13 - Hebrews 12:15-17
"15See to it that there is no one among you who forfeits the grace of God, no bitter, noxious weed to poison the whole, 16no immoral person, no one worldly-minded like Esau. He sold his birthright for a single meal, 17and you know that although he wanted afterwards to claim the blessing, he was rejected." [NEB]
.... Yet before he appears to fill his treacherous role in Mark's Passion story, no ghost of Judas haunts the Christian landscape. He is notably missing from the above passage in Hebrews, where the selling of the Lord himself for 30 pieces of silver by a man embittered, jealous and deceitful, would surely have been a more apt symbol of the bitter, poisonous weed that arises unchecked within the community of the holy.
..We might note that the writer of 1 Clement also deals with the theme of jealousy, but to his list of Old Testament figures who suffered at the hands of jealous men, he fails to add Jesus himself, betrayed by the perfidious apostle in his own company.
1. Silences in passage/challenge to a historical Jesus:
Judas betrayed Jesus, one of the best examples of all time of a greedy and deceitful man.
2. Relevancy within context:
According to Doherty, Hebrews mentions Esau instead of Judas as an example of a bitter, jealous, deceitful man. I see no indication in the gospel record of Judas as having been bitter or jealous. The sole motivation I see was for money. Would Judas have been a better choice for a sell-out, a worldy-minded, immoral person? Perhaps, but the context appears to fit Esau better in several ways (added to on 12/13/05):
First, the author cautions the Hebrews to not allow something to cause "the many (to) become defiled". The example of Esau fits this concept better than one of Judas because Esau and his descendants received a lesser blessing as a result of his concerns with worldly matters (a meal). This seems to me to reflect the primary concern of the author. He is trying to protect the believers from losing their faith, as some level of apostacy may have been occuring (see 6:9-12, 4:14, 10:23). Did Judas cause the many chosen sons of God to lose their faith and as a result their chosen status? No. While the disciples did scatter upon Jesus arrest, they were back together again within days. I don't see any long-term ill affects on believers from Judas actions. In Esaus case, however, the effects were on ALL of his descendants, who had been the rightful heirs to Gods promise. THEY would have been the chosen nation had Esau not been worldly! The consequences of Esaus wrongdoing to the chosen group was huge--they completely lost their chosen status! Instead of receiving the honor bestowed on the Jews, they became the Edomites, who were long-despised by the Jews, not a part of Gods chosen people. From this perspective, Esau is a much better example than Judas of how a worldly attitude ended up defiling (completely!) the chosen people of God.
Second, the preceeding verses 5-11 he says that sufferings are a form of discipline by God for their own good, just as a father disciplines his son. The point is to encourage the readers to withstand trials and sufferings by seeing them as being a form of fatherly discipline from God. Esau is not mentioned as an example of a person sent to discipline others. He is mentioned as a troublemaker for others. However, there are indications that the issue of the father-son relationship was still in the author's mind: that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected.. Inheritance was from his father Isaac, and the rejection (which can be seen as a type of discipline) was also from his father. On a larger scale he was being disciplined by God for being worldly and not respecting his having been chosen. So, both God and his earthly father disciplined him, although in his case it was too late. We know nothing of Judas earthly father, and we have no record of God disciplining Judas--rather Judas took his own life on his own accord. I submit that the father-son/God-son error-discipline relationships spoken about in verses 5-11 may have influenced his choice of Esau as evidenced by the powerful father-son role in his story of wrongdoing.
One may object by saying that Judas was a perfect example of a "family" member needing discipline. I don't think the author would agree: The passage is using the father-son relationship as an analogy to the readers own relationship to God as that of sons, that they might be more receptive to their suffering as a form of helpful discipline. The thought is Pauline: The believers became sons of God after they were baptized, and had faith in the resurrection of Christ. It would seem that in this authors mind the 12 disciples (including Judas) would not have been sons at that time.
If this were the only context of importance, a perfect example of a son who had caused trouble would have been someone who had once been baptized after having professed faith in the resurrection of Christ, and who had subsequently stirred up trouble of others who had done the same. Judas would not fit that criteria because his actions occurred before the crucifixion. As far as we know, he wasn't even a believer In Gmark we see that the disciples were portrayed as having hardened hearts (6:52), unable to understand his teachings (7:18, 8:21, 9:32) and even fearful when they approached Jerusalem (10:32). Judas cannot be said to fit a criteria of a believer gone bad. Neither can Esau. So as far as applying the context of discipline for the sons of God as believers neither Judas or Esau seem to fit.
Both do however fit broader criteria of a chosen one gone bad. Judas was chosen as a disciple. Esau was chosen as the firstborn of Isaac. And, both were more concerned with worldly issues, and were instigators of trouble. So, there are similarities.. If the writer had Esau in mind, one might think that he could also have had Judas in mind.
Third, Esau had just been mentioned in the last chapter, and as such may have still been fresh in the authors mind as a natural choice for a contrasting example of someone without enduring faith. Consider further: The audience is believed to have been Jewish Christians who were in danger of abandoning their faith and lapsing back into Judaism. In every Chapter the author appeals to the authority of the Jewish scriptures (OT) to make his case for Christianity. He repeatedly appeals to the basics of the Jewish faith: He references lessons to be learned and applied to Christianity from Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the Israelites in Canaan, and the priest Melchizedek mentioned by David. He spends several chapters discussing the old Jewish covenant of sacrifice compared with Christs sacrifice. The entire preceding chapter (11) discusses the faith of the fathers--Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Rahab. He mentions others named in the scriptures--Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel. Just after the mention of Esau he talks of the Israelis under Moses. Where do we see mention of anyone not named in scripture (other than Christ himself) or anyone within even the last 500 years prior from whom lessons could be learned? Or about recent men of great faith, known in the community, or of the many examples he could have given of people in recent history that could be blamed for the woes of the Jewish nation? It seems to me that the writer was appealing to some of the most powerful stories of the faith--ones that had been told and retold for centuries. Esau's wrongdoings weren't minor. They likely were taught to the authors audience from the time they were children. Not only was Esau probably still fresh in the authors mind from having just mentioned him in the prior chapter, he was someone whose story directly spoke to the deeply embedded Jewish roots of the people to whom he was writing. From all appearances the author deliberately appealed to long-known Jewish teachings in writing an apology for Christianity. It was in this context that Esau is mentioned. With this kind of approach the mention of Judas would simply have been out of place. Not only was the example of Esau likely still fresh in the authors mind from the prior chapter, it was also much more appropriate to the author's consistent apologetic approach which depended on the major lessons of the faith as found in the centuries-old Jewish scriptures.
Judas, while a worldly character who caused trouble, didn't defile the status of the many who were rightful heirs to be Gods chosen, he was probably never a son of God in the authors mind, he wasn't an example of one who had been disciplined by either an earthly father or God himself, and he wasn't a prominent figure in Jewish teachings from whom lessons of faith and disobedience had been learned and would thus serve as a useful example for a group of Jewish Christians whose new faith was being shaken. While there are some similarities between Judas and Esau, Esau was a more logical choice for the author of Hebrews than Judas, given the context of the passage and of the book as a whole.
1 Clement clearly describes situations of sedition which is "caused by envy". Though Judas' betrayal is mentioned in all 4 gospels and Acts, no reason of jealousy or envy is ascribed to his actions. If Judas was not perceived to have acted out of envy or jealousy, then Judas is not a valid example for the author to have used. Things to consider:
1. Judas was not jealous or envious, as were the seditious Corinthians to whom the author of 1 Clement was writing.6. In fact, the accounts of Judas ascribe ANOTHER reason for his sedition. Judas was paid 30 pieces of silver for the betrayal. We have two other accounts that show us that Judas was motivated by money: First, in John 13:29 it says that Judas was the keeper of the money box. He was the treasurer. Second, in John 12:5 Judas complains that the costly ointment that Mary used to anoint the feet of Jesus could have been given to the poor. The next verse reveals Judas to have been a thief: 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. In Mark 14:10-11 we see that immediately after this incident Judas went to the chief priests in order to betray Jesusand when they heard it they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought an opportunity to betray him. The only stated reason for betrayal was for money, not jealousy or envy.
2. Judas was not a believer in Jesus, as far as we know.
3. Any rift among the other disciples caused by Judas was short-lived, since his act was unanticipated by them (they had no idea that Judas would betray Jesus until the exact moment it occurred), Judas was dead and the original 11 were a coherent unit again within a few days.
4. Judas was not among the disciples commissioned by Jesus to go out and preach the gospel. Nor was he among those who appointed successors. If the accounts of Judas are true, he was gone before the advent of Christianity. He was immediately replaced by another disciple. If the author wanted to give examples of early strife amongst the apostles, St. Paul would have been a much more fitting example. After all Paul's second letter to the same Corinthian church appears to have primarily been a defense of his own authority as a fellow apostle! Yet, he is not mentioned in such a context, though it is clear that the author of Clement was well aware of the Paul-Corinthian connection.
5. A comparison of the seditious Corinthians to Judas may have been too extreme for the authors style. According to http://www.earlychristianwritings.co....html#1clement
"The letter is worthy of such esteem because of the happy blending of firmness and kindness which characterizes it, and the shrewdness of observation, delicacy of touch and lofty sentiments which the author manifests throughout. "
The author encourages the seditious to repent in a diplomatic way.
To compare the believers who were currently sinning and whom he calls to repentance to the thief Judas who killed their Savior and who may have never even been a believer, and who then ended up taking his own life may have been just a little too extreme for one trying to be diplomatic.
6. Like in Hebrews, the emphasis was in instructing by use of the OT, as the author of 1 Clement says plainly in 53:1:
"For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance. "
Regarding some specific passages in which one might expect a mention of Judas' sedition:
In each of the examples of sedition given in chapters 3&4, with the exception of Moses and the Pharaoh, the motivations of envy and jealously are very clear from the context, and are not invented by the author of 1 Clement. If he had known of the Judas story, there is little reason to suspect that he might ascribe an invented motivation beyond that given in the gospel accounts.
In chapter 42 he compares the sedition against Moses instructions to the CURRENT sedition against Jesus' instructions passed along through the apostles. Though the author could have mentioned Judas and his sedition and explained its necessity, there was no need to bring that up because the issue he was really comparing Moses to wasn't the appointment of apostles. It was to the successive appointments by those apostles, and in turn by those who had been appointed. THAT'S where the sedition was at the time of his writing.
While there were occasions for the author to have mentioned Judas and his betrayal of Jesus as an example of sedition, for the many reasons listed above, I don't see a good reason for a high expectation of such mention given the context of the entire letter, nor specific contexts within.
3. Related information in other early writings:
In Paul's account of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11, some translations (including the NASB I'm using here) have "the night in which he (Jesus) was betrayed". Doherty says that the better translation is "the night in which he was delivered up". He then appeals to Romans 8:32 as an example in which God--not Judas--delivered Jesus up. I find 8:32 as helpful to Doherty's position, but since it is only one verse and doesn't contradict the traditional understanding supported by the synoptics, we can't say for certain that "delivered up" is the intent here. It could be a reference to betrayal or "delivery" into custody by Judas, or other persons.
In Acts 1:19 the author says that the field in which Judas killed himself "became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem" as the "Field of Blood". This, of course, could be the author's misinterpretation.
4. Conclusion
The context of the two passages given aren't very relevant, so do not create a reasonable expectation for Judas to have been mentioned. Paul and the author of Acts may have provided clues that Judas was part of the earliest tradition..
|
