The Stature of Waiting

by W. H. Vanstone

Overview

We set great store by activity and busy-ness. We want to be 'in control'. We value what we 'do' more than who we are. So when we become ill, or retire from work, or suffer an enforced period of inactivity, our self-esteem is threatened. We evade, repudiate, or resent experiences of passivity, of waiting.

This classic of spiritual writing transforms our understanding of the experiences of illness, or of being out of work, or feeling inactive and powerless. W. H. Vanstone shows us the unquestioned and impressive majesty of Jesus as he 'waits' before those who accuse him, waits before those who taunt him and, finally, waits before even those who crucify him. It is in his passivity and 'passion', when we have things done to us instead of doing things, the times when we simply wait, are as important as the times of action and taking charge.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780819229526
Publisher:	Morehouse Publishing
Publication date:	01/01/2006
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	128
File size:	1 MB

About the Author

W. H. Vanstone was Canon Emeritus of Chester Cathedral. He is the author of several beautifully written and much-loved books, including Love's Endeavor, Love's Expense and Icons of the Passion.He died in 1999.

Read an Excerpt

The Stature of Waiting

---

By W. H. Vanstone

Church Publishing Incorporated

Copyright © 2006 W. H. Vanstone
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8192-2952-6

---

CHAPTER 1

The Deed of Judas

A generation or so ago it was the custom in many churches to arrange in Lent or Holy Week a series of sermons with some such title as 'Characters Round the Cross' or 'Actors in the Drama of the Passion'. A preacher or a number of different preachers would invite the congregation to reflect on the characters of certain people, on their strengths and weaknesses, and on the part which they played in the last days of Jesus—such people as Simon Peter, Pontius Pilate, Barabbas the Robber, Simon of Cyrene, Mary of Magdala and, invariably, Judas Iscariot. When I was young I listened to a good many sermons about Judas Iscariot.

The details of these sermons about Judas have long since faded from my memory. But a general impression remains that the preachers were principally concerned with the motives of Judas in doing what he did. One preacher would be content to represent him in the traditional way as a man in whom the love of money had become dominant over every other motive. Another would put forward the suggestion that Judas' principal motive may have been a certain resentment at his exclusion from that trio—Peter, James and John—who formed the 'inner circle' of Jesus' associates. A third would suggest that Judas, an able man, may have become irritated by Jesus' apparent failure to take the opportunities which were offered to Him; and that such irritation, deepening into disillusionment and bitterness, may have been Judas' primary motive in doing what he did. Some of these suggestions and explanations were no doubt rather speculative, but often, to the best of my recollection, they were quite interestingly presented. At least they reminded the hearers that, as Dostoevsky puts it in The Idiot: 'The causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex than are our subsequent explanations of them, and can rarely be distinctly discerned.'

But I also remember that, even when I was young, most of these sermons about Judas left me somewhat dissatisfied. I felt let down because they did not answer, or even ask, a question which seemed to me very important. It was the question whether the deed of Judas had any actual effect on the course of events: whether it really mattered and, if so, in what way it mattered. The preachers all seemed to assume that it mattered a great deal, for they used of Judas such phrases as 'he sent his Master to His death', 'he had Jesus' blood on his hands', 'through his greed or resentment or disillusionment he became guilty of the greatest crime in history'. But for myself I could not see that this was in fact the case. I could see of course that Judas had done a very shameful deed—a deed at least as shameful as that which Peter did when he denied that he knew Jesus or that which the other disciples did when they forsook Jesus and fled from the Garden of Gethsemane—a deed perhaps even more shameful for being premeditated. But I could not see that this deed of Judas had been of any great importance, that it had had any decisive consequences or any major effect on the course of events during that Passover season in Jerusalem.

For it seemed to me then, as it still seems to me now, that if Judas had done nothing at all events would still have taken much the same course. The deed of Judas was by no means necessary to bring about the arrest of Jesus and to set in train the sequence of events which ended in His crucifixion. For it appears from the Gospels, which are our only evidence, that in His last days in Jerusalem Jesus did not live in hiding or move around secretly as the Scarlet Pimpernel moved around Paris—a man of many disguises who could only be arrested by his enemies if He were first identified to them by a traitor among His friends. Jesus could not be betrayed as many an escaped prisoner or underground agent was, or might have been, betrayed in the last war. For it appears that Jesus lived quite openly and that His opponents or their representatives could find Him without difficulty when they wished to hear or criticize His teaching or to pose hard questions to Him. Presumably, therefore, they could have found Him with no greater difficulty if and when they wanted to arrest Him. Admittedly it might have been indiscreet to attempt an arrest when He was surrounded by crowds of attentive and perhaps enthusiastic pilgrims from Galilee; but it was surely not beyond the capacity of politicians and scheming priests to have Him 'shadowed' by some of their own men and a report brought of His whereabouts when He was more or less alone. What Judas offered to do may have been welcomed as a convenience by the opponents of Jesus, but it can hardly have been regarded as a necessity. So if Judas had made no offer the last events of the life of Jesus would have proceeded in very much the same way. Judas' deed was certainly shameful; but it did no more to change the course of history or to bring about the death of Jesus than did Peter's denial or the somnolence of the three disciples who were set to watch in the Garden of Gethsemane or the later flight of the whole band.

Yet the preachers of my youth, by branding Judas with so much responsibility for the death of Jesus, represented his deed as of major importance in the development of events. This seemed to me unreasonable, and I came to the private conclusion that the preachers, in order to warn us against the vices of greed or resentment, were somewhat exaggerating the dreadful consequences of these vices as they had appeared in Judas.

In later years, however, when I came to have a rather better knowledge of the Gospels, I realized that the preachers, if not wholly justified in what they said, were at least consistent with the Gospels. For the Gospel writers themselves give the impression that the deed of Judas was no mere peripheral incident in their story but was an event of major importance. John, who often assumes a good deal of background knowledge on the part of his readers, tells us no fewer than five times what it was that Judas did; and the other three Evangelists give equal prominence to his deed. All four Gospels report Jesus' ominous words at the Last Supper about this impending deed and the perpetrator of it; and all four writers, on their first mention of Judas in the early stages of their story, give, as it were, advance notice of what he did in the last stage. When this last stage is reached, all four make reference at significant points to what Judas was doing or planning. The last stage, normally called the Passion narrative, falls in each of the Gospels into two sections—the first dealing with the Last Supper and what was said and done in the course of it, the second narrating the sequence of events from the arrest of Jesus to His death—and we notice that in each of the Gospels each of these sections begins with a mention of the actions or designs of Judas. It is rather as if, in a narrative of the downfall of Hitler, a historian should preface his account of each critical event—the Battle of Stalingrad, the Desert War, the invasion of Europe—with a reference to the defection of Rudolph Hess. We should certainly conclude from this that, in the historian's view, the defection of Hess had a decisive bearing on the fate of Hitler. Similarly, from the significance of those moments at which Judas is mentioned in the later stages of all the Gospels, we are led to conclude that, in the Evangelists' view, his deed was of major importance in the development of events.

And yet, as we have seen, that deed cannot have been of major importance in a strictly historical sense: it cannot in itself have determined or changed the course of events. It began to seem to me, therefore, that the Gospel writers might be representing the deed of Judas as important in something other than a strictly historical sense: as important in a symbolic or theological sense: as important not in accounting for what happened in the last hours of Jesus' life but in expressing the meaning of what happened. I began to think that, in the eyes of the Gospel writers, the deed of Judas might be important as a symbol of something which was going on, as it were, behind the scenes or at a deeper level.

I had reached this stage of reflection when I began to notice some curious features about the actual words in which the deed of Judas is described in all the Gospels. I was so familiar with the phrases referring to Judas in our English versions of the Scripture—that he 'betrayed' Jesus and that he was a 'traitor'—that it came as a surprise when I realized that, except in one instance, these phrases are almost certainly mistranslations of the original Greek. The English verb 'betray' implies or suggests ill will, unfaithfulness and secrecy on the part of the person who betrays, and loss, tragedy or hardship for the person who is betrayed: and the Greek equivalent for this verb is [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Now there are twenty-two occasions in the New Testament on which the deed of Judas is mentioned, and another eleven occasions on which the deed is mentioned but is attributed to 'one of the Twelve' or 'one of you' rather than specifically to Judas. And among all these thirty-three occasions there is only one—that is in Luke's list of the Twelve Disciples—on which the deed is described by the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (or, more exactly, by the noun [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or 'traitor', which is derived from the verb). So on only one occasion in the New Testament is it said that Judas 'betrayed' Jesus. On one other occasion an exceptional and unique phrase is used to describe what Judas did—that is in Peter's speech at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles when he refers to Judas as 'the guide to those who arrested Jesus'. On the other thirty-one occasions in which the deed of Judas is referred to it is always described in the same way—by some part of the Greek verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

A reader who is unfamiliar with Greek should not be misled by the seemingly small difference between [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. They have, of course, the same stem in the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]—'to give'; but the different prefixes produce quite different ranges of meaning. So it is with such a pair of English words as 'receive' and 'deceive'. Both verbs have the same stem—the Latin capio meaning 'to take'; but the two different prefixes generate a wide difference of meaning. So it is with [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], as we have seen, is properly translated 'to betray': let us now illustrate the meaning of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Let us pick out some of the many passages in which the verb is used in the New Testament in contexts which have nothing to do with Judas, and, in order to avoid the need to repeat the verb each time in its Greek form, let us translate it on each occasion by the fairly colourless English phrase 'to hand over'.

When John describes the death of Jesus on the Cross, he says that Jesus 'bowed His head and handed over His spirit'. When Luke describes the departure of Paul on a missionary journey, he says that Paul 'was handed over to the grace of God by the brethren'. When Paul refers to his preaching of the Gospel to the Corinthians, he says that 'he handed over to them' that which he had himself received. It is quite evident that in such passages as these [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] could not possibly be translated as 'betray'. There is no suggestion that the person who hands over does so in ill will, unfaithfulness or secrecy; nor that the person who, or the thing which, is handed over is destined for loss or tragedy or hardship. Rather, in fact, the reverse. In these particular cases 'to be handed over' is to pass into good hands, with the likelihood of being cared for and preserved. In other contexts the case is different—as when, at the end of the parable of the Unmerciful Servant, that servant is 'handed over to the tormentors', or when Paul decrees that a notorious evil-liver at Corinth shall be 'handed over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh'. In these contexts, although the translation 'betray' would be just as inappropriate as elsewhere, there is present an implication that there will be loss, tragedy or hardship for the person who is handed over; but the implication comes not from the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] itself but from the total context, including the kind of hands—the tormentor's hands, Satan's hands—into which the person is to pass. The verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] itself is ambivalent, neutral, colourless. Perhaps the most revealing illustration of its meaning is to be found in the parable of the Talents. There the householder hands over his eight talents to three servants, of whom two make good use of what is handed over to them and one makes bad use. The destiny—good or bad—of the talents depends entirely on the response of those who receive them: neither a good destiny nor a bad is implied in the fact that they are 'handed over'.

So the word which is normally used in the Gospels of the deed of Judas is ambivalent, neutral, colourless. One may well wonder how it is that in the Authorized Version of the Bible—which in its turn has influenced all later translations—this neutral word came to be translated by the emotively loaded and pejorative word 'betray'. Probably the reason lies in the influence on the translators of their familiarity with the Latin version of the Bible—the Vulgate. The Latin verb trado is a correct translation of both [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]: it has a range of meaning which covers both Greek verbs, a range so broad that it has generated in English words with such diverse meanings as 'traitor' and 'tradition'. We must suppose that the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century translators, having understood trado in the Vulgate as 'betray' and Judas the traditor as the 'traitor', brought this presupposition with them when they came to translate the Greek verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; and so read into this word a loaded and pejorative significance which, as we have seen, it does not in fact possess. This erroneous presupposition of the early English translators—namely, that the Gospel writers themselves normally call the deed of Judas a 'betrayal' and Judas himself a 'traitor'—has probably had a subconscious influence on all later translators.

Whatever the reason for the familiar mistranslation of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], as 'betray', it remains a mistranslation. The verb is ambivalent, neutral, colourless; and we shall continue to translate it as 'to hand over'.

Now it is surely remarkable that all the four Evangelists should normally use so colourless a word to describe what Judas did. For they show no love for Judas, nor any tendency to play down the evil of his character or the gravity of his offence. They say, in various passages, that he was a thief, that the concern which he professed for the poor was a pretence, that he was inspired by Satan, and that he was himself a devil; and Peter's words about Judas reported at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles are almost literally damnatory. We should expect, therefore, that in referring to what Judas did the Evangelists would use the harshest, most derogatory word that was available. The word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]—'betray'—was certainly available; for, as we have noticed, it is used once by Luke. We should therefore expect that this word, or some word or phrase equally derogatory, would be the normal expression of the writers of the Gospels. But in fact they use it only once, and in thirty-one instances out of thirty-three make use of the neutral and ambivalent [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. It is as if four newspaper reporters, telling how a father murdered his infant son by dropping him from a high window, should all, on the one hand, refer to the father as a 'brute', a 'monster' or a 'devil', but should all, on the other hand, speak of him not as 'dropping', 'throwing' or 'flinging' the infant from the window but as 'releasing' him. We should certainly find such a manner of reporting the incident surprising.

It is remarkable that the neutral [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] should ever be used in the Gospels of the deed of Judas; it is much more remarkable that it should be used so consistently. We have noticed that once, in the Acts of the Apostles, it is said that Judas was 'guide to those who arrested Jesus', and this expression may suggest other ways in which Judas and his deed might naturally have been described. The deed might have been described as that of 'selling Jesus for money' or 'assisting His enemies' or 'planning His arrest'; and Judas might have been called 'the false friend', 'the secret enemy', 'the informer' and so on. Phrases such as these fell readily from the lips of the preachers of my youth, but from the Gospels they are entirely and strikingly absent. Time after time the deed is that of 'handing Jesus over' and Judas himself is 'the hander-over'. Anyone who is reasonably familiar with the New Testament knows that, if the same incident or the same thing is described in different Gospels, then—unless one of the writers is following another so closely as to be transcribing from him—there are normally verbal differences between the various passages. So, for instance, each of the Gospels has a slightly different version of the wording of that notice which was pinned upon the Cross, and in each a different phrase is used to describe Jesus' actual death. Three different words are used in the Gospels of the tomb in which His body was laid; the instrument of His death, normally called in the New Testament the 'Cross' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]), is occasionally referred to as the 'Tree' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]); and two different words are used almost indiscriminately to describe His rising from death. So even over such central facts and incidents in the life of Jesus the language of the Gospels is not so uniform and consistent as it is in descriptions of the deed of Judas. Indeed it would be hard to find a parallel in the New Testament for such consistency of expression as appears in reference to the deed of Judas. Judas is more frequently and consistently the 'hander-over' than John the son of Zacharias is 'the baptizer': indeed on several occasions he appears simply as 'the hander-over' without mention of his name. And so closely is the verb 'to hand over' associated with Judas that on one occasion Matthew attaches it to him in a phrase which hardly makes sense. This is the occasion on which Judas attempts to return the Thirty Pieces of Silver to the Jewish leaders. 'I have sinned,' says Judas, 'in that I have handed over innocent blood.' What presumably Judas means is that he has shed innocent blood; but the name of Judas seems to 'attract' the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] so powerfully that Matthew uses it almost instinctively and so produces a phrase which defies literal translation and compels the authors of the New English Bible to resort to a paraphrase.
(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from The Stature of Waiting by W. H. Vanstone. Copyright © 2006 W. H. Vanstone. Excerpted by permission of Church Publishing Incorporated.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Contents

Preface          

1 The Deed of Judas          

2 The Handing Over of Jesus          

3 The Status of Patient          

4 The Roots of Impatience          

5 The Road to Gethsemane          

6 The God Who Waits          

7 The Stature of Waiting