had made in his scheme. Or, on the other hand, if the faith and hope of Iscariot in the word of Jesus were already too far gone to be recalled to life by any cheering promises, these sayings may have only served to increase his indifference, or to deepen it into downright hatred, at what he would regard as a new deceit, designed to keep up the sinking spirits of those, who had begun to apprehend the desperate character of the enterprise in which they had involved themselves. If his feelings had then reached this point of desperation, the effect of this renewal of promises, which he might construe into a support of his original views of the nature of the rewards accruing to the followers of Christ, on the establishment of his kingdom, would only excite and strengthen a deep rooted spite against his once-adored Lord, and his malice, working in secret over the disappointment, would at last be ready to rise on some convenient occasion into active revenge.
An accuser.—This is the true primary force of [Greek: diabolos] (diabolos) in this passage.
(John vi. 70.) This word is never applied to any individual in the sense of "devil,"
except to Satan himself; but wherever it occurs as a common substantive appellation,
descriptive of character, pointedly refers to its primary signification of "accuser,"
"calumniator," "informer," &c., the root of it being [Greek: diaballô], which means "to accuse,"
"to calumniate;" and when applied to Satan, it still preserves this sense,—though
it then has the force of a proper name; since (
Hebrew characters) (Satan,) in Hebrew, means
primarily "accuser" but acquires the force of a proper name, in its ordinary use.
Grotius however, suggests that in this passage, the word truly corresponds to the Hebrew
(Hebrew characters) (tsar,) the word which is applied to Haman, (Esth. vii. 6. viii. 1.) and has
here the general force of "accuser," "enemy," &c. The context here (verse 71,)
shows that John referred to this sense, and that Christ applied it to Judas prophetically,—thus
showing his knowledge of the fact, that this apostle would "accuse" him,
and "inform" against him, before the Sanhedrim. Not only Grotius, but Vatablus,
Erasmus, Lucas Brugensis, and others, maintain this rendering.
This occasion, before long, presented itself. The successful
labors of Jesus, in Jerusalem, had raised up against him a combination
of foes of the most determined and dangerously hostile
character. The great dignitaries of the nation, uniting in one
body all the legal, literary and religions honors and influence of
the Hebrew name, and strengthened too by the weight of the vast
wealth belonging to them and their immediate supporters, as well
as by the exaltation of high office and ancient family, had at last
resolved to use all this immense power, (if less could not effect it,)
for the ruin of the bold, eloquent man, who, without one of all
the privileges which were the sources and supports of their power,
had shaken their ancient dominion to its foundation, by his simple
words, and almost overthrown all their power over the people,
whose eyes were now beginning to be opened to the mystery of
"how little wisdom it took, to govern them!" Self-preservation
