Jesus was betrayed to the enemies by Judas - one of the Twelve: “And Judas, who betrayed Him, also knew this place, because Jesus often gathered there with His disciples” (John 18: 2).
Why did Judas Iscariot betray Christ? From the Gospels it can be understood that the main motive for betrayal is money. But many researchers are not satisfied with this explanation. First of all, they doubt that negligible amount - 30 pieces of silver - for which he allegedly agreed to betrayal (Matt. 26:15). If Judas “was a thief,” as John states (John 12: 6), and, while serving as treasurer, appropriated part of the public money, then wouldn't it be more profitable for him to remain in the “party” and continue to quietly drag money from the public fund? Why did he have to, figuratively speaking, slaughter the goose that lays the golden eggs?
Over the past two millennia, many hypotheses have been invented to explain the heinous act of Judas Iscariot. For example, we can name only the most famous of them:
• Judas was disappointed in Jesus as in the Messiah, and, seething with anger, betrayed him to his enemies;
• Judas wanted to see if Jesus could be saved and thereby prove that he is the true Messiah;
• Jesus and Judas were in cahoots, intending to provoke a rebellion, which the inhabitants of Jerusalem would inevitably raise upon the news of the arrest of the beloved prophet from Galilee;
• Jesus publicly predicted that one of the disciples would betray him, and when none of them was willing to do so, Judas decided to save the authority of his beloved teacher by sacrificing his own reputation.
As we can see, it is difficult to reproach students of New Testament texts with a lack of imagination. But the trouble with all these intellectual exercises is that no concrete facts can confirm them. The extreme paucity of information even gave rise to serious doubts about the reality of this whole story.
Promotional video:
There were researchers who decided that neither betrayal, nor even Judas himself had ever existed, that this was just an idle fiction of the evangelists, who retrospectively adjusted their texts to the well-known Old Testament prophecy: “Even a man at peace with me, on whom I relied, who ate bread mine, lifted up his heel against me”(Ps. 40:10). Considering that this prediction must have been fulfilled on Jesus, the Evangelists supposedly invented a certain Judas of Cariot, a close disciple with whom the teacher repeatedly broke bread, and who subsequently betrayed him.
In my opinion, there is no reason not to trust the evangelists who claim that Judas committed a betrayal over money. This version, as we will see a little later, perfectly explains both the motives of the betrayal and the logic of all subsequent events. And if everything can be explained simply, then why invent some super-complex semantic structures? After all, "Occam's razor" has not yet been canceled! In addition, as it is easy to see, all hypotheses that contradict the main, gospel version of events, they actually rehabilitate Judas, represent not a banal thief and a miser, but a man of a high idea, ready to risk for her not only his good name, but even his life itself: he if he betrays Jesus, it is either disillusioned with him as the Messiah, or with a burning desire to push him to fulfill the messianic plan.
Isn't Judas much honor?
In general, if you choose any one version of betrayal, then, in my opinion, it is best to dwell on the gospel one. It is both simpler and closer to the truth of life. And if this version is also slightly corrected, then it, perhaps, can become the best of all possible.
As can be understood from the Gospels, Judas committed his betrayal not once, not at the very end of Jesus' social activities, but was unfaithful to him for a long time. The Evangelist John has an episode where Jesus, long before his last trip to Jerusalem, announces to the apostles that one of them is a traitor (John 6: 70-71). As a rule, this is interpreted as an example of Christ's omniscience: many months before the betrayal, he allegedly already knew who exactly would do it. However, another interpretation is also possible: the last journey has not yet begun, and will not even begin soon, but Judas is already betraying him with might and main, and this somehow became known to Jesus …
I think I will not be greatly mistaken if I say that Judas Iscariot was nothing more than a paid agent of the high priest, introduced into the circle of Christ.
Eka, that's enough! - the reader will doubt. - Where are the facts? Where is the evidence?
In reality, I have no direct evidence (as, incidentally, all other researchers who put forward hypotheses that actually rehabilitate Judas), but indirect evidence is more than enough!
Let's start with the fact that Judas was most likely a stranger among the 12 apostles. Judas's nickname - Iscariot (in Aramaic - ish Kariot) - literally means "a man from Kariot". In those days, there were two towns called Kariot, and both were located outside Galilee. If we agree that Judas was born in one of these towns, then it turns out that he was the only ethnically pure Jew among the Galilean apostles.
And as we know from historical documents, there has long been a mutual enmity between the population of Galilee and Judea - two Jewish regions. Due to the fact that Galilee joined the Mosaic religion relatively late, the Jews considered the Galileans to be ignorant in the Law and did not want to consider them their fellow tribesmen. Yochanan ben Zakkai, a disciple of the famous Hillel, has a well-known statement, filled with arrogant contempt towards the inhabitants of this region: “Galilee! Galileo! Most of all you hate Torah!"
Even in the Gospels, echoes of this long-standing enmity penetrated: "Can anything good be from Nazareth?" (John 1:46). - "Will Christ come from Galilee?" (John 7:41). - “Look and you will see that a prophet does not come from Galilee” (John 7:52).
The inhabitants of Galilee, of course, paid the Jews with the same coin.
The Jewish origin of Judas in itself, of course, still cannot prove anything, moreover, Jesus himself was “from the tribe of Judah” (Heb. 7:14), but it still leads to some reflections. Everything is clear with Jesus, he lived in Galilee from an early age, and Judas? For what purpose did he, a purebred Jew, appear here? At the call of your heart, or doing some kind of secret mission? Incidentally, there is nothing improbable in this last assumption. Of course, rumors reached Jerusalem about an extraordinary prophet from Galilee who was gathering thousands of crowds for his sermons and, most likely, planning to transfer his activities to the territory of Judea.
Worried about alarming rumors, the "leaders of the Jews" could send their man - Judas Iscariot - to Jesus under the guise of an ardent neophyte, with the instruction to infiltrate the inner circle of Christ. Judas, as we know, was able to brilliantly cope with the task, not only becoming one of the chosen Twelve, but also managing to get the position of treasurer.
Another, even more preferable, version of his betrayal is also possible. Already being an apostle, Judas was the first to realize that Jesus did not want to become the king of Israel, and, as a result, he, Judas, did not have any high position ahead. And then, disappointed and embittered, he decided to make at least something from this business. Arriving in Jerusalem, he offered his services to the enemies of Jesus as a secret spy …
Having mastered the environment of Jesus, Judas began to send secret information to his masters in Jerusalem. It is possible that he himself, under one or another plausible pretext, sometimes exited to Jerusalem. There is an interesting episode in the Gospel of John that suggests just such a thought. Jesus, preparing to feed 5,000 people, asks the Apostle Philip: "Where can we buy loaves to feed them?.. Philip answered Him: they will not have enough bread for 200 denarii …" (John 6: 6,7).
But, excuse me, where does Philip? After all, Jesus' "caretaker", as we remember, was none other than Judas Iscariot! Where was he at that time? Archpriest S. Bulgakov believes that Judas did not immediately become treasurer, and before him this position was allegedly held by Philip. The assumption is doubtful if only because chronologically this episode belongs to the end of the 3-year public ministry of Jesus. The question is, what could the Apostle Philip be guilty of before the teacher if, after spending most of his term as treasurer, he was suddenly forced to cede this post to Judas? Isn't it more logical to make the assumption that Judas was always in charge of the "money box", and at that time he was simply absent, having transferred his functions to Philip for a while?
Kiss of Judas
As you can see, Jesus learned quite early that one of his closest disciples was a snitch. He could have been warned about this by some influential Jerusalem friends who, to one degree or another, had access to the high priest's entourage. For example, Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, prominent Jerusalem nobles and secret disciples of Christ, could have done this. But even they, apparently, for a very long time did not know all the details of this case and, in particular, the name of the secret agent. “Beware! - this kind of messages, obviously, they sent to Jesus. - The enemy is in your environment! True, we do not know his name yet, but as soon as something becomes clear, we will immediately inform you!"
One important circumstance should be noted: Jesus, not considering it necessary to hide from the apostles information about the presence of a traitor among them, did not immediately name his name, limiting himself at first to hints: “Didn't I choose you twelve? but one of you is a devil”(John 6: 70). It is unlikely that it was Jesus' task to intrigue his disciples. Most likely, he himself did not yet know the whole truth then. And only during the Last Supper - this is about 5 months later - did he finally reveal the name of the traitor to the Apostle John (John 21:26). Such a long delay may be explained by the fact that Jesus learned this terrible secret only when he appeared on his last visit to Jerusalem. It was during these few days that his Jerusalem friends were able to somehow find out the name of Caiaphas' secret agent and inform Jesus.
As described by John, this scene looks like this: “Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, truly, truly, I say to you that one of you will betray Me. Then the disciples looked around at each other, wondering who he was talking about. One of His disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining on the breast of Jesus. Simon Peter made a sign to him to ask who he was talking about. He, leaning on the breast of Jesus, said to Him: Lord! who is it? Jesus answered: the one to whom I will give, having dipped a piece of bread. And having dipped a piece, he gave it to Judas Iscariot of Simon.”And after this piece Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said to him: what you are doing, do quickly. But none of the reclining ones understood why He said this to him. And as Judas had a box, some thought that Jesus was telling him: buy what we need for the holiday, or to give something to the poor. He, having taken the piece, immediately went out;and there was night”(John 13: 21-30).
According to the testimony of Matthew, the apostles, after Jesus announced to them that one of them was a traitor, began vying with each other to ask: "Is it not me?" Even Judas could not resist, asked: "Is it not me, Rabbi?" Jesus answered the traitor: "You said" (Matt. 26:25).
To the modern ear, the expression "You say" or "You said" sounds evasive. But at that time it was often used when the answer was not quite pleasant for the interlocutor. The then, different from the present, concepts of politeness forbade to say directly "yes" or "no".
This is what kind of endurance Jesus possessed! Knowing that there was a traitor in front of him, he not only did not shout, not only did he not slap the villain in the face, but answered politely, as if trying not to offend him!
None of those present, with the exception of John and possibly Peter, understood the meaning of Jesus' words to Judas. Many of the disciples thought that Jesus had given him, as the treasurer of the “party,” some kind of instructions regarding current economic affairs.
Why didn't Jesus publicly expose the traitor? Hard to say. Perhaps he feared that the apostles would immediately inflict lynching on the traitor? Or was he counting on Judas' possible repentance?
And these words: "What are you doing, do it quickly"? What can they mean? A great many interpretations have been proposed, even as absurd as the possibility of a conspiracy between Jesus and Judas. Jesus, allegedly planning to be sure to suffer in Jerusalem, made an agreement with Judas to give him over to the authorities. And with these words I wanted to support him morally, so that I would not doubt.
It would be superfluous to say that this and similar hypotheses look simply offensive in relation to Christ. Judge for yourself: like two booth actors, Jesus and Judas, secretly from everyone, are setting up some kind of cheap performance … Brrrr!
I think everything can be explained much more simply: Jesus was already physically unbearable for the presence of the traitor, and under any pretext he tried to remove him from the house where the Supper took place.
Delete something - deleted, and then what? What else could one expect from Judas? Will he immediately run after the guards, or will he be ashamed of his vile intention? Just think, it depended on Judas the traitor how much more time Jesus had to live!
Will he betray or not? This question worried Jesus deeply until his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane.
• And the traitor did not even think to repent! After leaving Jesus, he hurried to the house of Caiaphas. A detachment of soldiers, ready for action, could hardly wait for him there. If this were so, then Jesus probably would have been captured during the Last Supper. And the evangelists unanimously affirm that quite a long time passed between Judas' departure from the Supper and his arrest in Gethsemane. Jesus managed to turn to the disciples with a long sermon, washed all the apostles' feet, instituted the Eucharist, after which, “singing” the psalms - this means without haste - they all went out of the city to Gethsemane (Matt. 26:30; Mr 14:26). It is clear that all this took several long hours.
During this time, the high priest gathered his servants, armed them with clubs and stakes, and for greater reliability sent them to the Roman procurator for help. After all the preparations, the "capture team" went to fetch Jesus. Judas was the guide - as well as knowing the habits of his former teacher. Perhaps the guards first raided the house where the Last Supper was being held, and did not find anyone, then they went to the Garden of Gethsemane, where, as Judas knew, Jesus often spent his nights: “And Judas, who betrayed Him, knew this place, therefore that Jesus often gathered there with His disciples”(John 18: 2).
In fact, Jesus was there. Tormented by anxious forebodings, he fervently prayed, hoping that the "cup" of suffering would, if possible, pass him by (Matt. 26: 37-42; Mark 14: 33-36; Luke 22: 42-44).
Why did Jesus not make the slightest attempt to be saved, if, apparently, he perfectly understood that this night could be his last? Why did he stay where he was, knowing that the traitor could appear at any moment with the guards in the garden?
We can only guess about this now. The Evangelists do not tell us anything about this, and perhaps they themselves do not know. From their stories it is clear only that Jesus, firstly, did not intend to leave the Garden of Gethsemane anywhere and, secondly, did not want to be caught at all. What was he counting on then?
Perhaps Jesus hoped that the conscience could speak in the traitor and he would abandon his vile intention? Or that the chief priests would postpone his arrest until the end of the feast, so that he would still have time to slip away from them? Or did Jesus think that it was on this night that the ancient prophecy about the suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53), which he completely and completely attributed to himself, was destined to be fulfilled, and decided this time not to run away from fate?
One way or another, but his hopes of deliverance, or at least a delay, did not come true. Soon enough, the Garden of Gethsemane was illuminated by the wavering light of many torches, and Judas Iscariot appeared at the head of the armed men …
• The Gospels say that Judas received 30 pieces of silver as a reward for all his "exploits" (Matt. 26:15). Not much! This fact is very confusing for many researchers. It seems to them that for such deeds it is necessary to pay much more, and if the evangelists insist on precisely this amount, it means that the whole episode with the pieces of silver is invented, completely and completely adapted to the ancient prophecy: "And they will weigh thirty pieces of silver in payment to Me" (Zech. 11:12).
Meanwhile, all doubts can be easily dispelled, assuming that 30 pieces of silver were not a one-time reward, but a payment that Judas received regularly. For example, once a month he appeared with a report to the high priest, after which he received the due 30 pieces of silver. For a one-time reward, this, in reality, is not much, but if you receive such a bribe regularly, then it is in principle possible to live without being particularly luxurious. By the way, according to the Book of Acts of the Apostles, after the execution of Jesus, Judas did not even think to repent, much less commit suicide. Intending to live happily ever after, he “acquired the land with unrighteous bribery” (Acts 1:18).
It was unlikely that it was possible to acquire a decent plot for 30 pieces of silver. Most likely, Judas took the money received over several years from the high priest, added to them what he managed to get from the "money box", and when a more or less significant amount was made, he went to buy real estate. According to Acts, he died by pure chance, falling from a height: “And when he fell down, his belly was split open, and all his insides fell out” (Acts 1:19).
This version of Judas's death is strikingly different from the one we know from Matthew. According to his story, Judas, tormented by repentance, “threw the pieces of silver in the temple” and “strangled himself” (Matt. 27: 5). Many commentators have attempted to combine these two testimonies into one coherent episode, presenting the case in such a way that first Judas hanged himself, and then his corpse fell off the rope and "sat down" from hitting the ground. Suppose that was the case. But then what money did Judas throw in the Temple, if he had already acquired the land? Or did he sell the plot he just bought specifically for this?
In general, if you choose between these two versions, then, in my opinion, the story of the death of Judas, told by the author of Acts, is much more believable. There are no far-fetched melodramatic moments and dubious psychological torments in it, hardly characteristic of a traitor who decided to cash in on this business. Everything is much simpler and more rude: if you sold your teacher, you bought land! And the death of Judas, described in Acts, is more natural: he died not in a fit of repentance, but as a result of an accident, falling from a height. There were, however, attempts to portray his fall as revenge on the part of Christ's supporters, as if they had pushed the traitor off a cliff, but this is already pure speculation that cannot be proven by anything.
A. Lazarenkov