The Thing About Leaders

Let's talk about Judas for a moment, and I take this from Luke 22:1-6. Judas was one of the twelve. When the twelve were sent out two by two to preach and heal, Judas was one of them. In the power of Christ, he healed the sick and preached the good news.

Judas was not always bad. He believed in God and the kingdom and the law. He was a zealous Jew with high hopes – and possibly, he was also a zealot like Simon Zealotes. So, what is it that we see in Judas? My answer is dashed hopes and shifting allegiances.

It is in Luke 22:3 that we find this information about Judas, “Then” (note the importance of the word 'then') “entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. ” Judas changed. Did everything change about Judas? No. Judas, perhaps in the mindset of fellow-apostle Simon Zealotes, decided that Jesus was not going to do anything about Rome as hoped.

After all, the hoped for Messiah was supposed to be a liberator of the Jewish people and a king of the Davidic line. If there was to be a Jewish king, there was no room for Rome. Rome had to be removed – and that is exactly what people looked for in a savior.

The thinking might have been that if Jesus was not going to remove Rome, he stood in the way of those who would.

When your hoped for Messiah fails your expectations, what power do you fall back on? Shifting alliances. For a Jew like Judas, that would have been the Sanhedrin. They were the religious leaders of Israel established by the commands of God. If Judas, who seemed to walk freely among them, was at all influenced by the concerns of the Sanhedrin, then Jesus not only stood in the way but actually made the Roman problem worse.

Speaking of leaders, these verses in Luke paint a clear picture of the very nature of leaders in general. The arrangement between the Sanhedrin and Judas stipulated that Judas was to find a way and a place for them to arrest Jesus, as verse six states, “in the absence of the multitude.”

Why was this the arrangement? We find the answer to this question in verse two. The leaders “feared the people.” One does not have to go far to see parallels in other leaders. In our present day, we see leaders who redirect manpower, resources, and authority in efforts to keep the people from panicking or rioting. The bald fact is that leaders fear the people.

The Sanhedrin wished to kill Jesus – and quite frankly, that does not seem very holy or righteous for representatives of God. The question has to be asked, was Judas of the same mind? Many will say no. The very fact of his suicidal remorse suggests that he only sought to have Jesus arrested and placed on the sidelines. Judas may have been less complicit in the murderous intent of the leaders than in the plans of the zealots.

An array of motives have been attributed to Judas. Some suggest he was in cahoots with Jesus to achieve the crucifixion that would effect the salvation of man. Some suggest Judas came to the conclusion that Jesus was not the answer to the Roman dilemma. Whatever his motives for betrayal were, I think they were not to see Jesus killed.

Yet, two matters place Judas in the league of leaders. One was his familiarity with the leaders. Two was his service for hire. Had he worked for them before? Was he a relative of one of the council members? Had they played him, using his passion for Israel against him? We may never really know the answers to these questions.

And then, we must also ask this. Do the motives of the Sanhedrin really matter? To be concise, it all boils down to three facts. Judas betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin, who wanted him dead, and had they not feared the people, they would not have manipulated laws in a mockery of trial but would have murdered him in broad daylight.