Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Tuesday of Holy Week

(Isaiah 49:1-6; John 13:21-33.36-38)

In today’s passage from the Gospel of John, Jesus predicts Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial.  In the telling, Jesus is dismissive of both disciples.  He orders Judas to carry out quickly the evil that has entered his heart.  And he cuts short Peter’s bravado about laying down his life for him.  At later points in the Gospel of Luke, not John, Jesus shows mercy to each.

When Judas approaches Jesus in the garden, Luke portrays him attempting to kiss the Lord.  Jesus interrupts this show of hypocrisy by calling his name.  He is not defending himself but allowing Judas a last opportunity to repent of his treachery.  Shakespeare will have Caesar make the same kind of appeal to Brutus.  Tragically, Judas fails to show remorse.  Peter, however, is able to change his course of action in a parallel situation.  Luke situates Jesus in vicinity of Peter when the latter denies him.  Most of us would probably turn our heads away in disgust if we were in Jesus’ position.  But Jesus mercifully turns to look at Peter.  This gesture, reminding Peter of Jesus’ prediction, causes him to weep in regret. 

There are many differences in the four narratives of Jesus’ passion.  They should not make us fret about which is accurate.  Rather they should move us to contemplate all that Jesus means.  He is the merciful face of God whom especially Luke tells of.  He is also the divine king that John relates.  And he is much more besides.  We want to spend time meditating on him this week, recommitting ourselves to him, and beseeching his grace.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Tuesday of Holy Week

(Isaiah 49:1-6; John 13:21-33.36-38)

Today’s gospel juxtaposes Judas and Peter, especially their sins against the Lord.  Jesus predicts both offenses – Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial.  Does it distinguish the gravity of the two offenses?  Some say “no,” but the passage indicates that Judas’ transgression is the greater.  It says that “Satan entered him,” not as an excuse for Judas as we sometimes say that “Satan made me do it.”  Rather, by conjuring Satan, the Prince of Darkness, the evangelist signifies the depth of Judas’ evil.  He deliberately handed over the Savior, preferring darkness to light.

Peter, on the other hand, will sin out of fear.  There is almost risible irony in how he boasts in the reading that he will lay down his life for Jesus and how at the high priest’s house he will deny that he is Jesus’ disciple.  Under duress his courage fails him.  Again, this is not an excuse as he was quite aware of the seriousness of the occasion, yet he succumbs in the test.

We are tempted as both Judas and Peter.  Some people actively participate in abortions, the killing of the innocent for at least sometimes no reason other than convenience.  That, we may say, approaches Judas’ treachery.  Others out of intense desire or compromising fear do things they know to be wrong.  This is a sin more of the order of Peter’s.  We need to recognize that Jesus’ Paschal sacrifice can save us from both kinds of offenses.  Indeed, through his death and resurrection these sins may not only be forgiven, they may also be avoided.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Wednesday of Holy Week

(Isaiah 50:4-91; Matthew 26:14-25)

In Italy abstaining from meat on Wednesdays as well as Fridays is not unheard of. Of course, the Friday penance commemorates Jesus’ death on the cross. The Wednesday observance similarly recalls Jesus’ betrayal by Judas, his disciple.

Although all four gospels speak of the betrayal, Matthew gives the most detail. He speaks of the amount that Judas is paid – thirty pieces of silver – a paltry sum, especially when one considers how vengeful the Jewish leaders feel toward Jesus. Earlier in the gospel, Jesus tells his disciples not to take any silver with them as they preach the Kingdom of heaven. Here Judas takes thirty pieces to turn in the kingdom’s principal preacher. Even more indicative of Judas’ contempt is his calling Jesus “Rabbi” after Jesus predicts his betrayal. Jesus told his disciples not to call anyone “rabbi” (23:8), but Judas feels no pang in defying the Lord’s admonition. Of course, Judas’ betrayal brings about his desolation. As Jesus suggests would happen, Judas hangs himself and his name is recalled with the same infamy as that of Hitler or Pot Pol.

Ironically, some have tried to justify Judas over the centuries. In one novel Judas is portrayed as a kind of co-redeemer because his action brought Christ to the cross. Often these days Judas is seen as doing no more than denying Christ as Peter does. Peter also commits a terrible sin, but he acts out of fear where Judas’ motive is malice or, at best, greed. We should see the possibility of our acting as ignominiously as Judas. We may betray associates for money or for pleasure. Even more seriously, we may betray Christ by openly behaving in obscene or violent ways. Judas is one person we want to avoid imitating.

Homilette for Tuesday, April 7, 2008

Tuesday of Holy Week

(Isaiah 49:1-6; John 12:21-33;36-38)

The gospel today invites us to compare and contrast Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial of Jesus. Preachers sometimes say that the two offenses amount to the same sin of infidelity. That opinion, however, seems mistaken. It would be like equating setting a house on fire and failing to call the fire department when we see the blazes. “First, do no harm,” wrote the primordial physician-philosopher Hippocrates.

Preachers may also condemn Judas’ treachery of handing Jesus over to his enemies but dismiss Peter’s failure to stand up for Jesus out of fear. This way of thinking also seems misguided. There is no evidence that Peter suffered clinical anxiety. Indeed, he appears as a head-strong man. Doing good almost always involves some negative factors. Peter’s failure to act righteously when forced to declare himself about Jesus indicates that he considers his losses in standing up for Jesus as greater than his benefits. Although his repeated denials comprise lies, Peter’s principal sin is one of omission.

Nor can Judas’ treason be defended by saying that the devil makes him do it. Although the passage states, “Satan entered him,” a bit later when Judas leaves the supper it adds, “...it was night.” This reference is not to give the time of day but to indicate that Judas deliberately chooses the darkness of evil to the light of Christ. We are wise to consider that we too are susceptible to the same tragic mistake.