Judas in Orthodox Hymnography
By Protopresbyter Fr. George Metallinos
The figure of Judas is a protagonist in the hymnography of Holy Week. His treacherous attitude is contrasted with the repentant attitude of the “sinful woman" and the confession of love from the thief. The passion of avarice is the main motive for his betrayal of his teacher. A "painful death" becomes the real reward of Judas.
1. Judas in the Hymns of Holy Week
The figure of Judas has occupied Art in all its forms. The same goes for Orthodox hymnography,1 which dissects the Gospel narrative around his person in a vivid and penetrating way. Hymnography constitutes the heart of Orthodox ecclesiastical worship,2 and was the most important poetic creation of Byzantium/Romania.3 In fact, the possibilities offered by poetic discourse make Hymnography the most suitable means for the continuous mystagogy of the ecclesiastical pleroma, with a discourse that is delightful, wrapped in the modest and attractive garment of the ecclesiastical melody.4 The pleroma, listening to or even participating in the chanting of the hymns, experiences and confesses the faith by "weaving from words a melody to the Word."5 Through the poetry of hymns, the worship of Orthodoxy becomes its enduring mouth. The hagiographic and patristic discourse thus becomes the daily song of God's people, who sing their faith and confess it.
The Holy Fathers and Mothers, who compose the hymns, offer through them the theology and theognosis of their hearts purified and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, dipping their pen in the stream of their faith and the tears of their repentance. A mention of the works attributed to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite is important. The poetry and music of Orthodox worship - we read - constitute an "echo" of the heavenly hymnody, which the holy hymnographer (and not just a "poet") hears with his spiritual ears and conveys with the created means available to him in earthly worship. The hymns of the Church are thus understood as a copy of the heavenly "archetype."6 It is not surprising, therefore, that the poetic creations of proven saints, who are also authentic theologians of the Church, enter Orthodox worship.7
This also applies to the hymnography of Holy Week. Our Holy Fathers in the hymns of Holy Week deal with Judas and his tragic position in the course of the Divine Passion. With the Gospel narrative as a point of departure and context, they delve spiritually into the elements handed down about Judas and his betrayal, interpreting the hagiographic discourse and making the Gospel story attractive and instructive at the same time.
In the hymns two themes are intertwined: The betrayal of Judas, in all its spectrum and the breadth of its reflection, and the juxtaposition of Judas' attitude with that of the "sinful woman" (harlot) and the "grateful thief" and his confession on the cross.
The relevant references to this theme begin with the Matins of Great Tuesday, which is chanted on the evening of Great Monday, and conclude with the "Lamentations" of the Epitaphios, which are chanted on the evening of Great Friday. It stands to reason that Judas, as one of the main figures of the divine Passion, belongs to the basic building blocks of the Services of each day.
In the Matins of Great Tuesday (the evening of Great Monday) Judas joins and colludes with the "Priests and Scribes" of Judaism, who, breathing malice against Jesus Christ, plan His execution. The related Gospel reading of the Service refers to the defeat of the Pharisees and Sadducees in their dialogical confrontation with Christ, and the horrible "woes" are heard for the Pharisees, who represented illegitimate authority (Matthew 22:15-23, 39). Thus, with the festal theme of the day, which is "the message of the Parable of the Ten Virgins" (Matthew 25:1-13), the event of betrayal in two troparia ("kathismata") is intertwined, as a foreshadowing. The first refers to Judas' collaboration with the Jewish leadership against Christ:
"The priests and scribes with wicked envy gathered a lawless council against You, and persuaded Judas to betray You. Shamelessly he went and spoke against You to the transgressing people: 'What will you give me, and I will betray Him into your hands?’ Deliver our souls, O Lord, from the condemnation that was his."8
The second troparion summarizes the act of betrayal and its consequences:
"Impious Judas plots against the Master with avaricious thoughts, and ponders how he will betray Him. He falls away from the light and accepts the darkness; he agrees upon the payment and sells Him who is above all price; and as the reward for his actions, in his misery he receives a hangman’s noose and death in agony. O Christ our God, deliver us from such a fate as his, and grant remission of sins to those who celebrate Your most pure Passion with longing."
However, the reference to Judas is found mainly in the Services of Great Wednesday and Great Thursday. On Great Wednesday, according to the typikon (i.e. the ecclesiastical order): "The most divine Fathers instituted the commemoration of the harlot woman who anointed the Lord with myrrh." The Gospel of Matthew (26:6-13) and Mark (14:3-9) mention the act of an unknown woman, who full of respectful love anointed the head of Christ with precious myrrh, causing the "indignation" of the disciples, who considered the expense of buying myrrh to be wasted. In the evangelist John (12:1-18) the woman is identified with the sister of Lazarus, Mary, who with this action wanted to express the gratitude of her and her sister, Martha, for the resurrection of their brother Lazarus. Luke (7:36-47) is the one who probably speaks of another case and speaks of a "sinful woman" ("καί ἰδού γυνή ἐν τῇ πόλει, ἣτις ἦν ἁμαρτωλός"), who brought the very valuable myrrh and weeping she anointed and kissed Christ's feet, wetting them with her tears and wiping them with her hair. Judas, according to the text of John, was indignant because the expensive price of the myrrh was not given to the poor. Judas, pretending that he exuded love for the poor, offers a very instructive subject to the sensitivity of the hymnographers, so that with their poetic power and art they can use it in a literary and pastoral way for the "edification" of the faithful who attended the services. This is most vividly illustrated by the following troparion:
"O the wretchedness of Judas! He saw the harlot kiss the feet of Christ, but deceitfully he contemplated the kiss of betrayal. She loosed her hair while he bound himself with wrath. He offered the stench of wickedness instead of myrrh, for envy cannot distinguish value. O the wretchedness of Judas! Deliver our souls from it, O God!"
However, the subject of the betrayal of Christ by Judas belongs mainly to the festal theme of Great Thursday. On this day, Orthodoxy "celebrates" "four things: the Holy Basin, the Secret Supper, the Preternatural Prayer and the Betrayal of Judas." Judas also participates in the events, with a dark and repulsive role, that of the traitor of his Master and Lord. Characteristic is a troparion, distinguished for its expressiveness that literally transforms history into poetry:
"Servant and deceiver, disciple and betrayer, friend and devil, Judas has been revealed by his deeds. While following the Master, he plotted His betrayal. He said to himself: 'I shall betray Him and gain the purse.' He sought to have the myrrh sold and by deceit to have Jesus seized. He gave the kiss and gave up the Christ. But like a sheep led to the slaughter, so went the only compassionate Lover of mankind."
But also in this Service of Matins of Great Friday (Great Thursday night) the betrayal of Judas returns to the "Antiphons" of the day. Thus, in the 3rd Antiphon, the troparia end with that characteristic refrain: "The lawless Judas did not want to come to his senses." Even in the "Lamentations" of Matins of Great Saturday, on the evening of Great Friday, at the climax and completion of the divine drama with the Crucifixion, Death and Burial of Christ, in two "Megalynaria" the betrayal of Judas emerges, which is characterized as the "murder" of Christ. In the First Stasis the "pleroma" of the faithful chants:
"Come, O foul disciple, filled with murder and gall, show unto me the cause of your wickedness, whereby you proved to be a traitor to my Christ."
And in the Third Stasis we chant:
"Taught the inner mysteries, he, the mindless servant, betrayed the Depth of Wisdom."
The question could, of course, be raised in this connection: are the poets of the ecclesiastical hymns known, especially those that refer to Judas? In the book of the Triodion in use during the period of Holy Week, some names of poets (hymnographers) are mentioned, such as Saint Andrew, Archbishop of Crete, Kosmas the Monk (Maiouma, 7-8th century), Mark, Bishop of Otranto (9th century), Kassiani or Kassia the Nun (9th century). However, most troparia (hymns) are composed anonymously, as is the case in all our worship.
It must be said here that there is an essential commonality between ecclesiastical poetry and so-called folk poetry (folk songs). Both, born of the sensitive heart and imaginative intellect of our people, meet in their way of creation. The creator of both is one, who expresses through them his personal experience, while also sharing the experiences of the rest of the population. That is why both of them resonate in the soul of the other members of the Synaxis or Community, because through them their own feelings and anxieties are also expressed. In both cases, however, the personal poet is forgotten and the hymn or song becomes anonymous and therefore "ecclesiastical" or "folk", i.e. the property of the Church, as a gathering of the body, and of the community of people.9
Therefore, it is important that the hymns of our worship are the fruit of the theological heart and poetic intellect of our saints. What characterizes all saints is the unity of their mind, because with their spiritual-ascetic struggle they acquire "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16). The hymns become the confession and praise of the entire ecclesiastical body, with the certainty that, since they are creations-poems of saints, they express with doctrinal precision and theological purity the ecclesiastical - that is, collective - faith.
But let us proceed to a systematic approach to the texts:
2. Judas the “Traitor”
The Epithets
There are many epithets or adjectival descriptions for Judas in the hymns of Holy Week, a sign of the philological–literary ability and poetic sufficiency and inventiveness of the hymnographers. We list them: ingrateful (senseless, unthankful), unjust, wretched (many times), irreconcilable (unyielding), foolish, foolish servant, captive (of the devil), ungrateful. Offspring of vipers. Terrible (evil, savage), deceitful (cunning), devil (slanderer, enemy, malicious), hostile (enemy), servant (of the enemy, of the chief priests and of the devil), impious, ill-named (abominable, hateful). Plotter (one who wishes evil for another), lover (of money). Jealous (envious). Profiteering (off the God-loving grace), thief (many times). Disciple (many times), defiled (hateful, worthless), initiate (one who belongs to the inner circle of Christ’s disciples). Nodding the head (one who moves the head in a threatening manner). Lawless (outside the divine law and faithfulness toward his Lord), evil, traitor (many times). Thrice-wretched. Lover of money (friend of money, of gain, avaricious), murderer (killer).
The use of epithets and characterizations with such force, but also apparent harshness, for Judas even by people of high spirituality, such as the poets of the hymns, initially causes some not pleasant impressions. It is not, however, a fruit of malice and hostile disposition toward him. Judas, for his abominable act and his terrible fall, is worthy of sorrow and compassion. The hymnographers, however, express their deep pain but also their intense grief over the spiritual suicide of Judas, especially when opposite him stands the sincere repentance and wondrous act of the “sinful woman.” The indignation of the hymnographers is for the spiritual loss (John 17:12) of the faithless disciple and his tragic fall.
The Betrayal
Many interpretive attempts have been made for the understanding of the act of Judas to betray Christ his Teacher to His relentless enemies, the Jewish priesthood and their agents. Patriotic–national, social, ideological, etc. causes have been sought.10 The hymnographers, however, with their Spirit-inspired illumination, accept as his basic motive the passion of avarice (love of money). And this observation appears apt, since an ideological or national motive cannot coexist with the pursuit of financial gain. Nevertheless, the spiritual criterion is not overlooked, namely Judas’ dependence on the devil. This is expressed by the phrase of a troparion: “Judas had become a servant of the enemy (=the devil).” And this agrees with the New Testament witness.11 Pure patriotism and unselfish social concern together with profit cannot be conceived! The problem, therefore, regarding Judas is located first of all in the “why he betrayed.” When the Apostle Paul characterizes love of money as “the root of all evils” (1 Tim. 6:10)12, he makes a very decisive psychological observation, which spiritual fathers know from confession or those who scientifically investigate the human soul, and this cannot easily be set aside.
Judas was burdened with the passion of avarice according to the hymnographers, which was manifested by the withholding — thus theft — of the money of Christ’s small missionary group. And this was known to his fellow disciples (e.g. John 12:6).13 Specifically, when he sees the sister of Lazarus, Mary, using a precious — and therefore costly — ointment to anoint the feet of Christ, instead of the water that servants used in such cases for the feet of those reclining at table, Judas, according to the hymnographer, “was seeking both that the ointment be sold and that Jesus be seized by deceit.” And both served his avaricious disposition, since they would turn out for him as a source of profit. Repeatedly in the hymns the disease of avarice is underlined: “in love with avarice” (a lover of avarice), “selling Christ for avarice,” Judas is shown. At the same time, however, envy is also mentioned as a cause of the betrayal. Judas offers to Christ “instead of ointment the foul-smelling evil,” says a troparion. And the completion follows: “for envy does not know how to prefer what is beneficial.” The malicious and envious disposition of Judas toward Christ must be related to the rebuke he received from Him, when Judas commented negatively on Mary’s act (John 12:7; cf. Matt. 26:10).
A problem, however, which has repeatedly occupied research is the “what” Judas betrayed, that is, what he offered to the enemies of Christ. A standard refrain among our hymnographers is that “with a deceitful kiss he delivers the Lord.” At this point also the Gospel testimony is reproduced,14 which records the “how,” the manner of the betrayal. This is highlighted in an exemplary way in a troparion: “You kiss and you sell, Judas; you greet and do not hesitate, running to Him with deceit. Who, while hating, kisses, O thrice-wretched one? Who, while loving, sells for a price? The kiss of your shameless malice exposes your intention.”
What is naturally inferred from the Gospel narrative is that Judas revealed the place and the time of Christ’s gathering with His disciples in the Garden of Olives, in order to avoid disturbance and disruption of the common quiet. This is exactly what the Evangelist Luke says (22:6): “without a crowd” (without the involvement of the people). Judas becomes “the guide of a lawless council,” that is, he undertook to lead the Jewish leadership and their agents to the place where they would find Christ.
It is also especially emphasized that through the betrayal Judas revealed his true self. The questions are formulated relentlessly: “If you loved wealth, why did you associate with Him who taught poverty? And if you loved Him, why did you sell the priceless One, betraying Him to defilement and murder?” The truth, however, is that “Judas hides the mask of love for the poor and reveals the form of greed. He no longer cares for the poor….”
But the betrayal, as the shameful act of Judas, is not limited only to him, because there are also its moral instigators. These are the Jewish leadership. As disciples and supposed natural heirs of the prophetic tradition concerning the Messiah, they had, in principle, the presuppositions to accept Christ, recognizing in His person the expected Messiah. Yet they prove incapable of becoming successors of the Prophets and embody the bankrupt portion of Israel. How distorted, then, can man be, even if, outwardly, he has the marks of piety and authenticity! Is not something similar the case of the elder brother of the Prodigal? (Luke 15:28ff.). He was in reality the prodigal (lost) one of Christ’s parable. This very truth is expressed by Christ’s word to the Jews who rejected Him: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruits” (Matt. 21:43).
If, therefore, Judas is responsible for the betrayal of Christ, for its acceptance and for the condemnation of Christ the responsibility lies — according to the hymns — with the Jewish leadership: “The dreadful council of the lawless deliberates, possessing a God-fighting soul, to put to death the righteous one as useless.” This troparion contains a very important nuance, which centers on the adjective “useless.” Christ was not for the Jewish leadership “useful,” that is, a “serviceable” citizen, as it is usually said. Among the hidden plans of the Jewish leadership (the Pharisees) was also nationalist expansion. And it is a fact that Pharisaism and the Jewish leadership of Christ’s time are the beginning and foundation of “Zionism,” that faction which, having rejected the Christ-centered prophetic tradition, hated Christ because He did not correspond to a kingdom of a worldly type. By His entry into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday, John 12:12ff.) He showed the nature of His own kingdom. Above all, by His answer to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). That is, His kingdom is not worldly, like the powers of the world, but spiritual. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the terms: Judaism and Jews, which denote the religion, and Zionism–Zionists, which relate to worldly power and dominative expansionism. Judas cooperated and identified himself with the enemies of Christ, “rejoicing with the Jews, while associating with the Apostles.”
A question, however, for theological–spiritual research is also whether Judas “communed” at the “Secret Supper” and at the handing over by Christ “of the mysteries,” that is, of the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist. Based on John 13:21–30, the opinion is supported that Judas did not take part in Holy Communion. In the hymns, however, it is said that Judas, after receiving from Christ the bread (“having received the morsel,”), departed. According to interpreters, the “morsel” here is not related to the Eucharistic bread. The hymnographers, however — and among them Saint Kosmas the Monk and great poet of Canons — have another view: “And while eating Your bread, the divine Body, he (Judas) lifted up his heel against You, O Christ.” And more clearly he says further: “The senseless one received in his right hand the Body, the ransom of sin, and drank the divine Blood poured out for the world, yet he was not ashamed to drink what he was selling for a price.”15
The Significance
The weight of the act of Judas, according to the hymnographers, is related to the person to whom his action referred. And this person was the God-man Christ. In the hymns this theme also is developed with the same poetic and theological power. Judas did not sell someone insignificant, but “the priceless One,” that is, the One who stands above every monetary price and value. “The treasure of life,” “the Savior of the world before the ages,” “the Master (Lord) of all, he sold as a slave to the lawless.”
But what is worse is that even from the standpoint of financial gain Judas undervalues and cheapens the one being sold: “He does not bargain carefully (does not calculate precisely) about the price, but sells Him off as a runaway slave” (he sells Him like a fugitive slave who has no value). Essentially, therefore, “he cast the holy things to the dogs” (cf. Matt. 7:6). It is not, therefore, “the ointment of the sinful woman” that is being sold, but “the heavenly ointment,” Christ. And worse still: Judas aligns himself with the enemies of Christ, “he negotiates according to the opinion of those who buy, making a transaction of the One being sold.” That is, he negotiates according to the opinion of those who are buying Christ as if He were merchandise!
Above all, however, he forgets who Christ was and what Christ meant for him: He was his benefactor, the One who chose even him as His disciple. The One who made him His friend, while he forgets the law of friendship. It is therefore justified the complaint of Christ about Judas, which is expressed by the hymnographer:
“By what manner, Judas, were you made a betrayer of the Savior?
Did He separate you from the choir of the Apostles?
Did He deprive you of the gift of healings?
Did He, when He supped with them, drive you away from the table?
Did He, when He washed the feet of the others, pass over yours?
O, of how many good things did you become unmindful!
And your ungrateful disposition is reproved,
While His incomparable longsuffering is proclaimed,
And His great mercy.”
The Price
The price of the betrayal, according to the hymnographers, did not leave untouched the betrayer himself. Judas, by his abominable act, “is mingled with mire,” he is bound to the mire of sin and becomes “a captive” of the devil. His true recompense had a tragic, self-destructive character, for “he places upon himself the noose of money,” and “he is deprived of both lives, the temporal and the eternal.” His true reward was “a painful death.” And it is known from the Gospels that Judas committed suicide by hanging (Matt. 27:5). According to one account preserved in the Acts of the Apostles (1:18), when he killed himself, he fell headlong from the tree, suffered a rupture in the middle of his body, and his entrails were poured out.
With the betrayal Judas “abandons the Teacher and takes the devil,” and thus he is expelled from “the choir of the Apostles.” It is therefore justified the loving outcry of the hymnographer, who says with pain to Judas: “It would have been better for you, Judas, if you had not even been conceived in your mother’s womb; it would have been better for you, betrayer, if you had not been born.” This is a poetic rendering of the word of Christ Himself concerning Judas: “Woe to that man (the betrayer) through whom the Son of Man (=the Messiah) is betrayed; it would have been good for him if that man had not been born” (Matt. 26:24)!
The hymnographers rightly understand a phrase of the Gospel of Matthew (27:3), according to which Judas, seeing that Christ was condemned to death, “having regretted it, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.” For this reason they do not concern themselves with the “regret” of Judas. Why? The regret of Judas was indeed an awareness of his act, but it was limited to certain pangs of conscience. But regret is not repentance. Peter also denied Christ (Matt. 26:72), but he did not abandon Him nor did he follow a course similar to that of Judas. Repentance would have been for Judas if “he also had wept bitterly” (Matt. 26:75), like Peter, and had remained among the Apostles, from whom he was separated not only by the act of betrayal but also by his suicide. We can imagine how much Judas would have offered to Christianity, if, following the example of Peter, he had remained in the circle of the disciples and had undertaken apostolic work, confessing that he himself betrayed his Lord. Something similar Paul also did, not hesitating to confess that he “persecuted” the Church and sought to destroy it (Gal. 1:13). He would have been, in our estimation, the greatest of the Apostles. It is, however, a fact that history is not written with conjectures!
3. The Ruthless Comparisons
The parallel reference in the services of Holy Week to Judas and the “sinful woman” of the Gospel (Luke 7:37 ff.) leads inevitably to comparisons, which through the art of the hymnographers acquire pedagogical and awakening power in the souls of the faithful. The contrast between Judas and the unknown harlot is among the most striking elements of the Week of the Passion. It was said above that the one who “anointed the feet of Christ with myrrh” in the Gospel of Luke is not the same as the one in John (12:3 ff.), who is known as Mary, the sister of Lazarus.
The example of the harlot is the subject of one of the most important hymns of the service of Great Wednesday, and indeed of the entire hymnographic treasure of the Orthodox tradition. It is the widely known among our people “Hymn of Kassiani” (“Lord, the woman who had fallen into many sins…”), which never ceases to attract a multitude of people on the evening of Great Tuesday (= Matins of Great Wednesday) to our churches. Of course, the “sinful woman” has no relation to the great Byzantine poet Kassiani the nun, or Kassia,16 whose other important hymns also adorn the services of Holy Week.17 The praise of the act of the harlot and her sincere love toward Christ, as God and Savior — who with great understanding and forgiveness regarded the marginal and publicly known persons of society, the tax collectors and the harlots — is nothing other than the continuation of the word of Christ Himself about her: “Wherever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, what she has done will also be spoken of as a memorial of her” (Matt. 26:13).
The contrast between Judas and the harlot is expressed concisely in a Kathisma of the Matins of Great Wednesday:
“The harlot approached You with myrrh and tears, pouring them out at Your feet, O Lover of mankind, and she is delivered from the foul smell of her evils by Your command. But the ungrateful disciple, breathing out Your grace, casts it away and is mingled with mire, selling You for love of money…”
But also the hymns of the Praises and the Aposticha of the same service treat the same theme with similar force. A few observations suffice. Judas “was watching the harlot kissing the feet and was planning deceitfully the price of betrayal.” This means that he remained blind and unmoved by the seemingly humiliating, but essentially repentant act of the harlot. The distance is unbridgeable: “The harlot stretched out her hands to You, the Master; Judas stretched out his hands to the lawless.” The harlot stretches out her hands to offer repentance and love; Judas also stretches out his hands, but to receive money (“she in order to receive forgiveness, he in order to receive silver”). It is a fact that “only two people besides Jesus know that the path of Jesus after this supper will lead Him to death: one of His disciples, Judas, who will betray and hand Him over, and one sinful woman, who, despite her sins, her love for Jesus led her intuitively to understand the mystery of His path toward the Cross.”18
Judas and the harlot reveal, each in their own way, one aspect of the human soul in its relationship with God. The harlot shows the power of repentance, which transforms a person into a member of the Kingdom of God. Judas, repeating historically the fall of Adam, confirms the instability of human things. The only certain one, “faithful” (1 Cor. 1:9) and unchangeable, is God. Thus our salvation is possible, because we do not deserve it, nor do we have strength for it without the grace of God (cf. Luke 18:27).19
There is also another contrast, which is not especially developed in the hymns, since attention is focused on that between Judas and the sinful woman. And yet: just as she, so also the thief burns his sinful past with the flame of his confession of Christ, parallel and equivalent to the confessional power of the woman’s act. The acts of both are confessions of recognition and acceptance of Christ as Savior, and cannot occur without purity of heart, which allows the operation of the uncreated divine grace. This grace Judas rejected and lost. The thief had preserved his humanity and the purity of his heart — things Judas had lost. Judas, although a disciple of Christ, had a hardened heart, without noble feelings and without the power of love — to the point of turning the death of his Teacher into a source of profit.
The case of Judas recalls a beautiful verse of the late Christian poet Stephanos Boletis: “There are some hearts closed, hearts as if with heavy bars, and they are shut tight!” Judas remained in history as a tragic example of a man who did not allow divine grace to touch his heart — or rather, by his hardness and misanthropy rendered inactive the grace of God, which every person has within him.
The course of Christ’s Passion reveals a dramatic development in the stance of the two persons toward Him: “Judas denied, the thief confessed” (his love for Christ).20 While Judas lost his place near Christ, the thief, according to the eloquent distich of the Synaxarion of the service of the Holy Passion: “The thief opened the closed gates of Eden, placing as a key the ‘Remember me’.”
Moreover, the thief was not only shown to be the opposite of Judas, but in a sense also of Peter, for there is a radical contrast between the confession of the thief and the denial of Peter: “The disciple (Peter) denied (Christ), the thief cried out ‘Remember me, Lord, in Your kingdom’.”
All these persons, who unwillingly became structural elements of the image of the Divine Drama, confirm the instability of human affairs, but also the deceptiveness of every superficial judgment. These persons, and especially Judas — the “Ephialtes” of the Church thereafter — are a direct confirmation that in matters of faith and salvation things are often overturned. When grace is absent, every judgment loses its certainty, according to the word of Christ: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Especially, self-deception is easy in cases such as that of the social activist in the model of Judas. Social concern can often conceal the boldest self-interest. True social concern presupposes holiness, which is manifested in the renunciation of every claim. Socialist communal ownership presupposes irrevocably voluntary poverty. This is the enduring ideal of Orthodox social life, as it developed in the patristic tradition, preserved in the cenobitic Orthodox monastery. This way of existence and this social model are founded on the ideal of the ecclesial body handed down by the Apostle Paul: “Your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack — that there may be equality. ” (2 Cor. 8:13–14). But the realization of this form of society is impossible when its model is the “social-minded man for profit,” like Judas.
Notes:
1 For the “in-use” hymnography, the source used here is the “Triodion Katanyktikon, containing the entire Service belonging to it of the Holy and Great Lent…,” publications of the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece, in Athens 1960.
2 For the place of hymnography in Orthodox worship, see Fr. George D. Metallinos, “The Theological Witness of Ecclesiastical Worship,” Domos, Athens 1996, p. 140 ff.
3 Nikolaos B. Tomadakis, “Byzantine Hymnography and Poetry,” Athens 1965, p. 18.
4 For the music of Orthodox worship as the vesture of the hymn, see G. D. Metallinos, “The Theological Witness…,” op. cit., p. 155 ff.
5 Troparion of the 3rd Ode of the Iambic Canon of Theophany.
6 On the Celestial Hierarchy II, IV. PG 3,144.
7 The hesychast Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos (14th c.) gives the “Canon of the Saints — Hymnographers, Theologians of the Church in hymns.” PG 145, 554.
8 See note 1.
9 For the subject see Fr. G. D. Metallinos, “The Theological Witness…,” op. cit., p. 148 ff.
10 See briefly the entry "Judas Iscariot" in the World Biographical Dictionary (Ekdotiki Athinon), vol. 4 (1991), p. 129/130.
11 According to Luke 22:3: “Then Satan entered into Judas, who was called Iscariot.” And in John 13:2: “…the devil having already put into the heart of Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Him.”
12 The continuation of the Pauline passage applies precisely to the case of Judas: “…which some, longing for, have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves (impaled themselves) with many sorrows.”
13 “Now he said this not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box and used to take what was put into it.”
14 Matt. 26:48; Mark 14:44; Luke 22:4.
15 It is not uncommon in the liturgical iconographic cycle for Judas to receive Holy Communion from Christ and then spit it out, turning his head.
16 See the article of Theodoros Tzedakis in the Theological Encyclopedia of Greece, vol. 7 (1965), cols. 385–389.
17 See Panagiotis N. Trembelas, “Selection of Greek Orthodox Hymnography,” Athens 1949, p. 246–249.
18 Savvas Agouridis, “From the Manger to the Empty Tomb,” vol. A, Athens 1973 (Tinos), p. 85–86.
19 Saint John Chrysostom observes: “The greater part (in salvation), indeed almost everything, is of God; to us He has left only a small part” (On Psalm 115:2, PG 55, 322).
20 According to an ancient Kontakion. See P. N. Trembelas, op. cit., p. 75. According to the Synaxarion of the Service of the Holy Passion, on Great Friday we commemorate “also the saving confession of the grateful thief on the Cross.”
Source: "Ιούδας το σύμβολο της αιώνιας προδοσίας Θείο Πάθος και. Ανάσταση", Θρησκευτικά Αναγνώσματα (Αθήνα, Τύπος της Κυριακής, 2013). Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
