| 118. Jesus and His Betrayer. | ||||
ALTHOUGH it had been resolved In the council of the chief priests and elders, that the feast time should be allowed to pass over before any measures were taken against Jesus, because any act of violence against him in these days might easily excite an insurrection, on the part of his numerous adherents among the visitants to the feast (Matt. xxvi. 5; Mark xiv. 2); yet this consideration was superseded by the facility with which one of his disciples offered to deliver him into their hands. Judas, surnamed Iscariot, doubtless on account of his origin from the Jewish city of Kerioth (Josh. xv. 25), went, according to the Synoptics, a few days before the pass-over, to the heads of the priesthood, and volunteered to deliver Jesus quietly into their hands, for which service they promised him money, according to Matthew, thirty pieces of silver (arguria, Matt. xxvi.14ff. parall.). of such an antecedent transaction between Judas and the enemies of Jesus, the fourth gospel not only says nothing, but apears moreover to represent the matter as if Judas had not formed the determination of betraying Jesus to the priesthood, until the last supper, and had then promptly put it into execution. The same entering (of Satan into Judas, which Lulte (xxii. 3.) places before his first interview with the chief priests, and before any preparation had been made for Jesus and his disciples to eat is represented by the author of the fourth gospel as occurring at this meal, before Judas left the company (xiii. 27); a proof, as it appears, that in the opinion of this evangelist Judas now first made his traitorous visit. He does indeed observe, before the meal (xiii. 2), that the devil had put it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus, and this is commonly regarded as the parallel of Luke's "Satan entered into him," being understood to imply the formation of the treacherous resolve, in consequence of which Judas went to the chief priests: but if he had previously been in treaty with them, the betrayal was already completed and it is then not easy to perceive what can be meant by the words ei)shlqen ei)j au)ton o( satanaj on the occasion of the last meal, since the summoning of those who were to seize Jesus was no new diabolical resolution, but only the execution of that which had already been embraced. The expresion in John v. 27 only obtains an entirely consistent sense in distinction from v. 2, when the fidXteiv elq rfjv napdiav in the latter, is understood of the rising of the thought, the daeWely in the former, of the ripening of this thought into resolution, the supposition that Judas had pledged himself to the chief priests before the meal being thus excluded. In this manner, however, the statement of the sy-noptists that Judas, some time before the perpetration of his treacherous act, made a bargain with the enemies of Jesus, stands in contradiction with that of John, that he only put himself in league with them immediately before the deed; and here L cke decides in favour of John, maintaining it to be after his departure from the last supper (xiii. 30), that Judas made that- application to the chief priests which the Synoptics (Matt. xxvi. 14 f. parall.) place before the meal. But this decision of L cke's is founded solely on deference to the presupposed authority of John; for even if, as he remars, Judas could very well obtain an interview with the priests when night had commenced: still, regarding the matter apart from any presuppositions, the probability is beyond comparison stronger on the side of the Synoptics, who allow some time for the affair, than on that of John, according to whom it is altogether sudden, and Judas, truly as if he were possessed, rushes out when it is already night to treat with the priests, and immediately hurry to the deed. | ||||
Concerning the motives which induced Judas to league himself with the enemies of Jesus, we learn from the three first Gospels no more than that he received money from the chief priests. This would indicate that he wras actuated by covetousness, especially according to the narrative in Matthew, where Judas, before he promises to betray Jesus, puts the question, What will you give me? Clearer light is thrown on this subject by the statement of the fourth {P.681} gospel (xii.4ff.), that on the occasion of the meal in Bethany, Judas was indignant at the anointing, as an unnecessary expenditure, that he carried the purse, and acted the thief in that office; from which it might be supposed that the avarice of Judas, no longer satisfied by his peculations on the funds of the society, hoped to reap a more considerable harvest by betraying Jesus to the rich and powerful sacerdotal party. We must hold ourselves under obligation to the author of the fourth gospel, that by the preservation of these particulars, which are wanting in the other evangelists, he has made the act of Judas somewhat more comprehensible, so soon as his statements are shown to have an historical foundation. We have shown above, however, how improbable it is that, had that censure really proceeded from Judas, the legend should have lost this trait: how probable, on the other hand, a legendary origin of it, it is easy to discern. The meal at Bethany stood in the Gospel tradition near to the end of the life of Jesus, an end brought about by the treachery of Judas how easily might the thought arise in some one, that the narrow-minded censure of a noble prodigality could only come from the covetous Judas? That the censure at the same time turned upon the propriety of selling the ointment for the benefit of the poor, could in the mouth of Judas be only a pretext, behind which he concealed his selfishness: but advantage to himself from the sale of the ointment could not be expected by him, unless he allowed himself to purloin some of the money saved; and this again he could not do, unless he were the purse-bearer. If it thus appear possible for the statement that Judas was a thief and had the bag, to have had an unhistorical origin: we have next to inquire whether there are any reasons for supposing that such was actually the case. Here we must take into consideration another point on which the Synoptics and John differ, namely, the foreknowledge of Jesus that Judas would betray him. In th synoptic Gospels, Jesus first manifests this knowledge at the last supper, consequently at a time in which the deed of Judas had virtually been perpetrated; and apparently but a short time before, Jesus had so little presentiment that one of the twelve would be lost to him, that he promised them all, without exception, the honour of sitting on twelve thrones of judgment in the palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28.). According to John, on the contrary, Jesus declares shortly before the time of the last Passover but one, consequently a year before the result, that one of the twelve is a devil, meaning, according to the observation of the evangelist, Judas, as his future betrayer (vi. 70.); for, as it had been observed shortly before (v. 64), Jesus knew from the beginning, who should betray him. According to this, Jesus knew from the beginning of his acquaintance with Judas, that this disciple would prove a traitor; and not merely -did he foresee this external issue, but also, since he knew what was in man (John ii. 25), he must have penetrated the motives of Judas, namely, covet- {P.682} ousness and love of money. And if so, would he have made him purse-bearer, i.e. placed him in a position in which his propensity to seek gain by any means, even though dishonest, must have had the most abundant nourishment? Would he have made him a thief by giving him opportunity, and thus, as if designedly, have brought up in him a betrayer for himself? Considered simply in an economical point of view, who entrusts a purse to one of whom he knows that he robs it? Then, in relation to the idea of Jesus as a moral teacher, who places the weak in a situation which so constantly appeals to his weak point, as to render it certain that he will sooner or later give way to the temptation? No truly: Jesus assuredly did not so play with the souls immediately entrusted to him, did not exhibit to them so completely the opposite of what he taught them to pray for, lead us not into temptation (Matt. vi. 13), as to have made Judas, of whom he foreknew that he would become his betrayer out of covetousness, the purse-beaer of his society; or, if he gave him this office, he cannot have had such a foreknowledge. | ||||
In order to arrive at a decision in this alternative, we must consider that foreknowledge separately, and inquire whether, apart from the treasurership of Judas, it be probable or not? We shall not enter on the question of the psychological possibility, because there is always freedom of appeal to the divine nature of Jesus; but with regard to the moral possibility it is to be asked, whether presupposing that foreknowledge, it be justifiable in Jesus to have chosen Judas among the twelve, and to have retained him within this circle? As it was only by this vocation that his treachery as such could be rendered possible; so Jesus appears, if he foresaw this treachery, to have designedly drawn him into the sin. It is urged that intercourse with Jesus afforded Judas the possibility of escaping that abyss: but Jesus is supposed to have foreseen that this possibility would not be realized. It is further said that even in other circles the evil implanted in Judas would not the less have developed itself in a diferent form: a proposition which has a strong tinge of fatalism. Again, when it is said to be of no avail to a man that the evil, the germ of which lies within him, should not be developed, this appears to lead to consequences which are repudiated by the apostle Paul, Rom. iii. 8; vi. 1 f. And regarding the subject in relation to feeling merely, how could Jesus endure to have a man, of whom he knew that he would be his betrayer, and that all instruction would be fruitless to him, as his constant attendant throughout the whole period of his public life? Must not the presence of such a person have every hour interfered with his confidential intercourse with the rest of the twelve? Assuredly they must have been weighty motives, for the sake of which Jesus imposed on himself anything so repugnant and difficult. Such motives or objects must either have had relation to Judas, and thus have consisted in the design to make him better which however was {P.683} preluded by the decided foreknowledge of his crime; or they must have had relation to Jesus himself and his work, i.e. Jesus had the conviction that if the work of redemption by means of his death were to be effected, there must be one to betray him. But for the purpose of redemption, according to the Christian theory, the death of Jesus was the only indispensable means: whether this should be brought about by a betrayal, or in any other way, was of no moment, and that the enemies of Jesus must, earlier or later, have succeeded in getting him into their power without the aid of Judas, is undeniable. That the betrayer was indispensable in order to bring about the death of Jesus exactly at the Passover, which was a type of himselff-with such trivialities it will scarcely be attempted to put us off in these days. | ||||
If then we are unable to discover any adequate motive which could induce Jesus, advertently to receive and retain in his society his betrayer in the person of Judas: it appears decided that he cannot beforehand have known him to be such. Schleiermacher, in order that he may not infringe on the authority of John by denying this foreknowledge, prefers doubting that Jesus chose the twelve purely by his own act, and supposes that this circle was rather formed by the voluntary adherence of the disciples; since it would be more easy to justify the conduct of Jesus, if he merely refrained from rejecting Judas when he spontaneously offered himself, than if he drew him to himself by free choice. But hereby the authority of John is still endangered, for it is he who makes Jesus say to the twelve: You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (xv. 16. comp. vi. 76.); moreover, even dismissing the idea of a decided act of election, still for any one to remain constantly with Jesus there needed his permission and snction, and even these he could not, acting humanly, give to a man of whom he knew that, by means of this relation to himself, he would be enabled to mature the blackest crime. It is said, however, that Jesus put himself entirely into the divine point of view, and admitted Judas into his society for the sake of the possibility of reformation which he yet foreknew would never be realized; but this Would be a divine inhumanity, not the conduct of the Godman. If, according to this, it is extremely difficult to maintain as historical the statement of the fourth gospel, that Jesus from the beginning knew Judas to be his betrayer: so it is equally easy to discern what even without historical foundation might lead to such a representation. | ||||
It would be natural to suppose, that the fact of Jesus being betrayed by one of his own disciples, would be injurious to him in the eyes of his enemies, even if we did not know that Celsus, in the character of a Jew, reproached Jesus that he was betrayed by one of those whom he called his disciples, as a proof that he was less able to attach his followers {P.684} to himself than every robber-chief. Now as the injurious consequences to be drawn from the ignominious death of Jesus, appeared to be most completely obviated by the assertion that he had long foreknown his death: so, the arguments against Jesus derived from the treachery of Judas, might seem to be most effectually repelled by the statement, that he had penetrated into the character of the traitor from the first, and could have escaped what his treason prepared for him; since this would involve the inference that he had exposed himself to the effects of his faithlessness by his own free will, and out of higher considerations. This method included a second advantage, which attaches to the enunciator of every prediction alleged to be fulfilled, and which the fourth evangelist naively makes his Jesus express, when, after the exposure of the betrayer, he puts into his mouth the words: "I tell you before it happens, that when it comes to pass, you may believe that I am he" (xiii. 19.), in fact, the best motto for every vaticinium post eventum. These two objects were the more completely attained, the earlier the period in the life of Jesus to which this foreknowledge was referred; from which it is to be explained why the author of the fourth gospel, not satisfied with the ordinary representation, that Jesus predicted his betrayal by Judas at the last supper, placed his knowledge on this subject in the beginning of the connection between him and Judas. | ||||
This early knowledge on the part of Jesus concerning the treachery of Judas being dismissed as unhistorical, there would be room for the statement that Judas carried the purse of the society; since this particular only appeared incompatible with the above foreknowledge, while, if Jesus was in general mistaken in Judas, he might, under this error, have entrusted the funds to him. But by the proof that the representation of John, in relation to the knowledge of Jesus concerning his betrayer, is a fictitious one, its credibility in this matter is so shaken, that no confidence can be placed in the other statement. If the author of the fourth gospel has embellished the relation between Jesus and Judas on the side connected with Jesus, he can scarcely have left the side of Judas unadorned; if he has introduced the fact, that Jesus was betrayed, by making Jesus foresee this part of his destiny, his other statement, that Judas had beforehand exhibited his avarice by a dishonest use of the common purse, may easily be nly an introduction to the fact, that Jesus was betrayed by Judas. | ||||
{P.685} But even though we renounce the information given by John concerning the character and motives of Judas: we still retain, in the fore-mentioned statement of the Synoptics, the most decided intimation that the chief motive of his deed was covetousness. | ||||