Posted on 01/12/2006 7:42:57 AM PST by Alouette
Proposed ‘rehabilitation’ of the man who was paid 30 pieces of silver to identify Jesus to Roman soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, comes on the ground that he was not deliberately evil, but was just ‘fulfilling his part in God’s plan, the London Times reports
Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus with a kiss, is to be given a makeover by Vatican scholars, according to the London Times.
The proposed “rehabilitation” of the man who was paid 30 pieces of silver to identify Jesus to Roman soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, comes on the ground that he was not deliberately evil, but was just “fulfilling his part in God’s plan,” the London Times said.
Christians have traditionally blamed Judas for aiding and abetting the Crucifixion, and his name is synonymous with treachery. According to St Luke, Judas was “possessed by Satan.”
According to the London Times, a campaign led by Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, is aimed at persuading believers to look kindly at a man reviled for 2,000 years.
Mgr Brandmuller told fellow scholars it was time for a “re-reading” of the Judas story. He is supported by Vittorio Messori, a prominent Catholic writer close to both Pope Benedict XVI and the late John Paul II.
Signor Messori said that the rehabilitation of Judas would “resolve the problem of an apparent lack of mercy by Jesus toward one of his closest collaborators.”
He told La Stampa that there was a Christian tradition that held that Judas was forgiven by Jesus and ordered to purify himself with “spiritual exercises” in the desert.
'Judas portrayed with a hooked nose'
In scholarly circles, it has long been unfashionable to demonize Judas and Catholics in Britain are likely to welcome Judas’ rehabilitation.
The London Times quoted Father Allen Morris, Christian Life and Worship secretary for the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, as saying, “If Christ died for all — is it possible that Judas too was redeemed through the Master he betrayed?”
The “rehabilitation” of Judas could help the Pope’s drive to improve Christian-Jewish relations, which he has made a priority of his pontificate.
Some Bible experts say Judas was “a victim of a theological libel which helped to create anti Semitism” by forming an image of him as a “sinister villain” prepared to betray for money.
In many medieval plays and paintings Judas is portrayed with a hooked nose and exaggerated Semitic features. In Dante’s Inferno, Judas is relegated to the lowest pits of Hell, where he is devoured by a three-headed demon.
The move to clear Judas’s name coincides with plans to publish the alleged Gospel of Judas for the first time in English, German and French. Though not written by Judas, it is said to reflect the belief among early Christians — now gaining ground in the Vatican — that in betraying Christ Judas was fulfilling a divine mission, which led to the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus and hence to man’s salvation, according to the London Times.
'Fell headlong'
Mgr Brandmuller said that he expected “no new historical evidence” from the supposed gospel, which had been excluded from the canon of accepted Scripture.
But it could “serve to reconstruct the events and context of Christ’s teachings as they were seen by the early Christians.” This included that Jesus had always preached “forgiveness for one’s enemies.”
Some Vatican scholars have expressed concern over the reconsideration of Judas. Monsignor Giovanni D’Ercole, a Vatican theologian, said it was “dangerous to re-evaluate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings. This can only create confusion in believers.”
The Gospels tell how Judas later returned the 30 pieces of silver — his “blood money” — and hanged himself, or according to the Acts of the Apostles, “fell headlong and burst open so that all his entrails burst out."
πρηνής
Again, it's not what scripture says. Again,
If your intention is to disparage the witness of scripture, then I suppose no one can stop you. If your intention is to seek the truth, then you can see that there is no irreconcilable contradiction. It can be explained. I suppose it depends upon your prejudices as to whether or not you are able to see a contradiction or a reconciliation. I can reconcile it without any difficulty. Some other passages are not as easily reconciled, but are reconcilable nonetheless.
Have you started that thread?
Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
These two accounts have been mined by skeptics for contradictions, but its not more than the usual hoopla involved. Let's break down the issues and answer them. At the request of a reader we are now also evaluating an alternate solution proposed by a site here.
"Well, first of all, Matthew has Judas hanging himself, while Acts says he fell over and busted his guts open. So which is correct?"
Here are the explanations to be considered:
I have previously stated that this solution is also supported by, of all people, the fringe scholar Hyam Maccoby (also noted by Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n]. In his book Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil [180], he notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while. This reading is found in later Syriac, Georgian and Armenian mss., though perhaps as an attempt at textual criticism of the sort we are doing. (Those skeptics who need a refresher on the possibility of copyist errors need to look here.) Taken together I still consider the "hanging body/rope broke" solution possible -- but now find something else even more likely. But first let's look at the other site's answer:
The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.
A check of the lexicons shows that such a meaning is indeed possible, but I found only one actual example listed -- the vast majority of the meanings given were for a physical hanging; there was only one example of a figurative meaning as described. So I would say that this is a possible solution, but not likely.
2 Samuel 17:23 And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.
Conrad notes that rabbinic interpretation of Ps. 41:9 ("Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.") thought that Ahithophel was the traitor David was describing -- and of course this same verse was applied by Jesus to Judas (John 13:18). Conrad still thinks there are not enough parallels (!) but we would maintain that the parallels are sufficient, and that Matthew is indeed alluding to the traitor Ahithophel in this passage, and is therefore NOT telling us that Judas indeed hung himself, but that Judas fulfilled the "type" of Ahithophel by being a traitor who responded with grief and then died. Matthew is thereby making no statement at all about Judas' mode of death, and Luke's "swelling up" stands alone as a specific description of what happened.
With this in mind, we would only note a Stupid Skeptic Question posed by a member of an Errancy List:
It makes no sense for the author to tell us that Judas' guts burst without telling us why it happened. Spilling out of guts because of swelling is such a rare event that surely if Luke believed that this extraordinary thing actually happened to Judas, he would have made certain to provide the extraordinary explanation for its occurrence. The fact that he didn't do this is strong evidence that Luke didn't believe Judas' guts literally burst open.
This "surely" is the complaint of a low-context modern demanding full explanations for every unusual event, but when it comes down to it, neither Luke nor any person could have been able to "provide the explanation" without knowing why it happened. Unless Luke or some other physician had access to Judas (not likely) they could not so much as mount a guess as to "why" and the carp is pointless. (Think my idea here stinks? See here -- secular historians have no problem with similar ideas.)
"Yeah, well, try this one on for size: Matthew says the priests bought the field, but Acts says that Judas did. So who did it, huh?"
The alternate site opts for this explanation:
The chief priests did not want to put the money paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because blood money was used to purchase the field it was called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1.
The problem here is that both Acts and Matthew connect the purchase specifically with Judas' act of treachery. Thus I cannot accept this solution. However, it does lead into our own answer. There are a few factors at here -- one linguistic, the others sociological.
The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word:
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one.
Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context.
How does this mean anything with regard to Judas? First note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his. And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will:
"Yeah, right! A real coincidence, that! How is it that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas blew up in??"
Not very hard to figure, really. Once Judas blew his spare tire in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery.
"Waitaminnit, Holding! If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his anymore! It belonged to the priests! What kind of racket are you trying to pull?!?"
This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]:
Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent...
The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean -- though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means. Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point.
"You haven't answered the last problem! Matthew says the name 'Field of Blood' came because it was bought with blood money. Luke says it was because Judas split his guts all over. So which is it?"
This objection assumes that what was "known unto all the dwellers" was Judas' gut-bust episode, but it would seem that the phrase modifies all that precedes it: "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Judas' gut-burst would hardly warrant a "field of blood" designation for the whole property! There would not be blood everywhere! The "Field of Blood" name was derived -- even as Matthew says -- from the act of purchase with the reward of Judas' iniquity -- what iniquity? The betrayal of innocent blood, which Luke recorded in his own Gospel.
See discussion over this article here.
The act of apologetics has been designed to deflect any critical look at scripture. As our debate has shown, one may infer or use historical context or other method to come to a conclusion. But if we are to be strict in our observation, are we to take the aformentioned or are we to read the scripture as written. If as written, then clearly the scripture does not match. If through apologetics, then one may assume either through fact or conclusion discord between scripture can be explained away. Some apologetic explanations change over time while others has so far withstood the test of time or a better challenge or explanation has not been developed.
Of course the biggest and safest apologetic use is to state in many cases the view you did, which is one person saw A and one person saw B and neither told a compete story or it was a story from their perspective. And in most cases, since scripture wasn't written as it happened, but often several years later.....well you know what happens.
I know exactly what happened:
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 KJV)
You can't chalk it up to faulty memory. Unless you want to accuse the Holy Spirit of giving these people false memories. I would strongly urge that you resist any temptation to do that!!!
The scripture is inspired. The scripture is true.
Now are you going to start that thread? Let's see if the freepers here can resolve any doubts about the inerrancy of scripture. I suspect that with God's help we are up to the challenge.
Go for it.
Like liberals who themselves have apologetics for the Constitution, Christians do likewise.
Liberals do not respect the words of the consitution. Conservative Apologists who believe in the inerrancy of scripture have a deep and abiding respect for every single word in the Bible.
So don't go comparing liberal politicians to conservative bible scholars. Most of these conservative scholars have forgotten more about scripture than you will ever know. You are disparging their reputations without grounds.
If you think the bible is so chock full of errors, then I challenge you to point them out.
Put up or shut up.
There is no dispute among (most) Christians of the inerrency and Divinely inspired nature of Scripture. We part ways on interpretation, but we agree there is no error, nor contradiction within.
Of course the verses taken all together do not say that. Any putting to death the Son of God was one of their deeds.
If he asks for your forgiveness, it is done.
He merely asks. It's important to note that Jesus did Not say, "I pardon you all of this sin," which is the way you apparently want to read the verse. Just as He elsewhere states, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done." Wasn't Jesus also God when He spoke those words?
You're ignoring that fact that Jesus was not acting as judge when He hung on the cross. That was for another time.
"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses." (Acts 3)
Peter does not absolve them of their responsility. He does not preface his remarks with, "I know Jesus pardoned y'all from the cross, ...". In fact he used the matter of their judicial guilt to preach the gospel, to which many responded. Those who did not would be judged to that sin and many others.
Apparently they need some explanation so as to not just to wrong conclusions about what Jesus was saying.
The sin shall not be charged to them.
Without making an eisegetical leap, where exactly does it say that?
"Father forgive them."
John 17:12: “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou has given Me; and I guarded them, and no one of them perished but (or except) the son of perdition, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.”
Matthew 26-25, Jesus says: “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had NOT been born.”
We need to glorify God not only for his love and mercy but also for his justice and judgment.
Without making an eisegetical leap, where exactly does it say that?
"Father forgive them."
So, in other words it does not say that their sins were "not charged to them" any more than if you or I pray to the Father and say "Father forgive them."
The fact is that unless they come under the blood of Christ their sins will be chared to them on the last day. You wish to walk a theological tighrope that is not justified by the text.
"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment." (Matt. 12:36)
When a man stands before the judgment seat on that great day, there are only two options. They can either stand their on their own account, or they can stand on basis of the finshed work of Christ. The unregenerate will not be able to point to one particular sin and say, "I have been pardoned from that one sin." No one will be so arrogant.
Thus your eisegesis of the text fails.
If you can't agree on interpretation, then someone can't be right, or completely right and thus the error. An irreent document would not lead discerning individuals to different conclusions.
Jesus forgave the Jews and the Romans from the cross.
The greek word for "forgive""
aphiemi {af-ee'-ay-mee}
1) to send away a) to bid going away or depart 1) of a husband divorcing his wife b) to send forth, yield up, to expire c) to let go, let alone, let be 1) to disregard 2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic) a) of teachers, writers and speakers 3) to omit, neglect d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit e) to give up, keep no longer 2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person 3) to leave, go way from one a) in order to go to another place b) to depart from any one c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned d) to desert wrongfully e) to go away leaving something behind f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion g) to leave on dying, leave behind one h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining i) abandon, leave destitute
I heard it preached on a "good friday" that what Jesus was doing was asking God to permit them/ allow to murder him. He was yielding to the cross no longer asking that this cup be removed from Him.
I thought that was an interesting read of that verse.
Since he was already nailed to the cross, I would think that would be kind of redundant.
Among about 50 others it is the same word that is used in the following verse:
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
So if we are going to allow that the sin was not actually forgiven from the cross, then we cannot state with any certainty that our sin will be forgiven if we place our faith in Christ and follow his commands.
Christ's call for forgiveness for those who put him on the cross was unconditional. Is the forgiveness that you received in Christ any more conditional? It's the same word.
Christ forgave sins unconditionally before the cross? Will those people for whom he forgave their sins be accountable for them at the judgment? I don't think so. Do you? Really?
I wouldn't say I was acting aggressively, but I would say I was being overly defensive in that post.
I was reacting to being told I was "right with the mullahs" and accused of believing that Jesus didn't die on the Cross, but that Judas did. I found that offensive in the extreme.
My subsequent response was attempting to be equally outrageous as a way of illustrating how stupid his comment appeared to me. I do not believe that he is a satanist and I didn't think he (or anyone) would think that was a serious comment. I guess I need to add the /sarcasm tag or be somehow more explicit, particularly when dealing with such emotional issues.
As to your other post, no, I don't believe in pre-destination in that sense, though someone had to play the role that Judas did in order for prophecy to be fulfilled. I don't know (and cannot know) if God may have directed events such that Judas acted as he did, but clearly he (Judas) is the one who made the choices that led to his own acts and sins. My point is that that is true of all of us, yet we are offered forgiveness. God did not say "I forgive everyone except the ones that these people think are really bad." No qualifications on salvation except belief in Jesus and that would apply to all, including Judas and Hitler. Whether they accepted that Grace is a totally different story and, again, unknowable, at least until we have a chance to ask directly. Me? I'm looking forward to that day, admittedly with some qualms, but then I believe and will hold to that belief, come what may.
The bible states that the mustard seed is the smallest (least of all seeds and less than all seeds that be in the earth). Clearly we know that there are smaller seeds than mustard seeds.
When I first looked this up in Mark it appeared to me that what Jesus was doing was making an analogy in regard to sewing seeds.
And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. (Mark 4:30-32 KJV)
So at first glance it would appear that what is being suggested here is that of all the seeds that are planted by sewing them, i.e., tossing them out into the field, the mustard seed was the least or smallest of those-- or the smallest that these people knew about.
There are seeds that are smaller, but I believe that those seeds are not normally sewn in the manner of tossing them onto the ground. So if you were to make a comparison on seeds that were sewn and how they grow into great plants, the mustard seed would be the best comparison. I suspect that if Jesus had said used the comparison using the black orchid, that it would not have been understood. Apparently there was a common saying back then that when you compared things to say that something was little, you would say it was as small as a mustard seed.
At any rate after I formed my own preliminary interpretation I went on the internet and found some sites which discuss the issue.
So if we are going to allow that the sin was not actually forgiven from the cross, then we cannot state with any certainty that our sin will be forgiven if we place our faith in Christ and follow his commands.
Yes we can. The text says, "If we confess our sin ..." There was no unilateral pardon from the cross. A person must realize their sin in order to receive the forgiveness offered in Christ. If they died in their sin without Jesus Christ as Savior, then that sin was also credited to their account.
"... if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9)
I love that protective spelling of Chr!stians. I'm going to adopt it, if you don't mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.