Maundy musings

In response to the rather worried-sounding phone call I received from Hnaef, who was cooking a barbecue when he read my earlier posting  - it was nothing to do with him. I may have the delusions of grandeur to have that kind of Messiah complex, but not the delusions of humility that would have to go with it to do it properly. And I'm sorry about the damage he suffered when he dropped that lamb chop. But at least that will teach him not to barbecue in his swimming costume again.

It takes a certain kind of person to carry out that sort of betrayal. Not Hnaef, who is loyal, trustworthy, reliable, unambitious. If you were wondering about the sort of person that might betray you, you might be looking out for a wild-eyed idealist who thinks that concepts and causes are more important than people. These are the sorts of people that sacrifice friends, family and often their own lives to further the ends of a cause that seems more important than anything. It is possibly no surprise that they tend to be young men.

Or if you looked at Biblical precedent, the sort of person who would let you down might be the one in charge of the purse. An over-interest in matters financial might cause you to objectify people according to what benefit they can bring rather than their innate worth.  Although Burton is dull and unimaginative, this does not apply to all those who deal in financial matters. Maybe Judas thought he was speculating to accumulate - a little push now to bring the Kingdom in more quickly - a theo-martial leveraged buyout, if you will.

Of course, if you were a potential Labour party leader wondering who might be betray you, you'd be looking out for the person who looked most like you, and who you used to kick around when he was younger and smaller than you were. So maybe envy comes into it as well.

The Biblical authors weren't so inclined to philosophise on the matter, of course. Luke puts it down to Satan - the accuser. So does John.  Though it looks like John had it in for Judas in general. But if the Devil made Judas do it, then was it really his fault? Did he have free will in this? Could the Devil have entered any of the disciples, had one of the others agreed to co-operate? Is it a big step from Peter's desertion to Judas's betrayal - or just the change from passive denial to active collaboration?

I wouldn't say he did it for the money.  Annas and Caiaphas may have thought that was all that mattered to him - but when the deed was done the money didn't matter. Maybe, in the end, Judas didn't matter much either. Just a cog. Without the betrayal the authorities would still have got Jesus another way. The Cross would still have loomed, the nails would still have bitten, the Devil would still have had what he thought was his day - and he would still have woken up a loser on Sunday morning.