Thursday, August 5, 2010

Judas Iscariot - Saint or Demon ??

Right now I'm going through a phase of feeling rather sorry for Judas Iscariot. He has always been discarded as evil and not so many people (including me) give him much of our time and consideration. But then, when you stop and think you do realise that maybe we ought to thank him. This might come as shocking I know !!
But logic dictates that someone had to set the chain of events in motion in order for us to be saved by the death and resurrection of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. That is how God wanted things to happen because we could have been saved through other different ways. In this light, then shouldn't we be grateful for Judas for accepting to be the one to set this chain in motion? I don't think I would have accepted this 'plan' but for some reason or other he did.

The Gospel of Judas makes it quite clear that he was the only one who really and truly understood Jesus' nature and message whereas the other eleven were blinded by the conception and perception of 'their God rather than 'God'. They are the ones who were blinded by the blood shed in martrydom, something which Judas makes clear that God is not after. Rather, God does not need our death but our life. And when you stop and think about it, it makes perfect sense. God is the giver of life and He gives us life to live it, and live it to the full. What is the point of giving a life when it is expected to be given in return? If God can do all things and if God can foresee and intervene, then wouldn't it be natural for God to change all those events which might lead to martyrdom?

If I give you rather than lend you a book I do not and should not expect it back. We say that God is the giver rather than the lender of life!!! And this has made me realise that maybe it is true. Martyrdom is not what God wants but He wants us to be grateful for the gift which He gave us and use it to the full. The Gospel of Judas, makes this very clear. Judas understood the message so much so that he had no qualms in accepting that which Jesus suggested. That he should become the betrayer (and at a price) to set the plan of salvation in motion.

In this light, Judas almost becomes a hero in my eyes. Someone I should really thank because through his acceptance, I have been saved and redeemed, through the passion of my Saviour !!!


  1. As usual, very stimulating idea. It reminds me of the scapegoat who would have red wool bound round his horns and then driven out into the desert to die, taking the sins of the village with him. One very interesting point is raised by your blog in particular: if the eleven got the message wrong and they were hearing from Jesus himself... just how wrong is the message we get now as translated through St Paul, the early Church and its war against heretics (especially the gnostics), the centralisation of power in the Vatican, the war against Constantinople and then Protestantism and now the war against science and the unbeliever ... I wonder what Church Jesus would join if he came back to Earth!!!!!!!

  2. once again thanks so much for your comment. I totally agree with you. It can easily be the case where the Church is nothing but a political institution that would like to swallow the entire planet. I remember, during my Relgion A'Level studies, I was scandalised by its history and how irrelgious it all was. It was power, power and more power and God seldom entered the picture.

    If Christ had to come on this planet again, I seriously doubt that He would want to be a Catholic ............ it just seems that there is no correlation between Jesus and the Church. Nietzsche puts it almost nicely when he says that the Anti-Christ is Christ Himself because all that he taught and practised is the exact opposite that the Church teaches and practises. Maybe that is a little bit pushing it too far, but it makes some sense as well. Jesus talked about love ........... and nothing else, the Church talks about everything else bar love .................

    Thanks for your comment Mark

  3. My first reaction to reading this was to write a comment saying that althougj the church can be criticised for being a scandalous institution, in some way or another it manages to hold a huge community in harmony by teaching it what is right and what is wrong. But now,on second thoughts, I am thinking ... Is there something within ourselves that helps us in choosing between the two ???Is there some sort of natural law that enables us to make this choice regardless of churches, commumities etc??in such a case I think the church would be made redundant !!

  4. Dear Donna, thanks so much for your comment here. It is always great to have feedback. As far as Natural Law is concerned according to Thomas Aquinas there is such a law and it's three main features are: procreation, search for truth and (sorry can't think of the third one right now ... will come back to it later on. So yes there are certain rules which nature writes in our hearts and this goes beyond any church or religion. however, i feel that these laws need to be exercised and you know how it is, once you have human beings interacting with one another, chaos is inevitable. And so the Church makes sure that law are introduced in order to have these Natural laws protected from abuse. So in other words, the church in not redundant.

    Not every single human being has the faculty to reflect like you do. you come across as someone who asks questions and that is great. Unfortunately, people need someone to think for them and Catholics in particular i find. Paternalism is something which is so strong that it has started to make me sick however, i have come to accept the fact that the Church is not meant to be perfect: if so, why did Jesus ask Peter to be the rock !!! The weakest of the twelve. that is something which i'm reflecting on these days: maybe we don't understand the Church because we expect her to be perfect, where it is not how it should be ....... believe me i don't know, still searching for the truth here !!!

    Take care