Thanks Vinod. It is a complex story, and it is hard to be sure about what was going on inside of Judas or what his deeper motivation was. I think the points you make are excellent, and a reminder to judge our own motives and intentions, but to let God be the judge of others, because the reality is that we never really know what the full story is.
Thanks for a most helpful contribution,

I was really intrigued by your post, because the possibility you discuss is very similar to my own thoughts. I would not consider Judas a thief—instead, I believe he was collecting or hiding money for the resistance. This might also explain why he handed Jesus over for money: as Jewish officials at that time did not have the authority to execute people, Judas may have thought Jesus would come out of it unharmed, and that this incident would likely trigger a more forceful or aggressive reaction from the movement.

If Judas had truly been a thief, he never would have returned the money. To me, he was more like a zealot or freedom fighter who became disillusioned—especially about Jesus as the promised leader who would redeem them from Roman rule, rather than the ultimate spiritual redemption. Furthermore, Judas believed in Jesus more than anyone else. That’s why he was confident Jesus would emerge unscathed.

His remorse was overwhelming, and his faith in Jesus so absolute—especially after witnessing Jesus’s forceful reaction in the Temple—that Judas must have believed Jesus would again take a firmer stand against the Roman collaborators. But when he saw Jesus respond with love and forgiveness even in the face of personal betrayal and injustice, Judas must have realized how profoundly he misunderstood or overlooked Jesus’s core message. In that moment, suicide seemed the only escape—because he never imagined his reading of Jesus being wrong. Innocent blood on his hands (unknowingly) was something that he couldn’t live with.

Hi Tim and thanks for this. It’s a contested area and one it’s best not to be dogmatic about – as I say in the post, its not a theory you would bet the farm on! There are two Judas’ and the second might have also gone under the name of Simon the Zealot. That doesn’t mean that Judas Iscariot was not also a Zealot, and speculation (and it is speculation though it is not unreasonable or wildly fanciful speculation) is that Judas Iscariot was also a Zealot based on the Iscariot and its possible link to the sicari or dagger men, the ultra-Zealots of the day. It is however sobering to realise how little we know with absolute certainty. I think the questions raised in the post remain intriguing, regardless of if he was or wasn’t a zealot.

Yes, Judas was useful to them, but not indispensable. Put differently, they were willing to pay 30 pieces of silver but probably wouldn’t have gone to 40.

Thanks Shelly. I draw great comfort when I remember that all things are ultimately in God’s hands, not ours.

Yes, that is a sobering thought and it’s why, even when we are sure we are right, we should still be humble enough to recognise we might be wrong.