Judas the Betrayer (Part of 0)

Judas the Betrayer – Part one

“When it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles…and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor” (Lk. 6:13-16).

“Traitor” is a name forever linked with Judas; it has become like an epi­taph engraved on the memory of his name. We can think of other cases like his — Jeroboam the son of Nebat “who caused Israel to sin” — who also had a phrase of infamy forever associ­ated with them.

The potential for good was there

Judas must have had the potential for becoming an excellent disciple, an apostle capable of faithfully witnessing to the death and resurrection of his Lord. To suppose otherwise is to imagine a deceptiveness on the part of Jesus altogether inconsistent with his character. Is it possible to imagine Je­sus deliberately choosing a man whose only purpose in life was to act out the part of traitor? Would this not label Jesus’ intensive and earnest efforts to save Judas as mere play-acting? While the potential for betrayal was there, so also must the potential for good have been present.

Second, Judas must have been a man of considerable ability. How else can the choice of treasurer be explained? One can hardly imagine Je­sus giving such responsibility to some­one lacking in the necessary mental talents (especially when Matthew was available, a former publican, who would have been excellent with fig­ures). Nor will it do to imagine Jesus deliberately committing to Judas’ hands an object that would contribute to his downfall. Judas must have had the potential for handling the position of treasurer and of making an excel­lent job of it.

Wonderful family background

There is a third point about Judas that is almost certain. He was likely a son of Simon the leper and a brother to Lazarus, Mary and Martha.

Compare two gospel accounts of the anointing of Jesus during the last week:

Mark 14:3-8 (RSV)

And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the jar and poured it over his head.

But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment thus wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.” And they reproached her.

But Jesus said, “Let her alone, why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me. She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying.”

John 12:1-8

Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at table with him.

Mary took a pound of costly oint­ment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.

But Judas Iscariot, one of his dis­ciples (he who was to betray him), said, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” this he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.

Jesus said, “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”

Notice the points of similarity:

  1. In both accounts, the incident oc­curs at Bethany.
  2. A woman does the anointing.
  3. Pure nard is used.
  4. The anointing gives rise to the same statement about selling the oint­ment for 300 denarii and giving it to the poor.
  5. This comment elicits the same re­sponse from Jesus.
  6. Incident is during the last week.

Differences easily reconciled

In Mark, the ointment is poured on the head and in John is wiped on the feet. Both could have been done, however, with the difference in the ac­counts being attributable to point of emphasis.

Mark places the incident two days before Passover and John seems to have it six days before the feast. John, however, leaves out any account of the first few days of the last week. Thus, a few days could easily have transpired between the end of verse 1 and the beginning of verse 2 in John 12.

Brother of Martha and Mary?

It is hard to resist the conclusion that Mark and John are describing the very same incident which occurred in the home of Simon the leper where “Martha served.” Martha was evi­dently the lady of Simon’s house (had his wife passed away?). Martha, of course, was sister to Mary and Lazarus. There seems to have been another son as well, “Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, mon’s son…” (John 12:4 KJV).

There is no doubt the father of Judas Iscariot was named “Simon” (John 6:71; 13:26). And the reference to him as a relative of “Simon’s” when they were in Simon’s house is so suggestive as to make the matter almost certain that “Simon,” the father of Judas the traitor, was this Simon who had once been a leper.

What happened to Judas?

Judas had the potential; he was a disciple who could have been a faith­ful apostle, destined to judge one of the 12 tribes of Israel in the kingdom. He could have provided valuable assistance to the others by honestly keeping the monies donated to their cause. He evidently came from an outstanding family and could have joined his fa­ther, brother and sisters in providing joy to the Master.

What happened to Judas? Why was this potential never realized? What was missing? These are ques­tions we hope to explore.