Jim #13, in response to your questions, I think saying “the devil made me do it” isn’t appropriate. However, I’d really like to just jump right to Brian’s suggestion in #15 and leave it there. I think “judging” Judas is unproductive & the point of any of it is gotten to in Brian’s gist.

Nevertheless, it is somewhat troubling to think that some people are demonized in the scriptures (perhaps) unfairly, as Cheryl illustrates in her very interesting analysis (but there are probably many, many other examples).

That being said, if we look at the characters Judas and Peter in the Gospels, I don’t think the text justifies or excuses their actions in any way. We may vilify them more than the text means to (as Jim points out in 13).

In fact, I think the mistakes of Peter are crucial to the theme developed in Acts: that the Spirit is vital to being truly transformed into a disciple of Christ. If we see Peter as a true disciple all along, then we miss the transformation that the text wants us to see.

in MARK, the chief priests and scribes plot to kill Jesus. At the anointing, SOME were indignant because of the cost of the ointment. Judas goes to the chief priests in order to betray Jesus; Jesus announces that “one of you will betray me.” Judas identifies Jesus with a kiss.

In MATTHEW, the chief priests and elders plot with Caiaphas to kill Jesus. At Jesus’ anointing, the DISCIPLES were indignant because of the cost of the ointment. Jesus tells his disciples that “one of you will betray me.” Judas identifies Jesus with a kiss, and only in Matthew do we read of Judas’ remorse and his suicide.

In LUKE, the chief priests and scribes plot to kill Jesus. In the very different anointing story, only THE PHARISEE objects to the anointing, on the grounds that the woman is the sinner. Jesus again states his foreknowledge: “the hand of him who betrays me” is at the Last Supper. Satan enters into Judas. Judas does not kiss Jesus because Jesus stops him: “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss? Judas’ death is not mentioned in Luke, but in Acts we read that Judas died by bursting open in a field (Acts 1:16-19).

In JOHN, the chief priests and pharisees gather in council to plot Jesus’ death. (John is the hardest of all the gospels on the Pharisees.) This is the gospel where Caiaphas says: “It is expedient for you that one man should die . .. . ”
At the anointing, only JUDAS is angry, no one else. Also John then says that the reason Judas was angry at the anointing is because he was a thief, and kept the money box.
Jesus states his foreknowledge by saying: “One of you is a devil.” Satan enters Judas.
In the Garden, Judas does not identify Jesus, but rather is with those that come for Jesus. Jesus identifies himself, and everyone falls on the ground before him. Jesus has to tell them to finish what they came for (it’s an amazing scene) even while he protects his disciples (“Let these go their way.”)

That is, and there is a point to this, for those who believe that Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke depended heavily on Mark (and Q), and that John was written later and more separately, this is an interesting analysis to make, though it should be done in more detail than what I’ve just drawn out.

By John, Judas is heavily demonized. Jesus calls him a devil, Satan enters him, he’s a thief anyway, he’s the only one who’s upset at the cost of the expensive ointment, and he plays a very small role in the actual garden – Jesus is the one in charge, throughout the entire passion narrative.

All of which is interesting to me.

However, re: Judas I can’t brush aside the gospel’s explicit citing that “Satan entered into Judas” (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). Whether this is figurative or literal, it speaks of dark deeds vs. something nobel as you’ve portrayed. Judas committed a horrible crime and there is no tip-toeing around that fact. To think or teach that Judas had some noble, tho mis-guided higher motive for what he did, perhaps hoping to usher in the messianic era, is to minimize the Satanic influence that was exerted upon Judas and to which he succumbed.

I wrestled with these issues for most of that year in seminary until on a youth temple trip, I took time to ask for an answer in the holiest place I could think of. The answer I received spoke comfort to my troubled heart. Simply that neither man was a coward and that neither man wished to betray Jesus.

I have no doctrinal citations to quote, only the images that flashed through a 16 year old mind and the feelings that accompanied them. Consider the following scenarios that came to my mind when seeking answers to my questions regarding these two historical scapegoats.

First, Judas, from my understanding, was impetuous and quite impatient in regards to the delivery of Israel – as he and most other Jews pictured it happening. Could his ‘delivery’ of Jesus have been more an act designed to push Jesus into a corner, where he would have to show his true power and authority to protect his ministry. It seemed to me that Judas believed that he could force Jesus through circumstance to take up the avenging and powerful messianic role that the Jews are still waiting for today. Whether remotely true or not this image helped me see him as a man caught up in his own understanding, rather than some satanic caricature ever to be synonymous with hatred and betrayal. In short, it isn’t my place to judge him one way or the other.

The image and understanding I received of Peter was much kinder than as accepted by history, as well. As Peter professed that he would never betray the Lord, Jesus told him that he would deny him three times before morning. Given the vaguaries and ambiguities of the New Testament, how do we know that this wasn’t a command rather than a prophetic utterance? Peter clearly was no coward as he took up the sword to defend or die with Christ in the Garden. How then, does he become some pathetic cowardly figure who has completely lost his way in a matter of hours.

Peter knew the feeling of the Holy Ghost as he had received a witness that Christ was indeed the Messiah and Son of God. Peter knew Jesus as well as any mortal man ever did. What if he was only following the Savior’s directions. What if Jesus knew how important it would be to the future of mankind that Peter survive this horrible night? After all, it was his calling to take up the cross after Christ and continue the work.

While it is clear that Peter is generally portrayed as one who weakly denied Christ. But what if he was only being obedient and acting against rather than in support of his character? I side with President Kimball in my admiration for Peter and his willingness to disavow the Savior, letting him stand alone thereby fulfilling his calling as our Lord and Savior. I truly believe that his denials of Jesus went against Peter’s natural character rather than defined it.

Again, I offer no doctrinal support, only the images and peace spoken to the troubled soul of a 16 year old boy, who took the questions of his heart to his Father in Heaven. True or not this understanding has comforted my soul for the last 30 years.

The first point is, of course, fraught with questions. I don’t have an answer to the primary question, “What was the relation of the disciples to the Holy Ghost during Jesus’ ministry?” I intended only to say something like, “Whatever degree of divine guidance Peter had, Judas had no more. Neither seems to have been fully confirmed, if confirmed at all. So both, it seems to me, are under less condemnation than they would have been after the Day of Pentecost.

1) “…the fact that he didn’t have the Holy Ghost….”

I’m not sure what that means. We’ve discussed this on various posts on this blog—exactly how much (if that’s the right word) of the Holy Ghost did the Apostles enjoy during Jesus’ life—and I’m still uncertain. Perhaps your point is that Judas didn’t have that specific part of the Holy Ghost that makes one subject to the greatest condemnation, even though he must have enjoyed some of the aspects of the Holy Ghost.

2) “…difference between conspiring to kill someone….”

Is that what Judas did? It’s not clear to me, but maybe I missed something. No, I’m not making a “Gospel of Judas” argument, but is it possible that Judas never intended murder? Perhaps he thought Jesus would be punished publicly and then set free, or exiled, or jailed for some time. None of which justifies betrayal, but even Judas himself (in at least Matthew’s account) seems shocked by the outcome (namely, when Jesus is delivered to Pilate).

Though I agree that Judas’s story is a tragic one and though I think we don’t know what its outcome will be, I don’t believe this. That Christ needed to suffer for our sins doesn’t mean that any particular person had to bring that about. The Father put Jesus in a context where he was sure that Jesus would be condemned and killed. It doesn’t follow that any of the people who did that condemning and killing had to do what they did. I strongly doubt that there was an agreement in the pre-existence that Judas would do what he did. Each of the people involved could have done otherwise, but they didn’t.

Adrienne (#4): I think we don’t know enough about Judas to say that he has been condemned to eternal damnation. (I don’t even know what that phrase means in a Mormon context, making the judgment even more difficult.) Regardless of what Judas did, the fact that he didn’t have the Holy Ghost makes it difficult for us to think he is a Son of Perdition. However, also regardless of what Judas did, there is a definite difference between conspiring to kill someone and denying that someone is an acquaintance or friend. Not all betrayals are equally bad. Finally, there was also a great difference between the ways in which Judas and Peter responded to their respective betrayals.

But all of that is just to say, “I don’t know what will happen to Judas in the hereafter.”

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

The second verse says that Jesus was troubled, and the first verse shows why: Judas’ betrayal of Jesus was a betrayal of the Father, and Jesus knew that Judas would suffer for it. You are not alone in thinking it was a tragedy.

“Could it be that in these last hours Peter realized that he should stop protecting his Lord, that the crucifixion was inevitable, and that regardless of all his acts, the Lord was moving toward his destiny? I do not know. I only know that this apostle was brave and fearless.”

I have to admit that Kimball’s argument doesn’t make sense to me. For example, I think that much of Peter’s bravery before the day of Pentecosts could actually be seen as bravado—and is called as much by the Lord. After Pentecosts is when we see Peter show actual bravery, relying on the Spirit and on the Gospel to defend him, and not on the sword (as in the Garden).

Kimball’s talk has the stated purpose of defending Peter against what Kimball perceived as an attack by a “sectarian minister,” so perhaps Kimball was overstating certain points in order to make his larger point:

“Even in his moment of denial, he was a near to his Lord as he could be. Let him who would be critical of this apostle put himself in the same place—among the bitterest
enemies, persecutors, and assassins—with a growing knowledge of the futility of defending his Lord, whose hour had come.”

Kimball even shifts his wording at the end of his talk to actually say that what Peter did (deny Jesus) was worthy of being forgiven by Jesus (and therefore, a sin, no?):

“He who had forgiven his crucifiers [see JST Luke 23:34c footnote] also forgave Peter who had denied him.”

So, I guess I’m inclined to say that Kimball was making an apologetic defense of Peter as an Apostle, not an analysis of scripture per se.

That being said, I think the accounts in the Gospels make it very difficult to believe that Peter knew what was happening to Jesus or that his denial was anything other than something Peter woefully regretted. (But I’m willing to be corrected)

Why does each of the gospel writers tell this story about Peter, the chief apostle and first president of the early church? What lesson is there for us in his betrayal? Most interpreters have not seen this as a simple betrayal. Instead, they have seen Peter as an Everyman. Like us, he follows the Lord and shares the Lord’s suffering, though at a distance and though he is fearful and sometimes falls.

I’m curious to hear what those in this forum think of Spencer W. Kimball’s “Peter, My Brother” discourse, in which he makes the argument that Peter’s actions were not at all a betrayal or a failure, but a matter of prudent expediency. I’ve even heard some go further and look at Christ’s “thou shalt deny me” statements not as prophetic utterances of what would happen, but divine injunctions as to what Peter ought to do–it was a commandment to deny him.

Without the biases of my own opinion, what might be some support and/or criticisms of such lines of argument?

The major differences I found between the accounts were regarding Pilate and the words spoken by Jesus on the cross (though these are certainly not all of the differences). The picture of Pilate is quite different depending on which account one reads. Matthew paints a rather disinterested Pilate, but according to John 19:12, “Pilate sought to release [Jesus].”
Matthew 26

“Tearing one’s clothing was prescribed by Jewish law as a judge’s sign that he has just witnessed blasphemy.”

My understanding is that the high priest, however, was forbidden to do this because his robes were sacred priestly robes. Can you confirm this? It might be beside the point here, since the high priest in this “trial” was probably Annas, not Caiaphas, in which case he was high priest in title only (i.e. Caiaphas wore the clothes).

“What do you think was the real charge that the priests had against Jesus? Did it perhaps have to do with Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple?”

Could you expound a bit? I thought Luke 23:2 detailed at least some of their accusations: “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.”

“It is important not to assume that Jesus trial and execution was something carried out by “the Jews”…. most Jews of the time, even most of those living in Jerusalem, probably knew little about the trial and execution….”

Well said, Jim.

“Mark identifies Barabbas as a zealot….”

Can you clarify how he is identified specifically as a zealot? Mark mentions an insurrection, but I wonder if that only applied to the zealots or could apply to others as well. I may also misunderstand the term “zealot” in NT times: was it a organized or semi-organized group (like a political party or like Hezbollah) or did it refer to many different groups of people whose only unifying feature was a hatred of Roman rule?

Why I think it’s important—I want to understand who Pilate put Jesus up against: a robber or a local freedom-fighter (aka “hero”).

“They remember that Jesus has prophesied his resurrection. Do the disciples? What does this tell us about the priests and the Pharisees?”

Wow, great question! They really were very intelligent, understanding quite well what Jesus meant, as this illustrates. And, as you suggest, they understood much better than the disciples (who had a lot more information). It really highlights the difference between scholarly knowledge and faith.

“Given what the priests say here, how do you think they explained the empty tomb?”

Based on the answer to your previous question, I’d imagine they didn’t want to think about it.