BEMA Episode Link: 131: Betrayal
Episode Length: 30:50
Published Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 01:00:00 -0700
Session 3
About this episode:

Marty Solomon and Brent Billings examine the betrayals of Jesus and discuss which characters are involved in it.

Discussion Video for BEMA 131

BEMA 79: Silent Years — Zealots

Fidelity of Betrayal by Peter Rollins

Transcript for BEMA 131

Notes

*Note: The following notes are handwritten by me, Adam, and I reserve the right to be wrong.

BEMA Episode 131: Betrayal - Study Notes

Title & Source Summary

Episode: 131 - Betrayal
Hosts: Marty Solomon and Brent Billings Focus: The betrayals (plural) of Jesus - Judas Iscariot and Peter’s denials

This episode examines the complexity of betrayal in Jesus’s final week, challenging traditional understandings of who truly betrayed Jesus. The discussion explores Judas Iscariot’s background as a likely Zealot from Keriot, his possible misreading of Jesus’s mission as a revolutionary movement, and how his actions led to unintended consequences. More surprisingly, the episode reveals that from a rabbinical perspective, Peter’s public denial of his rabbi represents a deeper and more serious betrayal than Judas’s actions. The episode concludes with a powerful reflection on hope, second chances, and the difference between those who end their story in despair versus those who allow themselves to be reinstated.

Key Takeaways

  • Judas Iscariot’s name (“man from Keriot”) suggests he was likely a Zealot, which provides crucial context for understanding his actions
  • From a Zealot perspective, Judas may have believed he was forcing Jesus’s hand to start a revolution against the corrupt chief priests, not actually betraying him
  • Judas’s actions closely follow prophecies in Zechariah 11, including the 30 pieces of silver and throwing the money into the temple
  • Rabbinically speaking, Peter’s public denial of his rabbi represents a more serious betrayal than Judas’s misguided attempt to help
  • The Gospel writers repeatedly identify Judas as “the betrayer” precisely because first-century Jewish readers would naturally identify Peter as the betrayer instead
  • The key difference between Judas and Peter is not the severity of their mistakes, but whether they believed there could be a tomorrow after their failure
  • The story ultimately demonstrates Jesus’s ministry of second chances, bottomless grace, and wasteful love

Main Concepts & Theories

Judas as a Zealot

The name “Iscariot” comes from the Hebrew “ish Keriot” meaning “man from Keriot.” Scholarly evidence suggests Keriot was a Zealot compound. This background helps explain several aspects of Judas’s character:

  • His pseudo-concern for the poor aligns with Zealot ideology about Jewish oppression under Rome
  • His role as treasurer, possibly volunteering to prevent Matthew the tax collector from handling money
  • His potential theft from the money bag could be understood through a “Robin Hood mentality” of redistributing wealth for the greater good
  • His willingness to break into the temple at night to throw back the silver coins (a very Zealot action)
The Zealot Misreading of Jesus’s Mission

All the disciples, not just Judas, appear to have misunderstood Jesus as leading a Zealot-style revolution:

  • After a week of confrontational teachings against the chief priests (whom Zealots despised as collaborators with Rome), Judas would have been “champing at the bit”
  • Judas likely believed he was forcing Jesus’s hand to kickstart the revolution, not betraying him
  • Even after the resurrection, disciples asked “Are you going to restore the Kingdom now?”
  • Jesus’s statement “What you need to do, do quickly” may indicate he knew what Judas was planning but allowed it to unfold
The Zechariah 11 Connection

Judas’s actions mirror the prophecy in Zechariah 11 with striking precision:

  • The prophecy denounces corrupt shepherds (which Judas would apply to the chief priests)
  • The prophet receives 30 pieces of silver as payment
  • The prophet throws the silver “to the potter at the house of the Lord”
  • The passage ends with condemnation: “Woe to the worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock”
  • Judas may have internalized this final condemnation, leading to his overwhelming guilt and suicide
Peter’s Denial as the True Betrayal

From a rabbinical discipleship perspective, Peter’s actions represent a more serious betrayal:

  • A disciple trying to do the right thing but making a mistake (even a terrible one) is part of the learning process
  • But publicly disassociating from one’s rabbi is “unheard of in rabbinical discipleship, the truest form of a slap to the face of his teacher”
  • Peter understood the gravity of his offense - after denying Jesus, he returned to fishing because he knew his time as a disciple was over
  • Without John’s Gospel, we would have almost no record of what happened to Peter after his denial
The Reinstatement Protocol

The Gospel writers work hard to correct the natural rabbinical reading:

  • They repeatedly identify Judas (not Peter) as “the betrayer” - awkwardly often
  • The angel at the tomb specifically says “tell his disciples and Peter” because Peter would no longer be considered a disciple
  • John’s Gospel provides the crucial account of Peter’s reinstatement on the beach
  • This reinstatement was necessary for Peter to later become the leader seen in Acts
The Theology of Second Chances

The ultimate difference between Judas and Peter lies in how their stories end:

  • Both made huge mistakes - one misjudged his teacher’s mission, the other publicly denied any connection
  • Judas decided his mistakes could not be overcome and ended his story
  • Peter was willing to face his greatest fears and insecurities, trusting Jesus to give him a new tomorrow
  • The only true betrayal of Jesus is believing there’s no coming back, no second chance, no hope

Examples & Applications

Historical Context - Zealot Actions

The episode references actual historical Zealot behavior to illuminate Judas’s actions:

  • Zealots killed at least one high priest in the temple courts, demonstrating their disdain for the chief priesthood
  • Breaking into the temple at night to throw silver coins aligns with known Zealot tactics
  • The “Robin Hood mentality” of redistributing wealth was part of Zealot ideology
Funding Jesus’s Ministry

Luke 8:3 mentions that women supported Jesus’s ministry financially, including Joanna, wife of Chuza (Herod Antipas’s treasurer). This means:

  • Herod Antipas indirectly funded Jesus’s ministry through his treasurer’s household
  • If Judas knew this, it would have created “self-righteous indignation” for a Zealot
  • This could explain why Judas felt justified in taking money from the common purse
Modern Application - Misreading Jesus

The episode draws parallels to modern misunderstandings:

  • Just as the disciples heard what they wanted to hear despite Jesus’s clear teachings on loving enemies
  • Modern readers and teachers can filter Jesus’s words through their own agendas
  • People can know a teacher well, hear their teachings repeatedly, and still completely misunderstand their intent
  • Marty shares a personal example of people insisting he’s saying something when he’s clearly saying the opposite
The Cain and Abel Connection

The episode connects this story to Genesis themes from Session 1:

  • Peter’s question about forgiving “70 times 7” connects to Lamech in Cain’s line
  • God’s response to Cain: “If you do what’s right, you’ll be accepted” parallels Jesus’s message to Peter
  • Like Cain, both Judas and Peter faced a choice about how to respond to their mistakes
  • The pattern of not being defined by one’s biggest mistakes runs throughout Scripture

Potential Areas for Further Exploration

Rabbinical Discipleship Practices
  • What were the formal and informal rules governing rabbi-disciple relationships in Second Temple Judaism?
  • What other examples exist of disciples making mistakes and being reinstated (or not)?
  • How would public disassociation from a rabbi have been viewed by the broader community?
The Gospel of John’s Unique Perspective
  • Why does John’s Gospel alone preserve the account of Peter’s reinstatement?
  • What is John’s relationship to the high priest’s household that gave him access to Caiaphas’s courtyard?
  • How does John’s Gospel function as a corrective or supplement to the Synoptic accounts?
Zechariah’s Prophetic Context
  • How would first-century Jews have understood Zechariah 11’s condemnation of shepherds?
  • Were the chief priests aware they were fulfilling this prophecy by paying 30 pieces of silver?
  • What other connections exist between Zechariah and the passion narrative?
Zealot Ideology and Jewish Revolutionary Movements
  • How widespread was Zealot influence among Jesus’s disciples?
  • What specific teachings of Jesus could be misunderstood as supporting a Zealot agenda?
  • How did the Zealot movement eventually lead to the Jewish revolt of 66-70 CE?
The Prearrangement Theory
  • What evidence supports or contradicts Peter Rollins’s theory that Jesus asked Judas to betray him?
  • How do Jesus’s cryptic statements to Judas (“What you need to do, do quickly”) fit into different interpretive frameworks?
  • What middle-ground positions exist between prearrangement and complete misunderstanding?
Depression, Suicide, and Biblical Narratives
  • How should modern readers approach biblical accounts of suicide with pastoral sensitivity?
  • What resources exist for understanding suicide in ancient Mediterranean cultures?
  • How can the church better support those struggling with clinical depression while teaching this text?
The Potter’s Field Tradition
  • What was the significance of using the 30 pieces of silver to purchase a potter’s field for burying strangers?
  • How does Matthew’s account of this fulfill his understanding of prophecy?
  • What became of this field in later Jewish and Christian tradition?

Comprehension Questions

  1. How does understanding Judas as a Zealot from Keriot change your interpretation of his actions during the betrayal? What specific details from the Gospel accounts make more sense with this background?

  2. From a rabbinical perspective, why would Peter’s denial be considered a more serious betrayal than Judas’s actions? What does this reveal about the nature of discipleship in first-century Judaism?

  3. How does Zechariah 11 provide a framework for understanding Judas’s actions, particularly throwing the 30 pieces of silver into the temple? What does this tell us about Judas’s knowledge of Scripture?

  4. Why do the Gospel writers repeatedly identify Judas as “the betrayer” when this would have been obvious to readers? What does this suggest about how different audiences might naturally read the story?

  5. According to the episode, what is the fundamental difference between Judas and Peter that makes one “the betrayer” and allows the other to be reinstated? How does this connect to broader biblical themes about second chances?

Personal Summary

This episode powerfully reframes the traditional understanding of betrayal in Jesus’s passion narrative. By exploring Judas’s likely background as a Zealot from Keriot, we gain insight into how he may have genuinely believed he was helping Jesus by forcing a confrontation with the corrupt chief priesthood. His actions closely mirror Zechariah 11’s prophecy, suggesting deep engagement with Scripture even in his final moments. The episode’s most striking claim is that from a rabbinical perspective, Peter’s public denial represents a more serious betrayal than Judas’s misguided revolutionary fervor.

The Gospel writers had to repeatedly identify Judas as “the betrayer” precisely because Jewish readers would naturally see Peter as the one who truly betrayed his rabbi. Peter understood this - returning to fishing because he knew his discipleship was over. Only through the specific intervention of the angel (“tell his disciples and Peter”) and John’s unique account of the beach conversation do we understand that Peter was reinstated.

Ultimately, the episode argues that what distinguishes Judas from Peter is not the severity of their mistakes but their willingness to believe in tomorrow. Judas decided there was no coming back from his error. Peter was willing to face his deepest fears and insecurities, trusting that Jesus meant it when he said Peter was still worth saving. This story echoes themes from Genesis through the Gospels: we are not defined by our biggest mistakes, and God offers endless second chances to those willing to accept them. The only true betrayal is believing there’s no hope, no tomorrow, no way back.

Edit | Previous | Next