(_sekharyut_,) “_a bag_,” or “_purse_;” root cognate with the
Hebrew סכר (_sakhar_.) No. 1, Gibbs’s Hebrew Lexicon, and סגר
(_sagar_,) Syrian & Arabic _id._ The word thus derived must
mean the “_bag-man_,” the “_purser_,” which is a most happy
illustration of John’s account of the office of Judas, (xii. 6:
xiii. 29.) It is, in short, a name descriptive of his peculiar
duty in receiving the money of the common stock of Christ and
his apostles, buying the necessary provisions, administering
their common charities to the poor, and managing all their
pecuniary affairs,――performing all the duties of that officer
who in English is called a “steward.” Judas ISCARIOT, or rather
“_Scariot_,” means therefore “Judas the STEWARD.”
The _second_ derivation proposed is that of Junius, (_Parall._)
who refers it to a sense descriptive of his fate. The Syriac,
Hebrew, and Arabic root, סכר (_sakar_,) has in the first of these
languages, the secondary signification of “_strangle_,” and the
personal substantive derived from it, might therefore mean, “one
who was strangled.” Lightfoot says that if this theme is to be
adopted, he should prefer to trace the name to the word אשכרא
which with the Rabbinical writers is used in reference to the
same primitive, in the meaning of “strangulation.” But both
these, even without regarding the great aptness of the first
definition above given, may be condemned on their own demerits;
because, they suppose either that this name was applied to him,
only _after_ his death,――an exceedingly unnatural view,――or
(what is vastly more absurd) that he was thus named during his
life-time, by a _prophetical anticipation_, that he would die
by the halter!!! It is not very uncommon, to be sure, for such
charitable prophetic inferences to be drawn respecting the
character and destiny of the graceless, and the point of some
vulgar proverbs consists in this very allusion, but the utmost
stretch of such predictions never goes to the degree of fixing
upon the hopeful candidate for the gallows, a surname drawn from
this comfortable anticipation of his destiny. Besides, it is
hard to believe that a man wearing thus, as it were, a halter
around his neck, would have been called by Jesus into the goodly
fellowship of the apostles; for though neither rank, nor wealth,
nor education, nor refinement were requisites for admission, yet
a tolerable good moral character may be fairly presumed to have
been an indispensable qualification.
The _third_ derivation is of such a complicated and far-fetched
character, that it bears its condemnation on its own face. It is
that of the learned Tremellius, who attempts to analyze Iscariot
into שכר (_seker_,) “wages,” “reward,” and נטה (_natah_,) “turn
away,” alluding to the fact that for money he revolted from his
Master. This, besides its other difficulties, supposes that the
name was conferred after his death; whereas he must certainly
have needed during his life, some appellative to distinguish him
from Judas the brother of James.
The _fourth_ is that of Grotius and Erasmus, who derive it from
איש יששכר (_Ish Issachar_,) “a man of Issachar,”――supposing the
name to designate his tribe, just as the same phrase occurs in
Judges x. 1. But all these distinctions of origin from the ten
tribes must have been utterly lost in the time of Christ; nor
does any instance occur of a Jew of the apostolic age being
named from his supposed tribe.
The _fifth_ is the one suggested and adopted by Lightfoot. In
the Talmudic Hebrew, the word סקורטיא (_sekurti_,)――also written
with an initial א (_aleph_) and pronounced _Iscurti_,――has the
meaning of “_leather_ apron;” and this great Hebraician proposes
therefore, to translate the name, “Judas _with the leather
apron_;” and suggests some aptness in such a personal appendage,
because in such aprons they had pockets or bags in which money,
&c. might be carried. The whole derivation, however, is forced
and far-fetched,――doing great violence to the present form
of the word, and is altogether unworthy of the genius of its
inventor, who is usually very acute in etymologies.
The _sixth_ is that of Beza, Piscator and Hammond, who make it
איש־קריות (_Ish-Qerioth_ or _Kerioth_,) “a man of _Kerioth_,” a
city of Judah. (Joshua xv. 25.) Beza says that a very ancient MS.
of the Greek New Testament, in his possession, (above referred
to,) in all the five passages in John, where Judas is mentioned,
has this surname written απο Καριωτου. (_apo Cariotou_,)
“Judas _of Kerioth_.” Lucas Brugensis observes, that this
form of expression is used in Ezra ii. 22, 23, where the “men
of Anathoth,” &c. are spoken of; but there is no parallelism
whatever between the two cases; because in the passage quoted
it is a mere general designation of the inhabitants of a
place,――nor can any passage be shown in which it is thus
appended to a man’s name, by way of surname. The peculiarity of
Beza’s MS. is therefore undoubtedly an unauthorized perversion
by some ancient copyist; for it is not found on any other
ancient authority.
The motives which led such a man to join himself to the followers of
the self-denying Nazarene, of course could not have been of a very
high order; yet probably were about as praiseworthy as those of any
of the followers of Jesus. Not one of the chosen disciples of Jesus
is mentioned in the solemnly faithful narrative of the evangelists, as
inspired by a self-denying principle of action. Wherever an occasion
appeared on which their true motives and feelings could be displayed,
they all without exception, manifested the most sordid selfishness,
and seemed inspired by no idea whatever but that of worldly honors,
triumphs, and rewards to be won in his service! Peter, indeed, is not
very distinctly specified as betraying any remarkable regard for his
own individual interest, and on several occasions manifested, certainly
by starts, much of a true self-sacrificing devotion to his Master; yet
his great views in following Jesus were unquestionably of an ambitious
order, and his noblest conception was that of a worldly triumph of a
Messiah, in which the chosen ones were to have a share proportioned no
doubt to their exertions for its attainment. The two Boanerges betrayed
the most determined selfishness, in scheming for a lion’s share in
the spoils of victory; and the whole body of the disciples, on more
than one occasion, quarreled among themselves about the first places
in Christ’s kingdom. Judas therefore, was not greatly worse than
his fellow-disciples,――no matter how bad may have been his motives;
and probably at the beginning maintained a respectable stand among
them, unless occasion might have betrayed to them the fact, that he
was mean in money matters. But he, after espousing the fortunes of
Jesus, doubtless went on scheming for his own advancement, just as
the rest did for theirs, except that probably, when those of more
liberal conceptions were contriving great schemes for the attainment
of power, honor, fame, titles, and glory, both military and civil,
his penny-saving soul was reveling in golden dreams, and his thoughts
running delightedly over the prospects of vast gain to be reaped in
the confiscation of the property of the wealthy Pharisees and lawyers,
that would ensue immediately on the establishment of the empire of
the Nazarene and his Galileans. While the great James and his amiable
brother were quarreling with the rest of the fraternity about the
premierships,――the highest administration of spiritual and temporal
power,――the discreetly calculating Iscariot was doubtless expecting
the fair results of a regular course of promotion, from the office
of bag-carrier to the strolling company of Galileans, to the stately
honors and immense emoluments of lord high-treasurer of the new kingdom
of Israel; his advancement naturally taking place in the line in which
he had made his first beginning in the service of his Lord, he might
well expect that in those very particulars where he had shown himself
faithful in few things, he would be made ruler over many things, when
he should enter into the joy of his Lord,――sharing the honors and
profits of His exaltation, as he had borne his part in the toils and
anxieties of his humble fortunes. The careful management of his little
stewardship, “bearing the bag, and what was put therein,” and “buying
those things that were necessary” for all the wants of the brotherhood
of Jesus,――was a service of no small importance and merit, and
certainly would deserve a consideration at the hands of his Master.
Such a trust also, certainly implied a great confidence of Jesus in
his honesty and discretion in money matters, and shows not only the
blamelessness of his character in those particulars, but the peculiar
turn of his genius, in being selected, out of the whole twelve, for
this very responsible and somewhat troublesome function.
Yet the eyes of the Redeemer were by no means closed to the baser
inclinations of this much-trusted disciple. He knew (for what did he
not know?) how short was the step from the steady adherence to the
practice of a particular virtue, to the most scandalous breach of honor
in that same line of action,――how slight, and easy, and natural was
the perversion of a truly mean soul, or even one of respectable and
honorable purposes, from the honest pursuit of gain, to the absolute
disregard of every circumstance but personal advantage, and safety
from the punishment of crime,――a change insensibly resulting from the
total absorption of the soul in one solitary object and aim; for in all
such cases, the honesty is not the _purpose_; it is only an incidental
principle, occasionally called in to regulate the modes and means of
the grand acquisition;――but _gain_ is the great end and essence of
such a life, and the forgetfulness of every other motive, when occasion
suggests, is neither unnatural nor surprising. With all this and vastly
more knowledge, Jesus was well able to discriminate the different
states of mind in which the course of his discipleship found this
calculating follower. He doubtless traced from day to day, and from
week to week, and from month to month, as well as from year to year
of his weary pilgrimage, the changes of zeal, resolution and hope,
into distaste and despair, as the day of anticipated reward for these
sacrifices seemed farther and farther removed, by the progress of
events. The knowledge too, of the manner in which these depraved
propensities would at last develope themselves, is distinctly expressed
in the remark which he made in reply to Peter’s declaration of the
fidelity and devotion of himself and his fellow disciples, just
after the miracle of feeding the five thousand by the lake, when some
renounced the service of Christ, disgusted with the revelations which
he there made to them of the spiritual nature of his kingdom, and
its rewards, and of the difficult and disagreeable requisites for his
discipleship. Jesus seeing the sad defection of the worldly, turned
to the twelve and said, “Will ye also go away?” Simon Peter, with ever
ready zeal replied, “Lord! to whom shall we go but unto thee? For thou
only hast the words of eternal life.” Jesus answered them, “Have I
not chosen you twelve, and one of you is an _accuser_?” This reply,
as John in recording it remarks, alluded to Judas Iscariot, the son
of Simon; for he it was that was to betray him, though he was one of
the twelve. He well knew that on no ear would these revelations of the
pure spiritualism of his kingdom, and of the self-denying character of
his service, fall more disagreeably than on that of the money-loving
steward of the apostolic family, whose hopes would be most wofully
disappointed by the uncomfortable prospects of recompense, and whose
thoughts would be henceforth contriving the means of extricating
himself from all share in this hopeless enterprise. Still he did
not, like those mal-contents who were not numbered among the twelve,
openly renounce his discipleship, and return to the business which
he had left for the deceptive prospect of a profitable reward. He
found himself too deeply committed to do this with advantage, and he
therefore discontentedly continued to follow his great summoner, until
an opportunity should occur of leaving this undesirable service, with
a chance of some immediate profit in the exchange. Nor did he yet,
probably, despair entirely of some more hopeful scheme of revolution
than was now held up to view. He might occasionally have been led to
hope, that these gloomy announcements were but a trial of the constancy
of the chosen, and that all things would yet turn out as their high
expectations had planned. In the occasional remarks of Jesus, there was
also much, which an unspiritual and sordid hearer, might very naturally
construe into a more comfortable accomplishment of his views, and in
which such a one would think he found the distinct expression of the
real purposes of Jesus in reference to the reward of his disciples.
Such an instance, was the reply made to Peter when he reminded his
Master of the great pecuniary sacrifices which they had all made in
his service: “Lo! we have left all, and followed thee.” The assurances
contained in the reply of Jesus, that among other things, those who
had left houses and lands for his sake, should receive a hundred fold
more in the day of his triumph, must have favorably impressed the
baser-minded, with some idea of a real, solid return for the seemingly
unprofitable investment which they had made in his scheme. Or, on the
other hand, if the faith and hope of Iscariot in the word of Jesus were
already too far gone to be recalled to life by any cheering promises,
these sayings may have only served to increase his indifference, or
to deepen it into downright hatred, at what he would regard as a new
deceit, designed to keep up the sinking spirits of those, who had begun
to apprehend the desperate character of the enterprise in which they
had involved themselves. If his feelings had then reached this point
of desperation, the effect of this renewal of promises, which he might
construe into a support of his original views of the nature of the
rewards accruing to the followers of Christ, on the establishment
of his kingdom, would only excite and strengthen a deep rooted spite
against his once-adored Lord, and his malice, working in secret over
the disappointment, would at last be ready to rise on some convenient
occasion into active revenge.
_An accuser._――This is the true primary force of διαβολος
(_diabolos_) in this passage. (John vi. 70.) This word is never
applied to any individual in the sense of “devil,” except to
Satan himself; but wherever it occurs as a common substantive
appellation, descriptive of character, pointedly refers to its
primary signification of “accuser,” “calumniator,” “informer,”
&c., the root of it being διαβαλλω, which means “to accuse,” “to
calumniate;” and when applied to Satan, it still preserves this
sense,――though it then has the force of a proper name; since שטן
(_Satan_,) in Hebrew, means primarily “_accuser_” but acquires
the force of a proper name, in its ordinary use. Grotius however,
suggests that in this passage, the word truly corresponds to the
Hebrew צר (_tsar_,) the word which is applied to Haman, (Esther
vii. 6. viii. 1.) and has here the general force of “accuser,”
“enemy,” &c. The context here (verse 71,) shows that John
referred to this sense, and that Christ applied it to Judas
prophetically,――thus showing his knowledge of the fact, that
this apostle would “_accuse_” him, and “inform” against him,
before the Sanhedrim. Not only Grotius, but Vatablus, Erasmus,
Lucas Brugensis, and others, maintain this rendering.
This occasion, before long, presented itself. The successful labors
of Jesus, in Jerusalem, had raised up against him a combination of foes
of the most determined and dangerously hostile character. The great
dignitaries of the nation, uniting in one body all the legal, literary
and religions honors and influence of the Hebrew name, and strengthened
too by the weight of the vast wealth belonging to them and their
immediate supporters, as well as by the exaltation of high office and
ancient family, had at last resolved to use all this immense power, (if
less could not effect it,) for the ruin of the bold, eloquent man, who,
without one of all the privileges which were the sources and supports
of their power, had shaken their ancient dominion to its foundation
by his simple words, and almost overthrown all their power over the
people, whose eyes were now beginning to be opened to the mystery of
“how little wisdom it took, to govern them!” Self-preservation seemed
to require an instantaneous and energetic action against the bold
Reformer; and they were not the men to scruple about the means or
mode of satisfying both revenge and ambition by his destruction. This
state of feeling among the aristocracy could not have been unknown
to Iscariot. He had doubtless watched its gradual developments, from
day to day, during the displays in the temple; and as defeat followed
defeat in the strife of mind, he had abundant opportunity to see the
hostile feeling of the baffled and mortified Pharisees, Sadducees,
scribes and lawyers, mounting to the highest pitch of indignation, and
furnishing him with the long-desired occasion of making up for his own
disappointment in his great plans for the recompense of his sacrifices,
in the cause of Jesus. He saw that there was no chance whatever for
the triumphant establishment of that kingdom in whose honors he had
expected to share. All the opportunities and means for effecting
this result, Jesus was evidently determined to throw away, nor could
anything ever move him to such an effort as was desirable for the
gratification of the ambition of his disciples. The more splendid
and tempting the occasions for founding a temporal dominion, the more
resolutely did he seem to disappoint the golden hopes of his followers;
and, proceeding thus, was only exposing himself and them to danger,
without making any provision for their safety or escape. And where
was to be the reward of Iscariot’s long services in the management
of the stewardship of the apostolic fraternity? Had he not left his
business, to follow them about, laboring in their behalf, managing
their affairs, procuring the means of subsistence for them, and
exercising a responsibility which none else was so competent to assume?
And what recompense had he received? None, but the almost hopeless ruin
of his fortunes in a desperate cause. That such were the feelings and
reflections which his circumstances would naturally suggest, is very
evident. The signs of the alienation of his affections from Jesus,
are also seen in the little incident recorded by all the evangelists,
of the anointing of his feet by Mary. She, in deep gratitude to the
adored Lord who had restored to life her beloved brother, brought,
as the offering of her fervent love, the box of precious ointment of
spikenard, and poured it over his feet, anointing them, and wiping them
with her hair, so that the whole house was filled with the fragrance.
This beautiful instance of an ardent devotion, that would sacrifice
everything for its object, awakened no corresponding feeling in
the narrow soul of Iscariot; but seizing this occasion for the
manifestation of his inborn meanness, and his growing spite against his
Master, he indignantly exclaimed, (veiling his true motive, however,
under the appearance of charitable regard for the poor,) “To what
purpose is this waste? Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred
pence, and given to the poor?” So specious was this honorable pretense
for blaming what seemed the inconsiderate and extravagant devotion of
Mary, that others of the disciples joined in the indignant remonstrance
against this useless squandering of property, which might be converted
to the valuable purpose of ministering to the necessities of the poor,
many of whose hearts might have been gladdened by a well-regulated
expenditure of the price of this costly offering, which was now
irrecoverably lost. But honorable as may have been the motives of
those who joined with Iscariot in this protest, the apostle John most
distinctly insists that he was moved by a far baser consideration.
“This he said, NOT because he cared for the poor, but because he was a
thief, and kept the coffer, and carried what was cast into it.” This is
a most distinct exposition of a piece of villainy in the traitor, that
would have remained unknown, but for the record which John gives of
this transaction. It is here declared in plain terms, that Iscariot had
grossly betrayed the pecuniary trust which had been committed to him
on the score of his previous honesty, and had been guilty of downright
peculation,――converting to his own private purposes, the money which
had been deposited with him as the treasurer and steward of the whole
company of the disciples. He had probably made up his mind to this
rascally abuse of trust, on the ground that he was justified in thus
balancing what he had lost by his connection with Jesus; and supposed,
no doubt, that the ruin of all those whom he was thus cheating, would
be effectually secured before the act could be found out. What renders
this crime doubly abominable, is, that it was robbing the poor of
the generous contributions which, by the kindness of Jesus, had been
appropriated to their use, out of this little common stock; for it
seems that Iscariot was the minister of the common charities of the
brotherhood, as well as the provider of such things as were necessary
for their subsistence, and the steward of the common property. With
the pollution of this base crime upon his soul, before stirred up to
spite and disgust by disappointed ambition, he was now so dead to honor
and decency, that he was abundantly prepared for the commission of the
crowning act of villainy. The words in which Jesus rebuked his specious
concern for the economical administration of the money in charity, was
also in a tone that he might construe into a new ground of offense,
implying, as it did, that his zeal had some motive far removed from
a true affection for that Master, whose life was in hourly peril,
and might any moment be so sacrificed by his foes, that the honorable
forms of preparation for the burial might be denied; and being thus
already devoted to death, he might well accept this costly offering of
pure devotion, as the mournful unction for the grave. In these sadly
prophetic words, Judas may have found the immediate suggestion of his
act of sordid treachery; and incited, moreover, by the repulse which
his remonstrance had received, he seems to have gone directly about the
perpetration of the crime.
The nature and immediate object of this plot may not be perfectly
comprehended, without considering minutely the relations in which Jesus
stood to the Jewish Sanhedrim, and the means he had of resisting or
evading their efforts for the consummation of their schemes and hopes
against him. Jesus of Nazareth was, to the chief priests, scribes and
Pharisees, a dangerous foe. He had, during his visits to Jerusalem,
in his repeated encounters with them in the courts of the temple, and
all public places of assembly, struck at the very foundation of all
their authority and power over the people. The Jewish hierarchy was
supported by the sway of the Romans, indeed, but only because it was
in accordance with their universal policy of tolerance, to preserve
the previously established order of things, in all countries which they
conquered, so long as such a preservation was desired by the people;
but no longer than it was perfectly accordant with the feelings of the
majority. The Sanhedrim and their dependents therefore knew perfectly
well that their establishment could receive no support from the Roman
government, after they had lost their dominion over the affections of
the people; and were therefore very ready to perceive, that if they
were to be thus confounded and set at nought, in spite of learning
and dignity, by a poor Galilean, and even their gravest and most
puzzling attacks upon his wisdom and prudence, turned into an absolute
jest against them,――it was quite clear that the amused and delighted
multitude would soon cease to regard the authority and opinions of
their venerable religious and legal rulers, whose subtleties were
so easily foiled by one of the common, uneducated mass. But the very
circumstances which effected and constituted the evil, were also the
grand obstacles to the removal of it. Jesus was by these means seated
firmly in the love and reverence of the people,――and of the vast
numbers of strangers then in Jerusalem at the feast, there were very
many who would have their feelings strongly excited in his favor, by
the circumstance that they, as well as he, were Galileans, and would
therefore be very apt to make common cause with him in case of any
violent attack. All these obstacles required management; and after
having been very many times foiled in their attempts to seize him,
by the resolute determination of the thousands by whom he was always
encircled, to defend him, they found that they must contrive some way
to get hold of him when he was without the defenses of this admiring
host. This could be done, of course, only by following him to his
secret haunts, and coming quietly upon him before the multitude could
assemble to his aid. But his movements were altogether beyond their
notice. No armed band could follow him about, as he went from the city
to the country in his daily and nightly walks. They needed some spy who
could watch his private movements when unattended, save by the little
band of the twelve, and give notice of the favorable moment for a
seizure, when the time, the place, and the circumstances, would all
conspire to prevent a rescue. Thus taken, he might be safely lodged
in some of the impregnable fortresses of the temple and city, so as
to defy the momentary burst of popular rage, on finding that their
idol had been taken away. They knew too, the fickle character of
the commonalty, well enough to feel certain, that when the tide
of condemnation was once strongly set against the Nazarene, the
lip-worship of “Hosannas” could be easily turned, by a little
management, into the ferocious yell of deadly denunciation. The mass
of the people are always essentially the same in their modes of action.
Mobs were then managed by the same rules as now, and demagogues were
equally well versed in the tricks of their trade. Besides, when Jesus
had once been formally indicted and presented before the secular
tribunal of the Roman governor, as a rioter and seditious person, no
thought of a rescue from the military force could be thought of; and
however unwilling Pilate might be to minister to the wishes of the
Jews, in an act of unnecessary cruelty, he could not resist a call
thus solemnly made to him, in the character of preserver of the Roman
sway, though he would probably have rejected entirely any proposition
to seize Jesus by a military force, in open day, in the midst of the
multitude, so as to create a troublesome and bloody tumult, by such
an imprudent act. In the full consideration of all these difficulties,
the Jewish dignitaries were sitting in conclave, contriving means to
effect the settlement of their troubles, by the complete removal of
him who was unquestionably the cause of all. At once their anxious
deliberations were happily interrupted by the entrance of the trusted
steward of the company of Jesus, who changed all their doubts and
distant hopes into absolute certainty, by offering, for a reasonable
consideration, to give up Jesus into their hands, a prisoner, without
any disturbance or riot. How much delay and debate there was about
terms, it would be hard to say; but after all, the bargain made,
does not seem to have been greatly to the credit of the liberality
of the Sanhedrim, or the sharpness of Judas. Thirty of the largest
pieces of silver then coined, would make but a poor price for such
an extraordinary service, even making all allowance for a scarcity of
money in those times. And taking into account the wealth and rank of
those concerned, as well as the importance of the object, it is fair to
pronounce them a very mean set of fellows. But Judas especially seems
to forfeit almost all right to the character given him of acuteness in
money matters; and it is only by supposing him to be quite carried out
of his usual prudence, by his woful abandonment to crime, that so poor
a bargain can be made consistent with the otherwise reasonable view of
his character.
_Thirty pieces of silver._――The value of these pieces is
seemingly as vaguely expressed in the original as in the
translation; but a reference to Hebrew usages throws some light
on the question of definition. The common Hebrew coin thus
expressed was the shekel,――equivalent to the Greek _didrachmon_,
and worth about sixteen cents. In Hebrew the expression, thirty
“shekels of silver,” was not always written out in full; but
the name of the coin being omitted, the expression was always
equally definite, because no other coin was ever left thus
to be implied. Just so in English, the phrase, “a million of
money,” is perfectly well understood here, to mean “a million of
_dollars_;” while in England, the current coin of that country
would make the expression mean so many _pounds_. In the same
manner, to say, in this country, that any thing or any man is
worth “thousands,” always conveys, with perfect definiteness,
the idea of “dollars;” and in every other country the same
expression would imply a particular coin. Thirty pieces of
silver, each of which was worth sixteen cents, would amount
only to four dollars and eighty cents, which are just one pound
sterling. A small price for the great Jewish Sanhedrim to pay
for the ruin of their most dangerous foe! Yet for this little
sum, the Savior of the world was bought and sold!
Having thus settled this business, the cheaply-purchased traitor
returned to the unsuspecting fellowship of the apostles, mingling with
them, as he supposed, without the slightest suspicion on the part of
any one, respecting the horrible treachery which he had contrived for
the bloody ruin of his Lord. But there was an eye, whose power he had
never learned, though dwelling beneath its gaze for years,――an eye,
which saw the vainly hidden results of his treachery, even as for years
it had scanned the base motives which governed him. Yet no word of
reproach or denunciation broke forth from the lips of the betrayed One;
the progress of crime was suffered unresistedly to bear him onward to
the mournfully necessary fulfilment of his destiny. Judas meanwhile,
from day to day, waited and watched for the most desirable opportunity
of meeting his engagements with his priestly employers. The first day
of the feast of unleavened bread having arrived, Jesus sat down at
evening to eat the Paschal lamb with his twelve disciples, alone.
The whole twelve were there without one exception,――and among those
who reclined around the table, sharing in the social delights of the
entertainment which celebrated the beginning of the grand national
festival, was the dark-souled accuser also, like Satan among the sons
of God. Even here, amid the general joyous hilarity, his great scheme
of villainy formed the grand theme of his meditations,――and while the
rest were entering fully into the natural enjoyments of the occasion,
he was brooding over the best means of executing his plans. During the
supper, after the performance of the impressive ceremony of washing
their feet, Jesus made a sudden transition from the comments with which
he was illustrating it; and, in a tone of deep and sorrowful emotion,
suddenly exclaimed, “I solemnly assure you, that one of you will betray
me.” This surprising assertion, so emphatically made, excited the
most distressful sensations among the little assembly;――all enjoyment
was at an end; and grieved by the imputation, in which all seemed
included until the individual was pointed out, they each earnestly
inquired, “Lord, is it I?” As they sat thus looking in the most painful
doubt around their lately cheerful circle, the disciple who held
the place of honor and affection at the table, at the request of
Peter, whose position gave him less advantage for familiar and private
conversation,――plainly asked of Jesus, “Who is it, Lord?” Jesus, to
make his reply as deliberate and impressive as possible, said, “It is
he to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it.” The design of
all this circumlocution in pointing out the criminal, was, to mark the
enormity of the offense. “He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up
his heel against me.” It was his familiar friend, his chosen companion,
enjoying with him at that moment the most intimate social pleasures of
the entertainment, and occupying one of the places nearest to him, at
the board. As he promised, after dipping the sop, he gave it to Judas
Iscariot, who, receiving it, was moved to no change in his dark purpose;
but with a new Satanic spirit, resolved immediately to execute his plan,
in spite of this open exposure, which, he might think, was meant to
shame him from his baseness. Jesus, with an eye still fixed on his most
secret inward movements, said to him, “What thou doest, do quickly.”
Judas, utterly lost to repentance and to shame, coolly obeyed the
direction, as if it had been an ordinary command, in the way of his
official duty, and went out at the words of Jesus. All this, however,
was perfectly without meaning, to the wondering disciples, who, not yet
recovered from their surprise at the very extraordinary announcement
which they had just heard of the expected treachery, could not suppose
that this quiet movement could have anything to do with the occurrence
which preceded it; but concluded that Judas was going about the
business necessary for the preparation of the next day’s festal
entertainment,――or that he was following the directions of Jesus about
the charity to be administered to the poor out of the funds in his
keeping, in accordance with the commendable Hebrew usage of remembering
the poor on great occasions of enjoyment,――a custom to which, perhaps,
the previous words of Judas, when he rebuked the waste of the ointment
by Mary, had some especial reference, since at that particular time,
money was actually needed for bestowment in alms to the poor. Judas,
after leaving the place where the declaration of Jesus had made him
an object of such suspicion and dislike, went, under the influence of
that evil spirit, to whose direction he was now abandoned, directly
to the chief priests, (who were anxiously waiting the fulfilment of
his promise,) and made known to them that the time was now come. The
band of watchmen and servants, with their swords and cudgels, were
accordingly mustered and put under the guidance of Judas, who, well
knowing the place to which Jesus would of course go from the feast,
conducted his band of low assistants across the brook Kedron, to the
garden of Gethsemane. On the way he arranged with them the sign by
which they should recognize, in spite of the darkness and confusion,
the person whose capture was the grand object of this expedition. “The
man whom I shall kiss is he: seize him.” Entering the garden, at length,
he led them straight to the spot which his intimate familiarity with
Jesus enabled him to know, as his favorite retreat. Going up to him
with the air of friendly confidence, he saluted him, as if rejoiced to
find him, even after this brief absence,――another instance of the very
close intimacy which had existed between the traitor and the betrayed.
Jesus submitted to this hollow show, without any attempt to repulse
the movement which marked him for destruction, only saying, in mild
but expressive reproach,――“Judas! Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a
kiss?” Without more delay he announced himself in plain terms, to those
who came to seize him; thus showing how little need there was of artful
contrivance in taking one who did not seek to escape. “If ye seek Jesus
of Nazareth, I am he.” The simple majesty with which these words were
uttered, was such as to overawe even the low officials; and it was not
till he himself had again distinctly reminded them of their object,
that they could execute their errand. So vain was the arrangement of
signals, which had been studiously made by the careful traitor.
No further mention is made of Iscariot after the scene of his treachery,
until the next morning, when Jesus had been condemned by the high
court of the Sanhedrim, and dragged away to undergo punishment from
the secular power. The sun of another day had risen on his crime; and
after a very brief interval, he now had time for cool meditation on
the nature and consequences of his act. Spite and avarice had both now
received their full gratification. The thirty pieces of silver were
his, and the Master whose instructions he had hated for their purity
and spirituality, because they had made known to him the vileness of
his own character and motives, was now in the hands of those who were
impelled, by the darkest passions, to secure his destruction. But after
all, now came the thought, and inquiry, ‘what had the pure and holy
Jesus done, to deserve this reward at his hands?’ He had called him
from the sordid pursuits of a common life, to the high task of aiding
in the regeneration of Israel. He had taught him, labored with him,
prayed for him, trusted him as a near and worthy friend, making him
the steward of all the earthly possessions of his apostolic family, and
the organ of his ministrations of charity to the poor. All this he had
done without the prospect of a reward, surely. And why? To make him an
instrument, not of the base purposes of a low ambition;――not to acquire
by this means the sordid and bloody honors of a conqueror,――but to
effect the moral and spiritual emancipation of a people, suffering
far less under the evils of a foreign sway, than under the debasing
dominion of folly and sin. And was this an occasion to arm against
him the darker feelings of his trusted and loved companions?――to turn
the instruments of his mercy into weapons of death? Ought the mere
disappointment of a worldly-minded spirit, that was ever clinging to
the love of material things, and that would not learn the solemn truth
of the spiritual character of the Messiah’s reign, now to cause it to
vent its regrets at its own errors, in a traitorous attack upon the
life of him who had called it to a purpose whose glories and rewards it
could not appreciate? These and other mournful thoughts would naturally
rise to the repentant traitor’s mind, in the awful revulsion of feeling
which that morning brought with it. But repentance is not atonement;
nor can any change of feeling in the mind of the sinner, after the
perpetration of the sinful act, avail anything for the removal or
expiation of the evil consequences of it. So vain and unprofitable,
both to the injurer and the injured, are the tears of remorse! And
herein lay the difference between the repentance of Judas and of Peter.
The sin of Peter affected no one but himself, and was criminal only
as the manifestation of a base, selfish spirit of deceit, that fell
from truth through a vain-glorious confidence,――and the effusion of
his gushing tears might prove the means of washing away the pollution
of such an offense from his soul. But the sin of Judas had wrought a
work of crime whose evil could not be affected by any tardy change of
feeling in him. Peter’s repentance came too late indeed, to exonerate
him from guilt; because all repentance is too late for such a purpose,
when it comes after the commission of the sin. The repentance of an
evil purpose, coming in time to prevent the execution of the act, is
indeed available for good; but both Peter and Judas came to the sense
of the heinousness of sin, only after its commission. Peter however,
had no evil to repair for others,――while Judas saw the bloody sequel
of his guilt, coming with most irrevocable certainty upon the blameless
One whom he had betrayed. Overwhelmed with vain regrets, he took the
now hateful, though once-desired price of his villainy, and seeking
the presence of his purchasers, held out to them the money, with
the useless confession of the guilt, which was too accordant with
their schemes and hopes, for them to think of redeeming him from its
consequences. The words of his confession were, “I have sinned, in
betraying innocent blood.” This late protestation was received by the
proud priests, with as much regard as might have been expected from
exulting tyranny, when in the enjoyment of the grand object of its
efforts. With a cold sneer they replied, “What is that to us? See thou
to that!” Maddened with the immovable and remorseless determination
of the haughty condemners of the just, he flung down the price of his
infamy and woe, upon the floor of the temple, and rushed out of their
presence, to seal his crimes and eternal misery by the act that put him
for ever beyond the power of redemption. Seeking a place removed from
the observation of men, he hurried out of the city, and contriving the
fatal means of death for himself, before the bloody doom of him whom
he betrayed had been fulfilled, the wretched man saved his eyes the
renewed horrors of the sight of the crucifixion, by closing them in the
sleep which earthly sights can not disturb. But even in the mode of his
death, new circumstances of horror occurred. Swinging himself into the
air, by falling from a highth, as the cord tightened around his neck,
checking his descent, the weight of his body produced the rupture of
his abdomen, and his bowels bursting through, made him, as he swung
stiffening and convulsed in the agonies of this doubly horrid death,
a disgusting and appalling spectacle,――a monument of the vengeance
of God on the traitor, and a shocking witness of his own remorse and
self-condemnation.
A very striking difference is noticeable between the account
given by Matthew of the death of Judas, and that given by
Luke in the speech of Peter, Acts i. 18, 19. The various modes
of reconciling these difficulties are found in the ordinary
commentaries. In respect to a single expression in Acts i. 18,
there is an ingenious conjecture offered by Granville Penn, in a
very interesting and learned article in the first volume of the
transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, which may very
properly be mentioned here, on account of its originality and
plausibility, and because it is found only in an expensive work,
hardly ever seen in this country. Mr. Penn’s view is, that “the
word ελακησε (_elakese_,) in Acts i. 18, is only an inflection
of the Latin verb, _laqueo_, (to halter or strangle,) rendered
insititious in the Hellenistic Greek, under the form λακεω.” He
enters into a very elaborate argument, which can not be given
here, but an extract may be transcribed, in order to enable
the learned to apprehend the nature and force of his views.
(Translated by R. S. Lit. Vol. I. P. 2, pp. 51, 52.)
“Those who have been in the southern countries of Europe know,
that the operation in question, as exercised on a criminal, is
performed with a great length of cord, with which the criminal
is _precipitated_ from a high beam, and is thus violently
_laqueated_, or snared in a noose, _mid-way_――_medius_ or _in
medio_; μεσος, and _medius_, referring to _place_ as well as
to _person_; as, μεσος ὑμων ἑστηκεν. (John i. 26.) ‘Considit
scopulo medius――――’ (Virgil, Georgics, iv. 436.) ‘―――― medius
prorumpit in hostes.’ (Aeneid, x. 379.)
“Erasmus distinctly perceived this sense in the words πρηνης
γενομενος, although he did not discern it in the word ελακησε,
which confirms it: ‘πρηνης Graecis dicitur, qui _vultu est in
terram dejecto_: expressit autem _gestum et habitum_ LAQUEO
PRAEFOCATI; alioquin, ex hoc sane loco non poterat intelligi,
quod Judas _suspenderit se_,’ (in loc.) And so Augustine also
had understood those words, as he shows in his _Recit. in Act.
Apostol._ l. i. col. 474. ‘et collem sibi alligavit, et dejectus
in faciem,’ &c. Hence one MS., cited by Sabatier, for πρηνης
γενομενος, reads αποκρεμαμένος; and Jerom, in his new vulgate,
has substituted _suspensus_ for the _pronus factus_ of the old
Latin version, which our old English version of 1542 accordingly
renders, _and when he was hanged_.
“That which follows, and which evidently determined the vulgar
interpretation of ελακησε――εξεχυνθη παντα τα σπλαγχνα αυτου,
_all his bowels gushed out_――states a natural and probable
effect produced, by the sudden interruption in the fall and
violent capture in the noose, in a frame of great corpulency
and distension, such as Christian antiquity has recorded that
of the traitor to have been; so that a term to express rupture
would have been altogether unnecessary, and it is therefore
equally unnecessary to seek for it in the verb ελακησε. Had the
historian intended to express disruption, we may justly presume
that he would have said, as he had already said in his gospel,
v. 6, διερρηγνυτο, or xxiii. 45, εσχισθη μεσος: it is difficult
to conceive, that he would here have traveled into the language
of ancient Greek poetry for a word to express a common idea,
when he had common terms at hand and in practice; but he used
the Roman _laqueo_, λακεω, to mark the infamy of the death.
“(Πρησθεις επι τοσουτον την σαρκα, ὡστε μη δυνασθαι δειλθειν.
Papias, from Routh's _Reliquiæ Sacræ_ tom. I. p. 9. and
Oecumenius, thus rendered by Zegers, _Critici Sacri_, Acts i.
18, _in tantum enim corpore inflatus est ut progredi non
posset_. The tale transmitted by those writers of the first
and tenth centuries, that Judas was crushed to death by a
chariot proceeding rapidly, from which his unwieldiness rendered
him unable to escape, merits no further attention, after the
authenticated descriptions of the traitor’s death which we have
here investigated, than to suggest a possibility that the place
where the suicide was committed might have overhung a public
way, and that the body falling by its weight might have been
traversed, after death, by a passing chariot;――from whence might
have arisen the tales transmitted successively by those writers;
the first of whom, being an inhabitant of Asia Minor, and
therefore far removed from the theater of Jerusalem, and being
also (as Eusebius witnesses, iii. 39,) a man of a very weak
mind――σφοδρα μκρος τον νουν――was liable to be deceived by false
accounts.)
“The words of St. Peter, in the Hellenistic version of St.
Luke, will therefore import, _praeceps in ora fusus, laqueavit_
(_i. e._ implicuit se laqueo) _medius_; (_i. e._ in medio,
inter trabem et terram;) _et effusa sunt omnia viscera
ejus_――_throwing himself headlong, he caught mid-way in
the noose, and all his bowels gushed out_. And thus the two
reporters of the suicide, from whose respective relations
charges of disagreement, and even of contradiction, have been
drawn in consequence of _mistaking an insititious Latin word
for a genuine Greek word of corresponding elements_, are found,
by tracing that insititious word to its true origin, to report
identically the same fact; the one by a _single term_, the other
by a _periphrasis_.”
Such was the end of the twelfth of Jesus Christ’s chosen ones.
To such an end was the intimate friend, the trusted steward, the
festal companion of the Savior, brought by the impulse of some not
very unnatural feelings, excited by occasion, into extraordinary
action. The universal and intense horror which the relation of his
crime now invariably awakens, is by no means favorable to a just
and fair appreciation of his sin and its motives, nor to such an
honest consideration of his course from rectitude to guilt, as is
most desirable for the application of the whole story to the moral
improvement of its readers. Originally not an infamous man, he was
numbered among the twelve as a person of _respectable_ character, and
long held among his fellow-disciples a responsible station, which is
itself a testimony of his unblemished reputation. He was sent forth
with them, as one of the heralds of salvation to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel. He shared with them the counsels, the instructions,
and the prayers of Jesus. If he was stupid in apprehending, and
unspiritual in conceiving the truths of the gospel, so were they. If
he was an unbeliever in the resurrection of Jesus, so were they; and
had he survived till the accomplishment of that prophecy, he could not
have been slower in receiving the evidence of the event, than they. As
it was, he died in his unbelief; while they lived to feel the glorious
removal of all their doubts, the purification of all their gross
conceptions, and the effusion of that spirit of truth, through which,
by the grace of God alone, they afterwards were what they were. Without
a merit, in _faith_, beyond Judas, they maintained their dim and
doubtful adherence to the truth, only by their nearer approximation to
_moral_ perfection; and by their nobler freedom from the pollution of
sordid and spiteful feeling. Through passion alone he fell, a victim,
not to a want of faith merely,――for therein, the rest could hardly
claim a superiority,――but to the radical deficiency of true _love_
for Jesus, of that “charity which never faileth,” but “endureth to the
end.” It was their simple, devoted affection, which, through all their
ignorance, their grossness of conception, and their faithlessness in
his word, made them still cling to his name and his grave, till the
full revelations of his resurrection and ascension had displaced their
doubts by the most glorious certainties, and given their faith an
eternal assurance. The great cause of the awful ruin of Judas Iscariot,
then, was the fact, that _he did not LOVE Jesus_. Herein was his grand
distinction from all the rest; for though their regard was mingled
with so much that was base, there was plainly, in all of them, a solid
foundation of true, deep affection. The most ambitious and skeptical
of them, gave the most unquestionable proofs of this. Peter, John,
both the Jameses, and others, are instances of the mode in which these
seemingly opposite feelings were combined. But Judas was without this
great refining and elevating principle, which so redeemed the most
sordid feelings of his fellows. It was not merely for the love of
money that he was led into this horrid crime. The love of four dollars
and eighty cents! Who can believe that this was the sole motive? It
was rather that _his_ sordidness and selfishness, and ambition, if
he had any, lacked this single, purifying emotion, which redeemed
their characters. Is there not, in this reflection, a moral which
each Christian reader can improve to his own use? For the lack of the
love of Jesus alone, Judas fell from his high estate, to an infamy as
immortal as their fame. Wherever, through all ages, the high heroic
energy of Peter, the ready faith of Andrew, the martyr-fire of James
Boanerges, the soul-absorbing love of John, the willing obedience
of Philip, the guileless purity of Nathanael, the recorded truth
of Matthew, the slow but deep devotion of Thomas, the blameless
righteousness of James the Just, the appellative zeal of Simon, and
the earnest warning eloquence of Jude, are all commemorated in honor
and bright renown,――the murderous, sordid spite of Iscariot, will
insure him an equally lasting proverbial shame. Truly, “THE SIN OF
JUDAS IS WRITTEN WITH A PEN OF IRON ON A TABLET OF MARBLE.”