(b) The Satan incarnate theory. — Dante (Inferno, xxxiv. 62) places Judas in the Giudecca, the lowest circle of the frozen deep of Hell, accounting him a sharer in the sin of Satan, inasmuch as his treachery was aggravated by ingratitude towards his benefactor. A similar tendency to set Judas apart as the arch - villain is manifest in works which reflect the popular imagination. Critics of tlie Ober-Ammergau Passion-pUiy complain that the Betrayer is represented as a low, cunning rascal, and is often made to look ridiculous. But the comic personifications of Judas, as of Satan himself, in folk-lore are really tokens of popular abhorrence (cf. Biittner, Judas Licharioth, p. 11 f.) ; they are the result of regarding him as an incarna- tion of Satanic wickedness. Daub, in the Intro- duction to a speculative work on the relation of good to evil (Judas Licharioth, oder Betrachtungen iibcr dasBoseim Verhiiltniss zum Giitcn), conceives Judas as the Satanic kingdom personified in con- trast with Jesus who is the Divine kingdom per- .sonified ; Judas is 'an incarnation of the devil.' Dr. Fairbairn, who gives (Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 264 f.) a succinct summary of Daubs ' gruesome book,' truly says that he is ' unjust to Judas, sacrificing his historical and moral signifi- cance to a speculative theory.' The practical efl'ect of such exaggerations of the innate vice of Judas is to place him outside the pale of humanity ; but they are as untrue to the Evan- gelists' delineation of his character as are the attempts to explain away his sin. The same objection may be urged against theories which portray Judas as a mere compound of malice and greed, uninfluenced by any high impulse or noble ambition. In the Gospels he appears as a man ' of like nature with ourselves ' ; he was both tempted of the devil and 'drawn away by his
JUDAS ISCARIOT
JUDAS ISCARIOT
own lust ' ; Satan approached his soul along avenues by which he draws near to us ; he was not ' twofold more a son of hell ' than ourselves (Mt 23'^); he went to 'his own place' in the 'outer darkness,' because he turned away from the ' light of life ' ; the darkness ' blinded his eyes' because he would not abide in the light, though ' the true light ' was shining upon him (cf. 1 Jn 2«f-).
(c) Tlte mingled motives theory. — The key to the complex problem of the character of Judas is not to be found in a single word. The desire to simplify his motives has led, on the one hand, to an attempt to exonerate him from guilt ; and, on the other hand, to a description of him as the devil incarnate. The truth lies between the two extremes ; in Judas, possibilities of good were un- realized because he 'gave place to the devil.' It is a mistake to set one motive over against another, as though a man of covetous disposition may not also be ambitious, and as though an ambitious man may not also be jealoiis. The references to Judas in the Gospels, to which attention has already been called in this article, furnish reasons, it is believed, for saying that Judas was swayed by all three motives, one being sometinits mure prominent than another, and the one re;utiiig upon the other. It may well be that amliitiou would, for a time, restrain covetousness, and yet revive it in the hour of disappointment ; whilst, in turn, jealousy would embitter, and covetousness would degrade ambition.
(a) Violence is done to the statements of the Evangelists when covetousness is eliminated from the motives which influenced Judas. His covetous disposition is not incompatible either with the fact that he was a disciple of Jesus of his own free will, or with his position of trust, or with his remorse at the consequences of his perfidy. (1) The call of Jesus would arouse ' a new affection,' powerful enough to expel for a time all selfish greed, even though Judas, like the rest of the disciples, cher- ished the hope of attaining to honour in the Messianic kingdom. (2) His appointment by Jesus to a position of trust scarcely ' proves that he was no lover of money' (Fairbairn, op. cit. p. 266) ; to entrust a man possessing more than ordinary business gifts with the common cash-box is to provide him with an opportunity of honourable service which may become the occasion of his downfall ; it was along the line of his capacity to handle moneys that the temptation came to Judas to handle them to his own gain. (3) The objection that the remorse of Judas discredits the idea of his being actuated by greed of money has force only when covetousness is regarded as the sole motive of the betrayal. What we know of the conduct of Judas towards the close of his career suggests that covetousness — the sin against which Jesus had so earnestly warned His disciples — was once more gaining the upper hand.
(^) To say that Judas was ambitious is not to differentiate him from his fellow-Apostles. The contrast between him and them was gradually brought to light as together they listened to the spiritual teaching of Jesus; that contrast is de- finitely marked by St. John when he first men- tions Judas (6")- It was a time of crisis ; the Apostles had been severely tested (1) by the refusal of Jesus to accept the homage of the Galilican crowd, who had oeen impressed by His recent niirMcles and desired perforce to make Him king ; (2) by the searching question, ' Would ye also go away?' (v.*") put by Jesus to the Twelve, when Master and disciples were alike saddened by the desertion of the many. St. Peter thought he was speaking for all the Twelve when he made his of faith ; but within that select circle