Page images
PDF
EPUB

JUDAH

precision; but it included the ancient territories of Judah, Benjamin, Dan, Simeon, and part of Ephraim.

Judæa is a country full of hills and valleys. The hills are generally separated from one another by valleys and torrents, and are, for the most part, of moderate height, uneven, and seldom of any regular figure. The rock of which they are composed is easily converted into soil, which being arrested by the terraces when washed down by the rains, renders the hills cultivable in a series of long, narrow gardens, formed by these terraces from the base upwards. In this manner the hills were in ancient times cultivated most industriously, and enriched and beautified with the fig tree, the olive-tree, and the vine; and it is thus that the scanty cultivation which still subsists is now carried on. But when the inhabitants were rooted out, and the culture neglected, the terraces fell to decay, and the soil which had been collected in them was washed down into the valleys, leaving only the arid rock, naked and desolate. This is the general character of the scenery; but in some parts the hills are beautifully wooded, and in others the application of the ancient mode of cultivation still suggests to the traveller how rich the country once was and might be again, and how beautiful the prospects which it offered. As, however, much of this was the result of cultivation, the country was probably anciently, as at present, naturally less fertile than either Samaria or Galilee.

JU'DAH (celebrated), fourth son of Jacob and Leah (B.c. 1755). The narrative in Genesis brings this patriarch more before the reader, and makes known more of his history and character, than it does in the case of any other of the twelve sons of Jacob, with the single exception of Joseph. It is indeed chiefly in connection with Joseph that the facts respecting Judah transpire; and as they have already been given in the articles JACOB and JOSEPH, it is only necessary to indicate them shortly in this place. It was Judah's advice that the brethren followed when they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, instead of taking his life. By the light of his subsequent actions we can see that his conduct on this occasion arose from a generous impulse, although the form of the question he put to them has been sometimes held to suggest an interested motive: What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him,' &c. (Gen. xxxvii. 26, 27).

Not long after this Judah withdrew from the paternal tents, and went to reside at Adu!lam, in the country which afterwards bore his name. Here he married a woman of Canaan, called Shuah, and had by her three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. When the eldest of these sons became of fit age, he was married to a woman named Tamar, but soon after died. As he died childless, the patriarchal law, afterwards adopted into the Mosaic code (Deut. xxv. 6), required him to bestow upon the widow his second son. This he did: but as Onan also soon died childless, Judah became reluctant to bestow his only surviving son upon this woman, and put her off with the excuse that he was not yet of sufficient age. Tamar accordingly remained in her father's house at Adullam. She had the usual passion of Eastern women for offspring, and could not endure the stigma of having been twice married without bear

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

ing children, while the law precluded her from contracting any alliance but that which Judah withheld her from completing.

Meanwhile Judah's wife died, and after the time of mourning had expired, he went, accompanied by his friend Hirah, to attend the shearing of his sheep at Timnath in the same neighbourhood. These circumstances suggested to Tamar the strange thought of connecting herself with Judah himself, under the guise of a loose woman. Having waylaid him on the road to Timnath, she succeeded in her object, and when the consequences began to be manifest in the person of Tamar, Judah was highly enraged at her crime, and, exercising the powers which belonged to him as the head of the family she had dishonoured, he commanded her to be brought forth and committed to the flames as an adulteress. But when she appeared, she produced the ring, the bracelet, and the staff, which he had left in pledge with her; and put him to confusion by declaring that they belonged to the father of her coming offspring. Judah acknowledged them to be his, and confessed that he had been wrong in withholding Shelah from her. The result of this painful affair was the birth of two sons, Zerah and Pharez, from whom, with Shelah, the tribe of Judah descended. Pharez was the ancestor of the line from which David, the kings of Judah, and Jesus came (Gen. xxxviii.; xlvi. 12; 1 Chron. ii. 3-5; Matt. i. 3; Luke iii. 33).

These circumstances seem to have disgusted Judah with his residence in towns; for we find him ever afterwards at his father's tents. His experience of life, and the strength of his character, appear to have given him much influence with Jacob; and it was chiefly from confidence in him that the aged father at length consented to allow Benjamin to go down to Egypt. That this confidence was not misplaced has already been shown [JOSEPH]; and there is not in the whole range of literature a finer piece of true natural eloquence than that in which Judah offers himself to remain as a bond-siave in the place of Benjamin, for whose safe return he had made himself responsible to his father. The strong emotions which it raised in Joseph disabled him from keeping up longer the disguise he had hitherto maintained, and there are few who have read it without being, like him, moved even to tears.

We hear nothing more of Judah till he received, along with his brothers, the final blessing of his father, which was conveyed in lofty language, glancing far into futurity, and strongly indicative of the high destinies which awaited the tribe that was to descend from him.

2. JUDAH, TRIBE OF. This tribe sprang from Judah, the son of Jacob. When the Israelites quitted Egypt, it already exhibited the elements of its future distinction in a larger population than any of the other tribes possessed. It numbered 74,000 adult males, being nearly 12,000 more than Dan, the next in point of numbers, and 34,100 more. than Ephraim, which in the end contested with it the superiority among the tribes. During the sojourn in the wilderness, Judah neither gained, like some tribes, nor lost like others. Its numbers had increased to 76,500, being 12,100 more than Issachar, which had become next to it in population (Num. 1. 25. In the first distribution of lands, the tribe of Judah

[blocks in formation]

received the southernmost part of Palestine, to the | extent of fully one-third of the whole country to be distributed among the nine and a half tribes for which provision was to be made. This oversight was discovered and rectified at the time of the second distribution, which was founded on an actual survey of the country, when Simeon and Dan received allotments out of the territory which had before been wholly assigned to Judah (Josh. xix. 9). That which remained was still very large, and more proportioned to the future greatness than the actual wants of the tribe. When Judah became a kingdom, the original extent of territory assigned to the tribe was more than restored or compensated, for it must have included the domains of Simeon, and we know that Benjamin was included in it.

The history of the Judges contains fewer facts respecting this important tribe than might be expected. It seems however to have been usually considered that the birthright which Reuben forfeited had passed to Judah under the blessing of Jacob; and a sanction was given to this impression when, after the death of Joshua, the divine oracle nominated Judah to take precedence of the other tribes in the war against the Canaanites (Judg. i. 2). It does not appear that any tribe was disposed to dispute the superior claim of Judah on its own account, except Ephraim, although in doing this Ephraim had the support of other tribes. Ephraim appears to have rested its I claims to the leadership of the tribes upon the ground that the house of Joseph, whose interest it represented, had received the birthright, or double portion of the eldest, by the adoption of the two sons of Joseph, who became the founders of two tribes in Israel. The existence of the sacerdotal establishment at Shiloh, in Ephraim, was doubtless also alleged by the tribe as a ground of superiority over Judah. When, therefore, Judah assumed the sceptre in the person of David, and when the sacerdotal establishment was removed to Jerusalem, Ephraim could not brook the eclipse it had sustained, and took the first opportunity of erecting a separate throne, and of forming separate establishments for worship and sacrifice. Perhaps the separation of the kingdoms may thus be traced to the rivalry of the two tribes. After that separation the rivalry was between the two kingdoms; but it was still popularly considered as representing the ancient rivalry of these great tribes; for the prophet, in foretelling the repose of a coming time, describes it by saying, The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim' (Isa. xiii. 12).

3. JUDAH, KINGDOM OF. When the territory of all the rest of Israel, except Judah and Benjamin, was lost to the kingdom of Rehoboam, a special single name was needed to denote that which remained to him; and almost of necessity the word Judah received an extended meaning, according to which it comprised not Benjamin only, but the priests and Levites, who were ejected in great numbers from Israel, and rallied round the house of David. At a still later time, when the nationality of the ten tribes had been dissolved, and every practical distinction between the ten and the two had vanished during the captivity, the scattered body had no visible head,

JUDAH, KINGDOM OF

except in Jerusalem, which had been re-occupied by a portion of Judah's exiles. In consequence the name Judah (or Jew) attached itself to the entire nation from about the epoch of the restoration. But in this article Judah is understood of the people over which David's successors reigned, from Rehoboam to Zedekiah. Under the article ISRAEL the chronology of the two kingdoms has been discussed, which, however, was not carried below the capture of Samaria. In the lower part of the list we lose the check which the double line of kings afforded; but for the same reason the problem is simpler. The only difficulty encountered here rises out of the ages assigned to some of the kings of Judah. For this reason, in the following list, all their ages are inserted, so far as they are recorded. It has been thought sufficient to add Winer's chronology to the dates as given above in the article ISRAEL.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

The ages of Abijah and Asa at their accession not being given, the three first numbers in the last column are averages only, Rehoboam having been born 66 or 67 years before Jehoshaphat. A glance at the table is sufficient to show that various errors must have crept into the numbers, but it is now extremely difficult, if not impossible, to correct them.

When the kingdom of Solomon became rent with intestine war, it might have been foreseen that the Edomites, Moabites, and other surrounding nations would at once refuse their accustomed tribute, and become again practically independent; and some irregular invasion of these tribes might have been dreaded. It was a mark of conscious weakness, and not a result of strength, that Rehoboam fortified 15 cities (2 Chron. xi. 5-11), in which his people might find defence against the irregular armies of his roving neighbours. But a more formidable enemy came in, Shishak king

JUDAH, KINGDOM OF

of Egypt, against whom the fortresses were of no avail (xii. 4), and to whom Jerusalem was forced to open its gates; and, from the despoiling of his treasures, Rehoboam probably sustained a still greater shock in its moral effect on the Moabites and Edomites, than in the direct loss: nor is it easy to conceive that he any longer retained the commerce of the Red Sea, or any very lucrative trade.

After Jehoshaphat followed the calamitous affinity with the house of Ahab, and the massacres of both families. Under Jehoiada the priest, and Jehoash his pupil, no martial efforts were made; but Amaziah son of Jehoash, after hiring 100,000 Israelites to no purpose, made war on the Edomites, slew 10,000, and threw 10,000 more down from the top of their rock (xxv. 5, 6, 11, 12). His own force in Judah, from 20 years old and upwards, was numbered at 300,000 choice men, able to handle spear and shield. His son Uzziah had 2600 military officers, and 307,500 men of war (xxvi. 12, 13). Ahaz lost, in a single battle with Pekah, 120,000 valiant men (xxviii. 6), after the severe slaughter he had received from Rezin king of Syria; after which no further military strength is ascribed to the kings of Judah.

These figures have caused no small perplexity, and have suggested to some the need of conjectural emendation. It perhaps deserves remark, that in the book of Kings no numbers of such startling magnitude are found. The army ascribed to Rehoboam (1 Kings xii. 21) is, indeed, as in Chronicles, 180,000 men; but if we explain it of those able to fight, the number, though certainly large, may be dealt with historically.

As the most important external relations of Israel were with Damascus, so were those of Judah with Edom and Egypt. Some revolution in the state of Egypt appears to have followed the reign of Shishak, Apparently the country must have fallen under the power of an Ethiopian dynasty, for the name of the Lubim, who accompanied Zerah in his attack on Asa, is generally regarded as proving that Zerah was from Sennaar, the ancient Meroe. But as this invasion was signally repulsed, the attempt was not repeated; and Judah enjoyed entire tranquillity from that quarter until the invasion of Pharaoh Necho. In fact it may seem that this success assisted the reaction, favourable to the power of Judah, which was already begun, in consequence of a change in the policy of Damascus. Asa having bought, by a costly sacrifice, the serviceable aid of the Damascene king, Israel was soon distressed, and Judah became once more formidable to her southern neighbours. Jehoshaphat appears to have re-asserted the Jewish authority over the Edomites without war, and to have set his own viceroy over them (1 Kings xxii. 47). Intending to resume the distant commerce which had been so profitable to Solomon, he built ships suitable for long voyages (ships of Tarshish' as they are rightly called in 1 Kings xxii. 48), but not having the advantage of Tyrian sailors, as Solomon had, he lost the vessels by violent weather before they had sailed. Upon this, Ahaziah, king of Israel, offered the service of his own mariners, probably from the tribe of Asher and others accustomed to the Mediterranean; but Jehoshaphat was too discouraged to accept his offer, and the experi

[blocks in formation]

ment was never renewed by any Hebrew king. The Edomites, who paid only a forced allegiance, soon after revolted from Jehoram, and elected their own king (2 Kings viii. 20, 22). At a later time they were severely defeated by Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7), whose son, Uzziah, fortified the town of Elath, intending, probably, to resume maritime enterprise; but it remained a barren possession, and was finally taken from them by Rezin, in the reign of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 6). The Philistines, in these times, seem to have fallen from their former greatness, their league having been so long dissolved. The most remarkable event in which they are concerned is the assault ou Jerusalem, in the reign of Jehoram (2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17).

[ocr errors]

It is strikingly indicative of the stormy scenes through which the line of David passed, that the treasures of the king and of the Temple were so often plundered or bargained away. First, under Rehoboam, all the hoards of Solomon, consecrated and common alike, were carried off by Shishak (1 Kings xiv. 26). Two generations later, Asa emptied out to Benhadad all that had since accumulated in the house of Jehovah or in the king s house.' A third time, when Hazael had taken Gath, and was preparing to march on Jerusalem, Jehoash, king of Judah, turned him away by sending to him all that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah and Jehoash himself had dedicated, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of Jehovah and in the king's house' (2 Kings xii. 18). In the very next reign Jehoash, king of Israel, defeated and captured Amaziah, took Jerusalem, broke down the walls, carried off hostages, and plundered the gold and silver deposited in the temple and in the royal palace (2 Kings xiv. 11-14). A fifth sacrifice of the sacred and of the royal treasure was made by Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings xvi. 8). The act was repeated by his son Hezekiah to Sennacherib, who had demanded 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold.' It is extraordinary, therefore, to find expressions used when Nebuchadnezzar took the city, which at first sight imply that Solomon's far-famed stores were still untouched (2 Kings xxiv. 13).

The severest shock which the house of David received was the double massacre which it endured from Jehu and from Athaliah. After a long minority, a youthful king, the sole surviving male descendant of his great-grandfather, and reared under the paternal rule of the priest Jehoiada, to whom he was indebted not only for his throne but even for his recognition as a son of Ahaziah, was not in a situation to uphold the royal authority. That Jehoash conceived the priests to have abused the power which they had gained, sufficiently appears in 2 Kings xii., where he complains that they had for twenty-three years appropriated the money, which they ought to have spent on the repairs of the temple. Jehoiada gave way; but we see here the beginning of a feud (hitherto unknown in the house of David) between the crown and the priestly order; which, after Jehoiada's death, led to the murder of his son Zachariah. The massacre of the priests of Baal, and of Athaliah, granddaughter of a king of Sidon, must also have destroyed cordiality between the Phoenicians and the kingdom of Judah; and when the victorious

504

JUDAS MACCABÆUS

JUDAS ISCARIOT

Hazael had subjugated all Israel and showed himself near Jerusalem, Jehoash could look for no help from without, and had neither the faith of Hezekiah nor a prophet like Isaiah to support him. The assassination of Jehoash in his bed by 'his own servants' is described in the Chronicles as a revenge taken upon him by the priestly party for his murder of the sons' of Jehoiada; and the same fate, from the same influence, fell upon his son Amaziah, if we may so interpret the words in 2 Chron. xxv. 27: From the time that Amaziah turned away from following his Master to justice, resentment, avarice, ing Jehovah they made a conspiracy against him,' &c. Thus the house of David appeared to be committing itself, like that of Saul, to permanent enmity with the priests. The wisdom of Uzziah, during a long reign, averted this collision, though a symptom of it returned towards its close. No further mischief from this cause followed, until the reign of his grandson, the weak and unfortunate Ahaz: after which the power of the kingdom rapidly mouldered away.

[ocr errors]

The struggle of the crown against (what we might call) the constitutional check of the priests, was perhaps the most immediate cause of the ruin of Judah. Ahaz was probably less guided by policy than by superstition, or by architectural taste, in erecting his Damascene altar (2 Kings xvi. 10-18). But the far more outrageous proceedings of Manasseh seem to have been a systematic attempt to extirpate the national religion because of its supporting the priestly power; and the innocent blood very much,' which he is stigmatized for shedding (2 Kings xxi. 16), was undoubtedly a sanguinary attack on the party opposed to his impious and despotic innovations. The storm which he had raised did not burst in his lifetime; but, two years after, it fell on the head of his son Amon; and the disorganization of the kingdom which his madness had wrought is commemorated as the cause of the Babylonish captivity (2 Kings xxiii. 26; xxiv. 3, 4). It is also credible that the long-continued despotism had greatly lessened patriotic spirit; and that the Jewish people of the declining kingdom were less brave against foreign invaders than against kindred and neighbour tribes or civil opponents. Faction had become very fierce within Jerusalem itself (Ezek. xxii.), and civil bloodshed was common. Wealth, where it existed, was generally a source of corruption, by introducing foreign luxury, tastes, manners, superstitions, immorality, or idolatry; and when consecrated to pious purposes, as by Hezekiah and Josiah, produced little more than a formal and exterior religion.

The appointment of Hilkiah to the office of high priest seems to mark the era at which (by a reaction after the atrocities of Manasseh and Amon) the purer priestly sentiment obtained its triumph over the crown. But the victory came too late. Society was corrupt and convulsed within, and the two great powers of Egypt and Babylon menaced it from without. True lovers of their God and of their country, like Jeremiah, saw that it was a time rather for weeping than for action; and that the faithful must resign themselves to the bitter lot which the sins of their nation had earned.

JU'DAS is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew name JUDAH.

1. JUDAS MACCABÆUS. [MACCABEES.]

2. JUDAS ISCAR'IOT. The object of this article is not to elucidate all the circumstances recorded respecting this person, but simply to investigate his motives in delivering up Jesus t the chief-priests. The evangelists relate his proceedings, but give no opinion. The subject is consequently open to inquiry. Our conclusions must be guided by the facts of the case, and by the known feelings and principles of human nature. The only conceivable motives for the conduct of Judas are, a sense of duty in bringdissatisfaction with the procedure of Jesus, and a consequent scheme for the accomplishment of his own views. With regard to the first of these motives, if Judas had been actuated by a sense of duty in bringing his Master to justice for anything censurable in his intentions, words. or actions, he would certainly have alleged some charge against him in his first interview with the chief-priests, and they would have brought him forward as a witness against Jesus, especially when they were at so great a loss for evidence; or they would have reminded him of his accusations when he appealed to them after our Lord's condemnation, saying, 'I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood'-a confession which amounts to an avowal that he had never seen anything to blame in his Master, but everything to approve. The second motive supposed, namely, that of resentment, is rather more plausible. Jesus had certainly rebuked him for blaming the woman who had anointed him in the house of Simon the leper, at Bethany (comp. Matt. xxvi. 8-17; John xii. 4, 5); and Matthew's narrative seems to connect his going to the chief-priests with that rebuke (ver. 14): Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests; but closer inspection will convince the reader that those words are more properly connected with ver. 3. Besides, the rebuke was general, Why trouble ye the woman? Nor was it nearly so harsh as that received by Peter, 'Get thee behind me, Satan' (Matt. xvi. 23), and certainly not sc public (Mark viii. 32, 33). Even if Judas had felt ever so much resentment, it could scarcely have been his sole motive; and as nearly two days elapsed between his contract with the chiefpriests and its completion, it would have subsided during the interval, and have yielded to that covetousness which we have every reason to believe was his ruling passion. St. John expressly declares that Judas was a thief, and had the bag, and bare (that is, conveyed away from it, stole) what was put therein' (xii. 6; comp. xx. 15, in the original). This rebuke, or rather certain circumstances attending it, might have determined him to act as he did, but is insufficient, of itself, to account entirely for his conduct, by which he endangered all his expectations of worldly advancement from Jesus, at the very moment when they seemed upon the verge of being fulfilled. It is, indeed, a most important feature in the case, that the hopes entertained by Judas, and all the apostles, from their Master's expected elevation, as the Messiah, to the throne of Judæa, and, as they believed, to the empire of the whole world, were never more stedfast than at the time when he covenanted with the chiefpriests to deliver him into their hands. Nor

JUDAS ISCARIOT

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

does the theory of mere resentment agree with sign froin heaven they had so often demanded; the terms of censure in which the conduct and they would, he believed, elect him in due form character of Judas are spoken of by our Lord as the King Messiah, and thus enable him tc and the evangelists. Since, then, this supposi-reward his followers. He did, indeed, receive tion is insufficient, we may consider another from Jesus many alarming admonitions against motive to which his conduct is more commonly his design; but the plainest warnings are lost ascribed, namely, covetousness. But if by upon a mind totally absorbed by a purpose, and covetousness be meant the eager desire to obtain agitated by many violent passions. The worst "the thirty pieces of silver, with which the he would permit himself to expect, was a temchief-priests covenanted with him' (Matt. xxvi.porary displeasure for placing his Master in this 15), it presents scarcely a less inadequate motive. dilemma; but as he most likely believed, judging Can it be conceived that Judas would deliberately from himself, that Jesus anticipated worldly forego the prospect of immense wealth from his aggrandizement, he might calculate upon his forMaster, by delivering him up for about four giveness when the emergency should have been pounds ten shillings of our money, upon the triumphantly surmounted. Judas. could not highest computation, and not more than double doubt his master's ability to extricate himself in value, a sum which he might easily have pur- from his enemies by miracle. He had known loined from the bag? Is it likely that he would him do so more than once (Luke iv. 30; John have made such a sacrifice for any further sum, viii. 59; x. 39). Hence his directions to the however large, which we may suppose they officers to hold him fast,' when he was apprepromised him (Mark xiv. 11), and of which the hended (Matt. xxvi. 48). With other Jews he thirty pieces of silver might have been the mere believed the Messiah would never die (John xii. earnest (Luke xxii. 5)? Had covetousness been 34); accordingly, we regard his pecuniary stipuhis motive, he would have ultimately applied to lation with the priests as a mere artful cover to the chief-priests, not to bring again the thirty his deeper and more comprehensive design; and pieces of silver with the confession, I have so that he served their purpose in causing the sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent apprehension of Jesus, they would little care to blood' (Matt. xxvii. 4), but to demand the com- scrutinize his motive. All they felt was being pletion of their agreement with him. We are 'glad' at his proposal (Mark xiv. 11), and the now at liberty to consider the only remaining plan appeared to hold good up to the very moment motive for the conduct of Judas, namely, dis- of our Lord's condemnation; for after his apsatisfaction with the procedure of his Master, and prehension his miraculous power seemed unabated, a consequent scheme for the furtherance of his from his healing Malchus. Judas heard him own views. It seems to us likely, that the im- declare that he could even then ask, and his patience of Judas for the accomplishment of his father would give him twelve legions of angels' worldly views, which we conceive to have ever for his rescue. But when Judas, who awaited actuated him in following Jesus, could no longer the issue of the trial with such different expectabe restrained, and that our Lord's observations at tions, saw that though Jesus had avowed himself Bethany served to mature a stratagem he had to be the Messiah, he had not convinced the Sanmeditated long before. He had no doubt been hedrim; and, instead of extricating himself from greatly disappointed at seeing his Master avoid their power by miracle, had submitted to be being made a king, after feeding the five thousand condemned, buffeted, and spit upon,' by his in Galilee. Many a favourable crisis had he judges and accusers; then it should seem he seemed to lose, or had not dared to embrace, and awoke to a full view of all the consequences of now while at Bethany he talks of his burial his conduct. The prophecies of the Old Testa(John xii. 7); and though none of his apostles, ment, that Christ should suffer,' and of Jesus, so firm were their worldly expectations from concerning his own rejection and death, flashed their Master, could clearly understand such on his mind in their true sense and full force, 'sayings' (Luke xviii. 34); yet they had been and he found himself the wretched instrument of made exceeding sorry' by them (Matt. xvii. their fulfilment. He made a last desperate effort 23). At the same time Judas had long been to stay proceedings. He presented himself to the convinced by the miracles he had seen his chief-priests, offered to return the money, conMaster perform that he was the Messiah (John fessed that he had sinned in that he had betrayed vii. 31). He had even heard him accept this the innocent blood, and upon receiving their title from his apostles in private (Matt. xvi. 16). heartless answer was wrought into a phrenzy of He had promised them that when he should sit despair, during which he committed suicide. upon the throne of his glory, they should sit There is much significancy in these words of upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Matt. xxvii. 3, Then Judas, when he saw he Israel' (Matt. xix. 28). Yet now, when every- was condemned,' not expiring on the cross, rething seemed most favourable to the assumption pented himself,' &c. If such be the true hypoof empire, he hesitates and desponds. Within a thesis of his conduct, then, however culpable it few days, the people, who had lately given him a may have been, as originating in the most intriumphal entry into the city, having kept the ordinate covetousness, impatience of the procedure passover, would be dispersed to their homes, and of Providence, crooked policy, or any other bad Judas and his fellow apostles be, perhaps, re-quality, he is certainly absolved from the direct quired to attend their Master on another tedious intention of procuring his Master's death. The expedition through the country. Hence it seems difference,' says Archbishop Whately, between most probable that Judas resolved upon the plan Iscariot and his fellow apostles was, that though of delivering up his Master to the Jewish autho- they all had the same expectations and conrities, when he would be compelled, in self-jectures, he dared to act on his conjectures, dedefence, to prove his claims, by giving them the parting from the plain course of his known duty

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »