Judas’ role in the Last Supper has always rubbed me the wrong way. I never could place if he betrayed Jesus willingly or was induced to do so. His role as the ultimate betrayer in Dante’s Inferno reflected that he was both willingly sold out Jesus and was coerced into doing it. His betrayal has always seemed cosmic and unchangeable to me. This is strongly influenced by Jesus’ prophecy of his own death and betrayal at Judas’ hands. However, is someone who is compelled to betray Jesus by forces beyond his control guilty of that betrayal, or is what controlled him guilty? A closer reading of the gospels can help clarify who really was behind Judas’ betrayal and why. With this closer understanding of Judas’ actions, the bread and wine he receives takes on a new meaning that furthers the understanding of what the Eucharist is.
So, is Judas at fault? In the gospels of Saint Luke and Saint John, the adversary enters into Judas and causes his betrayal. Luke claims that “Satan entered into Judas…” (Luke 22:3 Douay Rheims Version) and John writes “the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him” (John 13:2). John makes the explicit connection between the devil and the betrayal, making it appear that Judas is a victim in this story. John continues this by placing Satan into Judas at the moment of betrayal (John 13:27). Yet, the gospels of Matthew and Mark condemn Judas to the worst of punishments. Both claim of the traitor “it would be better for him, if that man had not been born” (Matthew, 26:24 and Mark 14:21). Both of these stories lack the claim that the devil or Satan had anything to do with Judas whatsoever. The crime of betrayal is placed on the human Judas Iscariot.
So, if Judas, as in the case of the gospels of Matthew and Mark, chose to betray Jesus, we have to ask why? In the gospels of Matthew and Mark there is a story of the woman who gives Jesus precious ointment, lacking from both Luke and John. In it, the disciples witness the woman pour the expensive mixture on Jesus and “had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold for much and given to the poor (Matthew, 26:8-9). To assuage the ire of his disciples, Jesus explains that he will soon die and he is being prepared for burial. This expense is worthwhile since Jesus will only be present for a short time, while the poor will always exist to be helped. The disciples seem pleased with this explanation. However, immediately after this story, Judas “went to the chief priests, to betray him to them” (Mark, 14:10). This event and explanation leads to Judas’ personal decision to betray Jesus Christ. Judas Iscariot, after witnessing the woman with the ointment, lost his faith in Jesus.
However, Judas still receives the Body and Blood of Christ. This is a problem. The power of Jesus’ Body and Blood is that it is “the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). Judas took part in this ceremony, so shouldn't his debt of sin be cancelled, or at least quelled? However, the act of betrayal changed the nature of the Eucharist. Hugh of Saint Victor describes what Judas received as a “dipped morsel,” referencing that Judas’ own bread was the sole piece that was dipped (Hugh of Saint Victor, On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith, 307). Hugh of Saint Victor claims that this dipping is what prevented Judas from taking the body of Christ in its full potential. Judas did eat the body of Christ as the rest of the disciples did, but he did not gain the same benefits that the disciples received.
What is the substance of Eucharist, and why was Judas unable to receive the substance? Hugh of Saint Victor argues that the purpose of the Eucharist is that through the act of consuming the body and blood of Christ “He might incorporate us with Him” (Hugh, 307). By this, he means that participating in the Eucharist brings the participant closer to the Lord. Combined with the explanation of the sacrament given in Matthew, the Eucharist takes those who are close to the Lord and aids in clearing the debt of sin. The sacrament of the Eucharist cannot have any affect on those who do not believe. This is why Hugh says “it is better for him who believes and loves, even if he cannot take and eat, than for him takes and eats and does not believe nor love” (Hugh, 307). The substance of Eucharist is centered around the belief: one who holds that the bread and wine are not the blood and body of Christ can gain no benefit from the Sacrament.
The Eucharist, the presence of the body of God, never drives out Judas’ desire for betrayal. This makes the human betrayal undertaken by Judas a more compelling narrative than a possession. This is because Judas has lost his faith in Jesus, he was not able nor willing to understand why He needed the ointment. As a result, the Eucharist which manumitted the disciples from sin did nothing for Judas. The Eucharist is an affirmation of faith. It is the affirmation that the Lord incarnated as a human through his own power. It is the affirmation that the Lord continues to be present physically in the lives of believes. It is the affirmation that by being close to the Lord one can be free of sin. Judas apostatized, and so the sacrament of the Eucharist did nothing to save him.
—Peter Hillary
I would have liked to hear more about the medieval understandings of the sacrament that we talked about, particularly the development of the argument for the real presence and how that would affect our understanding of what happened with Judas. There was an enormous debate in the twelfth century (of which Hugh was a part) about how, exactly, the sacrament worked. We saw either side of this debate in the way Paschasius talked about the reality of the body and blood as compared with Guido. Judas is an excellent test case for the claim of transubstantiation: if it is the words that Jesus said and that the priest repeats that effects the transformation, how could Judas have NOT received the body and blood, albeit to his damnation? The narrative detail gives an out—he wasn't there at the consecration of the elements—but it does not solve the question that you (rightly) posed at the outset: whose fault was it that Judas betrayed Jesus? A thorny one! RLFB
ReplyDelete