Replacing Judas

Wedged between the stories of Jesus’ ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is a short report on the reconstitution of Jesus’ inner circle known as “the Twelve” (Acts 1:15-26). This brief passage is notable for two things: (1) an explanation of what happened to Judas and (2) the procedure for choosing his replacement.

What is a Disciple?

Many people only casually familiar with the gospel stories would recognize the terms “the twelve disciples” or “the twelve apostles” and could probably name Peter and one or two others as members of the group. But this should not be understood as there only being twelve disciples or twelve apostles. There were more than just twelve disciples; according to Luke, there were at least 70 (10:1). And Paul was an apostle, but definitely not one of the Twelve.

In today’s terminology, anyone who follows the example of Jesus with commitment and devotion would be called a disciple, either in the 1^st or the 21^st century. But, with few exceptions, the evangelists tend to restrict the title “disciple” to those who were called and left everything behind to physically follow Jesus during his public ministry. When Peter proposed to fill the empty seat left by Judas, the qualifications laid out in vv. 21-22 define a disciple: one of the men who has followed Jesus from his baptism by John until his ascension. Even a woman like Mary Magdalene, who seems to meet the criteria for discipleship, is never called a disciple in any of the gospels.

The title of disciple is not used outside the gospels and Acts. Paul, however, does refer to apostles and considers himself one. The word “apostle” means “one who is sent.” The gospels report that the Twelve were briefly sent on a missionary journey inside Israel and, after the resurrection, commissioned to baptize and witness to the resurrection. But there’s scant evidence that the Twelve served as missionary apostles to the world in the way that Paul and Barnabas did. And, according to Paul, at least one woman named Junia was “prominent among the apostles” (Rom 16:7).

The Twelve

Of the many called by Jesus to leave everything and follow him, there were twelve who were part of his inner circle. First among them is Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, followed by James and John, the sons of Zebedee. The second group of four are Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew. The final four gets a little confusing with James of Alphaeus, Simon the Cananean/Zealot, and either Thaddeus (Mark and Matthew) or Jude of James (Luke). Judas Iscariot is always listed last.

The twelve apparently were meant to symbolize the regathering of the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom of God. It was a prophetic action meant to proclaim, and to some degree actualize, the kingdom. By choosing these twelve men, Jesus was prophetically setting in motion the regathering of the twelve tribes. In Matt 19:28 and Luke 22:30, Jesus promises them that “you shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Part of the Remorse of Judas and Crucifixion fresco, by Giovanni Canavesio, 1491. Luke 22:3 states that Satan had entered Judas and led him to betray Jesus. The reference to Judas bursting open in Acts 1:18 was interpreted as Satan forcibly exiting. In this grotesque image, I believe the artist was trying to convey the devil devouring Judas' soul.

The Last Days of Judas

Because of his notoriety in having betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot appears last in every list of the Twelve. According to Matthew 27:3-10, feeling remorse for what he had done, Judas returned his payment of thirty pieces of silver and hanged himself. Having determined that they cannot return blood money to the Temple treasure, the chief priests used the money to buy a potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners. This field became known as “the Field of Blood.”

Acts 1:18-19 give us a different version of the death of Judas and the origin of the Field of Blood. Awkwardly intruding into Peter’s speech, these parenthetical verses tell how Judas bought a plot of ground with his ill-gotten money and then he laid prostrate (or swelled up) and burst open in the middle, his guts spilling out. That is why the field was called Field of Blood.

In a third, non-biblical, account by Papias (c. 70-163 CE), Judas’ body had swelled up to the point where a passing wagon struck him and his guts spilled out.

No matter the actual cause of Judas’ death, since it happened shortly after the crucifixion, his violent end was seen as God’s punishment on a wicked person.

Reconstituting the Twelve

The death of Judas left an empty slot that needed to be filled in order to maintain the prophetic action of the regathering of the twelve tribes of Israel in the kingdom of God. Peter spoke to the gathered community and Luke tells us they were 120 in number. The number is somewhat surprising because in the previous passage we are only told of the Eleven, the women followers, and Jesus’ family (Mary and his brothers).

Of these 120, two are nominated to fill Judas’ spot. One is named Matthias and the other is known by three different names: “Joseph called Barsabbas, also known as Justus” (v. 23). Barsabbas (son of Sabba) is his Semitic name; Justus his Latin name.

But how to choose between them? Just as Jesus selected the original Twelve, he would choose Judas’ replacement. The casting of lots was seen as a means of ascertaining God’s will (cf. Prov 16:33). The lot fell on Matthias and he took his place alongside the Eleven.

After this passage, Matthias is never mentioned again. The Twelve fade from view. In Acts 6:6, the Twelve are last mentioned appointing seven men to take over food distribution. When James of Zebedee is executed by Herod Agrippa (12:1), there is no mention of the need to replace him. The Twelve were the founding members of the regathered twelve tribes and thus had fulfilled the role Jesus intended for them. In the following story of Pentecost, Peter and the other Eleven will give their first testimony to an Israel gathered for the first great feast day following Passover. It is fitting that this initial testimony of the resurrection be made by the apostles to the Twelve Tribes of God’s people.

Divergent: Ascension

Years ago, I was reading a review of the latest novel in a book series that I enjoyed. The review panned the new book saying, “It’s retcon on a major scale.” I had never heard the term “retcon” before, so I had to look it up and learned that it was a contraction for “retroactive continuity.” Retcon is defined as “a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events.” When writers bring back a popular character killed off in a previous movie, episode, or novel with a hand-waving explanation of how the character escaped at the last minute, that’s retcon.

We have an example of retcon with the ascension of the risen Christ. Luke gives us two versions of the ascension, one at the end of his Gospel (24:50-53), and the other at the beginning of Acts of the Apostles (1:9-11).

The First Ascension Account

The first ascension story is part of the composite passage that concludes the Gospel of Luke (24:36-53). As the two disciples from Emmaus are recounting their experience to the gathered disciples, Jesus appears in their midst and asks them to touch him to see that he is flesh and bones and not a ghost. They give him a piece of broiled fish and he eats it in front of them. He then explicates the Scriptures to them and instructs them to remain in Jerusalem until the Father invests them with power from on high. Finally, leading them outside the city to Bethany, he blesses them and is carried up to heaven. The disciples return to Jerusalem with great joy and “were continually in the Temple praising God.” The gospel concludes as it began, in the Temple.

The Lucan Jesus’ final appearance to the gathered disciples on Easter Sunday night (vv. 36-43) recalls the material that appears in John 20:19-21 and the Marcan appendix (16:14-15). Luke seems to be drawing on a common tradition that at his final appearance to the gathered disciples, Jesus commissioned them to go out into the world. There are similar elements in both the Emmaus narrative and the conclusion of the gospel: an appearance that is not immediately comprehended, a meal, an instruction based on Scripture, and the sudden departure of the risen Christ.

The Second Ascension Account

In the beginning of Acts of the Apostles (1:1-14), Luke references his “first account” in which he described Jesus’ teachings and actions. Luke then recalls how the risen Jesus presented himself to the apostles “throughout forty days.” He instructed them to wait in Jerusalem for the baptism of the Holy Spirit in which they will receive power to become his witnesses to Judea, Samaria, and to the end of the earth. And, as he says this, he was lifted up and a cloud took him out of their sight. Two men in white robes – presumably angels – suddenly appear to explain that Jesus will one day return in the same way he was seen to go. The apostles depart the Mount of Olives and return to Jerusalem to await the coming Spirit.

In this prologue to Acts, Luke uses the ascension to conclude “the age of Jesus” and begin “the age of the church.” He recapitulates what he already said at the end of his gospel, but with more explanation on the coming of the Holy Spirit. Almost out of the blue, the apostles ask about the restoration of the kingdom of Israel (Emmaus disciple Cleopas also made a similar reference to the hope that Jesus would “deliver Israel” in Luke 24:21) and Jesus informs them their duty is to be witnesses to him throughout the world. In a similar fashion, the angelic interpreters assure the apostles that Jesus will return but there’s no point in standing there waiting for him. The implication is that the apostles have other work to do.

"See ya later, guys!" The ascension scene is the subject of the altarpiece in St. Peter’s Church in Copenhagen, by Danish painter Hendrick Krock

When was the Ascension?

We are left with a problem of dating the ascension. Luke’s Gospel clearly dates it to the night following the morning on which the empty tomb was discovered (i.e. Easter Sunday night). Acts describes the ascension occurring after a period of forty days in which the risen Christ appeared to the disciples.

A biblical literalist would try to harmonize the two ascensions. The one reported on Easter Sunday night would be merely the conclusion of Jesus’ appearance to all the disciples. His later ascension after forty days would be the “encore” performance. That’s a bit of a retcon, reinterpreting what appears to be the definitive final appearance of the risen Lord in Luke’s Gospel as merely the conclusion of one of many such appearances.

Another theory is that, having completed his gospel, Luke came upon information that Jesus appeared to the disciples for a period of time and wrote the beginning of Acts to correct his earlier account. In this hypothesis, Luke is retconning his earlier account.

Which Direction did Jesus Go?

At the other end of the spectrum from the biblical literalists are those who like to tweak the literalists by asking, “So which direction is heaven?” While there are some rock-ribbed biblical literalists who would claim that Jesus was bodily transported via cloud to heaven, most non-fundamentalists would agree that the ascension is a metaphor for the conclusion of appearances of the risen Christ to his disciples. At one time, the risen Jesus appeared to his followers and, at some point, those appearances stopped.

But it is more than that. During the Emmaus encounter, the risen Christ explained that the Messiah was bound to suffer “before entering into his glory” (24:26). The crucified Jesus, raised from the dead, has entered “his glory,” and it is from there that he has manifested himself to Peter, the Emmaus disciples, and all the others. Luke’s account of the ascension in Acts uses the trappings of apocalyptic writings – clouds, movement through the heavens, angelic interpreters – to present Christ’s final departure from his disciples in visible form. Thus the apostles become eyewitnesses to Christ’s exaltation. After this, they will no longer experience him in a visible way, but only in “the breaking of the bread.”

Breaking Bread

In preparation for his First Communion in the Catholic Church, my son is learning about the two parts of the Mass: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. During the Liturgy of the Word, the priest welcomes the congregation and then we listen to readings from the OT and NT, followed by a homily where the priest or deacon explicates the Scriptures and helps us apply it to our lives. The Liturgy of the Eucharist begins when the gifts of bread and wine are brought forward. This is followed by the priest re-presenting the Last Supper during the Eucharistic Prayer and finally communion when the congregation comes forward to receive the consecrated bread and wine.

A Walk to Emmaus

Therefore, the order of the Mass was very much on my mind as I approached the exquisitely-told story of the risen Christ appearing to two disciples who were walking towards the village of Emmaus. This story is only found in Luke (24:13-35), although something similar is found in a brief reference in the Marcan appendix (16:12-13) to the risen Lord appearing “in another form” to two disciples “walking into the country.” Scholars are divided as to whether Luke elaborated on the snippet of tradition found in the Marcan appendix or if vv. 12-13 in the appendix are a summary of the story in Luke.

The Emmaus story can be broken down into four scenes:

1. Two disciples are returning to their home village when they are met by the risen Jesus but fail to recognize him (vv. 13-16).
2. The two (Cleopas and an unnamed disciple) recount how the women discovered the empty tomb that morning and Jesus then interprets for the two disciples the parts of Scripture that pertained to him (vv. 17-27).
3. Towards sundown they reach Emmaus and the disciples ask Jesus to stay with them. When Jesus breaks the bread and offers it to them, they recognize him and he vanishes from their sight (vv.28-32).
4. The two disciples return to Jerusalem where they find the Eleven and the others gathered together. They learn of an appearance of the risen Lord to Simon Peter and recount their experience on the road and how they recognized the risen Jesus “in the breaking of the bread” (vv. 33-35).

Looking at the details of the story, we see a familiar pattern: a greeting, an explication of Scripture, a proclamation of resurrection faith (“the Lord has been raised and has appeared to Simon”), and the meal setting with the breaking of the bread. Is Luke patterning the Emmaus story on early Christian liturgical celebrations? Is it a dramatization of a Mass?

The Supper at Emmaus (1936-37), a fake Vermeer by Han van Meegeren, a Dutch painter who was one of the most successful forgers of the 20th century. After WWII, one of his paintings was found in the possession of Hermann Göring. Accused of collaboration with the Nazis, van Meegeren copped to the less serious charge of forgery.

A Hidden Mass?

We know very little about liturgical celebrations at the time Luke wrote his gospel (80-85 CE). The first description we have of the Eucharistic celebration comes from Justin Martyr writing in 155 CE:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (First Apology, 67).

All the elements present in Justin’s description of Christian worship in the second century – gathering on Sunday, readings from Scripture, instruction from the presider, blessing over the bread and wine and its distribution – are also present in many modern liturgical celebrations in various denominations. And these liturgical elements also have their echoes in the Emmaus account. While we can’t be absolutely certain in such things, it is not implausible that the Christian worship Justin describes in 155 was very similar to something Luke would have experienced 70 years before.

But to discern every element of the Mass from penitential rite to dismissal in the Emmaus story may be going further than the evidence allows.

The Breaking of the Bread

The last verse seems to sum up the central thrust of the Emmaus story: “They told what had happened on the road and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.” The words describing Jesus’ actions in v. 30 (“he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them”) are very similar to what Luke describes happening at the Last Supper in 22:19: “Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them.”

Did the two disciples recognize Jesus because they made a connection between his actions and gestures here with those he used at the Last Supper? We only know the name of one of the disciples – Cleopas – and he was not present at the Last Supper. But he could have been present at the miracle of the loaves and fishes (9:10-17). In v. 16, Luke writes: “And taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.” Perhaps the disciples were reminded of the Feeding of the Five Thousand?

But Luke is writing a gospel, not history. The point he wants to make is that the disciples did not recognize the risen Jesus on the road, but only in “the breaking of the bread.” This is a uniquely Lucan term which he uses several times in Acts of the Apostles to refer to celebration of the Lord’s Supper (cf. Paul’s use of “the bread that we break” in 1 Cor 10:16). Luke is telling his audience (and us) that although contemporary disciples will no longer experience the risen Lord in visible form, he will be present among them in their weekly Eucharistic celebrations.

Raising the Tomb of Christ from the Dead

The holiest site in Christendom is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Under one roof, it memorializes the traditional sites of both the crucifixion and the resurrection. Lots of places in Israel claim that “Jesus was here,” so what are the chances that these have any more historical provenance than the supposed location of the Last Supper or the Garden of Gethsemane?

Constantine’s Church

The Emperor Constantine sought to unify the Roman Empire under Christianity, and around 325 CE he decided to build churches over the sites where Jesus was born, buried, and ascended. The locals told Constantine’s engineers that, two centuries before, the Emperor Hadrian had constructed a temple over the site of Jesus’ tomb. According to the Church historian Eusebius, as Constantine’s workers cleared away the rubble and fill dirt from Hadrian’s temple, they found a tomb which was obviously that of Christ’s.

Eusebius doesn’t say why it was obvious this particular tomb was that of Jesus. Perhaps there was some graffiti written or carved on it from the time when it was venerated before it was buried under Hadrian’s temple. Or maybe the placement of the tomb directly under a statue to Jupiter was the sign that they had found the right tomb.

In any event, the workmen isolated the tomb from the surrounding rock and adorned it with decorations and columns. It was called the Edicule (Latin for “little house”). Originally the Edicule was a free-standing structure in the open, separate from the church Constantine had built around the rock of Calvary, but fifty years after the church’s dedication, a rotunda was constructed around it.

In 1009, the Moslem caliph al-Hakim ordered Constantine’s church to be demolished and the Edicule was hacked to pieces. Eventually, the present Church of the Holy Sepulcher was rebuilt in its place and over the centuries suffered a series of natural and man-made disasters. A fire in the rotunda in 1808 caused the dome over the Edicule to collapse and seriously damage the Edicule itself. It was rebuilt in 1810, but after earthquakes in 1927 and 1934, the marble cladding surrounding the Edicule became so unstable that the British (who were responsible for the Holy Land back then) had iron girders erected in 1947 to keep it from falling apart.

The Edicule inside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem showing the steel framework keeping it from falling apart. (Photo by author, 1993).

Status Quo

Repairs have been stalled for decades as the various groups responsible for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher squabble over what to do. The Church is primarily controlled by the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenians churches. Each have their own portions of the church that they control, but according to the status quo decree of 1853, nothing can be changed in the public areas unless all parties agree. No detail is too small to argue about. A ladder was on a window ledge over the church’s entrance when the status quo decree went into effect and it has been there ever since. It is now called the “Immovable Ladder.”

So it was to my great surprise when I read an announcement released Holy Week (3/22/16) that the Greeks, Latins and Armenians had agreed on a major restoration to the Edicule. Work could begin as soon as May 1 after Orthodox Easter celebrations are over and will take at least 8 months. During this time, the entire Edicule will be dismantled and rebuilt. Usable parts will be cleaned and weakened or broken parts will be replaced.

What can we expect to see? As the marble cladding is removed, it will expose the masonry of the 1555 structure. There should also be what remains of the native limestone of the original tomb. Archaeologists will get an opportunity to examine, measure and record the ruins and give us a better idea of what the original tomb might have looked like.

The Empty Tomb

Based on the best information we have today, the original tomb was a small cave with two chambers carved into the side of a hill or cliff. The outer chamber was a partly-covered forecourt with a low entrance leading into the fully-enclosed rock-cut interior burial chamber. The entrance would have been closed by a large stone. There would have been rock-cut burial benches on two or three sides of the inner chamber.

Reconstruction (A) of the form of the rock-cut tomb within the Edicule and (B) of its conversion by the construction of Constantine's Edicule. (Drawn by Steven Ashley, taken from The Tomb of Christ by Martin Biddle).

According to Eusebius, Constantine’s engineers cut away the rock of the surrounding cliff, including the outer forecourt, to isolate the burial chamber. The other burial benches may have been sealed up with masonry so as to leave only the bench on the inside right exposed, since Mark 16:5 reports the women entering the empty tomb found an angel sitting there instead of Jesus’ body.

Is this really the tomb of Christ? It is impossible to say but it is plausible. Whereas the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is inside the walls of Jerusalem today, around 30 CE the area was a disused quarry outside the walls. Today, a short distance from the Edicule, visitors to the church can see small burial chambers carved into the rock dating back to the 1st century CE, so the area was a definitely a gravesite until Jerusalem’s walls were extended around the area in the early 40’s and the site was brought inside the city.

Nothing is known of the site prior to 130 CE when Hadrian filled in the quarry and paved over it to construct his temple. It is very possible that the empty tomb would have been venerated as the site of the resurrection. Did Hadrian intentionally construct his temple over a site revered by Christians in order to suppress the new religion? Again, we don’t know, but later Christians certainly attributed bad intentions to Hadrian’s choice of construction site.

So I will be eagerly awaiting news of any discoveries made during the restoration work on the Edicule. I’m sure a PBS Nova or National Geographic program will be produced documenting the project. But even if surviving 1st or 2nd century graffiti saying “Jesus was here” is found, that would not prove scientifically this was the tomb of Jesus, only that early Christians venerated it as though it was.

If I learn anything more about the restoration, I’ll post it here, so watch this space.