Judas Iscariot and the "Doctrinal Devastation Wave"

Judas the Misunderstood: “Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus with a kiss, is to be given a makeover by Vatican scholars.” Yeah, poor Judas has been misunderstood for centuries. I mean, I know Jesus called him “the devil” (John 6:70-71) and all, but deep down inside he’s really a great guy!

It is very evident that postmodernism, the inability to call anyone (and I mean anyone) a sinner, and the desire to make God a tolerant teddy bear have affected the Vatican. Doctrines such as the depravity of man and the holiness of God have long been removed from the thinking of “religious” man. We don’t hear too many people saying about God, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil, and You cannot tolerate wrong” (Hab 1:13) anymore. Specifically, the postmodern mushy-mush has greatly affected the Vatican in its attempt to “redo Judas.”

***QUOTE***

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”.

***END-QUOTE***

I’m curious of what we are to think of Pharaoh, or even Satan himself. Both were fulfilling God’s plan, yet both were willfully intending to do evil against God’s people and ultimately Christ himself. Do they get a “get in free pass” because they were fulfilling God’s plan? Or, let’s broaden this. Scripture states, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will” (Proverbs 21:1). God’s plan cannot be thwarted. He has promised that his “counsel shall stand” (Isaiah 46:10). So yes, even Hitler was fulfilling God’s purpose. Does that mean that we are supposed to rewrite history, and change the way that everyone has viewed Hitler? Certainly not!

***QUOTE***

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”. Now, 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”.

***END-QUOTE***

Notice how quickly the point of view is changed: “According to St Luke, Judas was ‘possessed by Satan.’ Now, a campaign led by Monsignor Walter Brandmuller…” In other words, “Scripture says this, but now they affirm this.” This isn’t simply about redefining the sinful nature of man. More importantly, it is about redefining the holy nature of God. Who is the Vatican trying to protect? Jesus. They don’t really care about Judas. The real concern is that there would be a “lack of mercy by Jesus toward one of his closest collaborators.” In other words, unless Jesus denies his infinite righteousness in order to be “merciful” on one of his “buds” because that bud happened to “fulfill his part in God’s plan,” then we have a problem! We have the wrong Jesus!

But this goes beyond the scope of the person of Jesus. This is a redefining of the Christian worldview as a whole. Jesus represents Christianity. If Jesus is not tolerant of sin, then Christianity must not be tolerant of sin. And we simply can’t have that! Thus, the Christian worldview that has a God who “cannot tolerate wrong” is being redefined. But this is not something that is new to the Roman Church. Rome has long created this “Doctrinal Devastation Wave” by redefining one doctrine after another. First, man is ascribed the characterization being good and being able to do good. This not only redefines the depravity of man, but it also (as the wave affect is strung out) affects their doctrine of God. God can no longer inflexibly require absolute righteousness. Rather, he has to “give a guy a break” every once and a while. This is an attack at the core of the gospel, and ultimately, the necessity of the gospel. Rome must not realize that by redefining one doctrine, by affirming that all men are “deep down inside” really good (while the Bible says that the further you go in, the worse it gets), the gospel itself is destroyed. This is the “Doctrinal Devastation Wave,” and we see it occurring in the case with Judas Iscariot.

***QUOTE***

…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.

***END-QUOTE***

So a Gnostic, Sub-Biblical, Post-Apostolic, and historically inaccurate document found in a codex in Sahidic dialect that makes some hero out of the person of Judas Iscariot is about to be published, and we are supposed to alter the manner in which the totality of human history has viewed a man? This is simply anti-scholarship. But why is the Vatican willing to affirm something so foolish? Simple: the “Doctrinal Devastation Wave” has had its effect, and any excuse to manifest it will be sought after.

***QUOTE***

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”.

***END-QUOTE***

Does Brandmuller believe that the “Gospel of Judas” actually accurately conveys how the early Christians viewed Christ’s teachings? That would simply be naive. What is sought is a Judas that will represent “forgiveness of one’s enemies.” But who is Brandmuller talking about? Is he talking about Christians forgiving Judas, or Christ himself forgiving Judas? We can certainly forgive Judas (even more, Judas did not even specifically do harm to us). And if we are really preaching forgiveness, why can’t we forgive the Judas who is portrayed in Scripture? Why do we need to concoct some new Judas in order to forgive him? I admit that church history as been a little excessive when it comes to Judas (especially in the arts). But can’t Christians forgive even the worst of sinners? Why must history be changed?

Or perhaps Brandmuller is talking about Christ forgiving Judas. But again, we must ask this question: why do we need to “redo” Judas in order for Christ to forgive Judas? Here is why: in the gospel according to Rome, forgiveness is based upon the goodness of that person. Justification is conditional on not only the fact that a certain person has faith (and, by the way, we certainly do not see Judas possessing saving faith in Scripture), but on how well that certain person keeps up with his religious obligations. It is obvious that the Judas portrayed in Scripture simply won’t “cut it” when it comes to forgiveness, and if we want him to be forgiven, we must “redo” Judas, redefine the depravity of man, redefine the holiness of God, and throw the Gospel out of the window. Such is the affect of the “Doctrinal Devastation Wave.”

Evan May.