The Nature of Evil and the Role of Judas Iscariot in the Gospel of John

4 downloads 115 Views 182KB Size Report
word “darkness” a total of five times, and references Judas Iscariot a total of nine ... investigates the problematic factors that led Judas to the ultimate betrayal of ...
1

The Nature of Evil and the Role of Judas Iscariot in the Gospel of John

Rev. Benjamin P. Bradshaw

2

I.)

Part I: Judas Iscariot as the Betrayer of Jesus Christ The simple fact that the Gospel of John uses the word “light” a total of sixteen times, the

word “darkness” a total of five times, and references Judas Iscariot a total of nine times highlights the spiritual battle that is undoubtedly taking place with the figures of Jesus, the Jews, and Judas Iscariot. That Judas may have been a Zealot, namely one who was awaiting a warrior-Messiah who would lead a revolt against the Romans, is well known. When one investigates the problematic factors that led Judas to the ultimate betrayal of Jesus, it important that the audience understand that Judas himself felt betrayed by Christ, as he had hoped for this political warrior and instead received one who advocated love.1 This led to a progressive detachment from the “light” of Christ on the part of Judas and an eventual free-will entrance into the “darkness” of spiritual and physical death.2 There is clearly seen a gradual indifference from the light of Christ and progressive embracing of the darkness of pride in John’s narrative on the part of Judas Iscariot. As the Evangelist informs the Johannine audience within the corpus of the Gospel, the continual theme of knowledge is of paramount importance in the revelation given by God in the person of Jesus Christ. For instance, we are told several times that Jesus “knew” the hearts of men and likewise that he “knew” of the impending betrayal of Judas: ‘“But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.’”3 Later John will inform his audience of the knowledge of Judas as well in verses 18:1-2 wherein the audience hears that Judas “knew” of the place where Jesus and his disciples would be across the Kidron valley in the garden, thereby

1

The word love is used 28 times in John’s Gospel. Jn 3:19-21, 13:30 (Revised Standard Version) 3 6:64, 13:11 2

3

leading the arresting party to rendezvous with Jesus.4 As will be seen, knowledge then, plays a critical role in the warfare present within the Johannine text. John’s Gospel is likewise replete with examples of double meanings, and the specific references to betrayal by Judas Iscariot are no exceptions.5 In addressing the characteristic of betrayal in Judas it is worth noting that the term “betray” or παραδώσων (Jn 6:64 BGT) in the Greek, which indicates literally “to hand over” or “to give up,” is used five times within the Johannine text. While the Greek form is used in varied ways within the text, to some degree the “giving up” of Jesus by Judas not only indicates the actual betrayal of the Christ, but it will likewise indicate a “giving up” of hope and the ultimate yielding to despair by the Iscariot postbetrayal. This giving up of hope will likewise indicate a “giving up” of being part of the Church, as is indicated throughout the ecclesiology of the Johannine text. In the 6:64 usage of “betray,” the betrayal that Christ speaks of is used in accentuating a future event and a single male who would betray him, whereas in verse 6:71 the word paradido,nai is used, denoting an active present tense infinitive verb, which will be seen also in verses 12:4. In 13:2 the audience sees the use of paradoi/, while still denoting betrayal in this form it is used as a subjunctive verb third person singular in referring to the despotic sway of “the devil” upon the heart of Judas in betraying Jesus.6 Following the washing of the disciples feet in 13:11, Jesus again refers to his upcoming betrayal in informing them that “You are not all clean.” In this instance paradido,nta is used whereby the present active masculine and singular form accentuates one specifically to betray him at a future point. By contrast in 13:21, John uses paradw,sei in noting the “troubled” 4

18:1-2: When he had said this, Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to where there was a garden, into which he and his disciples entered. 2 Judas his betrayer also knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 5 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Francis J. Moloney (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 288. 6 13:2: And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him.

4

spirit of Jesus in his betrayal. Yet in 21:20 he uses paradidou,j to accentuate the discourse between Jesus and Peter post-Resurrection wherein Peter notes that the Apostle whom Jesus loved had questioned him, “ku,rie( ti,j evstin o` paradidou,j se,” or “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” In the repeated and varied references to betrayal within the text the audience observes a gradual building up the climatic “hour” of Jesus’ Passion, in addition to the emphasis of the author that Judas was acting on his own volition in conjunction with “the devil.”7 While the word devil, or diabo,lou, is not frequently used in the text (3 times), it is worth noting that the name literally implies “accuser or slanderer,” underscoring the deceptive nature of the force seducing Judas. While John tends to refer to the devil and Satan as the same entity, he uses the name Satan, or satana/j, only once.8 In both instances it is understood that the initial phase of Judas’ yielding to the darkness of evil comes in the form of ceasing to believe that Jesus is the Christ, which for John is akin to complete spiritual death. In his recent General Audience address entitled Insincerity is the Mark of the Devil, Pope Benedict XVI made note of the disbelief in Christ of Judas Iscariot and accentuated that this precipitated an embracing of spiritual duplicity on his part: “The problem is that Judas did not go away, and his most serious fault was falsehood, which is the mark of the devil. That is why Jesus said to the Twelve: ‘One of you is a devil’.”9 In noting that Judas could have freely chosen to join the others who “drew back and no longer went about with him,” and yet he chose to stay in spite of his inner falsehood, the Holy Father underscores the duplicitous nature of Judas Iscariot and his freely chosen lack of

7

13:2 13:27 9 Pope Benedict XVI, “Insincerity if the Mark of the Devil” (General Audience Address. Vatican City State. August 26, 2012, Catholic News Agency). 8

5

integrity.10 This deceptive nature of Satan is witnessed in other locations within the text, most notably in 8:44, wherein Jesus forcefully critiques the Jews, who have reasserted their dependence from Abraham, and informs them that they are in reality linked to a paternity of demonic origin: You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (Joh 8:44 RSV).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, drawing on the teachings of Lateran Council IV (1215) highlights the fact that while Satan was indeed created good as were the other demons, they “became evil by their own doing.”11 As Pope Paul VI has noted, it is often fashionable today to deny the existence of the Devil, and yet the Johannine text is unequivocally clear regarding the phenomenon of demonic activity in the world.12 The Holy Father further reiterated this point with the document Christian Faith and Demonology, promulgated under his Pontificate.13 The document makes repeated references to John’s Gospel, yet specifically with regards the diabolic influence upon Judas and the world: “It is not surprising, therefore, that in St. John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of the devil and calls him ‘the prince of this world.’”14 It is worth noting that the praenotanda of the Catholic Rite of Exorcism similarly makes note of this demonic reality as it relates to the control of Satan over Judas’ will in Gospel of John.15

10

6:66 Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.391 12 Pope Paul VI, “Confronting the Devil’s Power” (General Audience Address, November 15, 1972, Vatican City State, EWTN). 13 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Christian Faith and Demonology, July 10, 1975, (Boston: St. Paul, 1975). 14 Ibid., 14. Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11. 15 Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rite of Exorcism (Booneville: Preserving Christians, 2007), 3: “To be possessed can mean that Satan has gained mastery over the will so devastatingly that sinfulness passes beyond ordinary depravity of the world, and its cause must be sought in a power 11

6

The moral fact that one such as Judas, could spend roughly three years living with Jesus, witnessing a vast array of miracles, and likely sensing on a daily basis his divinity, and still neglect to grow in belief and conversion but furthermore precipitate the inner isolation of sin is an indication that simply living with Christ was not enough to make one holy.16 According to John, personal belief and obedience were needed. Even within these close proximities, Jesus perpetually honored the nature of the human will to accept or reject his message and love. An yet when interpreted in context, the Johannine audience gradually comes to understand that the betrayal of Jesus was hastened by two subtle choices of Judas, namely, the consent of his will in the planning phases and darkening of his intellect that led to the decision of betraying the one whom he felt had previously betrayed him. It is worth examining these characteristics in further detail: a.) Planning the Betrayal: In his Prologue and in especially in the discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus (3:1-21), John is unmistakable in pointing out that as the light of truth and as genuinely divine, Jesus Christ is the light that pierces the darkness of sin and death within the world. Furthermore, it is the “deeds” of darkness that slowly ebb away the light of Christ present in man and this darkness is a freely chosen option, albeit a wretched one.17 As a moral thread running throughout the text, the Evangelist articulates that what we actually do impacts our capacity to believe in Jesus, and that our belief in Christ necessitates moral action as well; thus, he continually asserts the need to “bear fruit.” This drama found within the life of the believer is one of integrity in choice, whereby man must clearly choose to follow and live in the light of Christ, rather than the darkness of the world. When applied to the choices made by Judas above the order of nature…Or more certainly in Judas whom Jesus called a devil, into whose heart Satan put the thought to betray the master” (6:71; 13:2). 16 Pope Benedict XVI, “Never Despair of God’s Mercy” (General Audience Address, October 19, 2006, Vatican City State, Zenit News Service). 17 Jn 1:4-9, 3:19-21.

7

Iscariot it seems apparent that this chosen darkness was as subtle as it was consistent. For instance, immediately following the Bread of Life discourse and the departure of some of his disciples from his company, Jesus poses an inquisitive and yet awkward question to his disciples in reference to the upcoming betrayal, “Jesus answered them, ‘"Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?"’ He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.”18 Likewise, in verse 13:1 the audience hears of the fact that even prior to the initiation of the Passover feast; the heart of Judas had already been infected by the devil and coerced into the betrayal of Christ.19 This premeditated planning on the part of Judas indicates to the audience that the Betrayer had given over full consent of his will to the evil act itself and thus to “the devil” who incited him in the act. Like St. Peter, Judas did later repent of his actions, his sin is later amplified in gravity by nature of his refusal to hope and ultimate embracing of despair.20 In addition to the preplanning of the betrayal by Judas, it is interesting to note the impact that this preplanning actually had on Jesus himself. As has already been stated, Jesus knew about the plan of Judas, yet it begs the question as to how this gradual betrayal impacted him emotionally and spiritually? While there are a number of scenes in John’s Gospel wherein Jesus exhibits strong emotion, there are three primary instances whereby the text notes that he was “troubled” and “deeply moved”: At the burial site of Lazarus (11:33, 38), following the encounter with the Greeks who came to Phillip and Andrew (12:27), and finally in 13:21 wherein Jesus finally reveals to his disciples something that had been weighing heavy on his heart, namely that “one of you will be betray me.”21 In explicitly choosing the word “troubled,” or

18

6:70-71 13:2 20 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City State: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1992), #2091. 21 Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2011), 65. 19

8

evtara,cqh, John seems to highlight the depth of emotion felt by this Christ of whom it has already been established is one with Father and is indeed divine himself. In one sense “troubled” could mean simply “angered,” as in 11:33-38 wherein Jesus is frustrated with the lack of faith of the Jews, on the other had it could simply imply a deep pain within Jesus on several levels.22 In spite of the profundity of the impact the betrayal seems to have on Jesus, he nevertheless respects the free will of Judas in making his own decisions, stating plainly to him at the Passover, “What you are going to do, do quickly”.23 This then indicates that Jesus not only was willing to respect the free will of Judas but he was equally willing to take on the full consequences of Judas choices as well. As the Evangelist clearly notes in the text, a presupposition to belief in Christ is listening to Christ, which the Iscariot has evidently failed to do. b.) A Systematic Pattern of Sin: The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that “Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil.”24 In a similar manner, one grows in virtue by the habituated practice of virtue in correspondence with the good, whereby we are attracted to the good and seek to reside in it.25 With this in mind, it is not inconceivable to consider the steady and systematic yielding to sin perpetuated by Judas long before the “hour” of Jesus had actually arrived. In chapter 12, the Evangelist conveys the story of Mary of Bethany who anointed the feet of Jesus. The event, we are told, takes place six days prior to the Passover and Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. As Martha served and Lazarus, whom he previously raised from the dead, reclined at table with him, Mary “took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of 22

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2010), 184. Jn 13:27 (Revised Standard Version). 24 Catechism of the Catholic Church (Vatican City State: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1992), #1865. 25 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, ed. Timothy McDermott (Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1989), I-II. 62. 3. 23

9

Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair.”26 It was at this point that the duplicity within Judas is manifested outwardly as he scolds the woman stating, “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" The Evangelist stresses the lack of integrity with the Iscariot noting: “This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.”27 In these words it becomes apparent to the audience that Judas had fostered a habit of deception (stealing) from the others, assuming that what he was doing remained veiled under his presumed concern for the poor. Jesus however, aware of the ulterior nature of Judas’s intention with the denarii the nard could have purchased, states plainly and directly: “Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial. The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”28 When the Gospel of John is read in context it is evident that Jesus is not indifferent to the genuine needs of the poor as this passage may at first appear, rather, he articulates that throughout the disciples ministry there will be numerous opportunities to offer charity to the poor, yet the time they will have with Jesus is altogether limited. As the heart of Judas has been slowly darkened by sin, it was arguably a natural progression for him to further his plotted course of deception to his ultimate deception displayed at the “hour.” As the climatic “hour” of Jesus arrives and he and his disciples are in the garden “across the Kidron valley,” the Evangelist takes pain to emphasize several times that Judas was the betrayer. He notes: “Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place,” and “Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.”29 Here John’s audience understands that Judas has now fully aligned himself with the darkness after having departed from the light of Christ and fled to it following

26

Jn 12:3. 12: 5-6. 28 12:7-8. 29 18:2-5. 27

10

the “receiving” of the morsel from Jesus and the entrance of Satan within him.30 Earlier in the Gospel, in the discourse with Nicodemus, Jesus had already pointed out that one whose acts are moral seeks the light of truth that what he does may been seen as being virtuous and in accord with God, whereas one whose deeds are corrupted by sin seeks only the darkness that what he does may be hidden from the light of truth.31 At this point then, the audience recalls the ominous darkness spoken of by Christ juxtaposed to the deeds of this darkness freely chosen by Judas Iscariot. As the definitive hour has come, Judas and a “band of soldiers and some officers” arrive in the garden to arrest Jesus. Here then the Gospel spectators are again informed of the knowledge of Christ, as truly human and truly divine. They are told: “Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, ‘"Whom do you seek?"’32 The question posed here by Jesus is both practical and spiritual. It is practical in the sense of inquiring of the soldiers exactly whom they are looking for, and spiritual in the sense of probing them for meaning in their own lives. The question recalls for the audience the question posed by Jesus to the two disciples of John who followed him in chapter one wherein Jesus turns as asks them: “What do you seek?”33 His question is a spiritually weighty one in questioning the disciples essentially, “What is it you seek in life?” For their part however, the disciples seem to miss the deeper meaning of the question. Here the search party led by Judas Iscariot is likewise posed a deeper question by Christ prior to his arrest and Passion: “Whom do you seek?” Raymond Brown argues that at this point Judas has become a “tool” for Satan, as the last time we saw him he had yielded his will to the evil one with the taking of the morel. Brown highlights the fact that the

30

13:30. 3:19-21. 32 18:4. 33 1:38. 31

11

search party has now come with lamps and lanterns which clearly indicates that they work apart from the light of Christ.34 Andreas J. Köstenberger notes that within the Johannine scenes both Judas and later Peter outside the gate are equally standing, as if to indicate that the world now “stands” against Jesus.35 As the party of soldiers and officers respond, “Jesus of Nazareth,” Jesus himself replies, “I am he.” His response recalls the divine name in Exodus 3:14: “I AM WHO I AM.” This dialogue between Christ and the soldiers is morally relevant to Judas Iscariot as Jesus offers to Judas a “last chance” of sorts prior to the betrayal as he watches the interaction between Christ and the arresting party. While John mentions nothing specific with regards to an actual betraying kiss by Judas, it is clear that he orchestrated the event by the Evangelist’s use of the word “procure,” noting that “Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons,” thereby sealing his place as Judas the betrayer.36 The consistent planning of his betrayal reinforces for the audience the cunning nature of the darkness that Judas has at this point conformed himself to. I.)

Part II: Judas Iscariot and the Rejection of Hope

After having examined the tragedy of the betrayal of Jesus in the Johannine text, inasmuch as it leaves the audience saddened to some degree, it similarly leaves them puzzled as well. The question inevitably arises: Why would Jesus choose a man to be an apostle whom he knew would later betray him? While the definitive answer to this this question has been debated for centuries and is indeed elusive, it is worth examining the nature of despair in Judas as it impacts his unwillingness to trust in the mercy of Christ. While the repentance of Judas, the throwing of the thirty silver pieces into the Temple, and his ultimate suicide as the fruit of despair are not

34

Raymond Brown, The Gospel According of John XIII-XXI (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 817. 18:16; Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 507. 36 18:3. 35

12

exclusively mentioned in the Johannine text, from the progression of the previous texts the audience understands that his destiny most likely did not end well. By virtue of the fact that the Evangelist frequently uses the theme of the light of Christ which pierces the darkness of despair and sin, the Gospel text itself continuously evokes a sense of hope for the audience. This is contrasted with the figure of Judas who rejected this hope. The Prologue notes the hopeful awaiting of Christ and it likewise records the rejection of him by the world as well: “The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not.”37 Here the Evangelist contrasts this lack of knowledge exhibited by the world regarding Jesus with the loss of knowledge of God among Adam and Eve after the fall, which the audience would have been aware of: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”38 In his work The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, C.H. Dodd remarks that the manifestation of this knowledge exhibited in the Johannine text is found most exquisitely in the actual faith of the believer, which ironically is frequently lacking among the Jews but prevalent among the Samaritans and Gentiles: Hence, knowledge takes the form of faith, which is both an acceptance of the fact that Jesus Christ is the revelation of the eternal God, and a personal attachment to him. It is not a stage preliminary to knowledge, but is itself the knowledge of God which is communion with him and constitutes eternal life.39 The despair adopted by Judas, while not necessary or ipso facto obligatory, was to some degree the moral progression of this lack of communion by way of a lack of knowledge of Christ the light. Within the text Judas is never seen exhibiting any remorse, regret, or doubt for his chosen

37

Jn 1:9-10. Gn 3:7. Bruno Barnhart, The Good Wine (New York: Paulist, 1993), 137-138. 39 C.H.Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (London: Cambridge, 1953), 201. 38

13

path, although this is certainly evident in Matthew’s Gospel.40 An example of this is seen in the washing of the disciple’s feet by Jesus. The Johannine audience is already in awe of the fact that Jesus has just washed the feet of a man he knows will soon betray him and then they hear the following unsettling words: Jesus said to him, ‘"He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you."’ For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, ‘"You are not all clean."41 Judas permits Jesus to play a role in service to him even though both men know the betrayal that is about to happen. C.K. Barrett observes that in this duplicitous behavior Judas exhibits a near total lack of remorse and furthermore “he did not enter into the meaning of Jesus’ act of humility and love.”42 The pride of Judas prohibited him from appreciating the full import of the act of humility by Christ as well as the exhortation to service to others in verses 14-15. The audience is left with the menacing impression that Judas now resides solely in the spiritual darkness, which is later confirmed in verse 30: “So, after receiving the morsel, he immediately went out; and it was night.”43 It is precisely from the realm of this spiritual darkness that Judas Iscariot refused to hope in the mercy of Christ, and as Pope Benedict XVI has noted, this darkness “degenerated into despair and in this way became self-destruction.”44 Of the repetitive themes witnessed in John’s Gospel undoubtedly one of the points of gravest concern for the Evangelist is the emphasis placed on personal belief. Having used the word “believe” 56 times, John’s Gospel takes care to articulate that while belief is to have unity with Jesus, unbelief is nothing short of spiritual suicide: “He who believes in him is not

40

Mt 27:3-5. Jn 13:10-11. 42 C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955), 442. 43 Jn 13:30. 44 Pope Benedict XVI, “Never Despair of God’s Mercy” (General Audience Address, October 19, 2006, Vatican City State, Zenit News Service). 41

14

condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”45 Claus Westermann points out, “Not believing is discussed [by John] in order to establish a contrast.”46 The Evangelist seems to underscore that the work of belief is a definitive act of the will, in spite of the doubts which may at times present themselves. In addressing the figure of Judas in the text, not infrequently the apostle Peter is presented as the antithesis of the disbelief and lack of trust in Jesus’s mercy. Contrary to the Iscariot’s disbelief and arrogance, Peter exhibits remarkable belief, even though times that he fails to logically grasp the import of what Jesus was alluding to. In 6:67-68, following the Bread of Life discourse and the departure of a number of those who followed them, Jesus turns to Peter specifically and asks, “Do you also wish to go away?” and apparently without much deliberation Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” In spite of the sizable crowd of followers who abandoned Jesus in light of the demanding nature of the his words, Simon Peter exhibits astonishing belief in spite of failing to grasp the meaning of Jesus’ words regarding his flesh as food and his blood as drink. Also, in spite of his denial of Jesus, the belief of Simon Peter in the mercy of Christ as the fruit of his belief is seen definitively in the post-Resurrection narrative between Jesus and Peter as they sit around the second charcoal fire mentioned in the text, whereas the first was in the court of the high priest where the denial takes place.47 Even though the role of Simon Peter undoubtedly takes greater precedence in the text, the Evangelist presents the faith and forgiveness of Peter in direct contrast with the insidious despair which has enveloped Judas. With regards to the poor example of Judas, Pope Benedict XVI has stated: “Although there is no lack on unworthy and traitorous Christians in the Church, it is up to us to counterbalance 45

Jn 3:18. Claus Westermann, The Gospel of John (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 41. 47 Jn 21:9, 18:18. 46

15

the evil they do with our limpid testimony of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.”48 It is worth noting that while Judas is likely the most well-known betrayer in human history, Jesus similarly respected the free will and freedom of the many agents who took part in his Crucifixion (e.g. Pilate, soldiers, Jewish leaders), thus Judas is one of many, including man himself, who impacted the death of Christ. In the spiritual amputation of his relationship with Christ, there is likewise de facto the amputation of Judas’ bond with the Church as well, which further precipitates his loss of hope. The emphasis in John on the ecclesiological dimension of unity with Christ is seen for instance in 13:20, wherein Jesus states: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.” To “receive” in this context, literally λαµβώνων, implies a ‘taking in’ as well. In this receiving of the body of Christ, namely the disciples, there is likewise a receiving of Christ and the Father as well. Judas’ betrayal of Christ was thus a betrayal of incorporation into the Church, as is evident in the passage following the 13:20 text whereby Judas consumes the morsel and “Satan entered him.”49 As tragic of a figure Judas Iscariot is, it must be acknowledged that the audience and the Church takes from this story several imperative lessons, chief among them being that God can always bring good out of tragedy and the workings of evil. In spite of the planning, stealing, lying, and ultimate denial of Christ by Judas, God’s divine providence was still transcendent enough to allow for the highest act of love by Jesus in bringing about the eternal salvation of man. This divine providence is likewise active in the life of the Church today in bringing about overwhelming good out of unspeakable challenges. The Johannine text seems to speak that it is during the valleys that the light of hope in Jesus Christ must be clung to for the Christian, and 48

Pope Benedict XVI, “Never Despair of God’s Mercy” (General Audience Address, October 19, 2006, Vatican City State, Zenit News Service). 49 13:27.

16

after persevering through this, the committed Christian grows in greater belief, which is so paramount to the Evangelist. There is the authentic reality of hope and mercy experienced by Simon Peter as he sat with Christ around his second charcoal fire of the week enjoying a simple breakfast of “large fish.”50 For the audience this tender scene of Peter’s reconciliation beckons the heart back to the hope enunciated in the Prologue: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”51 As is seen again and again within the Johannine text, Jesus Christ maintains a profound respect for the free will present in man, be it that of Judas or Peter or Pilate. The Church has always taught that free will is a constitutive ingredient in personal belief and conversion, still another theme in the Gospel. In addressing the interconnection of these two dynamics, Pope Benedict XVI has argued the following: The point is simply that space is left for man’s freedom to decide and to say Yes. God does not force himself on us…His existence is an encounter that reaches down into man’s inmost depths but that can never be reduced to the tangibility of a merely material thing. Consequently, the very magnitude of the reality is such that faith is always an event that happens in freedom. This event contains the certainty that there is something true, something real here, but, on the other hand, it never completely excludes the possibility of denial.”52

The possible element of denial in free will, as witnessed in the person of Judas Iscariot, is a critical component of authentic love, and yet is always tethered with the real possibility of moral tragedy as well.

50

Jn 21:11. 1:5. 52 Pope Benedict XVI, Light of the World (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2010), 174-175. 51

17

Bibliography: Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Timothy McDermott, Ed. Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1989. Barnhart, Bruno. The Good Wine. New Jersey: Paulist, 1993. Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to St. John. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955. Brown, Raymond E, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy., eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990. Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited by Francis J. Moloney. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John, I-XII. New York: Doubleday, 1966. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John, XIII-XXI, New York: Doubleday, 1970. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1992. Daniélou, Jean. God and the Ways of Knowing. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2003. Dodd, C.H. The Interpretation of the Forth Gospel. London: Cambridge, 1953. Karris, Robert J., ed. The Collegeville Bible Commentary. Collegville: Liturgical, 1992. Kelly, Anthony J., and Moloney, Francis J. Experiencing God in the Gospel of John. New Jersey: Paulist, 2003. Kostenberger, Andreas J. John. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Marrow, Stanley B. The Gospel of John. New Jersey: Paulist, 1995. Pope Benedict XVI, “Insincerity is ‘the Mark of the Devil.’” (Sunday Homily, Vatican City State, August 26, 2012). Pope Benedict XVI, “Never Despair of God’s Mercy” (Wednesday General Audience, Vatican City State, October 19, 2006).

18

Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth, vol.I. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2007. Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth, vol.II. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2011. Pope Benedict XVI. Light of the World. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2010. Pope John Paul II. Evangelium Vitae. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1995. Pope John Paul II. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1987. Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Behold the Pierced One. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1984. Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Called to Communion. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1991. Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Dogma and Preaching. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005. Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. What it Means to be a Christian. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005. Westermann, Claus. The Gospel of John. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998.