 |
| Crosses on the hill outside Lee Abbey, Devon |
As Oscar Wilde once put it, “Yet each man kills the thing he
loves, / By each let this be heard, / Some do it with a bitter look, / Some
with a flattering word. / The coward does it with a kiss, / The brave man with
a sword!”1
The reasons, though, are usually complex. Social
psychologist Philip Zimbardo admits that “Human behaviour is complex, so there
is often more than one reason for any given act.” He notes that “Just when you
think you understand someone you know only the smallest slice of their inner
nature derived from a limited set of personal or mediated contacts.”2
So with Judas; the reasons for his actions were probably complex. But let’s
examine the usual theories.
MICE and the man
The FBI has an acronym for the most common reasons for betrayal:
MICE. It stands for Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego. We can see if any apply to
Judas.
Money: He was paid
for his information (Matthew 26:14-16; Luke 22:1-5). He was also said (after
the event) to have had his hand in the till – he stole from the disciples’
common funds (John 12:4-6). So he might have been greedy, or in debt, or he just
bent the rules: they’ll never know, never miss it.
Although the money motive has been the traditional
allegation against Judas, it doesn’t totally add up. Although Matthew says he
asked the authorities for something, it was more likely a token sum to seal the
deal rather than (say) a hard-up man seeking to pay off his gambling debts; it
wasn’t a huge amount. Besides, he gave it back when Jesus was executed (Matthew
27:1-5); clearly his intention wasn’t Jesus’ death, nor just to line his pocket.
Ideology: There
are two distinct possibilities which are often put forward as the most likely
single reasons for Judas’s actions. One is that he had become disillusioned
with Jesus. Perhaps he expected Jesus to lead an armed rebellion against the
occupying Romans and had belatedly realised that Jesus wasn’t that kind of
Messiah (the other disciples appear to have been under the same illusion even
after the resurrection, Acts 1:6). Frustrated and angry, he turned against his
friends. Anger can do that to a person, but again his reaction to the
crucifixion suggests he was far from glad at the outcome of his action.
The other option is that he tried to force Jesus’ hand by
engineering an encounter with the religious authorities. He was getting
impatient, and felt that Jesus was pussyfooting around: he needed to declare
his Messiahship and work with the authorities to bring about change. So what
better way than a private audience with the High Priest? This too is unlikely
on its own, not least because the authorities had been intransigent opponents
of Jesus almost from the start of his ministry.
Compromise: This
is rarely levelled at Judas. We have no evidence that he was blackmailed into
his actions as a contemporary spy might be; if he was being so pressured, there
would have been no reason to offer him money. There is also no suggestion that
he was an “agent in place”, planted by the religious authorities to report back
on Jesus’ movements. Judas was one of the original twelve disciples and there
was no indication in the early days that Jesus would prove such a thorn in the
authorities’ side that they needed to keep track of him.
Ego: Now we’re getting closer, and again there are
two but not mutually exclusive possibilities. The Bible is clear that “Satan
entered Judas” (Luke 22:3) but also that whatever that meant, Judas was still
responsible for his actions (Luke 22:22); he did not suddenly become a demented
demoniac.
A more modern explanation (which does not exclude malign
spiritual influence) is that he was a “driven man”. Driven by ambition, desire
and perhaps much else, his view of the situation became blinkered and he
blundered on regardless until it was too late to turn back.
Mixed up mindset
There may have been other factors involved, too, that are
not always taken into account. For example, Judas’s surname “Iscariot” almost certainly
suggests that he came from the southern village of Kerioth. Most if not all the
other disciples were northerners. Judas would have talked differently, and had
different values to the rest. Was he perhaps too conscious of his “outsider”
status, was he teased by the others, however much in jest, and this led him to
exert himself: “I’m as good as (or more knowledgable than) they are”? Did he in
fact suffer from a sense of inferiority or superiority and a desire to prove
himself that had a disastrous effect?
Perhaps the biggest failure of Judas was not stopping to
consider that there might be unforeseen consequences of his actions. He could
see only what he wanted to see. He could imagine no outcome but the one he
wanted (whatever that was). He consulted no-one else on the apostolic team; so
far as he was concerned, his judgement was right and all others’ wrong.
Driven by powerful emotions, yes; motivated by an inadequate
or inaccurate understanding of Jesus’ mission, possibly. The process smoothed,
perhaps, by the warm feeling of extra cash. But most certainly, he was in the
same position as Michael Bettany, an MI5 officer who passed secrets to the
Russians in the 1980s: “There was no simple motive. It was a cumulative
process,” he told his interrogators.3
And therein lies the warning. Most betrayals, most falls
from grace, follow an incremental course. They don’t suddenly happen. Personality,
circumstances, other people all contribute to a hardening of attitude, a
changing mind, a determination to act in a certain way. The real question is
not why did the final act occur, but what were all the small steps that led up
to it. Might they have been avoided?
“If only”. We’ve all said that. Probably Judas did too as he
tied the noose on his improvised gibbet. There but for God’s grace go many people.
The moral is donlt go too far, too quickly.
References
1 Oscar Wilde, The Ballad of Reading Gaol
2 Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect , Rider 2009, p.365, 1673 Christopher Andrew, The defence of the realm, Allen Lane 2009, p. 720
Think and talk
1 We’re often quick
to judge people, whether we know them personally or by repute. Look again at
Philip Zimbardo’s comments in the third paragraph. How might observing the
truth of his words modify the way we criticise or judge others?
2 How might Judas’s loose attitude to money have
affected his judgement? What does that tell us about how we should view and use
money? 3 Judas may have been blinkered in some way because of his set beliefs. Many of us have strong beliefs. How might we balance these with keeping an open mind?
4 When we become convinced that we should embark on a certain course of action, what should we do before taking the final irrevocable step? Whom should we consult?
