Jesus betrayed – again and again
Jesus
betrayed – again and again
Joseph
Mattam, S.J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
We read in the New Testament that
Judas, one of the disciples of Jesus, betrayed him. Authors discuss whether
this is a historical fact or a theological construct; however, what is sure is
that the followers of Jesus, especially those who claim to be the successors of
the Apostles, have been continuing to follow the way of Judas down the
centuries. They have been betraying Jesus all through the centuries. Out of the
thousands of instances, let us recall just a few.
Let me clarify at the outset that
this is not an attack on anybody, but an attempt to look honestly at what is
happening in the Church that I love. I trust my write-up, even if unpalatable,
may be a small contribution towards the renewal of our Church according to the
mind and heart of Jesus.
Jesus had said, calling him Lord was not sufficient
(Matt 7.21ff), but we must do the will of
the Father; which shows that for Jesus orthopraxis was more important than
orthodoxy. Jesus said quite simply that we are all sisters and brothers, one
family of equals (Matt 23.8ff); we are to call one another merely
brother/sister, and to love one another as Jesus himself has loved us. He said
that we have a common Parent whom he called ‘Abba’, unconditionally loving
Father. He assured us of his presence with us; he said His Spirit would guide
us. Jesus himself had left hardly any
doctrines. He did not teach many truths that need protection; what he said was
something to be lived. For the ‘successors of the Apostles’, through the
centuries, orthodoxy became so important that they set themselves up as the
guardians of the volumes and volumes of doctrines they themselves have
produced. For the sake of orthodoxy,
they have been ready to punish by severe torture, excommunication, and - in the
past - even death anyone who might deviate from these doctrines. The
Inquisition, witch-hunting, murder of sorcerers were all geared to defending
the correct doctrine, something to which Jesus, as He is revealed in His “Good
News”, had not given any importance. Is
this not a betrayal of Jesus?
Jesus was very respectful of
people’s freedom. He often used the words: “if you want”. The successors have
so drastically curtailed the freedom of speech, of thought, of research through
severe punishments like withdrawal of license to teach, prohibition to write,
excommunication, and - in the past - even murder. Wonder if there is any
society where one is so un-free. You may not express any opinion other than
what Rome decides is the right position – freedom of a monkey tied to a rope!
Is this not a betrayal of Jesus?
Jesus could be challenged. Once he
allowed a Syrophoenician woman, a gentile, an impure person according to the
Jewish law, possibly an illiterate, poor person to challenge his views and
forced him to change his stand (Mk 7.24-30); today no one is allowed even to
raise any questions about the successors of the apostles; if you raise
questions about what is going on in the Church, or if you raise doubts about a
particular non-infallible teaching, you could be excommunicated (late
sententiae -automatically)–are these developments not a betrayal of Jesus?
Jesus had told the disciples very
clearly more than once that they were not to be like the leaders in the world;
they had to be different, the highest had to be the least and Jesus himself had
given the example of the foot-washing – the task of a slave. He had insisted
that they were all brothers and sisters and they should wash one another’s
feet, that they should be slaves to one another freely and that they were not
even to call anyone Father or Master. However, what have the ‘successors’ done?
Just the opposite of what Jesus wanted by having set themselves up as a
hierarchy, and being called Reverend, Lord, Eminence, Excellency, Holiness,
which are all part of the empire system, which Jesus had explicitly rejected
(Matt 6.24, Mt 20.25-26; 23.7; Lk 11.43; 20.46). What is surprising is that, at
the same time, they even call themselves ‘servants’ and go on “prescribing” the
same titles in the Annuarium Pontificium and continue to behave like
Reverends, Lords, etc. Where is a servant called ‘reverend, lord’, etc? They have become a class above and apart from
the community of believers, “prescribing” and wearing showy, rich, high-profile
dress, and claiming to have special powers. It is no longer a difference and
hierarchy of charisms, but a hierarchy of dignity and power. Is this not
a betrayal of Jesus?
Jesus gave us the picture of a God
who is very near to everyone, especially sinners and the rejected of society.
Jesus had thanked his Father for revealing God-self to the little ones (Matt
11.25ff). The ‘successors of the Apostles’ have set up a system in which God
looks more like an emperor, inaccessible to the poor and the sinner, who needs
mediators both in heaven and on earth. Jesus showed us a God who is near, and
did not need any mediation, except the Mediator
God sent, namely God’s Son (1 Tim 2.5) and the mediation of love to know him
and commune with him. Did not the ‘successors’ betray Jesus?
Jesus’ main teaching was about the
love of God for sinners, how God loves and welcomes sinners with a banquet and
who is in no way conditioned by our deeds, but by our needs alone (Matt
20.1-15; Lk 15.1-32). Through his table
fellowship, and his rubbing shoulders with the unclean and sinners Jesus had
shown God as love: God loves
sinners. This God does not demand the sacrifice of his innocent Son. The Romans
murdered Jesus because the people had declared him the king of the Jews; the cleansing
of the temple and the prediction of its destruction too had political
implications; the Jews had reason to get rid of him, as his teachings and life
would destroy their religion as they practiced it. The ‘successors’ interpreted this cruel
murder as a sacrifice offered to God who certainly did not demand such a
sacrifice. God could never “bless” a murder and demand or even approve of the
criminal murder of His most innocent and faithful servant, God’s own Beloved
Son. I am aware that due to texts like
Deut 21.23 they had difficulty in understanding the crucifixion of Jesus.
Besides, the very early Christians did not have the whole New Testament with
them; hence, they continued to interpret the events in the light of the picture
of God they had from the OT.
Nonetheless, the “successors”’ later interpretation of it is, to my
mind, a betrayal of Jesus.
For Jesus, the remembrance of his
life and death was in a simple human gesture of breaking bread in homes in his
memory while they continued with their Jewish religious practices. This “breaking
of bread” (Acts 2.42) was the distinctive mark of the community; this was a
unique gesture of a community of equals expressing their sense of unity,
equality, belongingness, friendship, while thereby “giving thanks” (Eucharist)
to God, exactly as Jesus had done.
Shared bread and cup were symbols of the Kingdom that he wanted to bring
about on earth. The Kingdom is depicted in terms of a banquet (Is 25.6ff; 55.1
ff; Matt 22.1-14; Lk 14.16ff), not a sacrifice. Paul, following Jesus’
teaching, insisted on unity and brotherhood as the requirement for sharing in
this ritual (1 Cor 11.17-34); the “successors” set this up as sacrifice offered
to God by a priest. Jesus had said that God did not want sacrifice but compassion,
mercy and love. Cult was not Jesus’ concern at all. The Eucharist is the Lord’s Gift to his
followers, but many Christians are deprived of it due to the rules and
regulations imposed later, like the absolute necessity of a priest. And we all
can see how much the Unique Gift of the Master has been “commercialized”, while
the sisters and brothers either did not very often even care to attend the
“Sacrifice offered by the Priest” at their own request, or could not truly
share in it due to imposed multiple regulations. Is this not a betrayal of Jesus?
Jesus had spoken of his presence to
the community. He had said that when his disciples, reconciled to one another,
gather in his name, he would be present to them (Matt 18. 19 ff); he had said
that when his disciples responded lovingly and caringly to the needy, hungry,
homeless and naked, he would be present (Matt 25. 31 ff). On the cross, once
again, he showed where one would find God, namely, in the suffering persons and
in responding lovingly to such persons. The disciples, especially the
‘successors’ have built millions of Churches and even rich and artistic tabernacles
to preserve Jesus. The Jews of old had tried to fix God in a temple; but the disciples
have done better than that. Would Jesus
have wanted this system or, rather, that we build homes for the homeless
‘temples’ of God? Is this not a betrayal of Jesus? The above observation does
not mean I am forgetting that the “Reserve” was initially meant for the sick
and those who in particularly difficult circumstances were unable to share in
the common “Breaking of the Bread”. Nor do I wish to underestimate the value of
the divine intimacy and often also of fraternal love fostered by the
Eucharistic Presence of Jesus in the Tabernacle, as experienced by countless
faithful throughout the centuries.
In his parable about the Last
Judgement, Jesus had said clearly that it was by meeting the needs of the needy
that we meet, worship and serve him, but the successors have set up a religious
system with thousands of cultic practices. Jesus had said that his Father did
not want sacrifices but justice, fidelity and compassion, but the successors
insist on offering sacrifice to God, and set themselves up as priests to offer
sacrifice to God. Jesus had not called himself or his disciples “priests”, for by Jesus’ time the term priest had come to mean exclusively
one who offers sacrifice to God, a cultic, sacred, set-apart person. If Jesus
had spoken of himself or his disciples as priests, he would have completely misguided
the community. The term ‘priest’ is not what he had left for the leaders of the
community, but ‘servants’- and ‘servants’ are not Reverends, Lords, Eminences,
Excellencies, Holiness. Have we not betrayed Jesus?
Jesus
emphasized God’s unconditional love for the sinner. He also insisted that we
forgive one another 70 times 7, that we correct one another and help one
another to behave well (Matt 18. 15ff).
The ‘successors’ teach and act as if it is only through a priest that we can receive
God’s forgiveness and they claim to have special powers to offer or withhold
forgiveness in God’s name (Are not Gospel texts like Mt 16.19, 18.28 and Jn
20.23 being misunderstood and misused? Did Jesus ever appear as withholding
forgiveness or postponing it?). I am not questioning the Sacrament of
Reconciliation. That is a unique gift of Peace and Joy Jesus left for His
Church. We humans need to feel or
experience in a human way (God-in-the-flesh, Incarnation) the invisible yet
ever-loving Abba’s forgiveness. We as a Community need to joyfully (not
“judicially”) welcome back in our midst a sinful sister/brother. We need to celebrate
the “return of the prodigal”, for this Sacrament is to be truly a celebration
of the Father’s ever open and embracing arms of love revealed now in this
Community through its ministers, who are always “servants” at the service of
LOVE. With all the minute prescriptions through the centuries, has the
Sacrament been taught and lived in this way? Has not Jesus been betrayed here
too?
The
disciples have double standards. For example, they pick up the idea of the
incarnation, which is so fundamental to our faith, from John, but for the
founding of the church they prefer Matthew, though John has two clear stories
of the founding of the Church (Jn 20.21ff and 21.15ff). If the leaders had
followed John in this, we would have had a very different Church from the
present one.
For Jesus salvation was a matter of
accepting Jesus (Jn 17.3), of proper and just relationship (Lk 19.1-10), of
caring for the needy (Mt 25.31ff); and to become perfect he demanded that we
sell everything and give to the poor (Mk 10.21). His followers, especially the
successors, would focus on life after death, (as we can see even in very many
prayers of the Roman Missal), and they demand that people accept so many
doctrines as a necessity for salvation. Jesus had told the teachers of the law,
“But woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of
the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are
going in, you stop them” (Matt 23.13-14). Is it justified to make salvation
depend on the acceptance of doctrines that the ‘successors’ have themselves
formulated, including even things that
Jesus had never even thought of, like the doctrine of original sin, and so many
others. Is this not a betrayal of Jesus?
Jesus’ life was characterised by
concern for the poor, the unwanted, the least and the last. But the successors’
life would be most often characterised by their unconcern for the needy and the
poor, by their siding with the rich and the powerful, as most of them had
become rich and powerful. Jesus had advocated ‘the other cheek’. The
‘successors’ would defend “just wars”, torture and (in the past) even murder -
all in the name of this Jesus. Have they not betrayed Jesus? I do not ignore
the more recent developments in official pronouncements regarding this area of just wars, etc.
The
Jews had 613 commandments; Jesus summarized the whole lot of them into one
commandment (Matt 22.34ff); the
successors would make 1753 laws and in the process forget the one commandment
that Jesus gave us. Have they not betrayed Jesus?
These are only few of the areas
where, in my frankly expressed opinion, the successors of the Apostles,
forgetting authentic Gospel demands, have betrayed Jesus. There are many more
areas, where they betray Jesus, but we shall not go into more instances. I do not deny that the points I have raised
above are open to discussion – so let us discuss these. We all need to go back
to Jesus and his simple teaching of brotherly/sisterly love and mutual service
as equals, and abandon the empire system we have inherited.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment