reaction.
J.
Dwight Pentecost argues that since the Sanhedrin planned on having the Romans
execute Jesus that the scriptural texts imply an even more ominous and shameful
role for Judas,[32]
Identification
[alone] would have been unnecessary, for all the Sanhedrin were very familiar
with Christ; all had seen and heard Him many times. Judas agreed to fulfill a point of Roman law,
a necessary requirement if the Sanhedrin was to proceed with their plot to
execute Christ. A person could not be
brought to trial before a Roman court until an indictment had been officially
signed by witnesses who, by signing the indictment, agreed to appear in order
to give testimony for the prosecution against the accused. Thus Judas offered himself as a witness
against Christ. He agreed to go before
the Roman courts when Christ was brought to trial on a yet undetermined
charge. Judas’ willingness to fulfill
such a function laid bare the depth of his emotions--his bitterness,
resentment, and disappointment with the Lord.
On
the other hand, it is the high priest and his cadre who are presented as
lodging the charges in the trial before Pilate--not Judas. They are the complaining parties. One could, of course, argue that by this
point Judas recognized that far more was intended by the religious officials
than they had admitted to him. Hence
Judas, the official complainant, disappeared and Caiaphas
was left having to make up for it by bluster and pressure on the governor, with
whom he had a long-term working relationship.
On
the other hand, it is not in the least likely that Pilate would have so quickly
heeded a private complaint and agreed to hear the case just before
Passover. "Rocking the boat"
in emotionally volatile
It is
far more likely that he was willing to promptly hear the matter only because it
was presented as if it were an official complaint from the Sanhedrin
itself. (That it was the most anti-Jesus
clique within the institution that had ramroded through
their own “conviction” was hardly likely to be pointed out to him!) As such it was the institution, acting
through its high priest who was de facto complainant--a fact that would have
been recognized from the moment when the decision was made to arrest Jesus
during the feast itself and push through a hasty conviction before any backlash
could occur.
Hence it was unnecessary for them to
have had Judas personally envolved in the “Roman”
trial itself. And minimally, if at all,
in the “Jewish” one as well: His implicit
endorsement of the arrest and trial was surely adequately conveyed in his
arranging for the clerics to be able to find and safely arrest the Lord. That, if you will, was the act that
would verify—if accepted as sincere . . . as they would claim to their other
rabbis—that Jesus was so irresponsibly dangerous that His survival was a threat
to the established order.
*
Hand
in hand with the scenario that Judas was willing to testify against Christ is
the one that--willingness to testify or not--Judas provided information as to
what Jesus had been teaching in private, especially in regard to
Messiah/kingship claims.[33]
It
would not have been unnatural if the authorities had taken advantage of Judas’
co-operative mind frame to probe if there were additional areas of complaint
that they were unaware of, especially in regard to that Messiahship. But there were others areas of potential
interest as well--anything and everything He said in private that might, with
creative misrepresentation or antagonistic interpretation, be utilized against
Him.
R. T.
France suggests that there is some scriptural evidence in behalf of this
possibility, “We shall see that when Jesus is brought to trial, the high priest
will be well informed about the sort of things Jesus has been saying about
Himself and His mission. Since most of
the relevant sayings have been uttered in private to the disciples, it seems
likely it is Judas who has fed the authorities with appropriate evidence which
they can use against Jesus when the time comes.”[34]
On
the other hand, it must be remembered, however, that all the Biblical accounts
recorded repeated run ins with religious leaders prior to this time. In addition, very little of what Jesus said
or did carried with it even the temporary admonition of secrecy. Hence within the broader disciple movement
there would have been widespread knowledge of more than enough of Jesus' claims
and teachings to constitute a self-indictment in the eyes of the leadership.
Furthermore,
the narrative of the trial hearings argue that the authorities went into them
with a body of evidence they themselves recognized as inadequate to meet their
full needs. As Eduard
Schweizer observes of the gospel of Mark and the
theory that Judas' evidence motivated them to act, “However, this hypothesis is
hardly conceivable since it is obvious that the hostility against Jesus had
been aroused much earlier by His attitude toward the law and the temple (3:6;
Hence
they already had--in their own minds--a more than adequate source of data on
which to base their complaints. At most,
anything additional was purely supplemental and reinforcement of their existing
grievances. But none of this was quite
adequate to justify the verdict they wished to give and that required
wringing some incriminatory evidence from the Man on trial before them. For they did not want to merely censure,
imprison, or punish . . . but to execute and that required co-operation
from the Roman occupiers who would not be concerned with their intramural
religious disagreements.
*
Whether
consciously intended or not, Judas’ volunteering to help in the apprehension--for
an appropriate price--had a side benefit if things turned out badly. If the arrest were bungled and an outburst of
violence occurred, they would be able to pass the blame upon Judas when Pilate reacted
to the unrest.
Furthermore, they might be able to use
Judas as a witness. (Which does not
appear to have been done in the actual trial--see above.) Having accepted the bribe, if he was
physically present, would he have had an alternative? (Note the crucial ability of Judas to derail
the possibility by simply discretely disappearing.) Hence his report and
"evidence," not their venom could have taken the blame for any
reaction against the arrest or the pre-agreed conviction.[36]
*
There
is an odd difference in emphasis in the two accounts as to the amount of money
involved. Matthew speaks of “thirty
pieces of silver” (26:15) as then given.
Mark speaks of how they “promised to give him money,” as if the money
were to be given later (
Others
have thought the “thirty pieces of silver” was far too modest for such an
important action and that an additional amount may have been promised for
later. Thirty pieces of silver were a
mere down payment or pledge of the total due.[38]
For
that matter Judas may have been looking beyond the money itself, to “the
goodwill of the priests and scribes” that would come his way through his
action.[39] Praise, endorsements, employment, or just
references in seeking future employment--one can imagine a number of ways in
which he could imagine parlaying his shift of allegiances into financial and
personal self-advancement. The
acceptance of a modest sum in the short term might just open the door for far
greater profits in the long-term.
*
Matthew
and Mark’s accounts reasonably imply that Judas sought a convenient place
where Jesus could be arrested with the minimal danger of involvement by either
the broad base of disciples or the Galileans in general. The narrative of the arrest in John ties in
Judas with revealing the place where Jesus would be, “And Judas who betrayed
Him, also knew the place; for Jesus often [our emphasis, rw] met there with His disciples” (18:2).
Eduard Schweizer argues that this
could have hardly been the essential information Judas provided, “If Jesus
regularly stayed at a certain place, it would have been relatively easy to
discover its location without Judas’ help.
If Jesus stayed there only for that one night, Judas would scarcely have
known in advance where it was.”[40]
Our
text only states that “Jesus often met there with His disciples,” not
that He usually or always did so there.
The religious leadership needed to know where Jesus would be at a
specific time, not where He might be or even where he “usually”
was. Today we would call it “operational
security” for if the arresting force returned with no prisoner, how long could
the attempt be suppressed without word leaking out of who had been the
target? With the civil unrest
consequences that they feared.
Furthermore,
since only the apostles are with Jesus, “disciples” here need to be taken in
the narrower sense of "apostles."
Hence there were only thirteen who definitely knew it was a
typical meeting place of the group; how many above and beyond this is
unknown. There is no reason to believe
it was a matter of general knowledge of the disciples or its usefulness as a
place for private discussion with the apostles would have vanished as others
insisted upon coming as well.
More
germane is the question of how Judas himself knew that that night the
group would be heading to the
Morna D. Hooker concedes the need for an informant as to
Jesus’ location but utilizes that fact in a different manner. To her the need for an informant on this point
indicates that “Jesus was not as well-known a figure in
There
is an element of truth in this, but not as much as might at first appear. Due to the danger in
What they
were interested in were His "heresies" and not His appearance. Direct confrontations between them--even in
They were not running a private
intelligence agency; they were concerned with the public personae and exposure
of an alleged heretic. What they needed
to know now (as to His nightly whereabouts) simply did not represent the
kind of data they had previously desired.
For that they needed a reliable “inside” source and Judas provided
it.
Chapter Five:
Judas at the Passover Meal:
Repeated Opportunities
to Back Out of Betrayal
The First
Jesus Warns That He Knows
One of Them Plans on Betrayal
--
The warning in Matthew: 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had
directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
20 When evening had
come, He sat down with the twelve. 21 Now as they were eating, He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”
22 And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them
began to say to Him, “Lord, is it I?” 23 He answered and said, “He
who dipped his hand with Me in
the dish will betray Me. 24 The
Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by
whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It
would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
25 Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said,
“Rabbi, is it I?” He said to him, “You
have said it.” (Matthew 26)
--
The warning in Mark: 16 So His disciples went out, and came
into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the
Passover. 17 In the evening He came with the twelve.
18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray
Me.” 19 And
they began to be sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one, “Is it I?” And another said, “Is it I?”
20 He answered and said to them, “It is one of the twelve, who dips
with Me in the dish. 21 The
Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by
whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It
would have been good for that man if he had never been born.” (Mark 14)
--
Only in John is this generalized prediction clearly linked to a
specific individual and even then the identity is only revealed to two of the
apostles: 21 When Jesus had said these things, He
was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Most
assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.” 22 Then the disciples looked at one
another, perplexed about whom He spoke.
23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His
disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who
it was of whom He spoke. 25 Then, leaning back on Jesus’ breast, he said to Him,
“Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus answered, “It is he to
whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.” And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. (John 13)
Analysis
During the
Passover meal there were at least four opportunities given Judas to back off
from his plans. In one sense it may seem
odd--even contradictory--that the gospels present Jesus as both foreknowing
Judas’ betrayal and yet trying to avert him from carrying it out.[42]
Yet we are not unacquainted with that
phenomena today. A doctor may know that
his patient will die of cancer--but he will still undertake any reasonable
option to try to avert that outcome. A
soldier may recognize that the chance of surviving a battle is effectively
“zero” yet he will utilize every bit of training and skill he has accumulated
to avoid that death.
Likewise Jesus knew what Judas was intending
but felt the obligation to attempt anything short of the miraculous to avert it
from happening. Jesus, ultimately, had
to die--but it did not necessarily have to be upon that specific occasion or at
the hands of that specific individual.
Judas could let the blood be on someone else’s hands. But did not.
The First
Jesus Warns that Betrayal
Will Come From Someone
Trusted
The
first opportunity that Judas received was in the general warning that one of
the apostles would betray Him. In Mark
the warning contains the vague description of the betrayer as one who was
currently eating with Jesus--certainly not enough to go on!
In
Matthew it reads like Jesus accused Judas, “You have said it”
(26:25). This is certainly an authorial
method of pointing the finger at Judas.
The fact that Mark notes that “one by one” each asked whether he was the
guilty individual (14:20), argues that though Matthew’s quotation of the query
and response of Judas is accurate, it is a highly selective
quotation. In its original context of all
the apostles wondering whether the guilty party might somehow turn out to
be themselves, the words would not have carried the impact that it does when
standing alone.
Further
confirmation of our conclusion is seen in the fact that it is inconceivable
that the other apostles would not have exploded in indignation if Judas’ guilt
had clearly and unequivocally been noted at their gathering. “It was the grossest kind of perfidy to
betray a companion after eating with him.
Would not as impulsive a person as Peter have drawn his sword and
severed Judas from his scheme?”[43]
Or what of the fiery James and John, who
once had desired to call fire down from heaven to destroy those who hindered
Jesus’ mission? Is it imaginable they
would have been quiet either verbally or physically?[44]
Only
in John is Judas’ specific guiltiness explicitly mentioned. And that is in the context of a question
passed on by John from Simon Peter.
Immediately, the answer was known only to John; one has to assume that
at some moment of quiet he shared it with Peter as well.
Some
regard this as blatantly unhistorical since fiery Peter did nothing to stop
Judas.[45] On the other hand Peter may not have learned
of it until later (a group meeting such as this was not the most
convenient place for private conversations!) and either John or both of the
apostles could have been mystified rather than angered. Judas had given no indication of being any
less a faithful apostle than any of the others.
Furthermore the derogatory information provided by Jesus was neutralized
by the very friendliness in Jesus’ outward actions toward the accused.
For
the social conventions of the day considered it a mark of respect and honor to
be given the food before anyone else.[46] Yet Jesus had provided the designated traitor
this special courtesy. What, they must
have thought in their hearts, does this all really mean? How can he be both traitor and honored?
For
that matter the fact that Judas could be personally handed the food
argues that he was in one of the best seats, i.e., physically close to the
host. Quite possibly, just as John sat
on one side of Jesus, Judas sat on the other--the two places of greatest honor.[47] How could a person who even, in the sitting
arrangements, was so distinguished an apostle be the traitor?[48]
There
was irony in this action of Jesus, of course.
There was doing good toward someone about to do great evil. Hence another irony: Jesus was showing respect to the one who did
not deserve it and the One who did deserve it would be betrayed by the
one receiving it.
Even
if Judas' guilt had been directly ascribed, there would still have been the
opportunity to back out of it. A deal
had been struck but a contract to do what is inherently evil has no moral
validity. It would have been Judas’
right--even obligation--to reverse course.
At the very least, the warning of the coming betrayal gave Judas such an
opportunity. Not to mention further
preparing the other apostles for what was about to happen.
The Second
The Feet Washing
Demonstration of Jesus’
Humility
--
John’s account of the incident includes Jesus specifically referring
(though vaguely) to the fact that one of their number was unacceptable: 1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that
His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having
loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.
2 And supper being ended, the devil having already put
it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things
into His hands, and that He had come from God and was going to God, 4 rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a
towel and girded Himself. 5 After that, He poured water into a basin and began to
wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them
with the towel with which He was girded.
6 Then He came to Simon Peter. And Peter
said to Him, “Lord, are You washing my feet?”
7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What
I am doing you do not understand now, but you will know after this.” 8 Peter said to Him, “You shall never wash my
feet!” Jesus answered him, “If
I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.”
9 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, not my feet only, but
also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus said to him, “He who is
bathed needs only to wash his
feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, “You
are not all clean.” (John 13)
Analysis
The second
opportunity for Judas to change his mind came in Jesus’ depiction of personal
humility in washing everyone’s feet. In
retrospect, the reference to how, “You are not all [morally, ethically,
spiritually] clean” (John
Whatever
commitments Judas had made, there was still opportunity for him to repudiate
them. Even if he had already received
the thirty pieces of silver as bribe money (see the previous chapter on how
this is not certain), what were they to do if he refused to carry out his
commitment? For that matter what was
stopping him from returning the money either personally or through a third
party?
The Third
Citation of Scripture
as Warning of the Coming
Betrayal
--
John’s account of the warning: 18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but
that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against
Me.’ 19 Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you
may believe that I am He. (John 13)
Analysis
Next comes Jesus
citing scripture predicting His betrayal.
But that only predicted the fact of betrayal. It did not require that Judas in
particular be its perpetuator—or that that particular Passover be the fatal
day. The body of close disciples was
large enough, outside the apostolic inner cadre, for others to have done
it. They, too, upon occasion had eaten
meals with Jesus and would have met the verbal requirement of the Old Testament
text (John
Some
disagree with our reading of the text. Gaston
Foote argues that John, written so long after the events, “confused
foreknowledge with foreordination.”[49] He takes the “I know whom I have chosen” to
mean “I know whom I have chosen to betray Me.” It can just as easily be taken to mean “I
know whom I have chosen to be apostles,” i.e., what makes up their true
character. That included Judas but was
also a description of all of the others as well. Including the Seventy and anyone else He may
have temporarily had work with Him.
Another
approach to the prediction of the Messiah’s betrayal lies in the fact that
“prophecy” is used in both a strict predictive and also in a broader
illustrative sense as well. William W. Davies
takes this approach when he suggests that, “The phrase ‘in order that the
Scripture may be fulfilled,’ can mean no more than that the words spoken by
David, Isaiah, or other Old Testament writers find an application or are
illustrated in the conduct of Judas.”[50] This removes, even further, any hint of
personal inescapability on the part of the betrayer.
The Final
Act Now—[Implied: or Never]!
Jesus’ challenge to decide and act upon
it: 727 Now
after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.” 28 But
no one at the table knew for what reason He said this to him. 29 For
some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to him, “Buy
those things we need for the
feast,” or that he should give something to the poor.
30 Having received the piece of bread, he then went out
immediately. And it was night. (John 13)
Analysis
What adds further
irony to the situation depicted at the Passover is that Jesus knew what Judas was
scheming to do and makes it clear that He does.
The instruction to, “What you do, do quickly” (John
Today we use the expression "fish
or cut bait" in describing such situations where a final and definitive
course must be decided upon. There is no
longer any time to delay.
One
may argue as much as one wishes that by this point Jesus had spoken too many
times of the imminence of death for Judas to have done otherwise than as he
did. In retrospect, that may well be
true--he had hardened his heart too deeply, too long, and rejected the prior
occasions to repent: Freedom to choose
for the better is often self-destroyed in such situations.
On
the other hand, for Judas’ freedom of will to be left intact he at least had to
have the opportunity. That way the
ultimate responsibility for not exercising it was on his own shoulders and no
one else’s. All Jesus had done was
prophesy the truth as to when the betrayal would occur. Foreknowledge of fact is not the same thing
as coercion to make it come true.
*
The
alternatives that went through the minds of the apostles are intriguing. Some thought he was being given permission
(or orders?) to provide money or supplies to the poor. Passover or not, almsgiving was always
considered proper. Indeed it was a
socially sanctioned custom to go out of the way to give something to the poor
on that particular occasion.[52]
The
other possibility mentioned is that Judas might be under instructions to obtain
supplies for the feast. This has been
used to argue that this was an “irregular” celebration of the Passover, i.e.,
either earlier than normal or according to a different religious calendar than
most followed.
Others have noted that the reference
could, alternatively, refer to obtaining supplies for the Feast of Unleavened
Bread, which began immediately after Passover.[53] Yet others have argued that though the
Passover observance was being partaken of that night, certain markets and
sources could be counted on to still be open because they would be closed the
next day (Friday, the feast day itself) and the following day as well (the
Sabbath).[54]
Scripturally
we certainly know that there was a certain flexibility that would not otherwise
have existed. On the Sabbath day one
could not do the “work” of preparing food; at the Passover it was permitted
(Exodus
Furthermore, necessity virtually
compelled a certain leeway that would not otherwise occur. “The immense multitudes of people in
Chapter Six:
Betrayal with a Kiss
--
Matthew’s report of the arrest: 44 So
He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same
words. 45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, “Are you still
sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour
is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise, let us be
going. See, My betrayer is at hand.” 47 And while He was still speaking,
behold, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs,
came from the chief priests and elders of the people.
48 Now His betrayer had given them a sign, saying,
“Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him.”
49 Immediately he went up to Jesus
and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed Him.
50 But Jesus said to him, “Friend,
why have you come?” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took
Him. (Matthew 26)
--
Mark’s report of the arrest: 41 Then He came the third time and said to
them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough!
The hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the
hands of sinners. 42 Rise, let us be going. See, My
betrayer is at hand.”
43 And immediately, while He was still speaking, Judas,
one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs, came from the
chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
44 Now His betrayer had given them a signal,
saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him and lead Him away safely. 45 As soon as he had come, immediately he went up to Him
and said to Him, “Rabbi, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. 46 Then they laid their hands on Him and took Him. (Mark 14)
-- Luke’s report of the arrest: 45 When
He rose up from prayer, and had come to His disciples, He found them sleeping
from sorrow. 46 Then He said to them, “Why do
you sleep? Rise and pray, lest you enter into temptation.”
47 And while He was still speaking, behold, a multitude;
and he who was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them and drew near
to Jesus to kiss Him. 48 But
Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man
with a kiss?”
--
John’s report of the arrest: 1 When Jesus
had spoken these words, He went out with His disciples over the Brook Kidron, where there was a garden, which He and His
disciples entered. 2 And Judas,
who betrayed Him, also knew the place; for Jesus often met there with His
disciples. 3 Then Judas, having received a
detachment of troops, and officers
from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and
weapons.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come
upon Him, went forward and said to them, “Whom are you
seeking?” 5 They answered Him, “Jesus of
7 Then He asked them again, “Whom
are you seeking?” And they said, “Jesus of
Analysis
Finding Jesus
could, theoretically, be done by having spies follow Him. But Jesus had escaped previous attempts to
both arrest (John
That
presented a problem as well. Again
theoretically, Jesus was known by sight to many individuals, including the
religious authorities.[58] Granting the validity of this somewhat
questionable premise (see the discussion in the previous chapter) great
difficulties still remained. Those in
the top leadership would be unlikely to wish to dignify the arrest by their personal
presence. As “judges” of Jesus’ fate
they would feel a disinclination to do so--at least the veneer of impartiality
needed to be maintained, if as nothing more than as a legal fiction.
Furthermore, as a matter of personal
prestige, such work would be better left for those further down the religio-social-economic totem pole. And even when the work was left to them, the
identifier(s) had to come from among the foes of Jesus, whose very hostility
would make them disinclined to have had any more than the absolutely minimum
contact with Him. Of those who were
opposed to Him, how many had seen Him close up enough--and on enough
occasions--to immediately recognize Him?
Hence
there would be an inherent danger of misrecognition.[59] Thereby making them far from reliable parties
for identifying Jesus when the stakes were so high and there was absolutely no
room for a mistake. Hence in such a
desperately crowded city it was essential to have an informant such as Judas in
order to assure the successful implementation of the plot.
An
additional, often overlooked difficulty that faced them, lay in the fact that
although Jesus was in relative isolation in someone’s garden on the
Yet a further complicating factor
entered the picture: the arrest was not
to be in broad daylight but at night[61]
when people don’t quite look the same due to the change in lighting. Even with a full moon (which would have been
the case at Passover), the difficulty of correct identification remained[62]--as
seen, in part, by John 18:3 referring to how the arrestors had brought both lanterns
and torches with them. Assuming it was a
cool or chilly night, it would not be unexpected to find that he “had his head
covered” along with the apostles.[63]
Judas
solved these problems for the authorities.
He knew the place of gathering.
He knew Jesus by sight and could not be deceived by a look alike. Finally, in order to assure that the right
person was seized, Judas was to give him the customary kiss of greeting.
Even
so, there is a modest (not large) problem that remains. Such a method of identification makes sense
if one anticipates dozens of individuals being present, such as if a large
group of disciples were with Jesus.
Jesus might be anywhere in the crowd and there needed to be a reliable
means to point Him out. In the context
of only a dozen individuals being there, a verbal comment and the pointing of
the finger would have been quite adequate.
Yet the kiss was the customary greeting, it had been agreed to, and it
removed the last minimal possibility that the wrong person would be arrested.
*
The
outward pretence of friendship lasted even at the moment of arrest. Judas respectfully told Him, “Greetings,
Rabbi!” according to the Matthewean account
(26:49). In Mark it is the equally
respectful “Rabbi, Rabbi!” (
The
kiss was as typical a greeting as the handshake is today.[64] Yet the kiss itself would have been a bit odd
in the context in which it occurred.
“It was not customary to kiss relatives or friends except at the moment
of parting or after a long separation, or in certain exceptional circumstances
such as a feast or a family mourning.
Now, Judas had left Jesus only a few hours before, and nothing seemed to
call for this extraordinary mark of affection.”[65]
The
embracing of Jesus and the Greek’s implication that the kiss was either
unusually respectful or repeated[66] also
strikes one as odd. Yet this was nothing
that could not be dismissed on the basis of excessive enthusiasm. Furthermore, the enthusiasm of the greeting
drew the apostles’ attention toward Judas and would momentarily make them look
for an explanation for the crowd besides that of an arrest.[67] (Had Judas, for example, raised himself a
group of soldiers who would fight for Jesus’ kingship?)
Jesus
recognized the irony of the kiss and responded with words that--in
retrospect--surely cut Judas’ soul to the quick. In Matthew it is, “Friend, why have
you come?” (26:50) A disavowal of enmity
upon Jesus’ part. The acceptance of him,
one last time, as he had surely been received countless times before.
Then
there was the question recorded by Luke, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of
Man with a kiss?” (
Chapter Seven:
Judas Repudiates His Betrayal
and Is Mocked
-- The event as described by Matthew: 3 Then Judas,
His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought
back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying
innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!” 5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver
in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27)
Analysis
Judas’ clear
repugnance at what he had done is not mentioned in Mark, Luke, or John. Luke, however, surely implies some such thing
by speaking (in Acts) of Judas' suicide.
This would have been incomprehensible unless associated with immense
guilt.
Judas
had no power to stop the proceedings. He
had no power to force the religious leaders to live up to any implicit or
explicit commitments they had made. The
only thing within his power was to return the blood money. And even that was responded to with near
mockery.
If
one wishes a scriptural text to hang Judas’ sense of guilt upon, it would
likely be Deuteronomy 27:25, “Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an
innocent person.” Although it is
directly talking about hiring some one to commit murder, the principle would be
the same if one had taken money and caused “an innocent person” to be
killed.[68]
“What
is that to us?” they responded. It’s not
our job to straighten out supposed miscarriages of justice. “You see to it!” You took the bribe. If you think what was done was wrong, you
straighten out what you caused. It does
not take a great deal of imagination to imagine a sneer on their faces. Furthermore, the properly ordained tribunal had
made a judgment. Who were they to
question their superiors and suggest they had abused their duties or position?[69]
It is
hard to avoid seeing in these priestly underlings cold-blooded religious
bureaucrats who did their job and gave no thought to the human consequences of
their (or their superior’s) misjudgments.
“Good” in their jobs, but failures as human beings and spiritual
advisers.
Having
rejected the money, Judas “threw” the money.
Some have thought it was into the treasury used for charitable
purposes. Although this would fit well
with the charitable purpose for which it was ultimately used, John MacArthur’s analysis seems to better fit the implied mind
frame of Judas at this point: “naos (sanctuary [temple, NKJV]) refers specifically
to the inner holy place of the Temple, where only priests were allowed to
enter. Judas intentionally threw the
money into a place where only the priests could retrieve it. He did not throw it there out of charity but
out of spite, wanting them to feel guilty and forcing the chief priests to
handle the blood money again themselves.”[70]
Does
this indicate that Judas “repented” of what He had done? The term is conspicuously not used of Judas’
frame of mind or behavior. He certainly
(1) changed his mind; (2) admitted his guilt; (3) purged himself of what he had
gained by the sin by returning the bribe.
Yet Biblically speaking the element of seeking reconciliation with Jesus
and God goes unmentioned.[71]
There was no constructive
reaction after the guilt and return of the bribe. Peter made a fool of Himself, wept, and
(doubtless tremendously guilt-ridden) returned to the other disciples. Judas probably wept (it would have been a
logical action though not mentioned) but then went out and hung himself rather
than face the shame of having to deal with those he had betrayed.
Both
regarded themselves as failures and disasters.
But one picked up the pieces and put his life together again, while the
other either could not or would not face such a humiliation and opted for
self-destruction instead.
Footnotes:
[1] Donald G. Miller, The Gospel
according to Luke, in the Layman’s Bible Commentary series
(Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press,
1959), 149-150, simply describes them as easily inclined to violence.
[2] Thomas G. Long, Matthew,
in the Westminster Bible Companion series (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 290.
[3] Josephus, Jewish War
1:88, as quoted by Frederick D. Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary; volume 2: The Churchbook,
Matthew 13-28 (Dallas, Texas: Word
Publishing, 1990) 358.
[4] Alois Stoger, The Gospel according to St. Luke, translated
from the German by Benen Fahy,
in the New Testament for Spiritual Reading series (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 170.
[5] C. F. Evans, Saint Luke,
in the TPI New Testament Commentaries series (London: SCM Press, 1990), 774, and Daniel J.
Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, in the Sacra Pagina commentary series (Collegeville, Minnesota: A Michael Glazier Book/Liturgical Press,
1991), 362.
[6] William F. Arndt, Bible Commentary: The Gospel according to St. Luke (Saint
Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), 430, and
William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel
according to Luke, in the New Testament Commentary series (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,
1978), 954. For citations of evidence on
this ancient tendency, see Evans, 772.
[7] Dennis Sweetland,
Mark: From Death to Life, in the
series Spiritual Commentaries on the Bible (
[8] R. A. Cole, The Gospel
According to St. Mark: An Introduction
and Commentary (London: Tyndale Press, 1961), 210.
[9] Bruner, 941, and James M. Boice, The Gospel of John: An Expositional Commentary; Volume 3: John
9:1-12:50 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 303.
[10] D. A. Carson, The Gospel
according to John (Leicester, England:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1991), 428.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Wendy E. Sproston,
“ ‘The Scripture’ in John
[13] For a summary, see Morton S. Enslin, “How the Story Grew: Judas in Fact and Fiction,” in Festschrift
to Honor F. Wilbur Gingrich, Lexicographer, Scholar, Teacher, and Committed
Christian Layman, edited by Eugene H. Barth and
Ronald E. Cocroft (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 130-136. In much briefer form, see John MacArthur, Jr., The MacArthur
New Testament Commentary: Matthew 24-28
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1989),
182-183.
[14] Among others, Leslie D. Weatherhead, Personalities of the Passion
(London: Hodder
and Stoughton Limited, 1942), 23-24.
[15] Ronald Brownrigg,
The Twelve Apostles (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974),
204, 206.
[16] The British preacher Joseph
Parker (1830-1902), in his People’s Bible, while raising this thought
provoking question, pointed out that the problem was even more fundamental than
why Jesus choose Judas in particular to be an apostle: With all of our human warts, weaknesses, and
potential for failure, why did he choose us to be disciples? See Parker’s Sermon, “Judas Iscariot: A Study of Character,” in Parker’s People’s
Bible, selected sermons from the work at internet site http://www.txdirect.net/~tgarner/ arker7.htm
(Google.com;
[17] Alfred Edersheim,
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Volume II, Second Edition (
[18] J. W. G. Ward, The Master and
the Twelve (New York: George H.
Doran Company, 1924), 215-216.
[19] Ibid., 216-217.
[20] Frederick L. Godet,
Commentary on the Gospel of John; Volume 2: John 6 to End, translated from the
Third French Edition by Timothy Dwight, Third English edition (1893; reprinted,
[21] E. W. Hengstenberg,
Commentary on the Gospel of
[22] Ray Summers, Commentary on
Luke: Jesus the Universal Savior
(Waco, Texas: Word Publishers, 1972),
268.
[23] On the size but not the reason
for the caution, see J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin, A
Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, in the Harper’s New
Testament Commentaries series (New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), 284.
[24] Clausen, 27-29, and L. Alexander
Harper, “Judas, Our Brother,” Saint Luke’s Journal of Theology 29 (March
1986): 98.
[25] Bruner, 947.
[26] Damuel
T. Habel, The Twelve Apostles: A Study of Twelve Extroardinary
Men Who, By Successfully Completing Their Amazing
[27] W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew,
in the Anchor Bible series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971),
316.
[28] R. T. France, The Gospel of
Mark, in the Doubleday Bible Commentary series (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 178.
[29] S. Pearce Carey, Jesus and
Judas (London: Hodder
and Stoughton Limited, 1931), 84-85.
[30] Alan Watson, The Trial of
Jesus (Athens, Georgia: University
of Georgia Press, 1995), 37; cf. 112-115.
For a more detailed treatment of the apparent legal failures in
procedure, see Dale Foreman, Crucify Him:
A Lawyer Looks at the Trial of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Books/Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 116-123.
[31] See the discussion, for example,
in Evans, 773.
[32] Pentecost, 415.
[33] Benjamin W. Bacon, “What Did
Judas Betray?” Hibbert
Journal 19 (1920-1921): 486,
492.
[34]
[35] Eduard
Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark, tanslated by Donald H. Madvig
(Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press,
1970), 292, referring to the claim that Judas revealed Jesus’ messianic claims
in particular.
[36] Cf. the discussion of Judas’
effectiveness as a scapegoat, in Darrell L. Bock, Luke; volume 2:
[37] Carey, 88-89, and Ferdinand Prat, Jesus Christ:
His Life, His Teaching, and His Work, Volume 2, translated from the Sixteenth
French Edition by John J. Heenan (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1950),
322-323.
[38] Herbert Lockyer,
All the Apostles of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1972), 109, regards this as a possibility.
[39] Oddly, Albert Nicole, Judas
the Betrayer, translated from the French (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1957), 37, is convinced
that “Christ dissuaded him” of this illusion, but presents neither scripture
nor reasoning to back up the assertion.
[40] Schweizer,
292.
[41] Morna
D. Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark, in the Black’s
New Testament Commentaries series (London:
A. & C. Black, 1991), 331.
[42] On the tension between
foreknowledge and warning Judas off, see Sanders and Mastin,
305.
[43] C. Milo Connick,
Jesus: The Man, the
[44] Carey, 140, and Wallace E.
Rollins and Marion B. Rollins, Jesus and His Ministry (Greenwich,
Connecticut: Seabury
Press, 1954), 233.
[45] Rudolf Schnackenburg,
The Gospel According to St. John; Volume 3: Commentary on Chapters
13-21, translated from the German by David Smith and G. A. Kon, in the series Herder’s Theological Commentary on
the New Testament (New York:
Crossroad, 1982), 30.
[46] Pierre Benoit, The Passion
and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, translated from the French by Benet Weatherhead (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 36, and Gene A.
Getz, The Apostles: Becoming Unified
through Diversity (Nashville, Tennessee:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998),
172.
[47] Pentecost, 431.
[48] Some have gone so far as to
argue that Judas was the pre-eminent apostle. For a good critical analysis of the
weaknesses of this thesis, see Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the
Messiah: From
[49] Foote, 115.
[50] William W. Davies, “Judas
Iscariot.” Methodist Review 103 (May 1920): 471.
[51] Trevor H. Davies, The Inner
Circle: Studies in the Associates of
Jesus (New York: George H. Doran
Company, 1924), 289-290, Sanders and Mastin, 314, and
Clarence E. MacCartney, “Of Them He Chose Twelve”
(Philadelphia: Dorrance
& Company, 1927), 132.
[52] Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel
according to John (13-21), in the Anchor Bible series (New
York: Doubleday, 1970), 576.
[53] Sanders and Mastin,
315, and Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, Revised Edition, in
the New International Commentary on the New Testament series (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 558.
[54] For a discussion of some aspects
of this matter, see Brown, John (13-21), 576.
[55] Hengstenberg,
2:164.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Brown, Death,
1399-1400.
[58] A point raised to question the
reliability of the narrative by Hyam Maccoby, Judas
Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil (New York: Free Press, 1992), 42, 142.
[59] Especially would this be true of
“the armed soldiers” in the arresting party:
Bock, Luke (Baker), 1768.
[60] Harrington, 374.
[61] Rollins and Rollins, 241.
[62] William Barclay, The Master’s
Men (New York: Abingdon Press,
1959), 72.
[63] A. N. Wilson, Jesus (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992),
195, who, oddly, does not believe it would have hindered identification.
[64] Cf. Benoit, 36.
[65] Ferdinand Prat,
Jesus Christ: His Life, His Teaching,
and His Work, Volume 2, translated from the Sixteenth French Edition by
John J. Heenan (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1950), 323.
[66] Rollins and Rollins, 72.
[67] Prat,
323 and fn. 23, 323, cites this evidence but argues that Judas was attempting
to mislead Jesus by acting in a way to imply that he had repented and changed
his plans.
[68] Cf. Emil G. Kraeling,
The Disciples ([N.p.]: Rand McNally & Company, 1966), 221. For a discussion of Old Testament texts
dealing with the gravity of shedding the blood of the guiltless, see Willem C.
van Unnik, “Death of Judas in Saint Matthew’s Gospel”
Anglican Theological Review Supplement 3 (March 1974): 51-54.
[69] Kraeling,
221.
[70] MacArthur,
227-228.
[71] Bruner, 1020.