537
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
September 1928
dark problem that does not reckon Judas a free agent, morally accountable for his choices and actions. Any ex planation that presents him as a passive, and thus an irre sponsible agent o f the devil and an instrument of God is, we believe, utterly unscriptural and irrational. What Judas did— the choice he made and the course o f action he pursued-—he did knowingly and deliberately. If he was a son of perdition, he was such by choice ; if he went to his own place, it was because he had fitted himself for it and no other was a proper place for him. The difficulties in this problem are. only accentuated by the theory we reject, and we take our stand upon the moral intelligence and the moral freedom of Judas. There were qualities in him that by consecration and loyalty would have made him as powerful and effective as the others; he might have become the great administrative genius of the new-born church. For this and other reasons Jesus chose him. It is a poor workman that will know ingly select an unfit too l; it is a poor executive that will promote an unqualified employee. The moral destruction was not because of the absence o f valuable natural quali ties, but because o f their perversion. In him, what was light became darkness, and there is no darkness so deep as the darkness that once was light. A study o f the record makes clear the fact that by warning and suggestion Jesus gave him every opportunity to turn back from the fatal path in which his feet had entered. T he D istinctive -; D ifferences . Herepthen, is the distinctive difference between the two sins of that night. There was present in the sin of Judas a factor that was absent from Peter’s,-that of time and deliberation. How far back were the beginnings of Judas’ sin; the first suggestions o f the awful crime, rejected perhaps with horror; the first Sittings across the screen of consciousness of the thought shadows that would darken finally into the deep damnation of betrayal, is not revealed in the record, and can never be known. There are, however, incidents that indicate that the unholy pur pose had been growing through some time, at least through the last three months, of the Saviour’s ministry. I f this is true, judas had ample time to consider and reconsider the nature and the consequences of the crime he was about to commit. Never, through all eternity, can he plead the palliative circumstances of surprise, the sudden onslaught of unexpected temptation. It may be, as some suggest, that his purpose was crystallized by the rebuke admin istered that night in the house of Simon the leper; but, if so, the intention was there in solution, so to speak, and was only precipitated into action. It is evident that he entered that last sorrowful night with the dark purpose full grown. He had made the fatal bargain with the foes of Jesus; had counted deliberately on the table, one by one, the thirty pieces of silver; the blood money was then in his purse, and amid the solemnity and the sadness- of the last passover o f the Saviour’s life, he moved with the accursed secret hid den, from all but the Master’s' eye, in the dark rqcesses of his abandoned soul. He had sold, not only his Master to the, murderous crew that sat in the seats of religious authority, but he had also in that transaction bargained away his soul to him who sat on the throne of hell. That night, surrounded by devoted hearts, in the very presence of infinite Love, and taking from Its hand the consecrated bread and wine, he was possessed of the devil. He was the very son of perdition because he had for a few pieces of silver sold himself to perdition, had identified himself, he, one of the Lord’s chosen, with that perdition,
the crowd into the night he went, a broken-hearted peni tent. When the cock crew, he thought, and the immediate effect o f thought was an anguish o f regret. Now, if after the deed,-the effect of thought was contrition, what, think you, would have been the effect of thought before the deed ? A complete answer to this question is found in the Master’s dealings with the penitent. Behind that special personal, reassuring message Jesus sent, “ and P e te r ” we see something o f the agony o f contrition that tore at this man’s soul, and how gladly at any cost he would have recalled that denial if he could. The Master’s estimate of the man and o f his repen tance is revealed in the fact that one of his first appear ances was to Peter alone. What passed between them? What passionate words from' Peter of confession, of humiliation, o f self-reproach, of entreaty; what words of tender compassion, of forgiveness, of consolation, of restoration, of heart-healing from the lips of the Master ! Not one word is recorded o f reproach, of rebuke, of con demnation. In all the weakness and failure of that night, the tie between Peter and his Lord was unbroken. The merciful Lord considered all the circumstances, as He ever does with us, o f Peter’s lapse. Behind the poor frightened humanity, Jesus saw always a loving and loyal heart. For He judges, not so much by the words of our lips and the deeds o f our hands as by what is in the heart of us. What a comfort to the poor sorrowful backslider! T he P roblem of J udas In all Holy Writ there is ho more perplexing problem than that of Judas Iscariot, he who is branded for all the ages with the words: “ he who betrayed Him.” What did He who knew so well the hearts of men, see in the heart o f Judas that day when He deliberately numbered him among His apostles, that little group who were to stand the nearest to Himself, and to whom He would en trust the ambassadorship of His kingdom on earth ? Their mission demanded at least two qualifications: First, a deep appreciation of the Master H imself; a perception of, and genuine sympathy with, His spirit and purpose. Spirit ually they must be rare men. The second was a consti tutional equipment for the work for which these men were selected. Such a work calls for unselfishness, cour age, consecration, love for men, the spirit o f service. Did He, the all-knowing One, see such qualities in Judas that day? If so, why is there not in all the Gospel story one gleam of such natural and spiritual fitness? And, if he was so deficient, why did Jesus select him? True, there are some words of Jesus that seem to indi cate a deliberate selection of Judas as a passive instrument o f God’s predetermined purpose for His Son, and through the Son, for the world; that Jesus, knowing his selfish-' ness and love of money and fleshly hopes and ambitions, did, notwithstanding this, if qpt indeed because of this, choose Judas as the fittest instrument for bringing to a triumphant issue the devilish plots of the foes of Jesus and thus making possible the atoning death on the cross for the human race. According to this proposed solution of this dark problem, Judas was by origin and nature a son o f perdition, and thus a peculiarly pliant tool for the devil’s work. He was what he was and could be nothing else. God needed the devil’s help and Judas was the pas sive devil’s agent o f it. What seem to us the most serious objections to the placing of him in the apostolic group were the very reasons why he was chosen. W e are put ting this theory more baldly than do its advocates; but reduced to its simplest terms, this is the meaning of it. It is a hard condition that leaves us no alternative but to accept such a solution. W e can accept no answer to this
Made with FlippingBook Annual report