Surely the Lord saw in him a man capable of apostolic worthiness; otherwise, He would not have permitted his close association nor treated him as He did the other disciples. However, this does not negate the possibility that within Judas were both commendable qualities and darker inclinations. The Lord surely perceived these seeds of malevolence as well as the beginnings of goodness, but the conflict between good and evil was not yet resolved, leaving open the hope that integrity would ultimately triumph.
What was the dominant sinful inclination in Judas that led to such treachery? To explore this, we first note Judas’ love for money; the Evangelist John observes that Judas managed a money bag containing the disciples’ funds and was unfaithful in his stewardship, appropriating funds for personal gain. This aligns with the consensus of the first three Evangelists’ accounts, which state that Judas conspired to betray his Master to the Sanhedrin for a specified sum. One might conclude that greed must have reached such a point that he was unafraid to commit this vile act to satisfy it. However, it seems implausible that Judas’ selfishness could dominate to such an extent that the Lord would have chosen him to be a disciple. Given His profound insight into the innermost feelings of each individual and His ability to utilize them for good, it seems unlikely that the Lord would place a man driven by greed in charge of the finances.
If Judas betrayed his Master solely out of avarice, it is perplexing why he accepted a meager thirty pieces of silver. One might assume that the Sanhedrin, seeking to apprehend Jesus before the Passover, would not have been stingy with their offer if Judas had demanded more. It could be speculated that the Sanhedrin’s reluctance to pay a larger sum might stem from their belief that they had other means to capture the Lord or their awareness that He would not employ a crowd for His defense. Regardless, such a trifling amount cannot be the sole incentive for Judas' betrayal. And whether the payment was small or substantial, it must be considered that a man who had shared such a close bond with his Master—and who regarded Him as the Messiah for an extended period—had undergone a significant internal change in his relationship with Jesus distinct from that of the other apostles. It suggests that the love of money may not have been the primary motivation for the betrayal.
Did Judas truly foresee the consequences of his actions? His tragic end and the remorse he displayed upon witnessing Jesus condemned imply that he did not anticipate such an outcome. It is speculated that Judas intended to precipitate the events: by placing Jesus in a perilous position, he may have hoped to force Him to publicly declare His kingship or to employ His divine authority to overcome His challenges. When events unfolded quite differently, and he saw the One to Whom his heart had once been devoted condemned, Judas was driven to despair. Such conduct can only be labeled as criminal. The end does not justify the immoral means, and can the workings of God be treated so callously? What should be made of this suggestion? If Judas harbored such an unlawful intention, it is unlikely that the Lord would have allowed him to be swept away by such folly to the point of blindness. Moreover, given this scenario, it would be improbable for the Lord, upon seeing Judas prepare to leave the supper, to have spoken those words recorded in the Gospel, as they would seem to endorse his actions.
It is likely that Judas, like the other apostles, approached the Lord with earthly ambitions and temporal hopes. Yet when these hopes faltered, he became indifferent to the cause he had once fervently embraced. A year prior to the Lord’s death, after a notable discourse in the synagogue of Capernaum when many had turned away, the Lord indicated that there was a devil among them, referring to Judas. Though Peter too was admonished—“Get behind me, Satan; you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men”—Peter’s heart was more readily inclined to repentance. Conversely, Judas’ heart had grown callous. Detached from the fellowship of Christ and bound only by earthly interests, Judas had long ceased to be a true disciple, merely awaiting an opportunity to betray Him. The Lord perhaps tolerated him, intending to influence his soul and foreseeing the destiny tied to his actions, as Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray Him.
Next, we consider the events leading up to the conclusion of the Lord's ministry. Following the resurrection of Lazarus, which captivated public attention, the Sanhedrin's resolve to eliminate Jesus solidified. They were yet undecided on the means of execution, wanting to adapt their plans to the unfolding circumstances. It remained uncertain whether He would come to Jerusalem. Contrary to the Sanhedrin’s expectations, Jesus made a bold entry into Jerusalem, confronting His enemies unflinchingly. The Pharisees lamented having allowed matters to escalate, declaring, “Look, the world has gone after Him,” and began to plot to capture Jesus by cunning means (John 12:19). Their scheme involved determining how to ensnare Jesus, whether through the hands of a secret traitor or by crafting a deceptive plan to put Him to a disgraceful death under a veneer of legality. They resolved that this would not take place during the feast but rather before or after it, with the latter being preferred. It was at this juncture that Judas Iscariot, one of the Lord's own disciples, offered his services to them, and they agreed upon a price, promising him the betrayal of his Master.
THEOSIS