EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES
John 13:18. I speak not of you all.—Christ knew the heart of Judas; and He still gave him space for repentance (see John 6:71). I know whom, etc.—See John 15:16. But that the Scripture, etc.—The choice here refers to the choice of the twelve disciples as His apostles. In the present sinful state of the world this Scripture will continue to be fulfilled; and the Son of man, who “experienced every human pain,” did not escape the pang caused by the treachery of a friend (Matthew 26:50), as His typical representative in the theocracy did not (Psalms 41:9). “There is an ellipsis after ‘but,’ which is most simply filled up by some such phrase as ‘all this was done’ that the Scripture, etc.” (Watkins).
John 13:19. I tell you from henceforth, etc.—The disciples must be shown that this happened in consonance with the prevision of His Father and of Himself. Thus all those events about to happen, the betrayal among others, which seemed at first to be the frustration of their hopes, would only prove more conclusively, when seen from the point of view of the Resurrection and Pentecost, that Jesus was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, the Messiah, the King of Israel.
John 13:20. Verily, verily, etc.—See Matthew 10:40. But it is interesting to notice how at the moment when He was being betrayed into the hand of sinners, to drink the cup of humiliation to the dregs, He identifies Himself with the Father.
John 13:21. Troubled in spirit.—See John 11:33; John 12:27. “The regimen τῷ πνεύματι, in spirit, shows that this trouble had its dwelling in a higher region than that of even the noblest natural sensibility. Here, as at John 11:33-38, it was a shock of a religious nature, a kind of horror felt by His pure heart at the sight of this Satanic crime, and at the approach of its invisible author” (Godet).
John 13:23. Leaning on Jesus’ bosom, etc.—The guest reclined on the left arm, leaving the right free; the back of the head of the guest on the right reached the bosom, and perhaps lay in the fold of the robe of the guest on his left. This was John, the writer of the Gospel. Peter’s position is not clear: some think he reclined to the left of the Saviour, others that Judas occupied this position. Peter must clearly have been farther off, perhaps to the right of John.
John 13:25. Lying on Jesus’ bosom, etc.—Rather perhaps leaning back, as he would naturally do in speaking to Jesus.
John 13:26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop, etc.—I.e. a morsel, a piece of bread broken off, and dipped in a dish common to all, or to several, of the guests. The custom is still common in the East, especially among the Bedawin tribes. But the writer has met with it in a Syrian city.
John 13:27. And after the sop, etc.—It was the moment of decision. Instead of turning to Christ in penitence Judas opened every avenue for the entrance of the evil one. That thou doest, etc.—There was no longer place among the apostles of Christ for one who had given himself over to become an emissary of the spirit of evil.
John 13:29. Against the feast.—This seems to indicate that the meal in progress, or just ended, was not the passover supper. It was the Mazzoth meal, and was partaken of on the evening at the beginning of the 14th Nisan. Poor.— John 12:5; Galatians 2:10.
John 13:30. It was night.—From the commemorative and sacramental rite that ushered in a new and blessed era of life and light for men, Judas, dark in soul, went forth into the night, and into a deeper darkness still.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— John 13:18-30
The traitor discovered.—The incidents recorded here took place during the progress of the Lord’s Supper at its first institution. Although St. John does not give a narrative of the institution of the ordinance like the other Evangelists (just as he does not tell of the institution of baptism, although he implies it [see pp. 98, 99]), because it was well known in the Churches, and in writing his Gospel he had a special object in view, yet he undoubtedly implies it. Jesus had given the disciples a final token of His ministering love in acting the part of servant and washing their feet. He was with them around the supper table, had indeed begun the institution of the ordinance (which was to be done in remembrance of Him, and thus to show forth His death until His coming again), when He spoke these solemn words: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.” And when the amazed and doubting disciples were debating among themselves as to who should do this awful deed, Jesus, by a sign given at the request of Peter and John, signalised Judas Iscariot as the traitor.
I. The divine omniscience of Jesus.—
1. “He knew what was in man” (John 2:25), and He had long known that among His disciples lurked this dark and crafty spirit (John 6:64), suffered for some inscrutable reason to mingle in the ranks of His followers.
2. Christ had borne long and patiently with Judas, with his grasping covetousness, his petty peculations (John 12:6), his dark plots, giving him space for repentance. He had been privileged to see Christ’s mighty works, he had listened to His words of power, even at this moment had an extraordinary proof of Christ’s self-sacrificing love been shown to him as to the other disciples, and a partial participation in the holy feast, which the Lord was instituting, had been accorded to him. Would he, could he, remain untouched, unmoved by this wondrous love?
3. In vain. As David, type of the Messiah, was betrayed by false Ahithophel, so Judas, who had eaten with Christ, not alone during the three years’ ministry, of spiritual as well as temporal food, but had even now eaten of the “broken” bread, was by a base act to betray his Lord. Now, for the disciples’ sake, the mask must be torn off, and the traitor must appear. Why? Jesus had said to the disciples, “Ye are clean, but not all”; and He must reassure them by casting out this “leaven of wickedness” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Judas must not be permitted to do his awful deed in secret, and remain as spy and thief among the little band when Jesus had gone. Thus, in order to cheer their hearts with the knowledge that they were His chosen (John 13:18), to strengthen their faith in His divine wisdom and prescience, and their confidence as His ambassadors, He took steps to unveil His betrayer (John 13:21-22). The disciples were not to be left to imagine that because one of their number had proved untrue the grand office formerly conferred on them and the work entrusted to them were to be withdrawn (Matthew 10:7-20).
4. Therefore, in view of the impenitence and hardness of this dark soul, the revelation of his treachery must be made, though it brought horror to and troubled even Christ’s spirit. The very proximity of Judas, hardened, resolved in his sin, produced that antagonism in the heart of Jesus which arises between holiness and Satanic wickedness—that conflict which arises between light and darkness.
5. And whether we consider or not that the thought of what the act of Judas would bring in its train—those terrible sufferings from which, as the incarnate Son, Jesus shrank—might tend to trouble the Saviour, there was at all events the thought of the traitor’s doom to do so. To see a soul that has been privileged to dwell for a time on the heights of spiritual communion plunging ever more deeply downward into the pit of perdition is a sight to make men and angels weep. And it can be readily understood how it would trouble Him, who came to save, to have to speak those words that proclaimed the traitor’s presence among the disciples.
II. The revelation of the traitor.—
1. Not only was the Saviour troubled, so too were His disciples. They doubted of whom He spake, and one by one in sorrowful tones asked Jesus, “Lord, is it I?” (Mark 14:19).
2. They doubted and were sorrowful, because they knew, as all true men know, the weakness of their own hearts. Then it was a terrible thought that among them there was one, perhaps one whom they trusted and looked up to, who was a skulking traitor; and the shame of it also brought sorrow into their hearts.
3. Amid this doubting, sorrowful throng sat the cause of all this trouble—cold, watchful, calculating apparently: ready to brazen the matter out until the end, and thinking, perhaps, that although the Lord saw through him the disciples might not, and that he might therefore retain his treasurership and gain his thirty pieces of silver as well.
4. But that could not be. For the sake of the disciples he must depart, and also that the trouble might pass from the spirit of the Master, so that His closing counsels to His followers might not be checked in their flow by the dark presence of Jude 1:5. The revelation was made quietly, however, and in such an unobtrusive manner that the most part of the disciples perhaps did not know until the event (Luke 22:48). The guests were reclining in the Eastern fashion of the time at the table. The writer of this Gospel reclined next to Jesus, with his left arm on “the bosom of Jesus’ robe.” To that disciple Peter signalled that he should inquire who it was of whom Jesus spake. And to John Jesus whispered that it was he to whom He should give a morsel of bread dipped in the dish, which would likely contain a sauce composed of fruit of various kinds. In the East it is a mark of special attention on the part of a host to do this.
6. It was the last appeal to Judas, a special act of kindness, a mute entreaty that he would permit the final catastrophe to come about in some other way. But the appeal was vain. “Master, Rabbi, is it I?” said Judas. No word of anger escaped the lips of Jesus. His words, “Thou hast said,” tremble with the feelings of trouble and sorrow.
7. And after the sop the final, irrevocable step was taken. Jesus did not upbraid, did not threaten, did not call down, as the traitor perhaps feared, the divine wrath. “Therefore Judas would carry out the business. ‘Satan entered into him.’ ” He gave himself wholly over to the evil influence. He had chosen the evil, and must abide in his choice. He is therefore dismissed for his awful work by the Master. Judas has resolved; then let him carry out his resolve, quickly if he would, for Christ’s time, His “hour,” is at hand.
III. A benighted soul.—
1. There is something terribly significant in the remark of the Evangelist, “He then having … and it was night” (John 13:30), compared with our Lord’s words in St. Matthew’s Gospel, “Woe unto that man,” etc. (Matthew 26:24), and those of Peter, “This ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell,” etc. (Acts 1:25). “It was night—night around him, night before him, night behind him, night within him, night above him, night over all; the hour of darkness had come, and for him all stars of grace divine had set” (Arndt).
2. Various attempts have been made to determine the motive of Judas’ action, and even to rehabilitate his character. The most widely entertained idea of his deeper motive is, that he thought by his action to force our Lord to declare Himself King and Messiah, and that he had no fear of evil consequences, knowing as he did the power of Jesus. Could He not call the legions of heaven to His defence?
3. There may be much truth in this suggestion. It is on a line with the Satanic argument, that it is permissible to do evil that good may come. It is also on a line with the avarice of Judas—if Christ became king, it would mean gold, gold, gold—and with that terrible remorse he afterward displayed in the casting away of his dearly acquired thirty pieces of silver, and his heart-rending cry, “I have sinned in that I betrayed,” etc. (Matthew 27:4).
4. As it is not for men to attempt to fix exactly the traitor’s doom, neither is it the part of any to seek to minimise the crime of Judas, or to endeavour to declare his late remorse true repentance. The way to the suicide’s grave does not run through the hopeful valley of genuine contrition (2 Corinthians 7:9-10), but most frequently through the dark and barren ravine of hopeless remorse.
5. None of the disciples but he who narrates the scene most fully, and perhaps Peter, knew the purpose for which Judas went forth. Some thought he had gone to make purchases for the feast; others, who imagined that there was time enough for that in the morning, were of opinion that he had been ordered to give alms to the poor. But one thing is certain—he took the bag with him. Avarice was his bane: he had gained his world, and lost——? He went out, and sorrow and trouble for the time departed with him. Then the heavenly light shone forth, and springs of divine comfort and grace were then opened which still flow on with blessing for all mankind.
John 13:22; John 13:25. Self-examination.—The sin of Judas is regarded as something especially heinous. But in this respect it is like every sin against the Holy Ghost. And there can be no doubt that the true way in which to regard it is to do as the disciples did, and ask, “Lord, is it I?” The disciples had learned their own weakness. They did not say, as Hazael to the prophet, “Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?” They remembered that Hazael did that very thing which he so indignantly disclaimed any intention of doing. We must imitate the disciples.
I. We must remember the weakness of human nature.—
1. Even the impulsive and self-confident Peter appears for the moment to have remembered this, and become self-distrustful. He, too, was among those who doubted and were inwardly acting on the maxim, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12).
2. Do not say, None now can do as Judas did. Let it be remembered that those who strike at and betray the disciple of Christ, in the disciple strike at and betray the Master.
3. That sin which seems to have been a root-sin of Judas’ character—avarice, “the love of money, which is a root of all evil,” or an intense love of pleasure, which is equally bad—leads to crimes dark and terrible. A man, e.g., is in a position of trust: in his integrity thousands place their confidence; into his hands are confided the interests of widows and orphans; but after squandering their money in riotous living, sinking it in schemes which are gigantic swindles, whilst all the time wearing a pretence of honesty, perhaps even of piety, he at last basely betrays them, and makes off with the bag—the treasury—or what is left of it. Is not his crime a Judas-crime? Given circumstances, opportunity, temptations, would not many, unless sustained by grace, readily fall into similar crimes? Is it not the part of wisdom to act like the disciples, and each ask, “Is it I?” (Mark 14:19).
II. This inquiry, self-examination, should be made frequently and earnestly.—
1. We are loud in our indignation at the recital of crimes committed, especially when they touch ourselves. And it is right to be indignant, to be at war, with unrighteousness.
2. Yet let men beware lest when condemning others they forget the dreadful possibility seen in Judas. He was a disciple of Christ, had heard Christ’s words, had been entrusted with office and apostleship with the other eleven, went out with them doubtless when they were sent to preach, etc. (Matthew 10:1 et seq.); yet from all this “Judas by transgression fell.”
3. Therefore this should teach professed followers of Christ the duty of watchfulness and prayer, of self-examination, not alone at communion seasons, or special periods of feast or fast, but at all times (Ephesians 6:18).
III. We must take our case to the Lord.—
1. This is what the disciples did—it is what Peter and John did specially—and the doubting of one of them at least was stilled. The Lord will not withhold the truth from us. And then we have His word ever as the mirror by which the features of our Christian character may be tested.
2. It was this Judas, like the Jews, contemned. Of him Christ also might ask, “Who hath believed our report?” “Contempt of the divine word,” said Luther, “is the extremest and most terrible penalty in the world; for on the contemning of God’s word all great and terrible punishment will certainly follow.… If I desired to curse any one and wish him much evil, I should wish that he would contemn God’s word. For upon this would follow inward and outward misfortune.… What will come after that we shall readily see and know.” And that is every evil way and work.
3. Therefore it is well for us to try ourselves by His word (Hebrews 4:12), and to come before Him “whose eyes are as a flame of fire,” who knows us even afar off, who will reveal us to ourselves, who will lead us to those fountains of cleansing and healing which He hath opened for all, and who will help us to overcome the evil and be His faithful disciples.
HOMILETIC NOTES
John 13:21-30. Four opinions have been held as to the exact time at which this incideat occurred.—
1. That the announcement of the betrayer and his departure were before both the breaking and giving of the bread and the cup, as the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Mark suggest (Matthew 26:21-26; Mark 14:18-22).
2. That they were after the breaking and giving of the bread and the cup, as the narrative of St. Luke implies.
3. That the more general intimations of the traitor were made at an early stage of the meal. The meal then proceeded; after the bread and the cup there was the sign which Judas understood, and in consequence of which he left the supper party.
4. That the more general intimations preceded the breaking of the bread, of which Judas partook. The more special and private preceded the drinking of the cup when supper was ended, so that of the cup Judas did not partake. It appears to me that the last-mentioned opinion is untenable. The account of St. John will not allow us to suppose such a dividing of the words of Christ. The third of the views is possible. Many, indeed, insert the consecration of the bread and wine between the twenty-second and twenty-third verses of the chapter in the Fourth Gospel—that is, after Jesus had testified, and before He had given the sop. But I must regard this order as intrinsically improbable. Surely when the shadow was resting on the soul, when, so to say, the Lord was in the middle of His final dealing with Judas, this was not the moment at which we can suppose the institution of a new mode of communion and bond of love. Between the first and the second of the opinions referred to, on the whole—not denying that there are probabilities on the other side also—I incline to the first. There is not much force in the argument founded on the charge when the cup was passed, “Drink ye all of it”—an expression, it is urged, which “leads us to suppose that the same persons, the twelve, were present.” Not necessarily so; the all in the charge might have been equivalent to the “all ye shall be offended,” which included only the eleven. And weighing the record of St. Luke with those of the other two Synoptists and of St. John, there is this to be said: St. Luke is content with a vague and general summing up of the Lord’s words about the traitor; the other Synoptists are more definite and particular; whilst St. John gives at considerable length the speech of Jesus and the heart-searching of the apostles. I accept the guidance of the more circumstantial histories. Two are explicit as to time. In the Fourth Gospel we are reminded that the supper was proceeding when Judas was declared, the stage of dipping the morsels of flesh in the sauce having not yet passed. One such morsel thus dipped was the token, immediately followed by departure. But the cup was not blessed until a later stage, until the supper was ended. If this view be correct, we must suppose that the departure of the traitor took place after Matthew 26:25, and that John 13:26, “as they were eating Jesus took bread and blessed it,” refers to a resumption of the supper after the interruption caused by his leaving the apartment.—Dr. Marshall Lang.
ILLUSTRATIONS
John 13:18 Judas an example of the slighting of opportunity.—The heathen world is ignorant of a Judas, and could not produce such a character. Such a monster matures only in the radiant sphere of Christianity. It was Judas’ misfortune that he was born under the most propitious star. He entered into too close contact with the Saviour not to become either entirely His or wholly Satan’s. There was a time when, with reference to Judas, “the candle of God shone upon his head, and when the secret of God was upon his tabernacle.” Once he was not wanting in susceptibility for impressions of the most devotional kind, and his soul was capable of every noble elevation of feeling. The appearing of the “fairest of the children of men” in the glory of His marvellous deeds attracted him, though less excited by Him in His character of Saviour and the Friend of sinners. He swore fealty to the banner of Jesus with youthful enthusiasm, though with an unbroken will; and the Searcher of hearts, perceiving the promising talents of the young man, who was really zealous for the cause of God in a certain degree, confidingly admitted him into the circle of His nearest and most intimate disciples. This favour would never have been granted to Judas if he had attached himself to the Saviour simply from interested motives. At the moment when he offered his services to the latter he was no hypocrite, at least not consciously so. And when he afterwards prayed, studied the word of God, and even preached it with the other disciples, it was doubtless done for a time with a degree of inward truthfulness; it was only in the sequel that he resorted to intentional deception and dissimulation. The Lord appointed him to the office of receiver and almoner in His little circle, and assuredly did so for no other reason than that He perceived he was fittest for that vocation. Many have profanely supposed that the Lord committed the purse to him in order to tempt him, but such a thought is wholly to be rejected. On the contrary, that circumstance affords us an additional confirmation of the fact that Judas, at the commencement of his discipleship, possessed the full confidence of His Master, although it could not have been hidden from the latter that the disciple was still deficient in a thorough knowledge of himself, and especially in contrition of heart, to which a participation in salvation is inseparably attached. Amidst the superabundance of pious sentiments an evil root remained within, which was the love of the world, and especially of its gold and empty honour. And, in fact, Judas deceived himself when he ascribed his admission amongst the disciples of Jesus to much deeper and holier motives than the longing for the realisation of those earthly and enchanting ideas which his lively imagination depicted to him as connected with that kingdom which the Lord had appeared to establish, as, on attaching himself to the cause of the great Nazarene, he fully supposed he was following the attraction of a higher and nobler excitement; so his fellow-disciples believed it no lees of him. The latent wound did not escape the Saviour’s eye; but the mischief was not incurable, and Christ had appeared in order that, as the divine Physician, He might heal the sick and bind up the wounded.—F. W. Krummacher, “Suffering Saviour” (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh).
John 13:22. Sorrow for the backsliding leading to self-examination.—With great frankness Peter speaks of the disgrace which Judas had brought on himself and on them all. With holy earnestness he reminds them of the divine judgment which had been passed on the unhappy one, and shows how even this sorrowful history, which had brought deep shame to Christ’s disciples, must in the end minister to the glory of the holy and true God. For His justice and truth are thereby manifested, and the fearful end of the traitor, already announced by the mouth of David in the Psalms, is here remarkably and literally fulfilled. Thus Judas stands as a warning example for all time of the deceitfulness of sin and the righteous judgment of God. So terribly can a faithless spirit plunge from the height of a blessed calling, scatter all its gifts and powers, and come to ruin. Thus sorrowfully have many trifled with their high destiny in this world and the next so that others have taken their crowns. Can the terrible reward of sin be more clearly seen than in the case of Judas? He passed as Jesus’ disciple, and became His betrayer. He should have held the office of a bishop, and he inherited the Field of Blood. He should have preached the risen Christ, and he died a suicide. He should have received the Holy Ghost, and he went to perdition. “The wages of sin,” etc. And yet with all the earnestness and decision with which Peter spoke of Judas’ sin and end, the tone of tender forbearance and gentle sorrow for this unhappy brother is discernible. There are none of those harsh judgments which often find place among ourselves in such circumstances. Peter permits God to judge. There is nothing here of that proud self-exemption with which Christians sometimes look down on an unhappy self-murderer. “I thank God I am not like this man.” But a holy sadness for the lost brother breathes through the apostle’s words. Gently does he speak of his treachery: “He was guide to them that took Jesus.” Gently is his fate spoken of: “He is gone to his own place,” to that place which the Lord, the Searcher of hearts, will allot him beyond, according to his righteousness. So, my brethren, let us think of those and speak of those who go hence over dark ways, with brotherly love, holy sympathy, and pious humility, and in every such case remember the word of Nathan to David: “Thou art the man!” Also in thee there is something of this depravity, and it is to the praise of God’s grace that thou hast kept thyself from falling into the abyss—Translated from Karl Gerok on Acts 2.
John 13:25. Judas a warning example.—O Judas, Judas! happy would it have been wert thou the only one of thy kind! But the name of thy brethren, even in the present day, is “Legion.” They were not, indeed, at any time thy like-minded apostles; but, like thee, they once inhaled the pure air of the gospel, and were shone upon, like thee, by the rays of the eternal Morning Star. They were baptised like thee; they grew up, nourished by the views of divine truth; and on the day of their confirmation devoted themselves, more or less sincerely, in the most solemn manner, to the Lord and His cause. But, unfaithful to their sacred vows, they revolted with the inmost tendency of their hearts to the god of this world; and instead of the kingdom of divine light and peace, the idea of another presented itself to their minds, in which the flesh should have its unrestrained and complete gratification. This object they pursued; but the Holy One upon the throne of David, in the power of religion, interposed in the way to its attainment. He requires the crucifixion of the flesh with its affections and lusts, unconditional submission to the divine commands, and unceasing endeavours after godliness. He protects property, sanctifies the marriage state, introduces order into families, condemns revolt, perjury, deceit, uncleanness, intemperance, and every offence against the moral government of the world, as the supporter and advocate of which He appears. And they who would gladly elevate their lusts to be the world’ law, feel more or less in their consciences the weight of His requirements as the sting of their condemnation, and, without confessing it, are inwardly constrained, even against themselves, to justify the warnings and teachings of Christ’s religion as absolute and irrefutable truth. But this fills them with bitterness, and enkindles in them the infernal spark of enmity against the Gospel, and against the Lord as its author. Thus they become enemies of God, and join in Satan’s colossal attempt to war against the power and majesty of God in the Christian religion, and to bury the whole world of religious and moral sentiments in the gigantic grave of an atheistic materialism, which denies the existence of a future state. They prepare for Jesus the cross of an enthusiast; for His Gospel the sarcophagus of what they profanely call antiquated ideas; for His whole Church the stairs of Pilate, on which, in their view, it descends from the scene of reality into a kingdom of shadows; and thus renew the treachery of Judas to his Lord for the wretched reward of an expected state of things, in which, in a short time, every consciousness of a superior fate for mankind would perish by the poisonous nutriment of a base and transitory lust.—F. W. Krummacher.
John 13:25. Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.—Our first lesson will be found in the fact that when our Lord said to His disciples, “One of you shall betray Me,” every one of them began to say, “Is it I?” Instead of being shocked even to indignation, each of the disciples put it to himself as a possibility: “It may be I, Lord; is it I?” This is the right spirit in which to hold all our privileges. We should regard it as a possibility that the strongest may fail, and even the oldest may betray his trust. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Do you suppose that there was but one betrayal of the Lord once for all, and that the infamous crime can never be repeated? “I tell you, nay!” There are predictions yet to be realised: “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them.” “Lord, is it I?” It shall surely be more tolerable for Judas Iscariot in the day of judgment than for that man! Living in the light of Gospel day, professing to have received the Holy Ghost, ordained as a minister of the cross, holding office in the Christian Church, is it impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance, seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame? “Lord, is it I?” “In the last days perilous times shall come; men shall be traitors.” “Lord, is it I?” Governing our life by this self-misgiving spirit, not thinking all men sinful but ourselves, we shall be saved from the boastfulness which is practical blasphemy, and our energy shall be kept from fanaticism by the chastening influence of self-doubt.—Dr. Joseph Parker.
John 13:30. The sad mystery of the son of perdition.—Imagination reverts to the period of childhood; think of him as the fair boy, whose presence gladdens the house of Simon of Kerioth. He has received the name Judas, “the confessor,” or “the praise of God.” Who could have anticipated, watching the romp of the bright-eyed child, that over him, long years afterwards, the incarnate Truth would say, “Better that he had never been born”? Oh, sad mystery and pain of love! How often repeated! How many the parents doomed to sob over the misery of manhood or womanhood! “Would God our child had never been born, or that we had laid him long since in the narrow grave!”—Dr. Marshall Lang.