8. Judas Iscariot.—Today we speak of a
traitor as a "Judas" or an "Iscariot". The man who made the
combined name infamous has been for ages a subject of discussion among
theologians and philosophers, and in later times the light of psychological
analysis has been turned upon him. German philosophers were among the earliest
to assert that the man had been judged in unrighteousness, and that his real
character was of brighter tint than that in which it had been painted. Indeed
some critics hold that of all the Twelve Judas was the one most thoroughly
convinced of our Lord's divinity in the flesh; and these apologists attempt to
explain the betrayal as a deliberate and well-intended move to force Jesus into
a position of difficulty from which He could escape only by the exercise of His
powers of Godship, which, up to that time, He had never used in His own behalf.
We are not the
invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are competent to frame and
hold opinions as to the actions of any. In the light of the revealed word it
appears that Judas Iscariot had given himself up to the cause of Satan while
ostensibly serving the Christ in an exalted capacity. Such [p.650] a surrender
to evil powers could be accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of
the man's transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the
testimony that Jesus was the Son of God; and in the full light of that
conviction he turned against his Lord, and betrayed Him to death. Modern
revelation is no less explicit than ancient in declaring that the path of sin
is that of spiritual darkness leading to certain destruction. If the man who is
guilty of adultery, even in his heart only, shall, unless he repents, surely
forfeit the companionship of the Spirit of God, and "shall deny the
faith", and so the voice of God hath affirmed (see Doc. and Cov. 63:16),
we cannot doubt that any and all forms of deadly sin shall poison the soul and,
if not forsaken through true repentance, shall bring that soul to condemnation.
For his trained and skilful servants. Satan will provide opportunities of service
commensurate with their evil ability. Whatever the opinion of modern critics as
to the good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly
three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a thief
(12:6).; and Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as "the son of
perdition" (17:12). See in this connection Doc. and Cov. 76:41-48.
That the evil
proclivities of Judas Iscariot were known to Christ is evidenced by the Lord's
direct statement that among the Twelve was one who was a devil; (John 6:70;
compare 13:27; Luke 22:3); and furthermore that this knowledge was His when the
Twelve were selected is suggested by the words of Jesus: "I know whom I
have chosen", coupled with the explanation that in the choice He had made
would the scriptures be fulfilled. As the sacrificial death of the Lamb of God
was foreknown and foretold so the circumstances of the betrayal were foreseen.
It would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the revealed word to say
that the wretched Iscariot was in the least degree deprived of freedom or
agency in the course he followed to so execrable an end. His was the
opportunity and privilege common to the Twelve, to live in the light of the Lord's
immediate presence, and to receive from the source divine the revelation of
God's purposes. Judas Iscariot was no victim of circumstances, no insensate
tool guided by a superhuman power, except as he by personal volition gave
himself up to Satan, and accepted a wage in the devil's employ. Had
Judas been true to the right, other means than his perfidy would have operated
to bring the Lamb to the slaughter. His ordination to the apostleship placed
him in possession of opportunity and privilege above that of the uncalled and
unordained; and with such blessed possibility of achievement in the service of
God came corresponding capability to fall. A trusted and exalted
officer of the government can commit acts of treachery and treason such as are
impossible to the citizen who has never learned the secrets of State.
Advancement implies increased accountability, even more literally so in the
affairs of God's kingdom than in the institutions of men.
There is an apparent
discrepancy between the account of Judas Iscariot's death given by Matthew
(27:3-10) and that in Acts (1:16-20). According to the first, Judas hanged
himself; the second states that he fell headlong, "and all his bowels
gushed out." If both records be accurate, the wretched man probably hanged
himself, and afterward fell, possibly through the breaking of the cord or the
branch to which it was attached. Matthew says the Jewish rulers purchased the
"field of blood"; the writer of the Acts quotes Peter as saying that
Judas bought the field with the money he had received from the priests. As the
ground was bought with the money that had belonged to Iscariot, and as this
money had never been formally taken back by the temple officials, the field
bought therewith belonged technically to the estate of Judas. The variations
are of importance mainly as showing independence of authorship. The accounts
agree in the essential feature, that Judas died a miserable suicide. (James E.
Talmage, Jesus the Christ [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1915],
649-51, emphasis added)