positions and the seat of honour. They ignored the basin placed by the door which would have been used by
the most humble servant to wash the feet of those entering. This is what Y‘shua did as an example of
humility. So it would seem that Judas had the seat of honour because he asserted himself the most to get it.
―There is, we believe, ample evidence that he not only claimed, but actually obtained, the chief seat at the
table next to the Lord. This, as previously explained, was not, as is generally believed, at the right, but at the
left of Christ, not below, but above Him, on the couches or pillows on which they reclined.‖ Edersheim, Life
and Times, II, p. 493.
―Around a low Eastern table, oval or rather elongated, two parts covered with a cloth, and standing or else
suspended, the single divans or pillows are ranged in the form of an elongated horseshoe, leaving free one
end of the table, somewhat as in the accompanying woodcut. A represents the table, B B respectively the
ends of the two rows of single divans on which each guest reclines on his left side, with his head (C) nearest
the table, and his feet (D) stretching back towards the ground.
So far for the arrangement of the table. Jewish documents are equally explicit as to that of the guests. It
seems to have been quite an established rule that, in a company of more than two, say of three, the chief
personage or Head—in this instance, of course, Christ—reclined on the middle divan. We know from the
Gospel narrative that John occupied the place on His right, at that end of the divans—as we may call it—at
the head of the table. But the chief place next to the Master would be that to His left, or above Him. In the
strife of the disciples, which should be accounted the greatest, this had been claimed, and we believe it to
have been actually occupied, by Judas. This explains how, when Christ whispered to John by what sign to
recognise the traitor, none of the other disciples heard it. It also explains, how Christ would first hand to
Judas the sop, which formed part of the Paschal ritual, beginning with him as the chief guest at the table,
without thereby exciting special notice. Lastly, it accounts for the circumstance that, when Judas, desirous of
ascertaining whether his treachery was known, dared to ask whether it was he, and received the affirmative
answer, no one at the table knew what had passed.‖ Edersheim, Life and Times, II, p. 494.
The fourth and perhaps final reason for the betrayal of Y‘shua by Judas was that he had long contemplated
it; and for some time intended to do it: ―But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray
Him, said, ̳Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii, and given to the poor people?‘‖ (John
12:4-5). This passage seems to indicate that Judas‘ act was the result of considerable deliberation and a
rather long-standing decision. Significantly, Lane quotes this remark by Stauffer: ―It may be that Judas, the
non-Galilean, had for months been a secret agent of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin assigned to work among the
Galilean‘s disciples. At any rate, he regarded the capture of the man who had been proclaimed a
blasphemer and pseudo-prophet (John 11:57) as his bounden duty. For he took an oath pledging himself to
commit the betrayal—an oath that may well have included a curse upon himself should he fail to carry out
the task he had undertaken.‖ (Lane, Mark, p. 496, fn. 27.) Then, as I began to investigate the Greek term
used here (mello), I found it was often employed by John, and sometimes with the sense of intention or
volition. ―Denoting an intended action: intend, propose, have in mind ...‖ (Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 502.) ―And this
He was saying to test him; for He Himself knew what He was intending to do‖ (John 6:6; cf. 7:35; Acts 20:7,
13; 27:30).
Finally, I discovered this marginal rendering for John 6:71: ―Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot,
for he, one of the twelve, was intending to betray Him‖ (John 6:71 NASV, marginal rendering). Judas‘
actions were no impulse – no quick decision. I believe that he had at least toyed with the idea of a betrayal
for months.
Let me attempt to construct the process by which Judas came to his fateful decision to betray Y‘shua by
putting all of these factors together. I must caution you that there is a good deal of conjecture here, but at
least we may gain a better grasp of what may have happened and why.
Distinct from the eleven, Judas joined Y‘shua in a state of unbelief. ―The one non-Galilean, probably, was
Judas Iscariot. His name has usually been interpreted, following several early Greek manuscripts, as
meaning ̳man of Kerioth.‘ If so, he was from either Kerioth in Moab, on the east of the Dead Sea, or, more
likely, Kerioth-Hezron in the deep south of Judaea. In view of his eventual treachery, it is no wonder that the
Gospels always portray him as the odd man out; but it may well be that he never really felt at home among
this motley crowd of Galileans. Many motives for his volte-face have been suggested, but it is possible that a
Judaean disdain for an essentially Galilean movement was among them.‖ (R. T. France, I Came to Set the
Earth on Fire (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), pp. 53-54.) The faith of the eleven was limited, but
real. Not so with Judas. Judas had some other reason(s), then, for joining this band of disciples. I would
suspect that he at least regarded Y‘shua as a messianic hopeful who had charismatic appeal and the ability