Two Turtledoves (Luke 2:24)

What did Mary and Joseph offer as a sacrifice at the time of purification? A pair of turtledoves and two young pigeons (Luke 2:24)

The Gospel of Luke diligently documents the obedience of the infant Jesus’ parents (Luke 2:21-24). On the eighth day, Jesus is circumcised and formally given the name that is above all names (Luke 2:21). The third gospel also records that the baby is presented at the temple (Luke 2:21-38).

While there, Jesus’ earthly parents provide the requisite offerings as dictated by the Old Testament’s statutes (Luke 2:22-24).

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (Luke 2:22-24 NASB)

Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) asks:

Why did Luke describe the sacrifice [Luke 2:22-24]? Was it purely for historical reasons? Was it to demonstrate that Joseph and Mary obeyed the law? Or was it because he expected his readers to know that according to Leviticus 12:8 the normal sacrifice involved a lamb and a dove or pigeon and thus to understand that Joseph and Mary were of a “humble state” (Luke 1:48), i.e. too poor to be able to afford a lamb? Certainty is impossible, but the latter explanation fits well with the Lukan emphasis in Luke 1:48, 52-53, 2:8. That Mary offered a dove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6) for her purification indicates that the mother of God’s Son also needed the forgiveness and redemption that her son brought. (The description of Mary’s offering also suggests that Joseph and Mary were not yet in possession of the rich gifts of the wise men mentioned in Matthew 2:11, i.e., the wise men had not yet come. Cf. also Matthew 2:7, 16.) (Stein, Luke (New American Commentary), 114)

Luke specifies that Jesus’ parents, in accordance with the “law of Moses”, offer a pair of “turtledoves” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV)/“doves” (CEV, MSG, NIV) or “young pigeons” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) (Luke 2:24).

The Greek terms are unambiguous. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) delineates:

λευγος (Luke 14:19) is a ‘pair’, originally a ‘yoke’. νοσσός is the ‘young of a bird’, and περιτέρα (Luke 3:22) ‘pigeon, dove’. (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 18)

A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) relates:

“A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (λευγος τρυγόνων ἢ δύο νοσσοὺς περιστερων) [Luke 2:24]... is the offering of the poor, costing about sixteen cents, while a lamb would cost nearly two dollars. The “young of pigeons” is the literal meaning. (Robertson (revised and updated by Wesley J. Perschbacher [1932-2012]), The Gospel according to Luke (Word Pictures in the New Testament), 43)

While Luke apparently alludes to the Old Testament, it is uncertain precisely what the gospel has in mind. S.G. Wilson (b. 1942) acknowledges:

Despite the specific quotations from Exodus 13:2, 12; Leviticus 12:2ff, Luke’s narrative is not wholly clear. (Wilson, Luke and the Law, 21)

It cannot even be certain if Luke attempts to cite the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint though the latter likely influences the gospel’s manuscript. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) reveals:

Luke derives most of the wording of this prescription [Luke 2:22-24] from the Septuagint of Leviticus 12:8, which speaks of “two turtledoves or two young pigeons.” The turtledove, of which three varieties are known in Palestine, is a small type of pigeon. The two species of birds are often linked in Old Testament stipulations about animal sacrifices. Here the implication is that Mary offered these animals because she (or Joseph) could not afford the one-year old lamb for the whole burnt offering. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible), 426)

David Lyle Jeffrey (b. 1941) presumes:

The citations of the law do not follow the Greek (Septuagint) text, and we may reasonably assume that Luke’s language here reflects the report of his informants, possibly in a condensed form. (Jeffrey, Luke (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 46)

John Nolland (b. 1947) adds:

No close parallel has been offered for the idiom δουναι θυσίαν [Luke 2:23] (literally, “give a sacrifice”; cf. Psalm 51:17). τὸ εἰρημένον, “what is said” [Luke 2:24], is Lukan (Acts 2:16, 13:40) and not Septuagintal. (Nolland, (Luke 1-9:20 (Word Biblical Commentary), 118)

Some interpreters have seen Luke as having a single regulation in mind (Luke 2:22-24). Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) pronounces:

The sacrifice [Luke 2:24] is not for the redemption of the firstborn, but for the purification of the mother. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible), 426)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) concurs:

Luke reverts to the cleansing of the mother [Luke 2:24], which was effected by the sacrifice of a lamb with a young pigeon or turtledove as a burnt offering and a sin offering respectively (Leviticus 12:6); Joseph and Mary, however, being poor, availed themselves of the concession to offer two doves or pigeons (Leviticus 12:8; the wording is closer to Leviticus 5:11 where the similar sacrifice for unwitting sin is described; cf. Leviticus 14:22; Numbers 6:10). (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 117-18)

Others have seen the third gospel as conflating multiple ordinances (Luke 2:22-24). Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) encapsulates:

Luke 2:22-24 telescopes at least two traditional Jewish practices prescribed by the law. Luke 2:22a, 24 reflect the practice of the purification of the mother after childbirth, following the directives of Leviticus 12:6, 8...Luke 2:22b, 23, however, echo Exodus 13:2, 12, 13, 15 where it is said the firstborn belongs to God and must be redeemed (cf. Mishna, Bekhoroth, 8). (Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel, 37)

John T. Carroll (b. 1954) upholds:

In this unit [Luke 2:22-24] Luke fuses two discrete ritual observances. After childbirth the mother (not both parents) would participate in a rite of purification that includes the offering of a lamb and either a pigeon or turtledove—or, if the woman’s poverty requires less, two pigeons or turtledoves—after seven days of ritual impurity and the boy’s circumcision on the eighth day (Leviticus 12:2-8). The narrator seems to connect this sacrificial offering to the presentation of Jesus as firstborn son (cf. Exodus 13:2, 11-16), rather than to the mother’s purification. In an account that reproduces with precision neither the liturgical acts nor their legal basis, the literary arrangement provides a clue to meaning. The two rituals are fused in a chiastic arrangement that places the presentation of Jesus—as firstborn son, “holy to the Lord” [Luke 2:23]—at the center of the unit and the sacrificial offering of two birds at the end [Luke 2:24]. (Carroll, Luke: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 75)

Part of the interpretive difficulty stems from the use of the plural pronoun “their” as opposed to the singular “her” (Luke 2:22). John Reumann (1927-2008) chastises:

In Luke 2:22 he speaks of “their purification,” seemingly thinking that both parents were purified, when the custom referred only to the mother [Leviticus 12:2-8]. Also, he seems to think (incorrectly) that the Law required the presentation of the firstborn at the Temple. In Luke 2:24 Luke describes the doves or pigeons as a gift on the occasion of the presentation, when according to Leviticus 12:6 they were the gift prescribed for the purification. See Heikke Räisänen [b. 1941], Die Mutter Jesu im Neuen Testament, 125-27; Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], The Birth of the Messiah, 447-51. (Brown [1928-1998], Karl P. Donfried [b. 1940], Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] and Reumann, Mary in the New Testament, 111)

Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) recognizes:

The only puzzling point in Luke’s version of the purification is the initial reference to “their” purification [Luke 2:22], since only the mother required such a ritual. There really is no way to get around the awkwardness of that pronoun, other than to recognize it in the context of Luke’s description of the pilgrimage as involving the whole family. One might even see the plural pronoun as affirming that upon the completion of this obligation, the whole family would be ready to resume its life after the dramatic intervention of the birth of the baby. (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 45)

Barbara E. Reid (b. 1953) discusses:

These verses [Luke 2:22-24] are confusing in the use of “their” and “they” without antecedents. Presumably, “their purification” [Luke 2:22] refers to Mary and Joseph, but in Jewish law purification was specified only for the woman (Leviticus 12:2-8). Some commentators have understood “their” as referring to Mary and Jesus, but there was no requirement of purification for a newborn. Since the main verb anēgagon [Luke 2:22], “they took him up,” refers to Mary and Joseph, it is best to take “their purification” as referring to Mary and Joseph as well. The inaccuracy about who was required to undergo purification is usually explained as Luke’s mistake, due to his being a non-Palestinian Gentile Christian, unfamiliar with the intricacies of Jewish law. When today we are concerned for gender equality, we might smile at Luke’s unwitting inclusivity of Joseph in a ritual intended for women. (Reid, Choosing the Better Part?: Women in the Gospel of Luke, 86-87)

E.J. Tinsley (1919-1992) laments:

It is a pity that the use of the word purification [Luke 2:22] has suggested the notion that sexual processes are necessarily unseemly. Significantly in this passage the majority of manuscripts have ‘their’ purification so as to reduce the direct reference to the mother of Jesus needing purification made in those manuscripts which read ‘her’ purification. (Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament), 41)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) rationalizes:

The text refers to “their” sacrifice [Luke 2:22], which seems odd at first glance in that a purification offering would normally be Mary’s alone. However, seeing that Joseph undoubtedly helped in Mary’s delivery at the distant town, he was also rendered unclean and needed to make a sacrifice for himself (Mishnah Niddah 5.1, 2.5, 1.3-5). Another possibility is that Luke is alluding in Luke 2:22 to all the sacrifices involved in the three ceremonies and that those offerings, some hers and others theirs, are combined. All these sacrifices indicate how seriously Judaism took approaching God in worship and how prepared a heart and soul one should have as they address God. (Bock, Luke (NIV Application Commentary))

While the precise regulation the gospel intends to indicate is unclear, it is undeniable that Luke holds the Old Testament tradition in the highest regard. J. Bradley Chance (b. 1954) reviews:

A survey of the Lukan materials indicates that Luke did not transfer cultic language from the temple to the church, as though he wished to imply that the church was now the proper locus of the cult...Neither does Luke spiritualize the idea of offering (προσψορά, δωρον) or sacrifice (θυσία), nor does he use such language to describe the Christian life. The language of sacrifice is employed literally, and is often employed in the context of the temple cult. When it is found in this context, it is presented in a positive light (Luke 2:24, 5:14, 21:1-4; Acts 21:26, 24:17). Explicitly negative attitudes revolve around the cultic items only in the context of the Stephen speech (Acts 7:41-42), where Stephen is describing the idolatrous incident of the golden calf (Acts 7:41) and the lack of a sacrificial cult during Israel’s period of desert wanderings (Acts 7:42). The latter reference can hardly be understood as Luke’s rejection of all sacrifice and offering, given Acts 21:26 and Acts 24:17 where Paul’s participation in the Jewish cult is viewed as an act of true piety. (Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the New Age in Luke-Acts, 36)

There are problematic theological ramifications if Luke alludes to the redeeming of the firstborn (Exodus 13:13-16; Luke 2:22-24). Justo L. González (b. 1937) observes:

Curiously, Luke tells us that the Redeemer has to be redeemed, has to be bought back [Luke 2:22-24]. This is not because he has sinned, but simply because he is a firstborn, and all the firstborn in Israel belong to God [Exodus 13:13-16]. The theme of the Passover as a type of Jesus...appears repeatedly throughout the New Testament, with several layers of meaning. The paschal lamb that was sacrificed [Exodus 12:1-13] is a type of Jesus. Jesus himself is the new Passover, for in him God shows mercy to us. According to Luke and the other Synoptic Gospels [Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16; Luke 22:1, 7,8, 11, 13, 15], the last meal of Jesus with his disciples before the crucifixion is a paschal meal. It is there that he instituted the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. Here, at the presentation in the temple, another Passover theme appears: Jesus the firstborn is to be redeemed by the sacrifice of two turtledoves [Luke 2:24], and he will then redeem all humankind by his own sacrifice. (González, Luke (Belief: a Theological Commentary on the Bible), 42)

Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) counters:

The narrative [Luke 2:23-24] associates the purification of the mother after seven days with the offering prescribed for the firstborn, normally carried out through payment to a local priest...Nothing is said here of such a “redemption” of Jesus; instead he is received into the service of God (in which he will redeem others: Mark 10:45, not used by Luke). Perhaps there is also an echo of I Samuel 1:11, 22-28. There, however, the mother dedicates her child to God, whereas here God sets the child apart for service through the agency of a prophet. Thus a prescribed ritual takes on new meaning as a kind of “presentation” of the newborn child. (Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, 55)

The theological implications of the offering effect the parents as well as the child. Based upon its presumed necessity, it could be inferred that Mary and Joseph are sinners. As such, the only sinless man (Hebrews 4:15) is raised by sinners.

This issue has been debated for centuries. Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) presents:

It wasn’t the Holy Family’s finances...that drew the most attention from readers [Luke 2:22-24], but the fact that Mary offered what was understood as a “sin” offering. Such an action raised a host of questions about Mary’s nature. Was the mother of the Christ a “normal” woman? Did she menstruate? Did she bleed when giving birth to Jesus? In either of these cases, Leviticus 12:1-8 and 15:1-33 would have labeled Mary ceremonially “unclean.” In the early centuries following Jesus’ death, however, Christian communities claimed that Mary was “more than” other women. As this happened, such “normal” aspects of female physicality such as menstruation and parturition became the objects of controversy. For example, while some thought that Mary’s piety exempted her from the “normal” pain of childbirth, others insisted that even Mary’s hymen was left intact after Jesus’ birth! (Rolf Rendtorff [1925-2014] and Robert A. Kugler, “Double Time...Double Trouble? Gender, Sin, and Leviticus 12”, The Book of Leviticus: Composition & Reception, 440)

This topic is of special concern within Catholicism. John F. MacArthur (b. 1939) criticizes:

That Mary offered a sin offering is consistent with the reality that she was a sinner in need of a Savior (cf. Luke 1:47). The Catholic dogma that Mary was immaculately conceived and lived a sinless life finds no support in Scripture. (MacArthur, Luke 1-5 (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary), 171)

Linda S. Schearing (b. 1947) analyzes:

A...serious issue arose concerning the sin offering Mary offered in Luke 2:24. The dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception insisted that Mary was without sin. If this was the case then why would she need to be purified? How could the birth of the Savior render his mother unclean? As Mary’s visit to Jerusalem for her purification became immortalized in the church’s festival of Candlemas, focus on her purity was kept cultically alive each calendar year...Perhaps one of the most well-conceived medieval treatments of Mary’s presentation to Leviticus 12:1-8 is found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274]. In his Summa Theologica, he addressed Luke 2:21-24, Leviticus 12:1-8, and Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity...“As Gregory of Nyssa [335-394] says (De Occursu Domini): It seems that this precept of Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone in a special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual unison, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate. Consequently the words opening the womb imply that nothing hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for special reason it is written “a male,” because He contracted nothing of the woman’s sin: and in a singular way is He called ‘holy’ because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously immaculate (Ambrose [337-397], on Luke 2:23).”...In both cases—her perpetual virginity and her sinlessness—Aquinas felt it necessary to defend Mary’s actions in Luke 2:21-24 in light Leviticus 12:1-8’s association with impurity. Nor was such concern solely the purview of theologians like Aquinas. A similar point of view can be found in the liturgy of a mid-eleventh century Bavarian Candlemas ceremony...For historians like Joanne M. Pierce [b. 1955], this rite, with its imperative to let Mary “be a model for us” exemplifies how the Feast of Candlemas connected the themes of Mary and purification while at the same time exhorting women to follow Mary’s example. (Rolf Rendtorff [1925-2014] and Robert A. Kugler, “Double Time...Double Trouble? Gender, Sin, and Leviticus 12”, The Book of Leviticus: Composition & Reception, 440-43)

Given the problematic nature of including these offerings, the passage’s historicity is bolstered (Luke 2:22-24). Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) affirms:

The record of the offerings [Luke 2:21-24] is considerable guarantee for the truth of the history. A legend would very probably have emphasized the miraculous birth by saying that the virgin mother was divinely instructed not to bring the customary offerings, which in her case would not be required. (Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (International Critical Commentary), 65)

For Luke, these theological issues are likely not at the forefront: The intent is not to discredit Jesus’ parents but rather to present them as pious Jews. Luke depicts them faithfully following three prescribed rituals: circumcision (Luke 2:22), purification (Luke 2:2) and dedication (Luke 2:23-24).

Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) praises:

The story falls into three parts: the framing story (Luke 2:22-24, 39-40), into which are inserted the response of Simeon (Luke 2:25-35) and the response of Anna (Luke 2:36-38). The framing story itself has one governing focus: Jesus grew up in a family that meticulously observed the law of Moses. No fewer than five times in this text Luke tells the reader that they did everything required in the law. Later in life Jesus would be in tension with some interpreters of his tradition, but his position would not be that of an outsider. On the contrary, Jesus’ own nurture in his tradition prepared him to oppose flawed and hollow practices in the name of the law of Moses. (Luke, Luke (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 38)

David L. Tiede (b. 1940) agrees:

By mentioning the law in each of these three verses [Luke 2:22-24], he also stresses that proper temple observance is obedience to the will of God. The word law here means the text of Scripture, and it may also be understood to refer to God’s theocratic rule. The term is unequivocally positive in this context. (Tiede, Luke (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 74)

Michael Card (b. 1957) supports:

Within the scope of six verses, the observance of the “law” is mentioned four times. This is a picture of Mary and Joseph’s exacting observance of the law. Of the nine times the word law occurs in Luke’s writing, five of them are contained in this passage [Luke 2:22, 23, 24, 27, 39]. (Card, Luke: The Gospel of Amazement (Biblical Imagination), 51)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) determines:

Luke is making it clear that Jesus’ parents are not spiritual renegades, but Jews who are sensitive and faithful to the Mosaic law—a point reinforced in Luke 2:40-52, when they will make their customary annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. All the persons surrounding Jesus at his birth have a heritage of devotion to God. The testimony to Jesus stands on the shoulders of a series of highly respectable figures. (Bock, Luke (IVP New Testament Commentary), 58)

God places his child into a devout home which values the precepts set forth in the Old Testament. Significantly, Jesus raised in a religious household.

Why do Mary and Joseph follow these religious observances when their circumstances are so different from the regulations’ intent (Luke 2:22-24)? What does it say of God that Jesus is inserted into a family that attempts to follow Jewish law? How closely do you live out your religious beliefs? Were you reared in a religious home? Do you think God would entrust your household with Jesus? What does their offering say of Mary and Joseph? What do your offerings speak of you?

In addition to their obedience, the text sheds light on Jesus’ parents’ tax bracket: Their offering puts their financial status on display as the majority of interpreters have seen Mary and Joseph invoking a provision that makes allowances in hardship cases (Leviticus 12:8; Luke 2:22-24).

G. Johannes Botterweck (1917-1981) reads:

In the sacrifice offered for the purification of a woman who has given birth, a year-old lamb is brought to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6). Here...an indigence clause (Leviticus 12:8; cf. Luke 2:24) commutes the year-old lamb to the burnt offering of two turtledoves or young pigeons (cf. Leviticus 1:14, 5:7, 14:22; [Leviticus15:30]). (Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren [1917-2012], Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume VI, 39)

Mark L. Strauss (b. 1959) explicates:

The quotation [Luke 2:24] is from Leviticus 12:8, which concerns the sacrifice of purification for the woman, not the redemption of the firstborn. The woman was to offer a lamb and a pigeon or dove (Leviticus 12:6), or two doves or pigeons if she was poor (Leviticus 12:8). We have incidental evidence here that Joseph and Mary belong to the lower economic classes. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 29)

William Barclay (1907-1978) envisions:

The offering of the two pigeons instead of the lamb [Luke 2:24] and the pigeon was technically called the Offering of the Poor. It was the offering of the poor which Mary brought. Again we see that it was into an ordinary home that Jesus was born, a home where there were no luxuries, a home where the cost of everything had to be considered carefully, a home where the members of the family knew all about the difficulties of making a living and the haunting insecurity of life. When life is worrying for us we must remember that Jesus knew what the difficulties of making ends meet can be. (Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (New Daily Study Bible), 30)

Walter Pilgrim (b. 1934) evaluates:

There are...several features in the actual birth story of Jesus which emphasize the lowly social status of his family. The offering they bring for the purification of Mary, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, is that prescribed for the poor (Luke 2:22-24). The rich offered a lamb. This tells us that though Joseph was an artisan [Matthew 13:55] and so belonged to the middle class, his actual economic situation was something less. Perhaps even the lack of room for them in Bethlehem may imply their inability to pay enough [Luke 2:7]. The entire story of the manger birth evokes a sense of God’s activity in the midst of earthly poverty. (Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts, 79-80)

Darrell L. Bock (b. 1953) substantiates:

From Luke 2:24 it is clear that Joseph and Mary offered the offering of the poor, an offering that identifies them with the very people whom Christ portrays himself as saving (Luke 1:52, 4:18-19, 6:20; Heinrich Greeven [1906-1990] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 6:69; Frederick W. Danker [1920-2012] 1988:62). However, it should not be concluded from this that Joseph lived in abject poverty, since he had a trade as a carpenter (William Hendriksen [1900-1982] 1978:165; Alfred Plummer [1841-1926] 1896:65; Mark 6:3). The lamb seems to have been offered only by the fairly wealthy. It is quite possible that Jesus’ parents bought their offering in the temple courts (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1977:437; Luke 19:45-48). (Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 235)

Origen (184-253) approves:

It seems wonderful that the sacrifice of Mary was not the first offering, that is, “a lamb a year old,” but the second, since “she could not afford” the first [Leviticus 12:6-8]. For as it was written about her, Jesus’ parents came “to offer a sacrifice” for him, “according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.’” [Luke 2:24] But this also shows the truth of what was written, that Jesus Christ “although he was rich, became a poor man” [II Corinthians 8:9]. Therefore, for this reason, he chose both a poor mother, from whom he was born, and a poor homeland, about which it is said, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephratha, who are little to be among the clans of Judah [Micah 5:2],” and the rest. Homilies on Leviticus 8.4.3. (Arthur A. Just [b. 1953], Luke (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), 47-48)

The public indication is that Mary and Joseph cannot afford the offering of the rich (Luke 2:24). Thus, though Jesus’ family is not destitute, they are hardly wealthy in monetary terms.

Luke’s notice of the parents’ offerings complies with the third gospel’s emphasis on the poor. Leon Morris (1914-2006) contextualizes:

Jesus came to preach the gospel to the poor (Luke 4:18), and Luke reports a blessing on the poor (Luke 6:20 by contrast there is a woe for the rich, Luke 6:24), whereas Matthew speaks of ‘the poor in spirit’ (Matthew 5:3). Preaching good news to the poor is characteristic of Jesus’ ministry (Luke 7:22). The shepherds to whom the angels came (Luke 2:8ff) were from a poor class. Indeed the family of Jesus himself seems to have been poor, for the offering made at the birth of the child was that of the poor (Luke 2:24; cf. Leviticus 12:8). In general Luke concerns himself with the interests of the poor (Luke 1:53, 6:30, 14:11-13, 21, 16:19ff.). (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 45)

Jesus will maintain this economic status throughout his life. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) follows:

Was Jesus himself economically disadvantaged? Sentimental pictures have been painted of his lowly beginnings in a stable, as though he were homeless, but these are based on misreadings of the Lukan narrative. Luke 2:1-7 portrays a small town swelled by the requirements of the Roman-instigated census. As Bethlehem probably had no public inns, Luke envisages a near-eastern peasant home in which family and animals slept in one enclosed space, with the animals located on a lower level. Mary and Joseph, then, would have been the guests of family or friends, but their home would have been so overcrowded that, upon his birth, the baby was placed in a feeding trough...More to the point is the sacrifice offered by Jesus’s parents in Luke 2:24: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” – according to Leviticus 12:8 the prescribed offering for those unable to afford a yearling lamb. Furthermore, in his Galilean ministry Jesus is said to depend on the support of others (Luke 8:1-3), Later, on the way to Jerusalem, Jesus says of himself that he has no place to lay his head (Luke 9:58), presumably an assertion about his lack of a home, but surely also a warning concerning the rejection to be expected of those who follow in his footsteps. (Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, 112-13)

Jesus emanates from a blue collar family; he will be raised in a humble home (Luke 1:48). This serves as a reminder that he comes to save all, not merely the privileged of society.

J. Ellsworth Kalas (b. 1928) and David J. Kalas (b. 1962) understand:

God...communicated in humanly understandable terms when he chose to have his special Son raised in a home like many others. He did not grow up in a wealthy home. We can tell Mary and Joseph were persons of small means by the humble thank-offering they brought to the Temple — i.e.. “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:24). A well-to-do family might have offered a lamb. We can also tell that Jesus grew up in a good, law-abiding home. His parents showed respect for the sacred laws by bringing their son to the Temple on the proscribed eighth day for the required ritual of dedication called circumcision [Luke 2:21]. (Kalas, Kalas, Frank G. Honeycutt [b. 1957], Stephen M. Crotts [b. 1950] and R. Robert Cueni [b. 1942], “God Communicates In Humanly Understandable Terms”, Sermons on the Gospel Readings: Series 1, Cycle C, 47)

Mary and Joseph amount to Jesus’ godparents in that they are selected to raise God’s son. God could have chosen anyone for this task and yet a humble family from lowly Galilee is the family that is given the responsibility. In Luke’s text, their obedience, not economic status, is emphasized as Mary and Joseph’s observance of the law is made explicit, while their economic standing remains implicit (Luke 2:22-24). This speaks volumes of God’s priorities.

Do you think Mary and Joseph wished that they could pay the offering of the rich (Luke 2:24)? How would you characterize your own economic status? Would you want your financial records and giving patterns publicly available at your church? If this policy was still practiced, how would it effect giving? Should church giving be recommended on a sliding scale rather than a flat rate (such as tithing)? Is Jesus’ concern for the poor in any way self serving as he himself would likely qualify? If forced to leave your children to someone, who would it be; would you choose a rich or poor family? Would economic standing be a primary consideration? Does Luke emphasize Jesus’ parents’ spiritual or monetary status? Which do you spend more time enhancing, your spiritual life or your financial portfolio?

“We may see the small Value God has for Riches, by the People he gives them to.” -Alexander Pope (1688-1744), Thoughts on Various Subjects, 1727

A Tale of Two Houses (I Kings 7:1)

How many years did it take Solomon to complete work on his palace? Thirteen years (I Kings 7:1)

King Solomon ushers in unprecedented opulence as he undertakes two monumental building projects, Yahweh’s temple and his palace. Conspicuously sandwiched between accounts of the building of the temple (I Kings 6:1-38) and its furnishings (I Kings 7:13-51) is a description of Solomon’s royal complex (I Kings 7:1-12).

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) connects:

The proximity of the temple and royal palace reflects the intimate association between the Davidic king and YHWH, who is consistently portrayed with royal imagery in the ideology of the Judean state. The Davidic king is authorized to rule by the creator G-d, YHWH (II Samuel 7; Psalm 89, 110, 132, cf. Psalm 2), and the worship of YHWH is authorized by the Davidic king, who erects the sanctuary for YHWH’s honor. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

The palace’s propinquity to the temple seems to be as close geographically as it is literarily. Philip J. King (b. 1925) and Lawrence E. Stager (b. 1943) note:

The palace appears to have been built alongside the Temple, to its south, on the acropolis. The juxtaposing of palace and temple was established by the Canaanites early in the second millennium B.C.E., probably by 2000 in North Syria (e.g., Alalakh, a Syrian city-state). (King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 203)

The discussion of Solomon’s palace begins with a notice of the project’s duration (I Kings 7:1).

Now Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house (I Kings 7:1 NASB)

Solomon’s “house” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “palace” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT) is actually comprised of multiple buildings. Marvin A. Sweeney(b. 1953) outlines:

I Kings 7:1 discusses the time taken to build the temple complex. The complex includes five buildings: the house of the forest of Lebanon (I Kings 7:2-5), the hall of columns (I Kings 7:6), the hall of the throne or the hall of justice (I Kings 7:7), and the private quarters of Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh (I Kings 7:8). I Kings 7:9-11 discusses construction details common to these buildings, and I Kings 7:12 discusses the surrounding courtyard. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

Burke O. Long (b. 1938) classifies I Kings 7:1-12:

The unit is a REPORT...made up of a series of brief reports dealing with specific details according to a clear schematic style. The form of the brief reports, and of the whole which is an aggregate of these parts, is clearly paralleled in priestly materials in the Old Testament. (Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 89)

The palace’s architecture was typical of royals of the era. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) encapsulates:

Solomon’s “palace” was a complex of six structures just south of the Temple. Its layout followed the so-called bit-hilani plan, an architectural style typical of palace-complexes in northern Syria. Archaeologists have found two “palaces” of this type built by Solomon at biblical Megiddo. Basically, the design featured a series of buildings centered on a long, large assembly hall whose entry was in its broad side through a portico with pillars...I Kings 7:1-5 describe the main building, I Kings 7:6-9 the satellite structures. We cannot be certain whether all the buildings in Solomon’s palace structurally were joined to each other. In the ancient world, palace-complexes typically covered many acres, and this royal center was no exception. (Hubbard, First & Second Kings: Everyman’s Bible Commentary, 46)

Despite its grandeur no archaeological evidence of Solomon’s palace has been unearthed. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) documents:

No remains have been linked to the palace of Solomon at Jerusalem. Remains of palaces are evident in their size, layout, elaborate decorations, and contents, such as expensive furniture and state archives. The ground plans of buildings at Megiddo from Solomon’s time are similar to the palaces at Zinjirli (the ancient Aramean city of Sam’al), suggesting that this may have been the plan of the Jerusalem palace. Walls and towers surround the three palaces and storehouses; to enter the complex it was necessary to pass through two gates. Solomon develops a similar complex at Jerusalem, where the citadel encloses a number of buildings. (Konkel, 1 and 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 119)

No archaeological confirmation is needed to determine that Solomon resided in quarters fit for a king.

Why is the account of the palace inserted between details about the temple? What are the longest building projects of which you are aware? If you could build your dream house without financial restraints, what would it entail? Is the palace more a wise investment for the nation or a vanity project for its king? Is there any way in which Solomon’s palace glorifies God?

Strikingly, the note regarding the palace’s thirteen year construction (I Kings 7:1) immediately follows a formal summary statement of the building of temple which specifies that the temple took only seven years to complete (I Kings 6:38).

Alice L. Laffey (b. 1944) comments:

Whereas the final verse of chapter 6 [I Kings 6:38] functions as both a climax and a statement of completion, the narrator introduces chapter 7 with a seemingly deliberate literary contrast. Whereas it took seven years to build the house of the Lord, it takes thirteen years to build the house of a king. Although thirteen is not a number used frequently in the biblical texts, it too may be used symbolically to indicate completion (ten and three). The unusual character of the number may be a literary device that the authors use to subtly imply some inappropriateness related to the king’s palace. The fact that it takes almost twice as long to build the king’s house as it does to build the Lord’s house can imply that the king’s house was not worked on by as many builders, or with as much zeal as was the Lord’s house. Or, it could imply that the grandeur of the Lord’s house paled beside the grandeur of the king’s. If the latter is true, the text is hinting at future difficulties. (Laffey, First and Second Kings (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 33)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) observes:

Chapter 7...turns attention away from the temple and unexpectedly fixes upon another of Solomon’s building projects, the palace complex. The introduction to this description, reporting that the palace complex took thirteen years to build, contrasts sharply with the conclusion to chapter 6 reporting that the temple was a seven-year project. Initial impressions might argue that the temple was this king’s priority. Thus it received most attention and was completed speedily and first. However, the brief sketch (I Kings 7:2-12) of the state buildings and the king’s own house challenges such easy assumptions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 68)

The contrast between the two projects is drawn intentionally. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) asserts:

The NIV suggests the nature of the connection between I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 and the force of the transition from one to the other, but it does not fully capture it. A translation that better brings out the relationship between them, and particularly the significance of the word order, runs as follows: “He completed (khl) the temple (bayit)...he spent seven years building it (bnh). But his own house (bêtô) Solomon spent thirteen years building (bnh) and he completed (klh) the whole of his house (kol-bêtô).” There are two “houses” in view, and an emphatic contrast is made between them. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69)

The Hebrew syntax further accentuates the disparity. John W. Olley (b. 1938) discerns:

The contrast is expressed intentionally by the chiastic Hebrew sentence structure of I Kings 6:38-7:1 (obscured by the much later chapter division and further in some Bibles by a heading; there is no paragraph division in the Masoretic Text). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 86)

It is possible that the two building projects were undertaken concurrently. Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) recognizes:

The statement in our verse [I Kings 7:1], when combined with the conclusion of the previous chapter, yields the number 20, which in I Kings 9:10 is in fact the time given for the construction of the 2 ‘houses.’ But the relation between the 2 verses is hard to determine. In our opinion, Martin Noth [1902-1968] is correct when he says that the sequence of the construction: first the temple and then the palace, is improbable and that it is better to picture the construction as simultaneous. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 286)

Richard Nelson (b.1945) resolves:

There is a chronological distortion in that Kings understands the thirteen years of I Kings 7:1 to have come after the seven years of temple construction (I Kings 9:10). But by moving these buildings forward in time, sandwiching them between material on the temple and integrating them architecturally with the temple (I Kings 7:12), the narrator firmly subordinates these secular buildings to the house of the Lord. Both the house of the forest of Lebanon and the complex described in I Kings 7:6-8 are substantially larger than the temple, but have been effectively relegated to the status of interesting footnotes. They highlight Solomon’s glory without diminishing the wonder of the temple. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 45)

Some have seen the relative lengths of the projects as an indictment against the king. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) accuses:

Solomon spent much more time building his own house...than he did building God’s house. This is not surprising, because just the first of its several buildings was much bigger than the temple (I Kings 7:2; cf. I Kings 6:2). The temple had quite a bit of cedar of Lebanon in it (I Kings 6:9-10, 15-16, 18, 20, 36); this building, however, is packed with so many cedars (I Kings 7:2-3, 7, 11, 12) that it is called the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon—and this for a building apparently designed only as a treasury of armory (cf. I Kings 10:17, 21; Isaiah 22:8)! The suggestion is that the king was much more concerned about his palace than about the LORD’s temple. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69-70)

Jerome T. Wash (b. 1942) elaborates:

Since the palace complex houses the central administration of the whole empire, the issue is not a simple contrast between Yahweh’s Temple and Solomon’s private residence, as if Solomon were being accused of spending all that time on his own luxury and glory. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition of I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 invites us to infer that the governmental buildings are far more important to Solomon than the religious one. In view of the ruinous annual tariff Solomon is paying Hiram [I Kings 5:11], it is quite clear which project brings Solomon to the brink of bankruptcy. (Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 106)

Backlash against Solomon has persisted for centuries. Presumably in response, Josephus (37-100) skewed his account in favor of the king. Louis H. Feldman (b. 1926) relays:

By deferring the account of the building of the palace until after the completion of his description of the dedication of the Temple, Josephus stresses the importance of the Temple and diminishes that of the palace. In I Kings 9:10 it is simply stated that it took 20 years to build the two houses, 7 years for the Temple (I Kings 6:38) and 13 years for the palace (I Kings 7:1). Josephus (Antiquities 8.30), apparently aware of the objection that Solomon devoted almost twice as much time to building his palace for his own glory as to building the Temple for the greater glory of G-d, emphasizes Solomon’s piety by adding the significant comment that the palace was not built with the same industry (ἐσπουδάζετο) with which the Temple was built. Josephus (Antiquties 8.131) adds an extra-biblical remark that the palace was much inferior in dignity (ἀξίας) to the Temple since the building materials had been prepared not so long in advance, with less expense, and was intended as a dwelling place for a king and not for G-d. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Josephus’ View of Solomon”. The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 365)

Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) critiques:

Josephus and other Jewish commentators have attempted to explain the ‘offensiveness’ of this longer duration of palace construction. Among other things Josephus says (Antiquities VIII §§130ff.) that the palace was not built with the same zeal as the temple. The temple was even finished before the time appointed, since God so obviously cooperated with the builders. This was not the case with the construction of the palace, while also the material used was of an inferior quality, because the building was only intended for kings, not for God. This motive is further elaborated in later Jewish legends (cf. Louis Ginzberg [1873-1953], Legends of the Jews, IV, 155f.; VI, 294f.). The truth, of course, is that the complex of palaces was larger and more beautiful than the temple and therefore took more time. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 285-86)

Solomon also has contemporary apologists. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) exemplifies:

The conjunction “but” in I Kings 7:1 is intended to contrast the thirteen years required to build Solomon’s own house with the seven years required to build the temple (I Kings 6:38). However, what this difference implies is not clear. To some commentators it seems to condemn Solomon for spending twice as much time building his own house as he spent building the temple of God. Were worldly power and luxury already going to the young king’s head? Were secular ideals beginning to overshadow spiritual ideals in his court? It is true that in later years Solomon began to minimize the high priority he had given to serving the Lord, but that was not the case in these early years...A better interpretation of I Kings 7:1 is that Solomon purposely allowed the construction of his house to drag on for thirteen years, while he had accelerated the temple construction and finished it in seven years. Also, we must remember that many years of preparation, planning, and accumulation of materials had preceded the seven-year temple project, while the work on the palace apparently had no such head start. Furthermore, while the temple was more elaborate and intricate, the palace complex was more widespread, involving a number of separate buildings, and thereby more time-consuming. Considering these factors, Solomon probably gave priority to the temple and put more attention and time on its construction than on his palace. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 96-97)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) speculates:

Almost twice as much time is taken to build it as the temple, though that is probably not a negative judgment, given the buildings necessary for the state to function. The lack of clear detail may indicate a lack of interest (and/or knowledge) apart from highlighting Solomon as a wise builder. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 43)

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) theologizes:

Commentators sometimes suggest that the time Solomon spends on his own house, nearly double the time he spends on the temple, is an early sign of his later apostasy...Yet Solomon is nowhere criticized for this. Apparently the logic is similar to the logic of the tithe: once Solomon pays his firstfruits, his time is “desanctified” so that he can devote his attention to building his own house. The objection that Solomon’s glory challenges Yahweh’s assumes a false doctrine of God. God’s glory does not compete with human glory, nor does God glorify himself by siphoning glory from his people. He glorifies himself by freely and abundantly bestowing glory, just as the Father glorifies himself in the Son through the Spirit, and the Son in the Father through the same Spirit. Yahweh gives Solomon glory, but this makes the name of Yahweh glorious among the Gentiles, precisely because it makes the name of Solomon glorious. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 60)

Regardless of what light is being cast upon Solomon, the comparative building durations of the temple and palace invite the reader to evaluate her own priorities and how those priorities are played out in her budget.

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) applies:

It would be better for us to put a lower priority on a comfortable living situation and a higher priority on the kingdom of God. First Kings takes this perspective in the way it tells the story of Solomon. The major emphasis in chapters 5 through 8 is the house that Solomon built for God [I Kings 5:1-8:66]. The Bible gives us the full details of the temple’s structure and furnishings, plus a lengthy account of its dedication. Solomon’s own house took longer to build, but receives much less attention–just twelve verses for five buildings. Even for all its splendor, Solomon’s palace receives only brief mention. As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, this is all it deserves, because Solomon’s house was not nearly as important as the house he built for God. By de-emphasizing Solomon’s palace, the Bible is keeping things in their proper priority. (Ryken, 1 Kings (Reformed Expository Commentary), 165)

Why do you think it took longer to build the palace than the temple? Which building project do you think is more important to Solomon? What is meant by the intentional contrast between the time spent building God’s temple and the king’s palace? How does this incongruity reflect upon Solomon? Which building do you take more pride in maintaining, your church or your residence? Do you spend more time and energy devoted to God or yourself?

“Action expresses priorities.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Judas: All About the Money? (John 12:6)

Which disciple carried the money for the group? Judas (John 12:6)

After a woman named Mary lovingly pours an expensive bottle of perfume on Jesus (John 12:1-3), Judas objects on the grounds of practicality: This resource could have been liquidated and redistributed to the poor (John 12:4).

But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. (John 12:4-6 NASB)

In response, Jesus unequivocally defends Mary’s gesture (John 12:7-8).

Judas’ objection seems reasonable. In fact, in comparable stories in the Synoptic gospels, the disciples collectively make the same argument (Matthew 26:8; Mark 14:4-5). John alone attributes the line to Judas. Perhaps the other disciples followed his lead. John may have included this dialogue between Judas and Jesus so that the reader does not think the same.

It is in this context that it is noted that Judas serves as the group’s treasurer. The same comment will be made again in John 13:29 with no negative connotation applied.

Specifically, Judas is responsible for the money “bag” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NIV), or “box” (NASB, NKJV, RSV). The closest modern equivalent would be a lockbox. The same Greek word describes King Joash’s money chest in the Septuagint (II Chronicles 24:8-10). The word is used in the New Testament only twice, here and in a similar context (John 13:29).

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) defines:

The expression “moneybag” (γλωσσόκομον, glōssokomon [the word recurs at John 13:29, again in relation to Judas]) originally denoted any kind of box used to hold the reeds of musical instruments. Later, the term was employed for a coffer into which money is cast (II Chronicles 24:8, 10). In the present instance, therefor, the object in question is perhaps not a “bag”...but a box made of wood or some other rigid material (cf. Plutarch, Galba 16:1; Josephus, Antiquities 6.1.2 § 11). The money kept in this container probably helped meet the needs of Jesus and his disciples as well as provide alms for the poor. The funds would have been replenished by followers of Jesus, such as the women mentioned in Luke 8:2-3 who supported his ministry. (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 363)

Judas was not only the carrier of the money box but it appears he had input in appropriating its contents.

While it is natural for the treasurer to be concerned with expenditures, John notes that Judas was embezzling from this common fund. He is called a “thief”. This word carries even more weight when considering that it was used two chapters earlier to describe those who threaten the flock (John 10:1ff).

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) comments:

The last clause could almost be taken to mean that Judas used to ‘carry’ (bastazō) what was put in, but in the right contexts the verb means ‘steal’ or ‘pilfer’ – not unlike the verb ‘lift’ in the United Kingdom. This is the only place where Judas is called a thief – indeed, where any charge other than Judas’ ultimate betrayal is levelled against him. Yet the charge is believable: anyone who would betray another person for thirty pieces of silver has an unhealthy avarice of material things. (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 429)

It appears that putting Judas in charge of the money was like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Roger Fredrikson (b. 1920) is not surprised:

Apparently Judas was gifted in handling money, so he had been given the responsibility for the common pot, which became his undoing. How often we go astray in the area of our strength. The gifted preacher can succumb to his ego, the brilliant accountant an embezzler, or the empathetic counselor give in to adultery. (Fredrikson, John (Mastering the New Testament), 204)

Judas’ stinginess is set in contrast with the woman’s extravagant generosity and this incident foreshadows his future betrayal.

Do you think that being Jesus’ treasurer was considered an important job? What do you think that Jesus typically did with money? Why was Judas selected for this task, as opposed to the former tax collector Matthew? Who do you trust with your money? Have you ever been tempted to steal? What treasurers do you know who have pilfered? Have you ever known anyone who embezzled from a church or nonprofit organization? What motivates Judas?

This is the only New Testament passage that discredits Judas before his ultimate betrayal. Even so, his only spoken words in the fourth gospel incriminate him (John 12:4-8). Though his payment of thirty pieces of silver is absent from the fourth gospel (Matthew 26:15), John paints Judas as manipulative, dishonest and preoccupied with money. Jesus’ finances are controlled by someone who is spiritually bankrupt: he is out for himself, not what God gives.

Judas has had many apologists through the years who claim that this negative perception of him was developed after the fact and that his betrayal clouded all accounts of his actions. In this case, Judas’ reasonable complaint is tarnished by his later reputation.

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) conjectures:

That Judas objects (John 12:4) comes as no surprise. The gift is astounding. Although John does not say it, some of the other disciples probably feel similar things. The legitimacy of Judas’s complaint is tarnished, however, by his own reputation. As treasurer of the group he would steal money from their holdings (John 12:6). But John reminds us that Judas is also the one who will betray Jesus (John 12:4). His is not a prophesy, but derives “from the shocking force of hindsight.” John cannot tell any story about Judas without this treacherous deed overshadowing his image. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 339)

This theory is supported by the fact that complaints against Judas are not raised in the synoptic tradition. They are only recorded only in John, the last written of the canonical gospels.

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) reminds:

We have no other ground for regarding Judas as a thief, though he is said to have received money for his treachery. John may have an independent tradition, but more probably he represents the traditional progressive blackening of Judas’ character. (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction With Commentary and Notes, 413)

That Judas eventually betrays Jesus is undeniable. The question is whether or not he is always working in opposition to Jesus. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) traces:

William Klassen [b. 1930] suspects that John has a personal bias that informs his depiction. Judas becomes not simply the one who hands Jesus over but also one who has gone over to the side of Satan and acts as his agent (Klassen 1996, 142-43). Even though John’s narrator echoes Luke 22:3 by saying that Satan enters into him during the Last Supper (John 13:26-27), he represents Judas as one in league with evil throughout the story. The narrator reveals that Jesus knows that one of his disciples has a devil (John 6:70) and then makes it clear that Jesus refers to Judas (John 6:71)...John reveals that Judas cares more about money than the poor and that he is an embezzler (John 12:6), an observation that smacks of the suspicions of hindsight rather than knowledge of the fact, for who, knowing that Judas was stealing from the common purse, would allow him to keep it? (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament))

William Barclay (1907-1978) warns:

We can see how a man’s view can be warped. Judas had just seen an action of surpassing loveliness; and he called it extravagant waste. He was an embittered man and took an embittered view of things. A man’s sight depends on what is inside him. He sees only what he is fit and able to see. If we like a person, he can do little wrong. If we dislike him, we may misinterpret his finest action. A warped mind brings a warped view of things; and, if we find ourselves becoming very critical of others and imputing unworthy motives to them, we should, for a moment, stop examining them and start examining ourselves. (Barclay, Gospel of John: Volume 2 (Daily Study Bible), 112)

When is Judas discovered to be a thief? Why is he kept in the role of treasurer? Is Judas’ betrayal gradual or was he always a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Did the disagreement over the perfume contribute to Judas’ later betrayal? Is the love of money the root of Judas’ evil (I Timothy 6:10)? Have you ever been unable to get over a negative image of someone? Is Judas demonized?

“Let us never demonize or give up on those who disagree with us. We don’t want to become like the right-wing talk-show hosts, hammering our adversaries into cartoon characters and denying their humanity.” - Bill Clinton (b. 1946)