Two chosen ones: John and Judas, “beloved” and “son of perdition”

Every year, as Holy Week approaches, I again fall ill with Judas, his unsolved mystery, and again I peer into his image, seeking to comprehend it in himself and in his relationships: Judas and the other apostles, Judas and John, Judas... and Christ. And one by one, the veils with which his mystery is shrouded are removed and fall away, and first of all the liturgical one: as if the hymnology was deliberately making fools of Judas (for how else can we understand the gross simplification of his image in the liturgical texts of Holy Week, which so distorts its entire sublime and wondrous rite?). But after this, the veil of the Gospel is lifted: in their narratives, the evangelists give the external outlines of the fatal event in relation to how they could be seen and comprehended by the Galilean fishermen in the hours of a terrible trial, when they themselves were on the eve of the great temptation, the abandonment of Christ “for fear of the Jews.” Their own perception, especially the image, also remains limited and stylized, and the actual event in all its stunning grandeur rather barely emerges through the individual features of their narrative, in all its accuracy, but also simplification. These are the Synoptic Gospels. 1 The Fourth Gospel, on the contrary, raises the understanding of the fate of Judas to its original foundations, but its image remains abstract, and theology here is not connected with sacred history in all its reverent concreteness. Therefore, in John’s image we have to look for and highlight only individual features captured by the secret fate of Judas, but with reticence in the very last question and its irresponsibility. The work of such a comparison and highlighting of individual features of the Gospel image, an attempt to decipher its code, I have already done once, and I cannot add anything to it even now. On the contrary, the inner, intuitive comprehension of the mystery of Judas draws me further and further, placing me in the face of new insights and questions. And, first of all, it is necessary to remove from the apostle the stigma of a traitor who committed treason in a low, criminal sense, a Seller of Christ, darkened by the love of money. Such an understanding is simply unworthy of the event and does not correspond to it: the pieces of silver are just an illusion, a dirty rag that covers the wound of a bleeding heart, and besides, it was discarded by Judas himself. According to the exact meaning of the word παράδοσις and the verb παραδίδοναι, it does not mean betrayal, as in treason, but rather betrayal, as an action committed with a specific purpose or ideology. 2 In general, the moral qualification of “betrayal” as a fall (and the most petty one at that) should be eliminated here, and it should be perceived in the tragic light of the uniqueness of this fate: “it would be better for this person not to be born,” it was so terrible and unbearably difficult. Because of her and about her, Christ himself was “troubled in spirit” (John 13:21). An accurate account of individual features of the Gospel narrative (which I have already made) also does not allow us to in any way affirm the diminishment of Judas in the apostleship on the part of Christ, starting from his very calling and until... strangulation. This is completely indisputable regarding his entire apostolic ministry, but the same cannot be denied regarding the last days. This especially applies to the Last Supper, at which Judas is present as one of the apostles, not at all deprived of his apostleship, just as the other apostles were not deprived of it on the eve of their own betrayal with the abandonment of their teacher, to which He himself testified in his foreknowledge (Matthew 26:30-35; Mark 14:30-48; Luke 22:31-34; John. 16, 32). Any other interpretation of the presence of Judas at the Last Supper is a contradictory fact and, most importantly, completely inconsistent with the general context of events. In fact, in what other capacity, other than as an apostle, could Judas otherwise cross the threshold of the upper room of Zion without being thrown out of it? But it is said simply and briefly in the first Gospel: “When evening had come, He lay down with the twelve disciples” (Matthew 26:20; Luke 22:14) and, of course, Judas among them, one of the twelve (Mark 14:20, cf. general context John 13:1-28). Is it really just for complete exposure? Solemn expulsion? Or for the sake of recognition on the part of the Teacher of the mistake He made in choosing the apostles - all in general, as those who could not withstand the temptation except John alone), and in particular in the calling of Judas? But even the word of Christ repeated repeatedly and differently by all the evangelists about His tradition in all its tragic sorrow is not yet an expulsion from the apostolic environment, or even a denunciation of Judas (least of all in the pieces of silver). In the end, this testimony of Christ about Judas was intended rather for the future, expressing the Teacher’s concern for his disciples in the face of a new, unexpected and, in its outward incongruity, tempting test. 3 Finally, Judas leaves the Last Supper himself, even according to the will of the Sender (“whatever you do, do it quickly,” “but none of those reclining understood why He said this” (John 12:27–28). In the Garden of Gethsemane, when Judas approached, he also met not condemnation, but the usual word of greeting “friend (έταῖρε), why have you come?" 4 (Matthew 26, 50) Such an appeal would be an intolerable lie in the mouth of the Truth itself, if it did not correspond to it in its very depth (John and Luke 22:48, the words of Christ relating to the same moment sound not like condemnation, but rather like the usual appeal by name: “Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”). This apostleship, which is preserved and not interrupted, at least by the will of Christ during the life of Judas, is a fundamental fact that must be accepted in all its power and significance, and only in the light of this fact should all words and actions related to it be understood. 5 In any case, first of all, it is necessary to free this understanding from simplification and stylization, which is completely incompatible with its apostolate. And so, in the light of this guiding idea, it becomes obvious that it emerges from under the veil of even the Gospel narrative that the mutual relations of Christ and Judas differ from the other apostles, being marked by the stamp of special mystery, and therefore intimacy. A silent, mysterious conversation goes on between them all the time, which reaches the general ear only fragmentarily and incompletely. It must be understood not only in what is said, but also in the eloquent silence behind it. Of course, all the apostles were called and chosen by Him himself, so with each of them there was such a personal meeting and a special relationship and, like everything personal, it carries the stamp of mystery. However, we distinguish different images of the apostles and apostolate, not marked by such a mysterious and tragic fate as Judas. There is only one apostolic image, which is also marked by the special uniqueness of the relationship with Christ, this, of course, is the “beloved disciple,” “his beloved Christ.” His chosen and personal friend. None of the apostles can be compared with him, and in particular, not even the prince of the apostles, the first confessor of faith in Christ - Peter. Peter was given an advantage in service, perhaps primacy in the 12th Apostolic rank, but this is not a personal relationship with Christ. Yes, it did not prevent Peter from succumbing to the temptation of Satan (Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33), nor from denying Him three times. This was a spiritual test that only a personal friend, the “beloved,” passed. But in relation to Judas, even John, and it is he, who forms a kind of couple, if not in personal friendship with Christ, then at least in special chosenness, each in his own way. This chosenness was imprinted at the Last Supper and, moreover, mainly in the narrative of the most beloved disciple - in the Gospel of John, although this, like everything about Judas in general, is communicated in half words, half silence, generally in half tones. From the description of the Last Supper in the 4th Gospel it follows that it was Judas and John who reclined, forming the inner circle of Christ, the first, namely Judas, to the left (and in this sense was the first guest of Christ), the second to the right. 6 Only from this provision it is clear that each of them could have his own personal conversation with Christ: John, at the request of Peter, will ask Him about the traitor, and Judas will hear a personal message to “do what you are doing.” But this external arrangement of places (incorrectly reproduced at the Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci) corresponded to the only personal relationship to Christ that each of them had, both together as well as separately. And between the two of them there was a personal conversation, perhaps silently, more than verbally, which was reflected in the story of the 4th Gospel. John, obviously, heard what was happening in the soul of Judas, who jealously felt all the uniqueness of John’s place near Christ, however, along with his own, special uniqueness. But having captured this special closeness of both to Christ, and through this their mutuality, these two chosen disciples differ spiritually here: one is on the eve of death, “departure to his place,” while about the other it was later said to Peter: “If I want him to remain until I come, what do you want?” (John 21, 22). But here at the Lord’s Supper they both still recline directly next to Christ, as His special chosen ones, and each in his own way is the only one... the first. The terrible fate of Judas is precisely his special primacy in the apostolic ranks at the Lord's Supper. About Judas can only be told through the power of art, and, moreover, a great and lofty one, to whom the secrets of the spirit and the sacred language of symbols are accessible. If this is the art of words, then he 6. See posts and comments by Bernard, 1.s., 11,471. there is a mystery about Judas, supermundane (the one that is outlined schematically in John), historical (that which is found in the other evangelists), and, finally, transcendental, otherworldly (about the descent of Judas to his place, about the descent into hell of Christ himself and about the meeting of Christ and Judas there). It should contain a story about the petition of a disciple who loved and sold the Teacher out of love, about his self-strangulation simultaneously with the crucifixion of Christ, about the atoning sacrifice of the cross and sacrificial-suicidal death. The creator to whom it was given to tell about this secret of the Gospel about Judas has not yet been sent into the world. Art is called upon to demonstrate a similar power of spiritual accomplishment in the language of symbols and paints, with a chisel and a brush. This great master will no longer see in Christ and his “beloved” disciple the double face of Gioconda, as Leonardo did in the image of Judas as a kleptomaniac, but with the brush and power of Michel Angelo, his tragic inspiration, he will tell the world his visions and revelations. And a new master may appear with the power of Beethoven, who, in a symphony of the pre-temporal fate of sacrifice, will make sound what was hidden in the depths of the soul of Judas, will be kindled by the fire of his suffering, along with and along with the undying sweetness of the beloved’s song: he will reveal hell and heaven in the loving human soul, and heaven and hell, death and resurrection in Christ and with Christ. It is only given to me, knowing my own silence, to only hear what it is silent about. And the word spoken to the repentant thief: “Today you will be with me in paradise,” isn’t that also said about him, about Judas? Or will he, rejected and despised, condemned by everyone and misunderstood by everyone, the “thief” remain forever and not “pure” for Him? Or there he will meet Him, the Bridegroom, although after the “Friend of the Bridegroom,” but together with him, like the first of the apostles in hell, who is with Christ, will become paradise for him, and will say to Him: what You commanded, allowed, blessed, sent “to do quickly,” I did quickly, without delay. And my work, which is so necessary for You, was done in a way that, apart from me, it could not have been accomplished. I, despised and rejected, became indispensable for You. You included me in Your own work, and it is a work of sacrificial love and redemption. You did not send a “beloved” to this task, for him You chose another, most blessed destiny, to nurture Your Mother, the Most Pure Virgin, to become Her son, to replace You in the long years of Her earthly journey, but you sent me... “To my place,” and here I meet You in it, the first of the apostles beyond the grave...” Oh, the mystery, the mystery of the apostleship! The consciousness darkens, the head begins to spin before the abyss of the sacred mystery... But in daylight one should once again give oneself an account of everything that is told in the Gospels about Judas, in word and in silence. The future mystery of Judas should include three parts: the painting should be a triptych, the sculpture should include three groups, and the music should have three themes. And the first is the election of Judas as an apostle: Christ’s meeting with him and his calling, with all the silent abyss of knowledge and foreknowledge of Christ, the question and answer about “what are you doing.” And then Judas, who was asked, or rather pre-asked, answered, or rather pre-answered: yes, and not in word, but in deed. He went with Him and after Him, just as He had sent Him to go from the Last Supper. And the second topic is the Last Supper itself, what happened between Christ and Judas that others did not understand, except, perhaps, the “beloved.” However, he, the first in love, was, perhaps, the last in suffering - at least then, although in standing at the Cross with the Mother, he justified and sacrificially redeemed this bliss on the Master’s chest. And the third theme is the afterlife, it is still a secret, inaccessible to this century, it will be revealed only in the future. And it will open as a new manifestation of the love of Christ, who took upon himself, along with the sins of all mankind and the whole world, and the tragic guilt of the “betrayal of Judas”... The main idea of ​​the fourth Gospel about Judas is that Judas is predestined for betrayal and destruction, and Christ, who called him to the apostleship, knows this “from the beginning” (ἀπ’ἀρχῆς). Judas is the devil (6, 70) for... “he wanted to betray Him, being one of the twelve.” This is said in general, in particular it is explained that “Satan” entered Judas at the approach of the Last Supper (Luke 22:3) or during it, already at the beginning (John 13:2), and together with the piece given to him by Christ (John 13:27), in this mysteriously dual caress, with the provision of his own fate. Of course, we are not talking here about the incarnation of Satan in Judas, but about the spiritual attack that darkened the consciousness of Judas. According to the literal meaning of the testimony of the Gospel of John, Judas was and was called to be doomed to destruction and betrayal. The reference to "Scripture" testifies to Judas that he was prophesied before his birth, like the Mother of God or the Forerunner. Such a thought is difficult to accommodate in our consciousness, for it is incompatible with the love of God. Obviously, a literal understanding of the text of the 4th Gospel is impossible here; it is only a verbal cover that reveals, but at the same time hides, the secret of Judas as the son of destruction, doomed to it. The darkest and most hopeless fatalism, stemming from a literal understanding of the text, turns the gospel story, and at its very core, into a mystery, not to say directly: into religious absurdity, into the fate of Greek tragedy. It turns out that Judas was a necessary instrument of salvation, since the latter was connected with his betrayal, without which allegedly neither the capture of Jesus, nor His handing over to the crucifixion, nor His death on the cross could have taken place. But his apostleship is, of course, incompatible with this sad destiny. What emerges is a series of hopeless contradictions, indicating that the Gospel does not reveal, but rather conceals, the fate of Judas. Therefore, if what is said about him in the 4th Gospel, as in all others, cannot be rejected, then one cannot help but see in it a seemingly deliberate reticence, simplification, stylization, and the fullness of the event is only barely visible through it. Yes, the election of Judas was neither an accident nor a mistake (which is excluded in advance regarding the Seer “who knew everyone, and had no need for anyone to testify about man, for he himself knew what was in man” (John 2:24-25). He knew what was in Judas when he was chosen and called to be an apostle. Christ thereby seems to take upon himself full responsibility for the fate of the “son of destruction,” whom, unlike fate He did not even preserve all the other apostles, “that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12). By his election as an apostle, Judas had already been placed in a position from which there could be no other way for him except betrayal and death. If in general the Gospel of John differs from the Synoptics not only in its “theological” style, but also in its special stylization in the depiction of events, then this very same applies to the story of Judas, which, if not directly contradicts, then in any case differs from the historicism of the Synoptics. If even in their depiction the presence of Judas among the apostles chosen and called by Christ remains inexplicable, retaining, however, the force of a fact, then in John he is given an explanation that makes it no less, but even more incomprehensible. It is here that the complete providence and inevitability of his presence near Christ on the paths of Providence is evidenced, although at the same time his inner spiritual necessity for Judas himself is not revealed. However, it is impossible to take literally this providential determinism, which is generally characteristic of John’s special stylization, 7 due to the obvious incompleteness and, as it were, deliberate one-sidedness of this image. First of all, let us dwell on the direct participation of Satan in the case of Judas and his fate, in order to then turn to this latter. In general, Satan’s participation in the destinies of the world and man occurs by special permission of God, and, moreover, only within certain limits. In some cases, such an allowance is even directly evidenced in the Word of God: 8 This is, first of all, the story of Job. Satan asked God for permission to tempt Job and providentially received it. He was put to shame. The New Testament tells about the temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert, for which He is even led by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1). After this, Satan leaves Him “until the time comes.” In relation to the apostleship, “Satan asked to sow them like wheat” (Luke 22:31) and this, obviously, was not directly refused, although he was weakened by the prayer of Jesus. In some cases, attacking individual apostles, in particular, the Apostle Peter, Satan is exposed and, obviously, moves away from him. Likewise, the Lord himself, and through his disciples, cast out demons from those possessed and healed diseases originating from Satan (such is the healing of “Abraham’s daughter, whom Satan bound” Luke 13:16). The entry of Satan into Judas was obviously also providentially allowed: the Lord testifies to this (“one of you is the devil”), however, Satan is not driven out by him; he is left, just as in the story of Job, to do his job to the end. It was the same, obviously, with the Jews, through whose lips the temptation in the desert was repeated: “if you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” This permission for Satan to “enter” Judas, even if it had a basis in his spiritual state, expresses all that doom, the predetermined nature of his fate, which “in Scripture the Holy Spirit predicted through the mouth of David about Judas” (Acts 1:16). The question is: is this possession of Judas by Satan, which is not eliminated through his expulsion by the power of Christ, 9 is it only the guilt of the apostle and a pernicious sin, or is it some kind of fate inherent in him in all the power of its inevitability? And how could Satan be near Christ, among His disciples? “What agreement is there between Christ and Belial?” (2 Cor. 6:15). And yet we know that Satan relentlessly follows Christ, abides near Him, from the very beginning of His ministry until the end of the cross (and even after His heavenly glorification, according to the testimony of Revelation, this persistence of Satan in the struggle with Christ continues). Therefore, we inevitably face the general question of the participation of the devil in the matter of human salvation and the peculiar pre-establishment of such participation. This general idea in the theology of some holy fathers was expressed in the acceptance of the idea of ​​a ransom offered by Christ to Satan for the sins of man with His blood. Of course, such a thought is unacceptable in its straightforward rudeness, however, it is fair in the general sense that Christ, indeed, came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and the devil opposes Christ in His ministry as the main enemy and adversary, who also shows the greatest strength in this struggle: “whoever commits sin is of the devil, because first the devil sinned” (8). Human weakness turns out to be an obedient tool of the devil-tempter, who “walks like a roaring lion,” looking for someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). Christ came to save people from the power of the devil, with whom, for the sake of saving the fallen Adam, the duel of the God-Man takes place. There could not be a path of salvation for a person in which he could avoid a victorious meeting with “he who has the power of death,” that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14). If it was impossible to save a person without a person and in spite of himself, then it is impossible to save him at the same time, bypassing the devil. The devil must be defeated and bound (Rev. 20:2) so that a person can be saved. However, this way the issue is resolved only within the limits and in terms of human salvation, but not the general restoration of the entire universe (apocatastasis). If we bring this question into consideration, then the fate of Judas, due to its connection with the general apokatastasis, receives a special, new light. The pre-establishment of Judas, through whom Satan himself acts, not forbidden by Christ in this action, on the contrary, directly allowed and in the person of Judas, as if called to him (“whatever you do, do it quickly”), binds together the destinies of Judas and the devil. Judas is the unfortunate instrument wielded by Satan. The latter, wanting to destroy Christ through the “betrayal” of Judas, makes him, like himself, an instrument for the salvation of the world through redemption by the blood of Christ. Christ prays for his crucifiers: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). But who doesn’t know, and how and what doesn’t know? If we keep in mind the crucifixion itself, then the warrior crucifiers, of course, in their own way, knew what they wanted: namely, they wanted to carry out Pilate’s orders with all the executioner experience that was characteristic of them (as a matter of course and not requiring special explanation). A special detail is indicated in the Gospels that they crucified Him and two villains, one on the right side, the other on the left (Luke 23:33). Of course, it remained hidden from their knowledge and understanding what exactly this crucifixion of One of these three meant for the whole world and for humanity. Fulfilling their soldier's duty, they, indeed, did the will of the one who sent them, and were free from special personal guilt, as only instruments of criminal justice, according to the law of that time: “and the word of Scripture was fulfilled: and he was numbered among the evildoers” (Is. 53:12; Mark 15:28). Obviously, this is not what the deliberate power of the Lord’s dying prayer refers to. Obviously, it goes further and deeper: the Lord prays not about the direct perpetrators of the execution, but about its legal and spiritual perpetrators: about Pilate, the high priests, scribes and Pharisees, in general about all those who cried out: “Crucify, crucify Him.” There is no reason to exclude them from this prayerful mercy of the Lord's forgiveness. However, it is inevitable to go even further and ask ourselves: could the direct perpetrator of Christ’s betrayal to death, the “traitor” Apostle Judas, be included in this prayerful forgiveness (will we understand him as a money-lover, seduced by a beggar’s bribe, or see in him a victim of a false messianic ideology), and moreover, he himself repented, “giving up innocent blood”? Obviously, this prayer of Christ cannot but apply to Judas, in any case, as well as to the apostles who fled and abandoned Christ, who thereby turn out to be guilty, if not of the active, then of the passive betrayal of Christ through His abandonment in a moment of danger. Therefore, except for John, all the apostles were guilty of the death of Christ, and to that extent they also needed prayerful forgiveness from Him. Finally, there remains the main culprit and spiritual enemy of Christ, Satan himself. Does this prayer of forgiveness also apply to him? Two considerations must be taken into account here. First of all, Satan, in a certain sense, cannot be considered ignorant of what he did, inspiring Judas, entering into him. On the contrary, he knew and this is exactly what he wanted, to destroy Christ. He combined fiery malice, envy, hatred of God, along with the pride of Dennitsa, the son of the dawn, who wanted to delight creation from the Creator, to the end to become the prince of this world, its God, eliminating his rival, whom he, although he did not know for sure, suspected who He was: “if You are the Son of God.” These were the words of the tempter both at the beginning of Christ’s ministry (in the desert) and at the end of it (on the cross through the mouth of the Jews). And in this, having suffered a world-saving failure, the devil had to be crushed, receive a mortal wound, be cast into the abyss, stripped of his pride, so that, together with all humanity, although after him, he would spiritually rise from the dead. The achieved goal turned out to be (more precisely, it will turn out to be in the fullness of time) completely different, unintentional and unexpected, the opposite of what was consciously planned. Instead of victory, the power of death, that is, the devil, was crushed. However, here it can be said that the main spiritual murderer of Christ and crucifier also turned out to be in blindness, not knowing what he was doing, and in his created limitations, although insane, he was an instrument of salvation. But in another sense, the devil could be mistaken, he did not know what he was doing, precisely because of the power of satanic self-deception, from the attack of pride. In preferring himself to the Creator and in his anti-Christ, the devil naturally became a victim of a false, utopian ideology, whatever it was: it was the peacock plumage of a fallen angel (Vrubel, Byron, Lermontov, etc.). Satan could not help but be inspired by the idea of ​​imaginary goodness and freedom, which he opposed to the liberating Truth, the Spirit of freedom. He entered into a decisive and dangerous battle in all its riskiness. Satan himself remained in the dark regarding the possible outcome of the struggle with Christ. He took risks, and this is all the more so since he had already suffered his first failure once. Then he was cast out of heaven and could not resist the fight with the Archangel Michael and his army. After that, he remained in a state of semi-defeat, which he compensated for only by becoming the prince of this world, but having already lost his heavenly kingdom. But now, in this last and decisive battle, his power in this world was tested. Therefore, Satan’s machinations against Christ were also a means of self-defense for him, which was expressed in a fierce self-affirmation of himself as the highest good, in a false ideology. The latter was, of course, self-deception and delusion, but she set false goals for him, striving for which he also did not know what he was doing. But the erring person may turn out to be not only justified, but also saved, however, only after he finds himself broken and defeated, in the need for self-examination and in the inevitability of self-disappointment, and then despair and emptiness. But this, in the end, beyond the boundaries of the present century, inaccessible to us, he is brought to repentance. About Judas, who was tempted by the inspiration of Satan, it is told in the Gospel of Matthew 27:3 that he repented (μετεμεθησεν) i.e. thought again and changed his mind, realized the mistake, was horrified by the error, stood in the face of the truth and embraced it. The final fate of Satan has not been told; it remains only a matter of fortune-telling. However, from all the previous comparisons the conclusion suggests itself that until the end Satan did not know what he was doing. And therefore, in the final analysis, the prayer of the Redeemer, almighty and all-forgiving, can apply to him. No one and nothing in the world was then able to know and comprehend the full depth of the all-saving and all-forgiving love of Christ, the love of the Creator for his creation, who does not want to destroy anything, but to save everything - each in its own way, leading to the fact that “there will be all God in all,” when the Son himself will subdue everything to the Father and betray it to Him... Such is the boundless depth and power of Christ’s prayer. But to what has been said we must also add an understanding of the full power of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, which is also revealed in overcoming opposition to it. For this latter, the power of the most powerful man, especially a deliberately chosen man, as an instrument of Satan is not enough, just as neither Peter nor Judas, in whom Satan alternately took possession, was enough. The primordial Adam fell in paradise from the seduction of the serpent, through whom the devil acted, and only in the person of the devil himself could his works be weakened, so that the salvation of the world could be accomplished. Therefore, direct and indirect opposition to Christ on the part of Satan himself, in overcoming him, should have been necessary for the completeness of salvation. The struggle against sin and death for the world and for man had to be carried out in the utmost intensity, that is, with the participation of the murderer himself and the father of lies, the devil, who was to be put to shame in it. In this sense, the devil turned out to be a necessary minus in the positive accomplishment of our salvation. If he had not come out to battle himself and had not been abolished in his strength, then the world could not have been finally saved, but would have remained indefinitely in a prolonged state of sinfulness. From this we must conclude that the devil himself took his share, albeit a negative one, in the salvation of the world. In this sense, he turned out to be, albeit against his will and knowledge, a passive participant in the redemption through his resistance to it, performed by the true Redeemer. 10 And this once again reveals the full power of Christ’s words: “they do not know what they are doing,” not only in the sense of unconsciousness and lack of understanding about what is happening, but also in a lack of understanding of its fruits and meaning. The devil, thinking about establishing dominance over the world, actually abolished it. Knowing his goal, he did not know what he was really doing. But forgiveness can come, that is, be accepted and learned, only through repentance. Now let's turn again to Judas. For his goals, insane in their fallibility and impracticability, the devil could not act directly, just as he did in particular cases of violent sabotage (such as “tying Abraham’s daughter”, causing demon possession and other diseases). Regarding free creation, he could act only through human freedom, and since incarnation into a person is generally excluded for the devil due to his ontological inability to do so, only the path of attack, seduction, and temptation remained open. He tried to get closer to the Son of God with him, but was put to shame. Therefore, in order to accomplish the work of the devil regarding the fight against Christ, all that remained was to find a person who would be capable of this satanic inspiration and infection of evil. For this purpose, a special chosen one had to be found, capable and called for this. The Apostle Peter speaks about this in his first speech after Pentecost: “This Jesus, according to the definite counsel and foreknowledge of God, was betrayed ἔκδοτον) you took and killed (Acts 2:23).” Who is he? Was it one of the greats of this world, or generals, who conquered the universe with fire and sword? Or a genius who came into the world to reveal the wonders of creativity? Or a prophet, a herald of truth and a teacher of life? But no, none of them were sufficient for that. Some would be too small to renounce themselves, forgetting to surrender themselves, while others are too righteous and at the same time completely devoted to their service, from Moses to the Forerunner. In order to serve the cause of redemption, to demonstrate the power of Christ through its denial, a disciple was needed, who loved Him to the end, called by Him to Himself, precisely for the sake of this temptation, ready and able to give himself, destroy his soul and perish himself, covering his name with eternal shame and horror. Such was only Judas Iscariot, about whom, therefore, it was written in the prophetic books. Various participants in the work of Christ are sent into the world at the same time as Him: there was the Forerunner, and Simeon the God-Receiver, and the Myrrh-Bearing Women, and the Apostles, and all those who saw and listened to Him and followed Him. Each of them had his own place and his own ministry next to Him and around Him. They each had their own personal relationship with Him: He sent some to preach, healed others, and marked others with special personal love and friendship. But among them there was no one else like Judas; he was the only one of his kind, just as his love for Christ was unique in his own way. Christ could not call by mistake. He knew, from the beginning he knew who would betray Him, and he deliberately called the devil. Judas was prematurely, according to “scripture,” called to take his place near Christ and complete his ministry to the end. By calling him as a disciple, Christ took upon himself responsibility for him, being, as it were, an accomplice in the work of Judas. The latter, obviously, was already like this by creation itself, by God’s thought about him, which he perceived as his own destiny and self-determination. To the question of the Creator, who called him into existence, to the definition of the Word, who said his special word about him, he answered with a powerful and humble yes. He came into the world to become a traitor apostle, in the name of sacrificial love, and not for the sake of despicable pieces of silver, who only concealed his election with their shame. Silently, but audibly with the inner ear, He called him not only to follow Him and with Him to the end, but also to sacrificial confrontation in the name of love: to sacrifice oneself in the name of the One you love, the sacrifice of the Beloved. For Christ Himself sacrificed Himself, according to the eternal decision of divine love, through the mediation of those who did not know what they were doing, and above all, Satan, who sought His destruction, but brought about the salvation of the world. The significance of Judas’s betrayal should not be seen in its external fact itself, which is only a detail in the history of the passion of the Lord, and not at all of paramount importance. Doesn’t Christ himself say to the people: “It’s as if they came out against a robber with swords and staves to take me; Every day I sat with you, taught in the church, and you did not take me. Now this happened, that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” (Matthew 26:55–56). And more than once, according to the Gospel of John, the Jews “took up stones to throw at Him” (8:59; 10:31), so that the disciples felt this threat hanging over Him (11:8). And in general there is no need to talk about the “betrayal” of Judas in the sense of some special organization, and not simply providing or providing an opportunity for the enemies to seize Jesus without much fuss in the pre-Easter time. It can be said without exaggeration that the enemies of Christ could have managed without the help of Judas during His capture. And what is decisive here is not the external, but the internal side of the event. And this, of course, also includes a special testimony: 11 “Jesus was troubled in spirit” (13:21). It is difficult to imagine that this excitement of the Lord related to the threat of “betrayal” itself, and not to its internal tragedy, which was known only to Christ and Judas himself, but of course passed by the consciousness of the apostles (except, perhaps, the “beloved”). The latter were, of course, excited by the fact of treason, but remained in the dark about everything that it contained and what exactly the “scripture” testified to. Christ Himself, with special persistence and strength, as happened in cases of special significance, said: “Amen, amen, I say to you: one of you will betray Me” (13:21). Although Satan “entered” Judas, guiding him in his external actions, he did not surrender to his power, which he shook off as soon as the time came. And, unlike his inspirer Satan, Judas knew what he was doing: he gave himself, sacrificed himself - and not for 30 pieces of silver, but for the salvation of the world. He knew his indispensability and destined for such an accomplishment that no one else in all of humanity would have dared or sacrificed himself to, except he, the only one. This chosenness, which he brought with him into the world, grew like a seed in his soul from the very first day of election, until it matured, until it turned into a firm will to betray the Beloved in the name of love, associated with sacrificing himself, with betrayal to the “destruction” of himself. Calling him to be an apostle, Christ asks him about this - for a man who knows the heart cannot call otherwise: does he accept such election and fate? And only in the internal acceptance of it, first in anticipation, and the further, the more consciously, does Judas go through the path of his apostleship, outwardly one of the last apostles, unnoticeable, not distinguished by anything, but inwardly the first in the power of sacrificial love. And when the hour of fulfillment approaches, this intimate conversation with Christ reaches its greatest tension (as is clear from the individual features of the gospel narrative that appear here and there). But, of course, the very center of it - in words and silence - takes place at the Last Supper. The mention of the evangelists that, among other questions about betrayal: “Is it not I, Lord,” was answered to Judas: “Yes, you,” does not mean denunciation of a secret conspiracy, but recognition and confirmation of Judas’s cause, his special, mysterious rightness. But of course, the fullness of this recognition was revealed when Christ himself sent him from the Last Supper “to do what he does, quickly.” By this He not only did not restrain 12 and thus did not save him from a disastrous step, but encouraged him - it’s scary to say, as if he blessed him. And when Judas left the light of Christ into the “night,” the sweetest speech of the Savior poured out: “Now is the Son of Man glorified.” What was included, what did this “now” consist of? It included everything that had to be accepted in the passion of Christ, and the beginning of this accomplishment was the will and readiness for his work of Judas. Judas glorifies Christ with himself. The Gospels (Luke 22:3) testify that from a certain time Satan or the devil entered Judas (John 13:2-27), so that he himself, obviously in the same sense, is called the devil (John 6:70). And to this is added the word of Christ about Judas: “you too are clean, but not all,” for He knew Him who betrayed Him, and that is why He said that not all are clean (John 13:10-11). How can this be understood and connected with Judas’s presence, despite this, among the 12 disciples, with his presence at the Last Supper, and even with the first place, to the left of the Teacher, which he, apparently, occupied at the Lord’s table, 13 in close proximity to Him (together with the beloved disciple, who, however, occupied the second place, to the right of Him)? Does the power of this entry of Satan into the heart of Judas relate to the love of money and the 30 pieces of silver he received from the Jews, as well as in general to that trait of his character and service, about which it is said that he was a “thief” (κλέπτης), as a treasurer he carried with him the cash box of the community (John 22:6)? We have already indicated how much the significance of this attack on the soul of Judas 14 should not be exaggerated, and in any case, nothing decisive can be seen here. In the fourth Gospel, where Satan’s entry into the heart of Judas is especially persistently testified, this idea is simply absent. Most importantly, the “love of money” is a certain complication in the spiritual state of Judas, and the entry of Satan, 15 making him in some sense unclean, does not refer to the silver coins. And what is the sin of Judas, which cannot be denied, even recognizing all the sacrifice of his love for Christ? The entry of Satan was to lure him onto the path of Satanism, by deception and self-deception, in the most central and essential way. This is Luciferism, not “love of money,” which is the professional weakness of a thrifty treasurer (and in this sense only a “thief”), but spiritual pride leading to spiritual blindness. For the sake of love for Christ, he wanted to put Him on the right path, correct His path to the salvation of the world, and accept glorification with the glory that is inherent in Him. And by his “betrayal” Judas wanted to commit, as it were, a provocation of this glorification. In the means and choice for this accomplishment, Judas succumbed to satanic suggestion, but by no means regarding the very goal to which they were directed. Here he remained a faithful friend of Christ, who called him that in the terrible hour of betrayal (Matthew 25:50), and the word of Christ does not pass by. Judas, without noticing it himself, became a victim of satanic provocation, which, however, not only did not achieve its goal - to destroy Jesus, but led to the opposite outcome, the salvation of the world, which Judas himself wanted and sacrificed for. Therefore, Judas' "uncleanness" does not refer to his heart or will, but solely to the limitations of his mind. He is not so much a sin as a delusion, which in itself has not distinguished him either from the Teacher or from the 12 at the Last Supper. The Lord washed his feet, along with others, and gave him communion (as is clear from the general Gospel context). This explains the otherwise incomprehensible duality and, as it were, contradiction in the position of Judas among the apostles after his “betrayal”, in all the tragedy of his such lot. This destiny includes a certain "uncleanness" due to the devil's attack. The other apostles remain free and pure from it, but is it because they are above such temptation, having overcome it? Or is it just because they remain inaccessible to him, protected by their simplicity (of course, except for the “beloved”)? A different temptation awaits them from the “fear of the Jews,” obeying which they, without betraying, will leave the Teacher in the hour of sorrow, like frightened children. Such betrayal is not impurity, it is only infidelity, childishly ignorant of itself, ready to swear to the contrary. But an answer is given to it from the Lord’s heart-teacher: “You will all be offended because of Me this night” (Matthew 26:30), and the following is especially said to Peter in response to his self-confident words: “If everyone is offended because of You, I will never be offended” (26:33): “This night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (26:34). However, “everyone said the same thing” (Mark 14:31). Given such ignorance of themselves, is it surprising that the disciples, hearing words about the betrayal of one, only “looked around at each other, not knowing about whom He was speaking” (John 13:22), or even asked Him, each of them, “Is it not I, Lord?” (Matthew 26:22; Mark 14:19). And only Judas received an affirmative answer, having immediately heard his sentence: “Woe to that man, it would have been better for him not to have been born” (Mark 14:21). He accepted this sentence not in the blindness of penny love of money, but in the Luciferic sacrifice of his love for Christ. Do not think that Judas exaggerated his strength, and he did not know about himself whether he could bear it. And it is even less possible to allow this to be hidden from Him who sent him to do his work. In Judas, along with the decision, the whole power of the coming “repentance”, the ability and readiness for it, was already hidden in the soul. He went to accept what was beyond human strength. In the legend for the death of a loved one, the readiness to die with Him was laid out in advance: “I went to hang myself.” All of them, the other apostles, said through the mouth of Thomas the Twin: “Let us go and we will die with Him,” but no one died except Judas, who was sent for this purpose and was worthy of it. All the others, except one, fled, betraying the Teacher. But why is such a place providentially assigned to Judas in the matter of our salvation and redemption? In what sense was he unique and irreplaceable? Is it because the cup that the Son of Man had to drink to the bottom also had at its bottom the poison of the kiss of Judas, the betrayal of love, which was also its sacrifice? And this sorrow, which “disturbed the soul” of the Lord, had to be experienced by the Son of Man. He was not only “counted among the villains,” but also “betrayed,” and not some random mercenary, but a loving student in the name of love. This sacrifice of the “kiss of Judas” by Christ was to enter into the fullness of His passion. But at the same time, the meeting and kiss of two sacrificers: the Teacher and the student, this betrayal had to appear as the fullness of a counter, reciprocal sacrifice offered to God and from man. The Lord led and silently called only his beloved disciple to His cross, together with His Most Pure Mother. Her heart passed through the weapon that pierced His side. He honored her and the apostle of love with a farewell word, bequeathing them to each other in this life, and they remained together on this side of the tomb of Christ. It was the greatest sacrifice of love on behalf of the living. All the other apostles were honored to sacrifice themselves for Christ after His ascension, after Pentecost, in the sunshine of Christ’s day, in the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but this one sacrificed himself in the “night” when He was left to the share of His humanity with all its weakness. But this is precisely what had to be included in the fullness and sacrifice of Christ, for the sake of our salvation, by the free will of the only one. The kiss of betrayal was the kiss of sacrificial love, the greatest and most complete sacrifice that could be made by man. All the greatness of this sacrifice was hidden then, and until time remains hidden under the veil of the greatest shame and sin, the image of the blackest betrayal of love... After this, everything in the world was over for Judas: Christ went to passion and death on the cross, and this sacrificial betrayal was “accomplished” in the fullness of universal accomplishments... But on the other side of the tomb, Judas was the first to meet Christ, and before even the repentant thief, the “repentant traitor” who “went and hanged himself.” Here we enter an area of ​​mystery that is beyond our reach. However, if this is a mystery, it is not in essence, but only in the manner of its accomplishment. In essence, it is clear that here we can talk not about death and eternal rejection, but about the triumph of love. It was not Judas who called himself to Christ, but He himself called him, a man of the heart. In order to destroy him, to cast him into the abyss, into the mouth of Satan, who, wanting to devour Christ, devoured Judas? Or Satan was deceived and in this he continues to be in self-deception until he cries with all creation: “Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord,” as Judas cried, along with the other apostles, a week before his “betrayal”: “Hosanna in the highest, Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord, to the King of Israel.” And this simplified and moralistic stylization of the fate of Judas already receives full force in its popular, so to speak, depiction in Acts. 1, 16–25 – in the speech of the Apostle Peter. Archbishop J. N. Bernard – A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, vol. I, 219. The meaning of παραδιδόναι is often misunderstood. It means “to deliver,” but not necessarily “to betray.” So it applies to the Jews who betrayed Jesus to Pilate (John 18, 30,35,36; 19, 11) and to Pilate, who handed Jesus over to be crucified (John 19:16), as well as about Jesus, who betrayed His spirit by dying on the Cross (John 19:30). None of these texts implies betrayal. But even where παραδιδόναι is applied to the action of Judas (John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2; 18:2;) we are not authorized to translate this “betray” to betray – παραδιδόνοα. This word does not appear in the Gospels, although Lk. 6, 16 and calls Judas προδότης, which he was (means to betray “to betray”, but παραδιδόναι simply means to deliver “to deliver up” and is a colorless word that does not have any connotation of condemnation. John does not cite the early predictions of Jesus that He would be “given over” to the Jews, as they do weather forecasters (Mk. 9:31, Matt. 17:22). In John, Jesus himself does not use the word παραδιδόναι earlier than 13–21. In the Russian translation, in both cases, “betray” and “traitor” are used indifferently, that is, a certain condemnatory meaning is introduced. It is difficult to understand what exactly the betrayal of Jesus could consist of, who was by no means hiding and therefore was repeatedly exposed to the danger of stoning before His hour came. John 18:2-20 especially emphasizes that Jesus did not hide at all, so that there was a special need for deliberate betrayal: “I spoke openly to the world, I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where the Jews always gather, and secretly I did not say anything about the handing over of Jesus to Judas” (cf. Mark 14:49) only in the sense of help, creating favorable conditions for His capture without noise and disorder, no more. παραδιδόνοα, παράδοσις and among weather forecasters in many cases with a single exception (Luke 6:16; προδότης). “Now I tell you, before it comes to pass, so that when it comes to pass, you may believe that it is I” (John 13:19), and this is further confirmed by a reference to prophecy (John 13:18). Of course, έταῖρε does not mean the same as φίλε, it is colder, but cannot be considered unusual or hostile. This fact is confirmed even by the most unfavorable testimony about Judas in the speech of St. Peter: “he was numbered among us and received the lot of this ministry” (Acts 1:17) “and his sad fate is associated only with the acquisition of land with an unrighteous bribe.” The falling away from the lot of this ministry and apostleship is already spoken of in relation to his death: “to go to his place” (25). This same biblical fatalism in Acts. 1.16, in the speech of the ap. Peter: “It was necessary to fulfill what the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David in the Scripture concerning Judas, who was near those who took Jesus.” See, for example, John. 6, 64; 13, 18; 17, 12; Ps. 40, 9. In essence, this also includes the temptation of Eve and Adam by the serpent, about which it can also be said that Satan entered into it, since the serpent appeared through his mouth. Although this is not directly stated, it is, however, necessarily suggested from the entire context of Genesis, chapter 3. One might think that such an elimination nevertheless took place in relation to Peter, who was tempted by him, to whom Christ said “get away from Me, Satan” (ὓπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανά (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33), i.e., the same thing was almost literally repeated the authoritative command that was given by Christ in the desert during His own temptation: ὓπαγε σατανά - get away from Me, Satan" (Matthew 4:10). But no such command was made regarding Judas. Therefore, the denied Peter retains the possibility of restoration in the apostleship, which is taken away from Judas: a “son” is sent to his death pernicious,” which is even sent “to do his work quickly.” For Peter, the Lord offers a special high-priestly prayer: “Simon, Simon. Behold, Satan asked to sow you like wheat, but I prayed for you, so that your faith would not fail, and you, having turned, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31), although what follows, contrary to Peter’s promises, is the Lord’s prediction about his threefold denial (33, 34). But no such words were said about Judas. Does this mean that the Lord is leaving him to become a victim of Satan’s temptation? Or that the Lord no longer prays for him, having removed him from His love, leaving him to his own fate? The darkness thickens in the unanswerability of these questions about the fate of Judas and his doom. The Catholic Church celebrates as an instrument of redemption the “beata Adae culpa,” Adam’s original sin, which supposedly caused the incarnation of God, which would not have happened otherwise. But leaving aside this incorrect thought, which plagues both Eastern and Western theology, it is necessary to consistently draw the following conclusion from this thought. "Beata culpa" of Adam was the work of the serpent-tempter. In other words, his participation in the redemption as a co-redeemer is indirectly recognized here. This idea is overcome only if we recognize that the incarnation, although for fallen man it has the meaning of redemption, is not the only thing caused by the fall of man, although through it it received its redemptive character. A similar testimony about the special spiritual agitation of the Lord is repeated before the resurrection of Lazarus (11, 33) at the sight of general grief among the relatives of the deceased, and also in the general premonition of the impending passion: “My soul is now troubled” (12, 27). Another apostle involuntarily begs for comparison and contrast - Peter, to whom it was said: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to sow you like wheat, but I prayed for you, so that your faith would not grow cold, and you, once converted, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 21, 32). But nothing is said about the prayer for Judas. Does this mean that he was rejected by love and deprived of prayer, or that it has remained a mystery to this world? See the essay “Judas Iscariot, the Traitor Apostle” part 1, The Path. Bernard. Comment, 471. It is remarkable that there is no direct connection between betrayal and love of money in Luke, who is, however, the only one of the weather forecasters who testifies to the entry of the devil into Judas. He stated it this way: “When Easter was approaching, the high priests and scribes were looking for how to destroy Him... Satan entered Judas, who was called Iscariot, one of the twelve. And he went and spoke with the high priests and rulers about how to hand Him over (παραδᾦ αὐτόν). They rejoiced and agreed to give him money... And he promised and looked for a convenient one. time to betray (παραδοῦναι αὐτον) not in front of the people” (Luke 22:2-6). Judas’s intention to facilitate the capture of Christ, not in front of the people, without noise, is at the suggestion of the devil, but not out of love of money; the promise of money is given later, when Judas himself has already come with his offer of help. The high priests only wanted to interest him even more with the promise of a monetary reward. The order of events remains the same in Mk. 14, 10–11: and here Judas comes with his offer on his own, and the promise of money is made by them after his offer (“when they heard, they rejoiced and promised to give him pieces of silver”). The entry of the devil into the heart of Judas is not spoken of here. And only in Matthew. 26:15, the desire to receive pieces of silver comes first, as the only motive: “what will you give me and I will give it to you (παραδώσω) Him? However, only one Matthew 27:3–5 has a story about Judas’ repentance with the return of the ill-fated 30 pieces of silver and about his strangulation. Isn’t that why the taking is especially emphasized a certain amount (30) of silver, a means to emphasize his repentance and their return.