Here is my sermon from Sunday. The text was Luke 22:1-6, 14-16, 21-23, 47-53:
In one of
the most dramatic scenes in theater, Julius Caesar is attacked by those
conspiring against him, including his beloved friend Brutus, and Caesar utters the
words that have echoed down to us since the day that Shakespeare first wrote
them, “et tu, Brute?” Then Caesar says
words that are just as important, but not as well known, “the fall Caesar.” That might be one of the most famous scenes
of betrayal in history, except of course for the one we just read between Jesus
and Judas, but I have to be honest and say that I think that Judas might be the
most tragic and misunderstood characters of history, but what do we really know
about Judas?
Often in
the New Testament, people’s names will tell us something about who they
are. While there are several Judases in
the gospels, including another disciple, the Judas we are focusing on is always
referred to as Judas Iscariot, not only so we can tell him apart from the other
Judases, but also to give us some information, but the problem is we don’t
really know what that means. The answer
you are most likely to find is that Iscariot may mean he was from the town of
Kerioth, a town recorded in the book of Joshua as being in southern Israel, but
there are some problems with this identification. The first is that there is no indication that
the town of Kerioth still existed 1200 years after Joshua mentions it, as there
is no record of it during the time of Jesus, the other problem is that all of
the other disciples’ were from Galilee, where Jesus is from, so what would
someone from southern Judea be doing up in Galilee. Does that mean it’s impossible, of course
not, and if it was true, it would mean that Judas has been separate and
different from the very beginning.
Some
scholars have speculated that it may mean that Judas was a member of a group
of zealots called the sicarrii. We know that at least one other disciple,
Simon, but not Simon Peter, was called a zealot, but the sicarrii were a
special group who assassinated other Jews whom they saw as collaborators with
the Romans. Another option is that it
comes from an Aramaic word meaning “red color,” so maybe Judas was a red head,
and we all know about red heads. The
gospel of John says that Iscariot relates not to him, but to his father Simon Iscariot,
but in the end where most scholars who have worked on this have come to is that
we simply don’t know what the term means and it may even be that 40 plus years
after the facts that even the writers of the gospels no longer knew what it
meant either.
We do know
that Judas was one of the 12. We also know Judas was the person who carried the
communal purse, or money, for the disciples.
John tells us that Judas did this because he was greedy, and he stole
money from the purse, and that Judas then ultimately betrays Jesus because of
greed. Matthew makes a somewhat similar
claim by saying that Judas went to the chief priests to say what they would
give him to betray him. Now this has
always struck me as being a little incongruent with things, because it seems to
me that you don’t give your communities money to someone you don’t trust, or
someone you think is greedy. Instead,
you give it to the person you trust the most.
In addition, Jesus seems to be a
pretty good judge of character, so if Judas was a greedy person who only became
the treasurer so he could steal, and was stealing, then not only would we have
to say that Jesus picked out the person who would betray him, but that he could
not also see into Judas and know that he was steal from them all and let him carry
the communal purse.That just doesn’t
ring true to me, and in fact we have some remnants of a different story about
Judas contained in the gospel stories.
Our view of
the last supper has been influenced based on our own ideas of eating and those
presented to us by DaVinci in his work of the last supper, than by the reality. The disciples would not have been sitting at
one long table, instead they would have been sitting at what is known as a
triclinium, tri being three, and so it would have been a table shaped like a
U. People would have sat around the
table and the center would have been empty so that servers could reach
everyone. There would not have been
chairs, instead the table would have been situated close to the ground and people
would recline on pillows with their legs behind, and one hand resting on the
table. In addition, the seating
arrangements would not be as we would normally think of them with the host and
the most important person sitting at the head of the tables, but instead the situation
would look like this:
The 1
indicates where the host would sit, the most important guest of honor would sit
where the 2 is, and the second most important guest of honor would be in the
number 3 spot, and then the rest would be arranged around the table
accordingly. (And yes, I know that there are only 9 spot here, but all 13 would
have been sitting at the same table). When
you know this, then James and John’s request to sit at Jesus’ right and left
hand in the kingdom begins to make more sense because of this very arrangement.
So with
this in mind, listen to what we hear in the gospel of John “‘Very truly, I tell
you, one of you will betray me.’ The disciples looked at one another, uncertain
of whom he was speaking. One of his disciples—the one whom Jesus loved—was
reclining next to him; Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask Jesus of
whom he was speaking. So while reclining next to Jesus, he asked him, ‘Lord,
who is it?’ Jesus answered, ‘It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread
when I have dipped it in the dish.’ So when he had dipped the piece of bread,
he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot.” (John 13:21-26) Luke says it is the one whose hand is on the
table who will betray him, but all of them would have had hands on the table,
so that isn’t helpful. But in Matthew he
also says that the one who will betray him is the one who dips his hand into
the bowl with me, which, means only one person who could do this, and he is the
one who is sitting in the position of honor.
Now we might assume that Peter would sit in the position of honor, but
this tells us that it was in fact Judas.
What also seems very puzzling to me, and to lots of others over the
ages, is that if Jesus did indeed say who was to betray him that night, and it
would have been obvious who it was, why did the disciples do nothing to stop
him first of all? And I also think it’s
important to remember that according to Matthew and Mark the disciples wondered
who it could be, and wondered if it could be them.
So why did Judas
betray Jesus, and what did he betray? I don’t think we’ll ever know the real
reason, but that doesn’t stop us from speculating. As I already mentioned, John and Matthew
would have us believe that Judas did it out of greed. Mark does not give a motive, and Luke tells us
that Satan entered into Judas. Now for
Luke this continues from his story of Jesus’ temptation, because Luke says
“when the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an
opportune time,” and this appears to be it.
Now one of the problems with saying that the devil made him do or saying
that Judas had to do this as part of God’s divine saving action removes any responsibility from Judas. How can we blame Judas or hold him
responsible if in fact he wasn’t responsible either because the devil made him
do it or because God made him do it?
There is no exercise of free will in either of those scenarios, and
therefore it’s tough to blame Judas.
A more
likely reason for the betrayal is because of Judas’ conception of the Messiah didn’t
match who Jesus was. The term messiah,
which means anointed one, and when translated into Greek becomes Christos, or
Christ, was a title given to someone, not a proper name, and there were many
different conception of who the messiah or who the Christ would be. The first would be that of a great military
and political ruler, who would throw off Roman rule and return Israel to its
rightful place, and that God’s promise to David would be fulfilled and that his
descendants would sit on the throne.
Others thought the messiah would be a divinely inspired priest who would
return Israel to proper obeyance of God’s law. The third understanding would be
a divine-being who would come to judge the world, overthrow the evil powers of
the world and bring God’s kingdom here on earth.
While Jesus talked about all of
these things, he was none of these things, because none of the understandings
of the Messiah in the first century included someone who would suffer and
die. In fact death on a cross would be
the indicator that Jesus was not God’s chosen one. Now we don’t understand that now because we
have 2000 years of interpreting scripture to fit our understanding of who Jesus
is, but most of the passages we use don’t mention the messiah, nor were they
seen as messianic passages, until Christians interpreted them in that very way. That is why Peter rebuked Jesus when Jesus
said that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer and die and then be raised on the
third day. So some have speculated that
Judas betrayed Jesus to try and force him to become that messiah, to become the
one who would throw off the Romans, and having the Romans arrest him would
force him to become the military and political leader he expected. While I think there some strength to this
argument, we are not told anything that Judas did to follow up on this, such as
being among the crowds trying to rile them up to rise up, or trying to raise an
army to do the same thing, so this answer has some weaknesses.
But, I
think there is a different answer, one argued for convincingly to me by Bart
Ehrman, who believes that Jesus had been teaching the disciples privately that
they would come to rule the new kingdom with him that he had come to proclaim,
and that they would sit with him to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Ehrman argues that Judas and the other
disciples incorporated this idea into their own understanding of messiahship,
not really hearing what Jesus was telling them, and so when they got to
Jerusalem and Judas found out that what he had expected was not going to take
place, and that instead Jesus was going to be killed that Judas became
disillusioned and so told the chief priests that Jesus had called himself the
king of the Jews, that he said he would bring in a new kingdom and that the other
disciples would rule with him. That is
the only thing that makes sense with Jesus’ death, of Pontius Pilate asking
Jesus if he is king of the Jews, the charge for which he was killed, and the
title that was put above him on the cross, but never something that Jesus
proclaims of himself publically, at least in the synoptic gospels, and for this
the gospel of John needs to be kept separately.
Nothing that Jesus was proclaiming publically would have been things to
get the Romans upset and force them to do something about him, and so the high
priests needed Judas to provide information that would force the Romans to
conclude that Jesus was a threat and put an end to his ministry, and the charge
that cost Jesus his life that he was a threat to the empire appears to have
come from Judas.
There are
differences in the reports of what Judas does after the betrayal, and as much
as some people might try to reconcile them, they simply can’t be
reconciled. Matthew tells us that Judas,
when he saw what was to happen to Jesus, that he was to be killed, repented and
took the money back to the priests and elders and then went and hanged himself
in remorse. I wonder if maybe Jesus had
said something to Judas like what he said to Peter and we covered last week,
when he says when you turn back, when you repent, go and strengthen your
brothers. We of course might not know
that information because Judas didn’t survive to tell us. Matthew says that Judas repented, but his
guilt was too much for him to live with.
In Acts, which was written by Luke, we are told that Judas used the
money he received and bought a plot of land, and that he died on the land after
falling and having his guts burst open.
It is not clear if this is the result of punishment by God, or at Judas’
own hand.
So we
conclude by wondering what is it that Judas can teach us, what can we learn
from this story. Last week when we
looked at Peter’s denial I said that we might have some sympathy with Peter
when we think of the times in which we have not lived up to what we said we
would do, or when we too had denied each other or God in so many different
ways. But, we also know denials are very
different from betrayals. If you’ve been a live for a while,
then there is a great likelihood that you have been betrayed in some way, or
had something done to you that you perceived as a betrayal, by someone you love
or someone close to you. And because
they are close to you, and the very people you expect not to do something like
that to you, these are the wounds that hurt more than other. When we feel that we have been stabbed in the
back by someone we loved and trusted, we wonder how it could have ever
happened, how we could have allowed it to happen, and we try and put up walls
to try and make sure that we never allow it to happen again. These are the wounds that are hard to
forgive. While we might be able to easily
say, as Paul does in Romans, that nothing can separate us from the love of God,
and yet at the same time we can say, or at least live our lives proclaiming,
that there are some things that can separate us from each other. There are things that we think are
unforgiveable, that we apparently have higher and much more stringent levels of
forgiveness than does God. And I most
certainly include myself in that, as there are some hurts and betrayals that
strike so deeply that I have yet to be able to let go of them. But when we begin thinking that we must also
remember, the great likelihood is that we have also hurt and wounded and even
betrayed, just as we have been hurt, wounded, and betrayed and if we want to be
forgiven we must also forgive. Which is
what I think the story of Judas comes down to.
Rev. Ray
Anderson recalls seeing some graffiti one time in San Francisco which said
“Judas come home – all is forgiven.” And
so he wondered, was Judas forgiven? What
are the limits of God’s forgiveness, and could Judas possibly be included? I think the answer is yes, that even Judas
can and was forgiven for his actions, just as Peter was, and I believe that not
only because of what Paul writes to the Romans, and not only because of the
fact that Matthew tells us that Judas repented for his actions, but also for
the fact of what happens immediately before Judas leaves to carry out his act
of betrayal, and that is that Judas participates in the first communion
celebration. Jesus doesn’t do it after
Judas leaves, he doesn’t tell Judas to leave first, and he doesn’t say that
this doesn’t apply to Judas. Instead
Jesus takes the bread and he breaks it and he says this is my body which is
given for you, and the first person he serves is Judas, and then he takes the
cup and he says this is the blood of the new covenant poured out for you and
for many for the forgiveness of sins, and then the first person he gives it to
is Judas. I think Judas shows us the
power of the cross, and Judas shows us the power and extent of God’s
forgiveness.
But, based on Matthew’s account we
must also wonder if Judas ever truly understood that forgiveness for
himself. Matthew tells us that Judas
repented for his actions, just as Peter did, but rather than being able to go
and strengthen his brothers as Peter did, he instead went and hung himself. It has been said that not forgiving others is
like drinking poison and expecting the other person to be hurt, and not
forgiving ourselves is even worse, because it’s like drinking a double
portion. Now forgiveness for ourselves
and for others does not come easily, or freely, we must seek it, we must turn
around, we must repent, but then we must also be willing to receive. We must be willing to let go and to let God’s
grace and love and forgiveness overwhelm us, and flow through us, and flow over
us. What I see in the story of Judas is
not the personification of evil, not of the worst things that we can do or be,
but instead I see in it the story of God’s love and of God’s forgiveness, and
the reminder of a constant theme this lent that we all fall short of the glory
of God, but that God loves us and that God forgives us because God wants to be
in relation with us, and that we are called to remember that not only when we
see the cross, but when we take the bread and we receive the cup, the same
thing received by all the disciples, including Judas, as God’s love given for
us and poured out for us by the gift of God’s son.
I am the one who wrote the signs in San Francisco: COME HOME, JUDAS - ALL IS FORGIVEN. J.C."
ReplyDeleteJust at a time when I was terribly betrayed by my own closest friend, I had the idea that even Jesus would have forgiven Judas.
christi3wll@aol.com