Chapter XXVI: Part 26

THE number of instances, among the men of the apostolic age, of two persons bearing the same name, is very curious, and seems to show a great poverty of appellatives among their parents. Among the twelve there are two Simons, two Jameses, and two Judases; and including those whose labors were any way connected with theirs, there are three Johns, (the Baptist, the Apostle, and John Mark,) and two Philips, besides other minor coincidences. The confusion which this repetition of names causes among common readers, is truly undesirable; and it requires attention for them to avoid error. In the case of this apostle, indeed, the occasion of error is obviated for the most part, by a slight change in the termination; his name being generally written Juda, (in modern versions, Jude, ) while the wretched traitor who bears the same name, preserves the common form terminating in S, which is also the form in which Luke and John express this apostle’s name. A more serious difficulty occurs, however, in a diversity noticed between the account given by the two first evangelists, and the forms in which his name is expressed in the writings of Luke and John, and in the introduction to his own epistle. Matthew and Mark, in giving the names of the apostles, mention in the tenth place, the name of Thaddeus, to whom the former evangelist also gives the name of Lebbeus. They give him a place before Simon Zelotes, and immediately after James, the son of Alpheus. Luke gives the tenth place to Simon Zelotes, in both his lists, and after him mentions “Judas, the brother of James”; and John speaks of “Judas, (not Iscariot,”) among the chosen disciples. Juda, in his epistle also, announces himself as “the brother of James.” From all these circumstances it would seem to be very fairly inferred, that Judas, or Juda, the brother of James, and Lebbeus or Thaddeus, were all only different names of the same apostle. But this view is by no means universally received, and some have been found bold enough to declare, that these two sets of names referred to different persons, both of whom were at different times numbered among the twelve apostles, and were received or excluded from the list by Jesus, from some various circumstances, now unknown;――or were perhaps considered such by one evangelist or another, according to the notions and individual preferences of each writer. But such a view is so opposed to the established impressions of the uniform and fixed character of the apostolic list, and of the consistency of different parts of the sacred record, that it may very justly be rejected without the trouble of a discussion.

Another inquiry still, concerning this apostle, is, whether he is the same as that Judas who is mentioned along with James, Joses and Simon, as the brother of Jesus. All the important points involved in this question, have been already fully discussed in the life of James, the Little; and if the conclusion of that argument is correct, the irresistible consequence is, that the apostle Jude was also one of these relatives of Jesus. The absurdity of the view of his being a different person, can not be better exposed than by a simple statement of its assertions. It requires the reader to believe that there was a Judas, and a James, brothers and apostles; and another Judas and another James, also brothers, and brothers of Jesus, but not apostles; and that these are all mentioned in the New Testament without anything like a satisfactory explanation of the reality and distinctness of this remarkable duplicate of brotherhoods. Add to this, moreover, the circumstance that Juda, the author of the epistle, specifies himself as “the brother of James,” as though that were sufficient to prevent his being confounded with any other Judas or Juda in this world;――a specification totally useless, if there was another Judas, the brother of another James, all eminent as Christian teachers.

There is still another question connected with his simple entity and identity. Ancient traditions make mention of a Thaddeus, who first preached the gospel in the interior of Syria; and the question is, whether he is the same person as the apostle Juda, who is called Thaddeus by Matthew and Mark. The great majority of ancient writers, more especially the Syrians, consider the missionary Thaddeus not as one of the twelve apostles, but as one of the seventy disciples, sent out by Jesus in the same way as the select twelve. Another confirmation of the view that he was a different person from the apostle Jude, is found in the circumstance, that the epistle which bears the name of the latter, was not for several centuries received by the Syrian churches, though generally adopted throughout all Christendom, as an inspired apostolic writing. But surely, if their national evangelizer had been identical with the apostle Jude who wrote that epistle, they would have been the first to acknowledge its authenticity and authority, and to receive it into their scriptural canon.

So perfectly destitute are the gospel and apostolic history, of the slightest account of this apostle’s life and actions, that his whole biography may be considered completed in the mere settlement of his name and identity. The only word that has been preserved as coming from his lips, is recorded in John’s account of the parting discourses of Jesus to his disciples, on the eve of his crucifixion. Jesus was promising them that the love of God should be the sign and the reward of him who faithfully kept his commandments,――“He that holds and keeps my commandments, is the man that loves me; and he that loves me shall be loved by my Father; and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” These words constituted the occasion of the remark of Judas, thus recorded by John. “Judas (not Iscariot) says to him, ‘Lord! how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us as thou dost not to the world?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him.’” A natural inquiry, aptly and happily suggested, and most clearly and satisfactorily answered, in the plain but illustrative words of the divine teacher! Would that the honest inquirer after the true, simple meaning of the words of God, might have his painful researches through the wisdom of ages, as well rewarded as did the favored hearers of Jesus! And would that the trying efforts of critical thought might end in a result so brilliant and so cheering!

HIS EPISTLE.

The solitary monument and testimony of his apostolic labors, are found in that brief, but strongly characterized and peculiar writing, which bears his name, and forms the last portion, but one, of the modern scriptural canon. Short as it is, and obscure too, by the numerous references it contains, to local and temporary circumstances, there is much expressed in this little portion of the apostolic writings, which is highly interesting to the inquirer into the darker portions of the earliest Christian history.

Several very remarkable circumstances in this epistle, have, from the earliest ages of Christian theology, excited great inquiry among writers, and in many cases have not only led commentators and critics to pronounce the work very suspicious in its character, but even absolutely to condemn it as unworthy of a place in the sacred canon. One of these circumstances is, that the writer quotes apocryphal books of a mystical and superstitious character, that have never been received by Christians or Jews, as possessing any divine authority, nor as entitled to any regard whatever in religious matters. At least two distinct quotations from these confessedly fictitious writings, are found in this brief epistle. The first is from the book of Enoch, which has been preserved even to the present day, in the Ethiopic translation; the original Hebrew having been irrecoverably lost. Some of the highest authorities in orthodoxy and in learning have pronounced the original to have been a very ancient writing;――a forgery, indeed, since it professed to be the writing of Enoch himself,――but made up in the earliest ages of Rabbinical literature, after the Old Testament canon was completed, but before any portion of the New Testament was written,――probably some years before the Christian era, though the means of ascertaining its exact date are wanting. Another quotation, equally remarkable, occurs in this epistle, without any mention being made, however, of the exact source from which the passage has been drawn; and the point is at present a subject of dispute,――as references have been made by different authorities, ancient and modern, to different apocryphal Jewish books, which contain similar passages. But the most valuable authorities, both ancient and modern, decide it to be a work now universally allowed to be apocryphal,――“the Ascension of Moses,” which is directly quoted as authority on a subject altogether removed from human knowledge, and on which no testimony could be of any value, except it were derived directly and solely from the sources of inspiration. The consequence of these references to these two doubtful authorities, is, that many of the critical examiners of this epistle, in all ages, have felt themselves justified in condemning it.

Tertullian (A. D. 200) is the earliest writer who has distinctly
quoted this epistle. He refers to it in connection with the
quotation from the book of Enoch. “Hence it is that Enoch is
quoted by the apostle Jude.” (De cultu feminarum, 3.) Clement
of Alexandria also repeatedly quotes the epistle of Jude as an
apostolic writing. Origen (A. D. 230,) very clearly expresses
his opinion in favor of this epistle as the production of Jude,
the brother of Jesus. In his commentary on Matthew xiii. 55,
where James, Simon and Jude are mentioned, he says, “Jude wrote
an epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of powerful words of
heavenly grace, who, at the beginning says, ‘Jude, the servant
of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.’” Origen thought
everything connected with this epistle, of such high authority,
that he considered the apocryphal book of “the Ascension of
Moses,” a work of authority, because it had been quoted by
Jude, (verse 9.) He confesses however, that there were some who
doubted the authenticity of the epistle of Jude; and that this
was the fact, appears still more distinctly from the account
of the apostolic writings, given by Eusebius, (A. D. 320,) who
sets it down among the _disputed_ writings. The ancient Syriac
version (executed before A. D. 100,) rejects this as well as
the second of Peter, and the second and third of John. After the
fourth century all these became universally established in the
Greek and Latin churches. The great Michaelis however, utterly
condemns it as probably a forgery. (Introduction, IV. xxix. 5.)

The clearest statement of the character of this reference to
the book of Enoch, is given by Hug’s translator, Dr. Wait.
(Introduction. Vol. II. p. 618, note.)

“This manifestly appears to have been the reason why Jude cited
apocryphal works in his epistle, viz. for the sake of refuting
their own assertions from those productions, which, like the
rest of their nation, they most probably respected. For this
purpose the book of Enoch was peculiarly calculated, since in
the midst of all its _ineptiae_ and absurdities, this point,
and the orders of the spiritual world, are strongly urged and
discussed in it. It is irrelevant to the inquiry, how much of
the present book existed at this time, for that it was framed by
different writers, and at different periods, no critic can deny;
yet that this was the leading character of the work, and that
these were the prominent dogmata of those parts which were then
in existence, we have every presumptive evidence. The Hebrew
names of angels, &c., such as the Ophanim, plainly indicate
it to have been a translation from some lost Jewish original,
which was doubtless known both to Peter and to Jude; nor can
the unprejudiced examiner of these epistles well hesitate to
acknowledge Hug’s explanation of them to be the most correct and
the most reasonable.”

The whole defense of the epistle against these imputations, may be grounded upon the supposition, that the apostle was writing against a peculiar class of heretics, who did acknowledge these apocryphal books to be of divine authority, and to whom he might quote these with a view to show, that even by their own standards of truth, their errors of doctrine and life must be condemned. The sect of the Gnostics has been already mentioned in the life of John, as being the first ever known to have perverted the purity of Christian doctrine, by heresy. These heretics certainly are not very fully described in those few passages of this short epistle that are directed at the errors of doctrine; but the character of those errors which Jude denounces, is accordant with what is known of some of the prominent peculiarities of the Gnostics. But whatever may have been the particular character of these heretics, it is evident that they must, like the great majority of the Jews in those days, have acknowledged the divine authority of these ancient apocryphal writings; and the apostle was therefore right in making use of quotations from these works, to refute their very remarkable errors. The evils which he denounced, however, were not merely of a speculative character; but he more especially condemns their gross immoralities, as a scandal and an outrage on the purity of the Christian assemblies with which they still associated. In all those passages where these vices are referred to, it will be observed that both immoralities and doctrinal errors are included in one common condemnation, which shows that both were inseparably connected in the conduct of those heretics whom the writer condemns. This circumstance also does much to identify them with some of the Gnostical sects before alluded to,――more especially with the Nicolaitans, as they are called by John in the beginning of the Apocalypse, where he is addressing the church of Pergamos. In respect to this very remarkable peculiarity of a vicious and abominable life, combined with speculative errors, the ancient Christian writers very fully describe the Nicolaitans; and their accounts are so unanimous, and their accusations so definite, that it is just and reasonable to consider this epistle as directed particularly against them.

_Nicolaitans._――An allusion has already been made to this sect
in the life of John, but they deserve a distinct reference
here also, as they are so distinctly mentioned in Jude’s
epistle. The explanation of the name which in the former passage
(page 343,) was crowded out by other matters prolonging that
part of the work beyond its due limits, may here be given
most satisfactorily, in the words of the learned Dr. Hug.
(Introduction, Vol. II. note, § 182, original, § 174,
translation.)

“The arguments of those who decide them to have been the
Nicolaitans, according to my opinion, are at present the
following:――John in the Apocalypse describes the Nicolaitans
nearly as the heretics are here represented to us, with the
same comparison, and with the same vices; persons who exercise
the arts of Balaam, who taught Balak to ensnare the children of
Israel, and to induce them to partake of idolatrous sacrifices,
and to fornicate, (Acts ii. 14: Jude 2: 2 Peter ii. 15.) Even
בלעם according to its derivation, is equivalent to Νίκολαος. They
also certainly denied the Lord’s creation and government of the
world. Alterum quidem fabricatorem, alium autem Patrem Domini ...
et eam conditionem, quae est secundum nos non a primo Deo factam,
sed a Virtute aliqua valde deorsum subjecta. (Irenaeus L. iii.
c. 11.) If now all corporeal and material existence has its
origin from the Creator of the world, who is a very imperfect
and gross spirit, it flows naturally from this notion, that
they could not admit a corporeal resuscitation by the agency
of the Supreme Being, or by the agency of Jesus, in a universal
day of judgment. With respect to the spiritual world, they
also actually taught such absurdities, that it must be said
of them δοξας βλασφημοῦσι; for they supposed, Aeones quosdam
turpitudinis natos; et complexus, et permixtiones execrabiles,
et obscaenas. (Tertullianus in append. ad Lib. de praescript. c.
46.) But, as to their excesses and abominable mode of life, the
accounts of the ancients are so unanimous, and the accusations
are so constituted, that the two apostolic epistles may have
most pertinently referred to them.”

The passage from Irenaeus relating to this sect, (quoted on
page 343,) contains a remarkable Latin word, “vulsio,” not found
in any other author, and not explained at all, in the common
dictionaries. That miserable, unsatisfactory mass of words,
Ainsworth’s Thesaurus, does not contain it, and I was left to
infer the meaning from the theme, _vello_, and it was therefore
translated “_fragment_,”――a meaning not inconsistent with its
true sense. Since that was printed, a learned friend, to whom
the difficulty was mentioned, on searching for the word in
better dictionaries, found it in Gesner’s Thesaurus, distinctly
quoted from the very passage, with a very satisfactory
explanation of its exact meaning. Gesner’s account of it is as
follows: “_Vulsio_, Irenaeus, iii. 11. Nicolaitae sunt vulsio
ejus. i. e. _surculus inde enatus, et revulsus, stolo_, ἀπὀρρώξ.
_Secta una ex altera velut pullulavit._” The meaning therefore
is a “sucker,” “a shoot or scion, springing out of the root
or side of the stock,” and the expression in this passage may
therefore be translated, “The Nicolaitans are a slip or sprig of
the old stock of the _Gnosis_.” And as Gesner happily explains
it, “One sect, as it were, sprouted up from another.”

The word “_scientia_” in this wretched Latin translation,
is quoted along with the adjacent words from Paul’s second
epistle to Timothy, (vi. 20.) where he is warning him against
the delusions of the Gnostics, and speaks of “the dogmas of
the GNOSIS,” (γνωσις,) translated “science,” but the word is
evidently technical in this passage. Irenaeus no doubt quoted
it in the Greek, but his ignorant translator, not perceiving
the peculiar force of the word, translated it “scientia,” losing
all the sense of the expression. The common translations of the
Bible have done the same, in the passage in 2 Timothy vi. 20.

Another circumstance in this epistle which has attracted a critical notice, and which has occasioned its condemnation by some, is the remarkable coincidence both of sense and words between it and the second chapter of the second epistle of Peter. There are probably few diligent readers of the New Testament to whom this has not been a subject of curious remark, as several verses in one, seem a mere transcript of corresponding passages in the other. Various conjectures have been made to account for this resemblance in matter and in words,――some supposing Jude to have written first, and concluding that Peter, writing to the same persons, made references in this manner to the substance of what they had already learned from another apostle,――and others supposing that Peter wrote first, and that Jude followed, and amplified a portion of the epistle which had already lightly touched in some parts only upon the particular errors which the latter writer wished more especially to refute and condemn. This coincidence is nevertheless no more a ground for rejecting one or the other of the two writings, than the far more perfect parallelisms between the gospels are a reason for concluding that only one of them can be an authorized document. Both the apostles were evidently denouncing the same errors and condemning the same vices, and nothing was more natural than that this similarity of purpose should produce a proportional similarity of language. Either of the above suppositions is consistent with the character of the writings;――Peter may have written first, and Jude may have taken a portion of that epistle as furnishing hints for a more protracted view of these particular points; or, on the supposition that Jude wrote first, Peter may have thought it worth while only to refer generally, and not to dwell very particularly on those points which his fellow-apostle had already so fully and powerfully treated.

The particular churches to which this epistle was addressed, are utterly unknown; nor do modern writers pretend to find any means of detecting the places to which it was addressed in any peculiar passage, except so far as the chief seats of the heretics, against whom he wrote, are supposed to be known. Asia Minor, Syria and the East, were the regions to which the Gnostical errors were mostly confined; and in the former country more especially they were objects of attention, to the ministers of truth, during the apostolic age and in succeeding times. It was probably intended for the same persons to whom Peter wrote; and what has been said on the direction of his two epistles, will illustrate the immediate design of this also.

Its date is involved in the same uncertainty that covers all points in its own history and that of its author; the prominent difficulty being its great brevity, in consequence of which it offers but few characteristics of any kind, for the decision of doubtful points; and the life and works of Juda must therefore be set down among those matters, in which the indifference of those who could once have preserved historical truth for the eyes of posterity, has left even the research of modern criticism, not one hook to hang a guess upon.

JUDAS ISCARIOT.

THIS name doubtless strikes the eye of the Christian reader, as almost a stain to the fair page of apostolic history, and a dishonor to the noble list of the holy, with whom the traitor was associated. But he who knew the hearts of all men from the beginning, even before their actions had developed and displayed their characters, chose this man among those whom he first sent forth on the message of coming grace; and all the gospel records bear the name of the traitor along with those who were faithful even unto death; nor does it behove the unconsecrated historian to affect, about the arrangement of this name, a delicacy which the gospel writers did not manifest.

Of his birth, his home, his occupation, his call, and his previous character, the sacred writers bear no testimony; and all which the inventive genius of modern criticism has been able to present in respect to any of these circumstances, is drawn from no more certain source than the various proposed etymologies and significations of his name. But the plausibility which is worn by each one of these numerous derivations, is of itself a sufficient proof of the little dependence which can be placed upon any conclusion so lightly founded. The inquirer is therefore safest in following merely the reasonable conjecture, that his previous character had been respectable, not manifesting to the world at least, any baseness which would make him an infamous associate. For though the Savior in selecting the chief ministers of his gospel, did not take them from the wealthy, the high-born, the refined, or the learned; and though he did not scruple even to take those of a low and degraded occupation, his choice would nevertheless entirely exclude those who were in any way marked by previous character, as more immoral than the generality of the people among whom they lived. In short, it is very reasonable to suppose; that Judas Iscariot was a respectable man, probably with a character as good as most of his neighbors had, though he may have been considered by some of his acquaintance, as a close, sharp man in money matters; for this is a character most unquestionably fixed on him in those few and brief allusions which are made to him in the gospel narratives. Whatever may have been the business to which he had been devoted during his previous life, he had probably acquired a good reputation for honesty, as well as for careful management of property; for he is on two occasions distinctly specified as the treasurer and steward of the little company or family of Jesus;――an office for which he would not have been selected, unless he had maintained such a character as that above imputed to him. Even after his admission into the fraternity, he still betrayed his strong acquisitiveness, in a manner that will be fully exhibited in the history of the occurrence in which it was most remarkably developed.

_Iscariot._――The present form of this word appears from the
testimony of Beza, to be different from the original one, which,
in his oldest copy of the New Testament, was given without the
_I_ in the beginning, simply; Σκαρίωτης; (_Scariotes_;) and this
is confirmed by the very ancient Syriac version, which expresses
it by

Illustration: (‡ Syriac word)

(_Sekaryuta_.) Origen also, the oldest of the Christian
commentators, (A. D. 230,) gives the word without the initial
vowel, “_Scariot_.” It is most reasonable therefore to conclude
that the name was originally _Scariot_, and that the _I_ was
prefixed, for the sake of the easier pronunciation of the
two initial consonants; for some languages are so smoothly
constructed, that they do not allow even _S_ to precede a mute,
without a vowel before. Just as the Turks, in taking up the
names of Greek towns, change _Scopia_ into _Iscopia_, &c. The
French too, change the Latin _Spiritus_ into _Esprit_, as do the
Spaniards into _Espiritu_; and similar instances are numerous.

The very learned Matthew Poole, in his Synopsis Criticorum,
(Matthew x. 4,) gives a very full view of the various
interpretations of this name. _Six_ distinct etymologies and
significations of this word have been proposed, most of which
appear so plausible, that it may seem hard to decide on their
comparative probabilities. That which is best justified by
the easy transition from the theme, and by the aptness of the
signification to the circumstances of the person, is the _First_,
proposed by an anonymous author, quoted in the Parallels of
Junius, and adopted by Poole. This is the derivation from the
Syriac

Illustration: (‡ Syriac word)

(_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.