Why Did Judas Betray Jesus?

It has been over a year since I last wrote on this silly little blog.  To be honest, I simply grew bored with it.  In recent weeks, however, I have felt a desire to rekindle the hobby.  Only time will tell if this new flame lasts or burns out as quickly as it sparked. 

For those who know me, you know that I have a deep love of history.  Ever since my childhood I have maintained an interest in the past.  My dad, who was himself a history buff, was the first person to inspire my interest in the study of history.  Since then I have made the study of history an important part of my life (it even became my chosen area of study in college).

And though there are a myriad of fascinating eras/events/people worthy of study, two particular historical periods have served to capture my interest more than any other: early colonial American history and first-century Christianity.  Today I hope to discuss an important event from the latter.

All of us who attended Sunday School are familiar with the story of Judas Iscariot, the apostle of Jesus who eventually betrayed him to Jewish officials.  In a nutshell (depending on which Gospel account you read), Judas betrayed Jesus because he was inspired of the devil (John 6:70-71) and/or because he caved to the monetary temptation that was thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14-16).  Interestingly enough, Jewish law mandated that thirty pieces of silver be the compensation for a slave's life (see Exodus 21:32).  In addition to these Bible accounts, we can and should consider what the Gospel of Judas (a late 2nd-century Gnostic account discovered in the 1970s) has to say on the matter.

Keeping these accounts in mind, can we reasonably reconstruct a motive for Judas' infamous betrayal of Jesus?  Are there other motivating factors we need to consider?  Is it even possible for us to reconstruct (from conflicting accounts) Judas' ultimate motivations?  I believe the answer is: yes...kinda...sorta...possibly.

I recently posed this question to Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost professors of New Testament studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  Dr. Ehrman is a rock star in the world of New Testament studies and his work has proven invaluable to our understanding of this important and complicated era of the past.  In a nutshell, Dr. Ehrman believes that Judas' betrayal of Jesus was ultimately motivated by a belief that Jesus had crossed a line and had taken things too far, particularly while preparing for the Passover in Jerusalem.  Dr. Ehrman writes:

Throughout Mark’s account Jesus has been preaching about the coming Kingdom of God, speaking about the coming of the Son of Man in judgment, indicating to his disciples that it would happen soon. Then he comes to Judea from Galilee, cleanses the Temple, and is anointed by an unknown woman in the town of Bethany. Apocalyptic fervor among his disciples must have been at its peak. Jesus has just given his lengthiest apocalyptic discourse in Mark 13, describing what will happen soon, at the end of the age. When he is anointed in Bethany, what does it mean? The act, of course, could be interpreted in a number of ways. If Jesus is about to become king, could it not be a symbolic statement that he is about to assume the throne as the Lord’s “anointed”? Possibly that’s what the disciples think. But Jesus does not interpret it this way. Instead he indicates that this unnamed woman has anointed his body “for its burial” (Mark 14:8). 

Every time Jesus speaks about his coming death in Mark, the disciples misunderstand him: isn’t he to be the future king who will rule, and aren’t we to rule with him? So too here. As soon as Jesus speaks of his impending death, Judas goes out to betray him.

Is it possible that we have a historical recollection of the real situation here? For Judas, Jesus’ interpretation of his anointing may have been the last straw.

I should point out that though Dr. Ehrman suggests this as a likely possibility, he maintains that the historical record is simply too inconclusive for us to know for certain why Judas would betray Jesus.

In addition to Dr. Ehrman's hypothesis, other valuable suggestions have been given over the years.  A few of them include:

-That Judas, though selected as one of the Twelve, never actually recognized Jesus as the Son of God but instead only recognized Jesus as a great teacher or rabbi (Matthew 26:25).

-That Judas had an unquenchable lust for money that could not be cured (John 12: 4-6 and Matthew 26: 14-16).  Some have suggested that since Judas was essentially in charge of the finances for all the apostles (John 13:29) that he had always maintained a love of worldly wealth.

-That Judas was actually COMMANDED by Jesus to betray him.  As I mentioned above, the newly discovered Gospel of Judas makes this very claim.  The record tells us that Jesus knew his time had come and he needed Judas to set his plan into motion.  This meant betraying Jesus to the High Priests.

 And though I appreciate many aspects to these (and other) theories regarding Judas' betrayal, I ultimately believe they fall somewhat short, primarily because they are too simplistic.  In my opinion, Judas' betrayal of Jesus is a little more complicated that we would like to admit.  It may be easier (and more pleasing) to simply say "Judas did it for the money" or "Judas was inspired of the devil" but such explanations lack in giving Judas credit where credit is due.

It probably sounds weird for me to say that Judas "deserves credit" so let me explain.  I am NOT suggesting that Judas deserves praise for having betrayed Jesus, nor am I suggesting that Judas was a good guy.  Far from it.  What I AM suggesting, however, is that Judas is too often portrayed as a devilish punk who was too stupid to see the error of his ways, while the other apostles were pure as the driven snow.  This narrative (which has essentially permeated New Testament historiography for centuries) is simply infantile and fails to recognize just how important and intelligent Judas ultimately was.

Like so many villains before and after him, Judas' legacy has been subjected to ad hominem attacks that serve to pacify the believing Christian's emotional need for a "bad guy" but ultimately do little in terms of reconstructing the actual man.  It may FEEL better for us to think of Judas as a Hitleresque scoundrel who lurked in the shadows (interestingly, most artistic depictions of Judas portray him as a dark and loathsome figure) but feelings don't depict historical reality.

Judas' epithet (Iscariot) has been debated by scholars for generations.  Some believe the name is a Greek rendering of a Hebrew phrase, meaning "Man of Kerioth."  Other scholars maintain that "Iscariot" is a Latin corruption of the Aramaic word which means "dagger man."  This could prove significant because the phrase "dagger man" could suggest that Judas was a member of the Sicarii, a branch of Jewish Zealots who used aggression and violence to oppose Roman occupation.

In order to understand Judas better we need to better understand what Jewish Zealotry (capital Z) was, and why it likely influenced Judas' view of the world.  The term "Zealot" refers to a political/religious movement in Judea that sought the overthrow of Roman domination.  Jewish Zealots were an extremist branch of Judaism, distinct from rival Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, who had taken their training in the Torah to the extreme.  As New Testament historian N.T. Wright has pointed out, these Zealots relied on the stories of "righteous vengeance" like that of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, who smashed the golden idols of the wicked to protect God's true temple rituals (Numbers 16:35-40), or the tale of Judas Maccabeus, who led the triumphant march against Seleucid intruders (the story of Hanukkah), to inspire them to a zealous defense of the One True God of Israel.  These Zealots saw it as their divine commission to defend even to the death the commandments of God in a way that we today might call terrorism (but they would call the CORRECT devotion to God).

In essence, the Sicarri were a subgroup of Zealots who took this doctrine even further.  In other words, they were the extremists of the extremists.  As such they were uncompromising in their devotion to the Torah and in their allegiance to the ONE TRUE GOD of ISRAEL!!!

If we see Judas in this light, we can better understand why we would be mad enough at Jesus to betray him.  Jews like Judas had long been awaiting their heroic Messiah, who would deliver Israel from bondage.  This Messiah was seen as a political (and possibly military?) figure who was endowed by God to lead God's people to their long-awaited victory.  Initially Judas found that figure in Jesus.  When he heard Jesus' declaration that he and his Twelve would rule over the Kingdom of God Judas took it as gospel...

...until he realized he had made a mistake.

It wasn't until his arrival in Jerusalem that Judas finally saw Jesus for who he was.  Instead of being the promised Messiah of political and military might, Jesus became (in the mind of Judas) an impostor.  It was (for Judas) a betrayal of the largest sort.  Jesus was just a man, like so many other fraudulent messiahs before him.  For Judas, who had devoted so many years of his life to this cause, his sense of loss must have been immeasurable.

This sense of loss could only be matched by Judas' need for "righteous vindication" (again, think of his training and experience as a Zealous Sicarri).  The only natural course of action was to turn Jesus over to the authorities as the common criminal he was (receiving the payment for the life of a common slave: 30 pieces of silver).  It was the final act of betrayal, but for Judas the betrayal had not been of his doing.  It was Jesus who had betrayed all of Judea.  It was Jesus who had concocted the devious scheme.  It was Jesus who was the Hitleresque villain.  In Judas' mind, his act of turning Jesus over to authorities was the "patriotic" thing to do.

Perhaps this also helps us better understand Judas; death.  Did Judas commit suicide (assuming we accept Matthew's take on Judas' death) because of felt remorse for betraying Jesus?  Or was it because he felt he had been betrayed those many years into believing in a false messiah?  Was Judas racked with guilt for having condemned God's "only begotten Son?" Or was he mad at himself for having so easily fallen victim to the clever tactics of yet another con artist?

Perspective is ultimately the determining factor in all of this.  For the believing Christian it is simply easier to accept Judas as the scheming, plotting, evil man he was, and since Christianity has come to dominate modern Western culture this is the narrative that most appeals to our senses.  If, however, one is able to take a step outside of his/her world view and try to understand Judas as HE saw the world, then another potential narrative exists.  Which perspective is correct?  You be the judge.