Is Judas actually Neutral?
It is said that Judas betrayed Jesus. Most people would consider him evil.
However, what if Judas had actually 'betrayed' Jesus so as to spur him into leading the Christian revolution? What if Judas decided to sacrifice his very soul and his place in heaven for the greater good?
Many acts of evil have some virtuous component. Murder, for example, comprises bravery.
Betrayal, in the ordinary sense, has no virtuous component, so Judas might fully have realised that his actions were about to deny him any forgiveness or mercy. In this way, Judas appears to have condemned himself, knowingly, to burn in hell. That he could do this to his soul simply for the greater good shows a noble element to his character.
So, by balancing an ultimately evil act (betrayal of the son of God), with an ultimately good higher aim (revolutionising the modern world and bringing in the new world order of Christianity), is Judas in fact neutral?
On the other hand, this argument rather rests on the presumption that the Christian God is actually Good himself. If He is not, then Judas is arguably Evil again, (evil act of betrayal to promote and evil God)!
What do you think? Judas, Good, Evil or Neutral?
posted by Matt McGrath at 6:26 am
9 Comments:
Well, Jesus knew that Judas would betray him, which, in my view, tacitly signals acceptance. Maybe Judus is actually good: it's a tough job, betraying the Son of God, but someone had to do it. It's arguable that Job's job was tougher though.
Also, "murder comprises courage"? Word choices aside, I'd say that it was more often an act of cowardice.
I like your acceptance point.
The murder point may well be valid as well. I was using an argument from aristotle there, but he can be a bit... unrealistic.
It all depends on the motives and methods of the murder I suppose. The old fashioned duelling, which i suppose might not be thought of as murder, certainly had plenty of courage in it.
Judas is the true Lamb of God -- he made the ultimate sacrifice. Not only did he die, but history hates him, too.
Once again, another interesting and thought provoking entry! Hope you don't mind if I link you.
Judas Iscariot should be read as an evil figure, and this is why:
In all the Gospels, Judas' betrayal of Christ is described as the result of the desire for money (30 pieces of silver) rather than out of any noble self sacrificing desire to promote 'the Christian revolution' or 'the greater good'.
(Matthew 26:15,16; Mark 14:10,11; Luke 22:3-6; John 12:6)
Hence, the theological point that commentators generally draw is that Judas serves as a figure for human rejection of the Divine will and the eternal wealth of the spirit, in favour of transient material wealth and money.
Thus, Judas' subsequent rejection of the coin he received for betraying Christ and his suicide (Matthew 27:1-5) should be read, not as a noble action in the classical tradition (cf. Cato Uticensis) - but as the passing away of material wealth and the death of a soul lacking the eternal good of the spirit.
------------
I do not see how Christ's acknowledgement that Judas would betray him makes him complicit in this act of betrayal. An omniscient divinity is aware of all sin and betrayal - however, the Biblical attribution of free will to humankind enables individual human beings to be held responsible for their own ethical actions - a point which I believe Ash has alluded to elsewhere.
------------
To address Beltane's comment: this kind of theological exegesis does read Biblical narrative in very literary terms. This however, does not mean that the Bible is unequivocably fictional.
Many medieval theologians viewed human history to be like a book written by a Divine hand. Thus, historical characters could be read as a concrete, metaphorical fulfillment of other historical characters. The post-modernist philosophies of people like Derrida also propose a language based epistemology, meaning that a literary analysis of the Bible as history remains defensible for modern theologians.
Thanks very much for the comments, it's very satisfying to generate a little interest, and flattering to get as thorough a comment as yours Alex!
As for your content, which is persuasively written, I would only add that Judas' universal label as one who sold out for money, if one is to read the bible as a historical (rather than fictional) text, is irrelevant, since it is opinion based on (supposed) fact, rather than pure fact.
Unless of course you believe that the bible really is a divine text, in which case it should represent 'truth'.
Unless of course the divine hand is simply writing what it wants us to believe!
Interesting posting. Consider this - Christians place a great emphasis on the death and reserection of Jesus. If Judus hadn't 'betrayed' Jesus then the death wouldn't of happened in the same way. Hence, Judus must of seen what was to happen - and betrayed Jesus with a kiss.
Since the Gospels are the only evidence that there was anybody called Judas who betrayed Jesus at all - then surely its just inconsistent to suggest that parts of the text be treated as more or less reliable than others?
Even if all four Gospels are opinion rather than 'fact', our analysis of the Biblical text must still be based on the entirety of the text - including the part that Judas betrayed Christ for silver (see the refs in my earlier comment) - and not just the 'fact' / opinion concerning the act of betrayal itself.
Unless of course, you have some better, non-Biblical and 'factual' evidence that Judas betrayed Christ not for silver, but for some 'greater good'?
I realised the inconsistency in my comment even as I was writing it, but I was a little tipsy at the time and so decided not to give a shit.
In light of that fair criticism, I fall back on my second point - what if this particular part of the account is being represented in this way for a reason which supercedes the need for accurate reporting of fact and accords with the greater aim?
Of course the question may be asked not whether Judas was actually good, but whether he himself believed he was good. Regardless of whether God intended Judas to betray Jesus, surely if Judas believed that he was doing the right thing he cannot be blamed.
Perhaps he needed those 30 pieces of silver to buy some land in the country so he could bring up some nice 'neutral' kids. Perhaps he believed that Jesus was himself evil and the true god wished him dead. In any case can he really be faulted if he acted on what he thought were 'good' intentions?
Post a Comment
<< Home