Monday, March 23, 2009
The Kiss of Death
So it's almost Easter, and I'm reading the betrayal account in the Gospels. But there's something I don't really get. The Gospels record that Judas kissed Jesus, and that the kiss was to show who the soldiers should arrest. But here's what I don't understand. Jesus says to them "I was teaching daily in the temple and you did not arrest me" which indicates that they already knew who Jesus was. So...what was the kiss for? Is this a Jewish thing? James, do you know?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
That's a good question. It's one I've thought about on two levels. First, the guards probably wouldn't know exactly who he was unless He was a criminal, so Christ is pointing out that had He done something really wrong, they would have known Him and arrested Him there - in other words, to the guards, Y'eshua is pointing out why the kiss is needed - because He is in fact innocent.
Kind of saying, 'Look, I have been in temple the whole time and had I done something evil, you who are guards of the temple would have seen it yourselves, yet you didn't arrest me then, did you?'
Secondly, Judas, I am not certain was thoroughly bad - perhaps he wanted to bring about Christ's reign on his own schedule and force Jesus into action - who knows. For sure he didn't understand the kind of kingdom Jesus intended. But I do think Judas wanted to make sure the other disciples weren't hurt or arrested by mistake.
Could be as well, it was at night and was perhaps easy to mistake someone, Judas was pointing out who should be taken into custody.
As I think on that, it really makes me more certain that Judas was pushing Christ to act. Judas may have simply misunderstood the peaceful, giving nature of the kingdom. He missed the last supper and no one else really seemed to understand it at the time anyway.
A kiss seems to me a way of 1)pointing out the right guy, and 2)showing and saying to Jesus, 'I love you! Act now, the time has come!!"
Judas was known as a zealot in some circles, so I figure he took a more militaristic approach. Like I say, who knows?
Would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?
-- Luke 22:48
C.H. Spurgeon: "The kisses of an enemy are deceitful. Let me be on my guard when the world puts on a loving face, for it will, if possible, betray me as it did my Master, with a kiss. Whenever a man is about to stab religion, he usually professes very great reverence for it. Let me beware of sleek-faced hypocrisy, which is assistant to heresy and infidelity. Knowing how easily the unrighteous are deceived, let me be wise as a serpent to detect and avoid the designs of the enemy. The young man, devoid of understanding, was led astray by the kiss of the strange woman: May my soul be so graciously instructed today that the seductive tones of the world may have no effect upon me. Holy Spirit, let me not, a poor frail son of man, be betrayed with a kiss!
But what if I should be guilty of the same dreadful sin as Judas, that son of perdition? I have been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus; I am a member of His visible church; I sit at the Communion table: All these are so many kisses of my lips. Am I sincere in them? If not, I am a base traitor. Do I live in the world as carelessly as others do, and yet make a profession of being a follower of Jesus? Then I am exposing my faith to ridicule and leading men to speak evil of the very name Christian. Surely if I act inconsistently, I am a Judas, and it were better for me if I had never been born.
Dare I hope that I am innocent in this matter? Then, O Lord, keep me so. O Lord, make me sincere and true. Preserve me from every false way. Never let me betray my Savior. I do love You, Lord Jesus, and though I often grieve You, I still desire to remain faithful even unto death. O God, forbid that I should be a high-sounding professor and then fall at last into the lake of fire because I betrayed my Master with a kiss."
It was a mixed crowd of Roman officers and the Chief priests. I think the "you" is for the chief priests.
I would also assume that they thought only judas could get close enough to identify Jesus.
They probably saw the apostles doing many things on Jesus' behalf, which could confuse them. For example they baptized and this was thought to be done by Jesus by some.
Then there is Thomas the Twin which some speculate looked very similar to Jesus, hence tha name.
Perhaps it was for the priests, but even then, I can imagine them being in the back, Judas in the front and guards in the middle. The guards don't know Jesus, and obviously, as you point out, the priests don't know Him that well, either. Particularly at night. Either way, it is, Dave, a very interesting scripture. Geza Vermes book, Jesus the Jew (a historical look, so 'beware') gives some interesting insight into the Hebraic view of the Gospels.
Jesse's note that the disciples were sometimes confused for Christ is very good and an interesting point that I think bears some thought.
As for Thomas, I know of a few Syriac traditions that hold that his full name was Jude (Judas) Thomas, specifically the Book of Thomas the Contender (not the Gospel of Thomas) from the Nag Hammadi, in which Jesus says to Thomas, "Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself…" holds that Thomas was actually Jesus' twin; but it's a largely gnostic text with Judeo-Hellenistic philosophy interwoven and probably later tweaked for a Christian audience. It doesn't really read like anything Jesus, Himself would say anyway, having none of the subtlies that Christ used so often. It does have a lot of that arcane knowledge that gnostics are known for though. One group even holds that the sightings of Thomas after Jesus' crucifixion are the basis of Christ's resurrection appearances.
Don't you believe it.
It comes from one loosely bound, and flimsy piece of writing that dates no earlier than 180 AD. I don't think it holds a lot of water, personally.
In fact, if anything, Didymus, (gk: twin) is probably just a nickname of sorts noting that Thomas had a twin brother (or sister) somewhere. Nicknames of that sort were very very common (still are). Anyway, it doesn't say who. For certain it wasn't Jesus. No one is so dumb to mistake him for a risen Christ, especially who has powers over matter. First Century folk may be without iPhones, but they weren't stupid. Besides, Jesus isn't going around claiming divinity with a twin brother right beside Him. ("I'm God, but him? No, he's just a numbnut lookalike. Pay no attention, please." ...riiiight)
Post a Comment