In Defense of Judas

We are approaching the time of year when Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, gets a bad rap.

"Bad, wicked, naughty Judas for handing Jesus over to be killed."

I think Judas understood the script that Jesus was preaching over and over-- "The Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of sinners.  They will kill him, but he will arise on the third day."

Judas willingly became the one to hand Jesus over.  His listened to his Rabbi and did what Jesus said.  It's as simple as that.

If anything, we should be looking askance at the Eleven.

"When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve.  And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me."  And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after the other, "Is it I, Lord?"-- Matthew 26:20-22

Sorrowful?  They should have been climbing over one another to volunteer for the job!  I think they didn't believe Jesus, especially that "rising on the third day" bit.  To them the death of Jesus would be the end of Jesus.

I can understand, perhaps even sympathize a bit.  I don't want anyone to die.  I would also have a hard time believing that a person who was killed by my hand would rise from the dead.

I think it took faith and massive courage for Judas to do what he did.  The story would have turned out much differently if he didn't.  In fact, using the word "betray" shows the anti-Judas bias of our English Bible translations.  We don't like betrayers, so using the word almost guarantees that we will see Judas as the bad guy who did the dastardly deed.

Try reading the Passion Narratives without an anti-Judas bias and see if that's a more satisfying way of understanding the texts.

I'm on Team Judas!

It's Not Easy Being Me

I should tell you a little more about myself so you'll know where I'm coming from.

As I state in the very first post of this blog, I'm primarily a thinker.  My brain never shuts off during waking hours.  It's a blessing and a curse, really.

It's a blessing because I'm able to see and understand different perspectives.  It's a curse for the same reason.

I find it difficult to come down on one side of an issue in a world where that is demanded.  To most people, things are either black or white, this or that, hot or cold.

"TAKE A STAND, MOTHERF***ER!!"

Yeah, I hear that a lot.  But I can't.  I'm not wired to do that.  Most people don't understand.  And this is exactly where the pressure mounts for me.  I'm a misfit in this world and I know it, but I don't want to be a misfit.

This is why I get excited when someone offers a third (or fourth, or fifth) way of looking at something.  I thrive on different perspectives.  Problem is it doesn't happen very often.

Which brings me to my blog post prior to this one, which took a look at Genesis 1.  I know all of the old arguments, and they're usually pitted against each other.  One side insists on Mosaic authorship and a literal reading; the other insists on a non-Mosaic priestly author and a more polemical reading.  Conservative vs. Liberal.

What if it didn't really matter?  What if there's another way of looking at this issue?  Those kinds of questions excite me because they open the issue up to new possibilities and fresh perspectives

Issues don't always have to be either/or, do they?