Chapter 272 of 404

The Heinousness of Betrayal

The heinousness of the betrayal suggests the depth of Jesus’ wounding at this point. His actions suggest that he was prepared to face martyrdom at the hands of the political elite (leading aristocrats and the Roman occupiers that supported them). Yet betrayal by one of his own special disciples that he had called to lead the renewal movement, and to whom he had promised a special place in the kingdom (Matt 19:28//Lk 22:30), likely invited deeper anguish.⁶⁹

Although it sometimes occurred, people in ancient Mediterranean society considered betrayal by a friend far more heinous than any insult by an enemy.⁷⁰ The deeper the level of intimacy, the more that trust was a duty, and the more terrible its betrayal.⁷¹ Breach of covenant such as treaties was regarded as terrible;⁷² Judas’ discipleship and its longstanding implicit covenant of friendship makes his betrayal a heinous act of treachery,⁷³ and the meal context that immediately precedes the betrayal amplifies the heinousness of the betrayal all the more.

For many, sharing food and drink represented the most important bond of kindness.⁷⁴ Those who ate together shared a common bond and were normally assumed to be trustworthy.⁷⁵ Hospitality established friendly ties even with strangers and was mandatory in the ancient Mediterranean.⁷⁶ Guest-friendships were politically binding,⁷⁷ and could effect reconciliation between political partisans at enmity.⁷⁸ Injuring or slaying those who had eaten at one’s table was a terrible offense from which all but the most wicked would normally shrink;⁷⁹ such behavior was held to incur divine wrath.⁸⁰ Those who eat together at a table should not betray friendship even by slandering one another.⁸¹ Though rarer due to the normal distribution of power, betraying or slaying one’s host, as here, was equally terrible.⁸²

↑ Back to top