CHAPTER XXVI

THE TRAITOR

THROUGH the deep shadows of the now nearing end one sinister figure has arrested every eye-Judas of Kerioth. On no human head has such a cloud of infamy descended: in all human history there is no man who has been regarded with such complete abhorrence. His entire biography is included in a dozen sentences, yet so vivid is each touch that the effect is of a portrait etched in "lines of living fire." The Evangelists cannot conceal their detestation when they speak of him. Jesus Himself says of him that it had been better had he not been born. The most merciful of men have judged him guilty of inexpiable crime. Not unnaturally this deadly unanimity of reprobation has provoked protest and apology, and it may be freely admitted that there are some elements in the character and conduct of Judas which deserve a much more impartial judgment than they have received.

Judas was the only disciple who was not a Galilean. He came from the South, where the spirit of Judaism was much stronger than in the North, and much more intolerant. When and where Jesus met him we cannot tell, but it was probably in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. The unwritten chapters in the history of Judas may be easily supplied from what we know of the movements of the time, and of the relations of Christ with His other disciples. There was certainly an earlier and different Judas, who possessed some striking characteristics of mind and spirit, or he would never have

been deliberately selected by Jesus for the toils and honors of the Apostolate. It is natural that John, never himself conspicuous for charity, should speak of him in the bitterest. terms, for he was deeply penetrated by a horror of his crime; but the action of Christ in calling Judas to the Apostolate must be weighed against the virulent denunciation of his fellow-disciple. Somewhere in the past, which can only be conjectured, we may discern a youthful Judas, growing up in the devout adherence of the Jewish faith, conscious of unusual powers and distinguished by a sombre heat of enthusiasm, filled with patriotic ardor and deeply moved by the Messianic hope. In due time this youth finds himself in the presence of Jesus of Nazareth. He listens to a voice which stirs his heart as no human voice has ever stirred it. He feels the eye of Jesus resting on him in solicitation and intimate appeal. The current of his life is turned instantly, and he leaves all to follow this new Divine Teacher. His sacrifice is more complete than even John's or Peter's, for he leaves his own country and submits to the national odium which attaches to all things Galilean. But it is probable that he was never quite at home among his comrades. He was an alien, and an alien who claimed superiority. He was just the sort of man to resent the kind of primacy claimed by Peter and James and John. He was disappointed to discover that he was not admitted into the more intimate circle of discipleship. He was left outside the house of Jairus while the three favorite disciples were admitted; he remained in Caesarea Philippi when they ascended Hermon with their Lord; and he, the proud child of a pure Judaism, was less able to bear this neglect than the Galilean disciples. Some dignity he did obtain; he became the treasurer for the small community; but that was not what he wanted. And so there grew up in the heart of this man that kind of rankling envy

common to those who think their claims neglected and their genius despised; who fill subordinate positions when they believe themselves fitted for the highest prize of leadership; who have made great sacrifices for a cause, without any corresponding gain or even praise. When Jesus, very early in His ministry, said that Judas had a devil, was it not this devil of jealousy and envy which He discerned in Him? History certainly teaches us that jealousy is capable of the most diabolic crimes, and especially the crimes of treachery and revenge.

The statement made by John that Judas was a thief, to which reference has been already made, must be dismissed as unproved. It is not corroborated by the other Evangelists. It is, indeed, suggested by Peter in the brief account of the 'Apostolate which he gives at the first meeting of the Christian community after the Resurrection. Peter states that this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity," but the phrase is ambiguous. "The reward of iniquity" probably means the money which he took for the betrayal of Christ; although, in view of the unlikelihood of Judas being able to acquire land in the short time which elapsed between the compact with the priests and the arrest of Christ, it may be construed as a reference to a course of fraud which had extended over some years. On the other hand, we have to consider how unlikely it was that Jesus would have permitted a known thief to remain a disciple, and to become the treasurer of the funds of the community. Jesus Himself at no time made this accusation, and it is entirely inconsistent with His character that He should have endured such a crime in silence. He who rebuked Peter and called him Satan could hardly have allowed Judas to pass unrebuked. We have also to remember that the relations of the other disciples with Judas appear to have been very friendly to the

last. They agreed with him in his protest against the ex travagance of Mary. They made no complaint against him to Jesus. They sat with him at the Last Supper, and gave no hint by their conduct that they even suspected him of perfidy. Judas was certainly with them, not only at Bethany, but in the triumphal entrance into Jerusalem. He returned with them to Bethany after this event, for it is specifically stated that "the twelve" were with Jesus on that memorable evening. When we consider the degree of jealousy which had always existed among the disciples; the protests which were raised against the arrogance of the sons of Zebedee; the strifes for pre-eminence, and all the spirit of criticism which these strifes engendered, it is certain that if Judas had been a deliberate thief we must have heard of it long before. That he was parsimonious we know; that he had a tendency to avarice we may suspect; and that John, writing after the event which cast a lurid light on the character of the man, should have exaggerated these tendencies into a deliberate charge of theft is not unintelligible, when we notice the rancor with which he speaks of Judas, and remember that John had already shown himself specially capable of bitter and narrow judgments. But the solitary word of John is not sufficient to give authority to a charge so incredible. We must therefore regard his words as the exaggeration of a mind capable of violent repulsions, and strongly influenced by the crowning infamy of his unfortunate fellow-disciple.

When was this act of monstrous treachery first designed in the mind of Judas, and what were the causes? We may conclude, without much fear of contradiction, that it was the final sequence in a long process of irritation, disgust, and weariness at the course which events were taking. The rebuke which Jesus had addressed to all the disciples in the

house of Mary would fall with special weight on Judas, because it was he who had protested against the waste of the ointment. His hopes were rekindled on the next day by the unexpected triumph of Jesus; but no one would more resent than he the tears of Jesus over Jerusalem, and a man of his temperament would judge them tears of weakness. It was with a mind divided he reviewed the events of this great day. Jesus had accepted homage as a king, and yet had made kingship impossible by the offence which He had given to all parties. To the hard, practical mind of the man of Kerioth this would appear as criminal trifling with great opportunities. It would seem almost deliberate betrayal on the part of Jesus, who had led His disciples to the point of ecstatic expectation, only to disappoint them; and in the dark, resentful mind of Judas the angry thought took shape that He who betrayed deserved betrayal. The events of the subsequent day deepened his disappointment and resentment. They made it clear to him that Jesus never would and never could head the national party. With a singular perversity his Master had chosen that very moment when diplomacy was most needed to attach the people to Himself, to insult the Pharisees, ridicule the Sadducees, offend the patriots, and finally to denounce the most influential parties in the nation in terms more bitter than even John the Baptist had ever used. What was to be hoped for such a cause led by such a leader? Judas could see no hope. The cause he had served so long, amid many personal slights, had no future. Jesus would certainly be killed sooner or later, and in the general disaster His disciples would be involved. The farce of an impossible Messiahship could not be sustained more than a few days at the most; but there was yet time for those who had the requisite sagacity to make their peace with the priests. So Judas reasoned, and it is the reasoning