Ship of Fools: Did Judas repent?

Thread: Did Judas repent? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027021

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I don't want to re-hash the old attempts to cast Judas as a decent bloke - until the end of his life.

But I do want to revisit the traditional assertion that Judas put himself out of the way of forgiveness as a result of his suicide.

Three questions to begin with.

1. How sure can we be that Judas killed himself?

2. If he did, why does this preclude his forgiveness?

3. If the suicide was a despairing act, how can we know of what he was despairing - one account has his guts comiong out as he falls headlong. This is not the usual outcome of hanging, AFAIK.
Could it have been cancer? A strangled hernia?

An extra question has come to mind, based not on biblical accounts (which is why this is in Puerg and nnot Keryg):

4. Could the undisguised hatred of of the early church fathers prompted by the suicide be indicative of disappointment - that the Church, not Jesus, was robbed of the op[portunity to punish him?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Is there an Easter without Judas?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is there an Easter without Judas?

Can you explain how this addresses the OP, which is not about whether Judas' betrayal was necessary, but about whether he might have repented of it?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by no prophet;

quote:

Is there an Easter without Judas?

Yes. They would have paid someone else.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I agree with fletcher. In the account, Judas is needed to identify Jesus at the garden. There were presumably many people who had spoken with Jesus, not all of them his followers, and any one of them could have identified him, perhaps even gratis.

The original question here was about the suicide of Judas. I remember that in one of Ursula LeGuin's books ("The Left Hand of Darkness"), there is an observation that the suicide is an even worse offense than the betrayal, in that it denies the possibility of making any sort of amends or atonement. (It's been too long since I last read it; perhaps I am remembering it imprecisely.)

The notion that Judas was murdered, not a suicide, is provocative but seems unlikely.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Could it be possible that the suicide itself was an act of repentance.

In that Judas realised he had done wrong and his grief led him to top himself.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I agree with fletcher. In the account, Judas is needed to identify Jesus at the garden. There were presumably many people who had spoken with Jesus, not all of them his followers, and any one of them could have identified him, perhaps even gratis.

This long puzzled me. In fact I would have thought the authorities could have recognised Jesus themselves.

However, Judas in his misguided anger is in fact very welcome for the authorities, because he is a scapegoat. They have someone to do their dirty work for them. The money changing hands is a way of binding Judas to his commitment and depersonalising the matter for them.

The question of just how or where Judas died is a vexed one if you look at the Gospels and Acts closely enough. I don't think suicide puts him beyond the pale but I am a bit worried by Jesus calling him the "son of perdition" and Peter saying he has gone "where he belongs".

[ 20. March 2014, 19:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is there an Easter without Judas?
Can you explain how this addresses the OP, which is not about whether Judas' betrayal was necessary, but about whether he might have repented of it?

My point is why do we need Judas involved at all. The question of his involvement in the Easter story has always puzzled me, and I like Eutychus' discussion about this re scapegoat and dirty work.

A related question is whether Judas could be forgiven if he repented.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

His forgiveness is before his suicide. Before his existence. Let alone his obvious repentance.

[ 20. March 2014, 19:57: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I've always assumed that Judas' suicide was an act of utter despair. Having realised what he'd done, he goes off to commit an act that he possibly thought would put him outside the realm of forgiveness, issuing himself with the punishment he thought he deserved. It's a story full of sadness at not seeing just how vast the forgiveness of God could be.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't think his suicide has anything at all to due with his state of forgiveness. That idea IMHO is based on the thought that repentance is something we have to carry out in this life after the sinful act, and since suicide has no this-world "after," therefore...

No.

The one thing that would cause Judas to be damned is not suicide, or betraying Christ, or being a generally all round rotten guy. It is lack of faith. Lack of trust in the very Christ who was holding out his hands to him all the time, urging him to come back, to accept mercy, to take forgiveness. And if someone lacks faith and refuses grace and never, ever, is willing to have that changed, not in all eternity, even God himself can do nothing about it. That's what free will means. That's why it is possible to have a loving, all-powerful God and STILL have people end up in hell. Because God will not overrule their free choice.

Basically, what Peter and Judas did was exactly the same thing (though one looks a bit more cold-blooded than the other, because it was premeditated). Both denied him. Both betrayed his trust both as friends and disciples. Both were instrumental in his death.

The only difference between them is that Peter DID have faith (Jesus mentions praying for him in that area specifically--"I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail..."). Peter fell apart emotionally just as Judas did. But Peter still believed that Jesus would forgive him. Which he did.

Poor Judas.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
1. How sure can we be that Judas killed himself?

As sure as we can be of anything written in the Bible.

Are there any separate sources of information about Judas besides the Bible?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Basically, what Peter and Judas did was exactly the same thing (though one looks a bit more cold-blooded than the other, because it was premeditated). Both denied him. Both betrayed his trust both as friends and disciples. Both were instrumental in his death.

The only difference between them is that Peter DID have faith (Jesus mentions praying for him in that area specifically--"I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail..."). Peter fell apart emotionally just as Judas did. But Peter still believed that Jesus would forgive him. Which he did.

The Peter-Judas parallel makes me wonder. Is this a literary device and good story-telling?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

So Judas isn't forgiven?

If you were Jesus you wouldn't forgive him?

While he was yet a sinner?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The Peter-Judas parallel makes me wonder. Is this a literary device and good story-telling?

Sure, why not? Though that doesn't stop it from being historically true, as well.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So Judas isn't forgiven?

If you were Jesus you wouldn't forgive him?

While he was yet a sinner?

Of course you can forgive; but for that forgiveness to have any effect in the person's life, they have to believe/trust/have faith in it/me.

Take my old boss. I can (and am trying to) forgive him completely, but that isn't going to make a darn bit of difference to him unless he a) wakes up and realizes that he has done evil, and b) is willing to entertain the far-fetched notion that contacting me might NOT end up in a nuclear reaction. Otherwise our relationship remains the same--utterly severed. (The forgiveness will do ME some good, uncluttering my brain and lowering my blood pressure and so forth--but it won't do zip for him until a) and b)).

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Lamb Chopped, I'm trying to understand the line you're taking.

You say that Judas was damned, not for his suicide, nor for betraying his Lord, but for his lack of faith.

Does this mean that all who lack faith are damned?

Is our faith something we do? Our work? I was always under the impression that it was ultimately only by the grace of God that we were able to believe.

You can see where I think your argument is leading you.

I tend more to Martin PCNot's point of view.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Lamb Chopped, I'm trying to understand the line you're taking.

You say that Judas was damned, not for his suicide, nor for betraying his Lord, but for his lack of faith.

Does this mean that all who lack faith are damned?

Is our faith something we do? Our work? I was always under the impression that it was ultimately only by the grace of God that we were able to believe.

You can see where I think your argument is leading you.

I tend more to Martin PCNot's point of view.

It's by grace through faith. Or as Jesus said, '...everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life... Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.'

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Slightly belated to where the point was made, but

quote:
originally by HCH;
I agree with fletcher. In the account, Judas is needed to identify Jesus at the garden. There were presumably many people who had spoken with Jesus, not all of them his followers, and any one of them could have identified him, perhaps even gratis.

The need for Judas is not simply the identification but that he knew where and when Jesus was going and could lead the troops there. Since he was needed for that he would also be the best person to identify Jesus in the (probable) moonlight.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Now were getting into the whole faith vs works thing, and is faith actually a kind of work itself ( no), and how can it be that if we have faith it is wholly credited to God's good gift (grace) and not our own action or choice, but if we do NOT have it, the blame is solely ours. And the logical problems involved with holding such a position (which I do, and logic be hanged).

It would make a fine discussion, but I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The Peter-Judas parallel makes me wonder. Is this a literary device and good story-telling?

I don't think a good story is necessarily untrue.

In fact, even as I made my last post here, I was thinking that Peter's role in getting Judas replaced in Acts. Taking it on himself to highlight just how bad Judas was and appoint a successor is quite a Peterish bull-by-the-horns way of deflecting attention from his own slipup (although I don't think it was of the same magnitude as that of Judas), and possibly bears witness to a bit of a guilty conscience still.

The more I consider the depth of character we see in many Bible figures, consistent across multiple authors, the more I feel we're getting a reliable picture of them.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

And Jesus is NOT capable, unlike ken's, of loving someone to love.

He's TOTALLY impotent.

And regardless, Judas did repent.

[ 21. March 2014, 05:28: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I've always felt that it was intended that Judas should be the one to betray Jesus and that there was probably nothing he could have done as he was caught up in the momentum. In the same way, nothing Pilate did or said could prevent the crucifixion as that act was necessary for our salvation. But I ask myself, does this mean that our whole life is pre ordained or are we able to really have total free will?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Neither. Jesus chose a thief. He saved that thief from eternity and will walk with him in the garden and all will be well.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
But I ask myself, does this mean that our whole life is pre ordained or are we able to really have total free will?

I think your phrase "caught up in the momentum" says it really well.

We had an animated discussion about both Pilate and Judas recently here in our study group as we work through the gospel of John (which we have been doing since at least 2011 [Hot and Hormonal]

).

I'm not sure how the systematic theology pans out, but I think you get a really clear if paradoxical picture of two people who act of their own free will and yet nonetheless are doing no more than what was foretold, as it says of Pilate in Acts. Each step is voluntary, but boy is it hard to break free once the ball is rolling. I can think of a lot of inmates in that situation [Votive]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Prophecy only foretells what's going to happen, it doesn't decide or ensure it happens. It merely relates to us what the prophetic eye saw as if it were there. It's news given in advance.

[ 21. March 2014, 06:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The one thing that would cause Judas to be damned is not suicide, or betraying Christ, or being a generally all round rotten guy. It is lack of faith.

God is not condoning evil in thought, word, or deed just as long as one believes in Him; and if someone dies in mortal sin, then his sincere belief in God will be confirmed as true to him in hell, not heaven.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Neither. Jesus chose a thief. He saved that thief from eternity and will walk with him in the garden and all will be well.

The good thief was saved by His sincere repentance when faced with God Himself. The bad thief was domed by his lack thereof (though yes, we only know the latter by reasonable inference from the actual text).

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's amazing how we project in to the white space.

Judas was the thief in question. Context.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's amazing how we project in to the white space.

Judas was the thief in question. Context.

Judas was crucified next to Jesus??

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's amazing how we project in to the white space. Judas was the thief in question. Context.

I thought that you were making an actual scripture-based argument, by making an analogy from the "good thief" to the case at hand. It turns out that instead you are simply asserting your opinion over and against scripture, which states clearly ... but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." Judas, who betrayed him, said, "Is it I, Master?" He said to him, "You have said so." (Matt 26:24-25)

As for the "necessity" of Judas treachery, and that it excuses him - such false thought has been around for a long time, and was rejected by the Church Fathers, e.g.,

quote:
Homily 81 on Matthew, St John Chrysostom
But some one will say, "Yet if it was written that He was to suffer these things, wherefore is Judas blamed, for he did the things that were written?" But not with this intent, but from wickedness. For if you inquire not concerning the motive, you will deliver even the devil from the charges against him. But these things are not, they are not so. For both the one and the other are deserving of countless punishments, although the world was saved. For neither did the treason of Judas work out salvation for us, but the wisdom of Christ, and the good contrivance of His fair skill, using the wickednesses of others for our advantage.

"What then," one may say, "though Judas had not betrayed Him, would not another have betrayed Him?" And what has this to do with the question? Because if Christ must needs be crucified, it must be by the means of some one, and if by some one, surely by such a person as this. But if all had been good, the dispensation in our behalf had been impeded. Not so. For the Allwise knows how He shall bring about our benefits, even had this happened. For His wisdom is rich in contrivance, and incomprehensible. So for this reason, that no one might suppose that Judas had become a minister of the dispensation, He declares the wretchedness of the man. But some one will say again, "And if it had been good if he had never been born, wherefore did He suffer both this man, and all the wicked, to come into the world?" When you ought to blame the wicked, for that having the power not to become such as they are, they have become wicked, you leave this, and busiest yourself, and art curious about the things of God; although knowing that it is not by necessity that any one is wicked.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Jesus' hyperbole is typical of Him, His culture.

I engage with 'scripture' - whatever that is - mate. You should try it.

Nothing is excusable and everything is forgiven.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus' hyperbole is typical of Him, His culture.

It is quite interesting that anything "negative" Jesus says becomes hyperbole to your ears, but nothing "positive" ever does. What precisely stops "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," from being hyperbole as well, hmm?

Yes, Jesus liked using hyperbole. But your selection bias concerning what you consider as hyperbole and what not is your selection bias. The bible still says what it says. It still has "positive" and "negative" parts. That some of them are expressed in hyperbole does not change the balance of what is being said, fundamentally. But you have completely veered to one side of things. There is room for reasonable argument about the precise balance and the best way to avoid bias. But you are simply nowhere near that discussion IMNSHO.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I ask again? "Judas was the thief on the cross?"

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I ask again? "Judas was the thief on the cross?"

Martin never said that. Martin spoke of Judas as thief (which he was) without naming him, and I misunderstood that he was making an analogy to the "good thief". However, this was not the case. Martin's comment was then directed at me, and meant "You (IngoB) should have realised from context that I was referring to Judas, not to the 'good thief'." It did not mean "From context we see that the 'good thief' is Judas."

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

See, you can still think for England within your very narrow assumptions [Smile]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
1. How sure can we be that Judas killed himself?
As sure as we can be of anything written in the Bible.

Are there any separate sources of information about Judas besides the Bible?

I take your point entirely. But the bible itself is not entirely clear on where. how and when Judas died. Is it?

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

IngoB. Thank you for the item from St John Chrysostom. Do you happen to know who or what this early father was replying to in that passage. I know it was just a homily on Matthew. But there's really no such thing as "just" a homily on anything, is there?

Is it possible that there were people around advocating the positions which he scotches? If not, then they are straw men, surely?

Well, no, not surely. Could it simply be a rhetorical device - the question/answer formality of a diatribe?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No mate, what's good is good. And what's hyperbole is hyperbole. And yeah, I see what I'm looking for: grace. Ethics. Not legalism predicated on wooden literalism. You sure you're not a YECist?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I know it was just a homily on Matthew. But there's really no such thing as "just" a homily on anything, is there?

These homilies are pretty much just that. Homilies. As this preface remarks:

quote:

The exegetical labors of Chrysostom are embodied in his Homilies, of which more than six hundred have been preserved. These are for the most part expository in their character, usually forming a continuous series upon some book of Scripture. ... Most of the Homilies were preserved by short-hand reports, but some were published by Chrysostom himself. [5] There are internal evidences that in many cases the spoken discourse had not been previously written, e.g., the rebuke of applause and of inattention on account of some distracting incident. Previous study is equally manifest in the expository portions; but the method of delivery as well as the method of preservation must modify our judgment of the preacher's exegetical accuracy. Probably many of the inconsistencies and inexact citations, noticeable in the Homilies, are due to one or the other of these causes.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
1. How sure can we be that Judas killed himself?
As sure as we can be of anything written in the Bible.

Are there any separate sources of information about Judas besides the Bible?
I take your point entirely. But the bible itself is not entirely clear on where. how and when Judas died. Is it?

Is it not?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Apparently Akeldama, by hanging or evisceration and some time after Jesus' arrest aren't forensic enough.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

According to Ruth Etchels he didn't need to repent in order to be 'saved'.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Apparently Akeldama, by hanging or evisceration and some time after Jesus' arrest aren't forensic enough.

Ihe interpretation I heard was that Judas hanged himself and somehow later on his body fell and burst open.

ewww
[Ultra confused]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Aye Mudfrog. Ropes and branches break. While you're still conscious. There's an art to hanging. The long drop is quick. Otherwise it takes 20 minutes and you urinate, defecate and ejaculate in that order. If he'd been dead and begun to bloat and then the branch broke, an obliging rock spur or branch a few metres below would have unzipped him. Someone saw him topple head first. A nice authentic touch.

It's going to be a very funny walk in the park for him!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The one thing that would cause Judas to be damned is not suicide, or betraying Christ, or being a generally all round rotten guy. It is lack of faith.
God is not condoning evil in thought, word, or deed just as long as one believes in Him; and if someone dies in mortal sin, then his sincere belief in God will be confirmed as true to him in hell, not heaven.

Ingo, we don't do the mortal sin thingy. From a Lutheran perspective all sin is mortal, and all sin is equally forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ. Whether one has had time to perform a mental act of repentance before death or not does not matter provided the underlying faith/grace relationship is there with Christ. Otherwise, anybody getting hit by a bus in the street would be more likely than not to go straight to hell, particularly with the very expansive and frightening definition of sin Jesus gives in Matthew 5-7. By those standards I sin every five minutes, if not more often.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ingo, we don't do the mortal sin thingy. From a Lutheran perspective all sin is mortal, and all sin is equally forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ. Whether one has had time to perform a mental act of repentance before death or not does not matter provided the underlying faith/grace relationship is there with Christ.

Two theological wrongs do not make one right, but rather a salvation-endangering practice.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Otherwise, anybody getting hit by a bus in the street would be more likely than not to go straight to hell, particularly with the very expansive and frightening definition of sin Jesus gives in Matthew 5-7. By those standards I sin every five minutes, if not more often.

It would require quite some dedicated effort to sin mortally every five minutes though. You cannot simply impose your "all sin is equal" on the highly differentiated Catholic system. (And it is a lot more differentiated than the binary "venial or mortal" result may suggest. Just like medicine is a lot more differentiated than a final "treatable or terminal" judgement.) The number of people in hell has been guesstimated variously throughout the centuries. However, the most optimistic take that is somewhat compatible with scripture and tradition is that most people who die will go to purgatory (and thus eventually to heaven), whereas some will go straight to hell and some will go straight to heaven. It is much easier though to defend the position that most people who die will go to hell, with some going to purgatory and a few going directly to heaven.

[ 22. March 2014, 02:02: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

IngoB, twas you who imposed RC categories on a Lutheran posting. My explanation of this was then followed by your further attempt to impose those categories on it as well. We're at cross purposes here and will get no further forward as the tangent devolves into "sez you" and variants. Let's drop it before we derail the Judas focus.

[ 22. March 2014, 04:23: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Otherwise, anybody getting hit by a bus in the street would be more likely than not to go straight to hell,

Their final word before the bus hits is not one you are likely to hear in Church. [Biased]

[code]

[ 22. March 2014, 15:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Depends on the church, I suppose...

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Well perhaps, for the record, I should make some attempt at answering my own questions.

1. Can we be sure that Judas killed himself?

I really cannot speak to the "we", only to the "I". I'm pretty sure he died a painful death. But I'm not sure where, when or how. Neither do I know for sure whether his identification as the betrayer (the sole
betrayer) originated before or after his death.

Lists of the disciples appear early on in all the gospels. Each time, Judas is noted as the one who betrayed Jesus. It was obviously an important fact in the minds of the evangelists.

That's as far as I can go, here, for now.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Further to the above:

Eutychus commented:

quote:
The question of just how or where Judas died is a vexed one if you look at the Gospels and Acts closely enough.

Attempts are made later in the thread to harmonise the gut-spilling and the hanging accounts, with comical frankness or questionable taste depending on what side of the bed you got out of this morning (I've been guilty myself of both - just sayin'...)

Any attempt at harmonisation has to be pure conjecture - but we're allowed intelligent guesses - this ain't Keryg! It's possible that the gut-spilling was the cause, rather than the effect, of the hanging, the latter being a desperate attempt to escape from an unbearable degree of pain.

It is also possible that any such illness would have confirmed suspicions of Judas's betrayal -or even have initiated them. The first account of the betrayal is quite sketchily recorded. The story grows barnacles, as does the devilish character of Judas himself, which continues to increase the length of his forked tail throughout the early centuries of christendom.

What we start with is the fact that when Judas returns to the disciples (we have to wait several decades and three more gospels to discover on what errand) the soldiers are with him. The disciples run away, because they are afraid.

Before moving on from Eutychus's post, I'd like to quote his following sentence to the quote aboe:

quote:
I don't think suicide puts him beyond the pale [answering my second question] but I am a bit worried by Jesus calling him the "son of perdition" {quoted with great relish by Leo the Great) and Peter saying he has gone "where he belongs."

So am I.

HCH writes "The notion that Judas was murdered, not a suicide, is provocative but seems unlikely"

I apologise if you think the provocation came from me. I have never posited the option of murder. Not that the (other) guilt-ridden disciples hadn't considered it (see Chapter 21 of John's gospel). Now that is provocative!

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

But does that make me a Troll? I hope not. I'll make one more attempt to keep this discussion going, jumping ahead to my fourth question - whether atonement and retribution might have been confused in the minds of the early church -

SAINT LEO THE GREAT (d.461)

The Passion (excerpt)

The Lord undertook that which he chose according to the purpose of His own will. He permitted madmen to lay their wicked hands upon him: hands which, in ministering to their own doom, were of service to the redeemer’s work. And yet so great was his loving compassion for even His murderers, that he prayed to the Father on the cross, and begged not for His own vengeance, but for their forgiveness, saying: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And such was the power of that prayer that the hearts of many of those who had said, “His blood be on us and on our sons”, were turned to penitence by the apostle Peter’s preaching, and on one day there were baptised about three thousand Jews and they all were “of one heart and of one soul”, being ready now to die for Him whose crucifixion they had demanded.

[Note to those who claim that the gospels were only referring to the Jewish authorities when the cry of “Crucify him!” went up. It must have been a pretty well-populated Establishment.] Leo continues:

To this forgiveness the traitor Judas could not attain; for he, the son of perdition, at whose right hand the devil stood, gave himself up to despair before Christ accomplished the mystery of universal redemption. For in that the Lord died for sinners, perhaps even he might have found salvation if he had not hastened to hang himself. But that evil heart, which was now given up to thievish frauds, and now busied with treacherous designs, had never accepted anything of the proofs of the Saviour’s mercy. Those wicked ears had heard the Lord’s words when He said, “I came not to call the righteous but sinners”, and “the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost”. But they conveyed not to his understanding the clemency of Christ, which not only healed bodily infirmities, but also cured the wounds of sick souls, saying to the paralytic man, “Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee; saying also to the adulteress that was brought to Him, “neither will I condemn thee; go and sin no more”, to show in all His works that He had come as the saviour, not the judge of the world.

But the wicked traitor refused to understand this, and took measures upon himself, not in the self-condemnation of repentance, but in the madness of perdition, and thus he who had sold the author of his life to His murderers, even in dying increased the amount of sin which condemned him.

“perhaps even he might have found salvation…” It’s a big “perhaps”. How could he atone to one he thought was dead? And is it credible that, had he thrown himself upon the mercy of the church, that body would have acted with the mercy of Christ? As far as Peter was concerned, even lying to the Holy Spirit was worthy of capital punishment – witness his treatment of Ananias and Sapphira. What chance would Judas have stood against the wrath of the avenging church? Leo was writing in the same century that the Patriarch of Alexandria was hell-bent on the eradication of heresy, and had already expelled the Jews wholesale. No, what Leo would have wanted was not Judas redeemed and reconciled, but Judas roasted. And for the next thousand years and more, frustrated Christians visited on those whom Peter had terrified in his guilt-ridden sermon the revenge that Judas, in his understandable despair, had cheated them of.

Maybe I'm being as hasty as Leo himself. A lot depends, I suppose, on when Judas did or didn't kill himself. In Matthew's gospel there is no doubt that Judas repented, and tried to give the money back bwecause it was blood money obtained for the life of an innocent man. That doesn't sound like pure remorse to me - if that wasn't the beginning of sdomething like an act of atonement, WTF was Leo looking for? And was Jesus approachable? What though all the disciples had deserted him, I imagine Judas would have been putting his life in danger if he tried to intervene in the process - something Peter wasn't prepared to do.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

How could he atone to one he thought was dead?

Short answer: No one, not Judas and not us, atones to Jesus for anything. The most we can do is ask for mercy. There's no way of making up for sin.

Judas' action in trying to return the money I read as a desperate last-minute attempt to reverse what he had set in motion--notice the emphasis on innocent blood. Judas is half-mad with his guilt, is trying desperately to find the "delete key" for his action, and when the authorities coolly remind him that there is no possibility of undoing it, he flings the money on the floor and goes out in despair to kill himself. There is no sense at all of either atonement or seeking grace--nothing but a desperate attempt to turn back time, and then harsh justice self-administered and untempered by the mercy Jesus or the disciples would have shown him.

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:

And is it credible that, had he thrown himself upon the mercy of the church, that body would have acted with the mercy of Christ? As far as Peter was concerned, even lying to the Holy Spirit was worthy of capital punishment – witness his treatment of Ananias and Sapphira. What chance would Judas have stood against the wrath of the avenging church?

Pimple, you're citing Leo, who came several centuries after the earliest disciples. That's a long, long time. Judas would not have been dealing with the likes of Leo, but rather with the likes of Peter, who had himself denied Christ and perhaps in consequence was very mild in what he said about Judas--in Acts 1, only that "he went to his own place."

I am not aware of any first or second century sources where Judas is vilified in the sense of "you nasty creature, we would never have done what you did!" In the New Testament itself, a shroud of decent silence is placed over what Judas did. I don't think Paul refers to him once, and the others only in Acts 1, that very mild mention.

The earliest disciples were all too aware that what was done to Jesus, was done by all humanity--by themselves as well. They ran away, they deserted him in the garden, they stayed away from the cross while he suffered, they didn't even claim his body (that was left for Nicodemus and Joseph to do). And then, against all hope, they received mercy and forgiveness and restoration in the resurrection of Jesus, who still loved them.

It is extremely hard to condemn another sinner when you are so close to the event that your own guilty role in it is ever before your eyes. It is even harder to condemn another sinner when you yourself have received such shining forgiveness for the same sin.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Bravo!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It is even harder to condemn another sinner when you yourself have received such shining forgiveness for the same sin.

And yet it is so, so prevalent.

Posted by The Kat in the Hat (# 2557) on :

Was that (reply to Lamb Chopped) what Tim Rice was getting at in his lyric "Judas' Death"?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't know. I just looked at the lyrics and his Judas seems to be blaming God for making him do it, which I don't believe happened. The lyrics confuse me a bit.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't know. I just looked at the lyrics and his Judas seems to be blaming God for making him do it, which I don't believe happened. The lyrics confuse me a bit.

God did make Pharaoh do it, at least one or two of the times. He's not a tame lion, etc.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Meh. That doesn't kick in until Pharaoh has already done it several times all on his ownie-o, and seems to me to be something along the lines of "all right, you wanna be that way, then BE that way, fine!" But whatever the case with Pharaoh, there's nothing in Scripture to say God had anything to do with making Judas do it at any point. But we digress. Don't we?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No, because we get to the postmodern - human - heart of these human stories.

The 2000 year old one is barely civilized. The 3500 year old one definitely isn't. God met us in both.

The OP itself is on the cusp of medieval-modern.

[ 01. April 2014, 07:02: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Lamb Chopped said:

quote:
It is extremely hard to condemn another sinner when you are so close to the event that your own guilty role in it is ever before your eyes. It is even harder to condemn another sinner when you yourself have received such shining forgiveness for the same sin.

What Mousethief said. Forgiveness for sins denied (internally, I mean) can create great
viciousness. That's badly put. It's not the forgiveness that produces the evil but the failure to recognize and accept the need for it.

I find Judas patently repentant - and what is repentance if not an earnest wish to turn the clock back, for heaven's sake? But Peter? I challenge you to quote one single word of repentance from the mouth of Peter. At the time of his denial we are told he went out and wept bitterly. That, for me, just doesn't cut the mustard as far as repentance is concerned. Nor does "I love you" dragged out of him three times by his patient master.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't know. I just looked at the lyrics and his Judas seems to be blaming God for making him do it, which I don't believe happened. The lyrics confuse me a bit.

I see it as Judas wanting to blame God for his own actions because he is feeling guilty and unsure what to do about it. At least in the song, he is not ready to take responsibility for his own actions, so he can't ask for forgiveness. I'd say it's a midrash, but not a bad one.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Lamb Chopped said:

quote:
It is extremely hard to condemn another sinner when you are so close to the event that your own guilty role in it is ever before your eyes. It is even harder to condemn another sinner when you yourself have received such shining forgiveness for the same sin.
What Mousethief said. Forgiveness for sins denied (internally, I mean) can create great
viciousness. That's badly put. It's not the forgiveness that produces the evil but the failure to recognize and accept the need for it.

I find Judas patently repentant - and what is repentance if not an earnest wish to turn the clock back, for heaven's sake? But Peter? I challenge you to quote one single word of repentance from the mouth of Peter. At the time of his denial we are told he went out and wept bitterly. That, for me, just doesn't cut the mustard as far as repentance is concerned. Nor does "I love you" dragged out of him three times by his patient master.

I think repentance certainly includes the wish to turn the clock back ("Oh, that I had never done that") and in the secular sense, maybe that's all it involves. "I totally repent eating that week-old potato salad, woe's me..."

But Christian repentance isn't just regret or remorse. It adds faith--at least enough trust in the mix that there actually IS a way out of my current mess, that God will MAKE that way for me though I don't deserve it--that, in fact, because of God's mercy there is reason to go on living in spite of how badly I just fucked up.

Judas and Peter are in fact the clearest example of the difference between simple regret/remorse and repentance. Both fucked up; both deserve judgement; both know it; both are devastated; both know they can't reverse it, though they desperately want to. But Judas took the totally human and logical step of imposing his own penalty. Peter was blessed with the illogicality of hanging on anyway--until Jesus showed up to complete his forgiveness, most likely in that mysterious private Easter Day visit that is mentioned but never described anywhere in Scripture.

As for your demand for a clear-cut Scripturally quoted "I repent" from Peter--you know, we don't get this from hardly anyone in Scripture, do we? The woman who wept at Jesus' feet--as far as we know, she never said a word. At least it's not reported--and why should it be? Paul, when he fell off his horse on the way to Damascus, never says, "Boy howdy, did I ever fuck up persecuting those Christians, I'm sorry." Peter, when he gets WAAAAYYY above himself and starts telling Jesus the cross isn't necessary, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you!" gets called "Satan" by that same Lord and Master, and we never hear of a "Sorry, Lord." "All right, Peter" exchange afterward. Seriously, it's not usually necessary. Actions speak just as loudly as words.

Judas imposed judgement on himself. That is the act of a man who despairs of any way of getting free of his guilt. Poor man. A very human and terribly sad response.

Peter--well, he weeps, but that could mean either remorse or repentance, so leave that out. And the fact that he is still around three days later could simply indicate an effective suicide watch by the other ten disciples. But then there's the whole tenor of his behavior by the Sea of Galilee, where he is almost puppy-dog anxious to do, and overdo, anything Jesus asks. There's his refusal to vilify Judas to the rest of the Christian assembly the week after the Ascension. There's his later life of service and evangelism. There's his death for Christ. All in all, I'd take that as a decent substitute for the reported words "I repent."

ETA: and of course Jesus had to drag "I love you" out of Peter. What decent human being would rush to repeat those words so soon after having totally denied them by his actions? It must have been like chewing broken glass for Peter to say so.

[ 01. April 2014, 15:42: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But whatever the case with Pharaoh, there's nothing in Scripture to say God had anything to do with making Judas do it at any point. But we digress. Don't we?

Only if you think that using Scripture to understand Scripture is digressing. I thought that was the Lutheran way. [Confused]

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I find Judas patently repentant - and what is repentance if not an earnest wish to turn the clock back, for heaven's sake?

Yeah, I'd think "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood" counts as admission of guilt, and attempting to give the money back shows repentance on any scale I can think of.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But Christian repentance isn't just regret or remorse. It adds faith--at least enough trust in the mix that there actually IS a way out of my current mess, that God will MAKE that way for me though I don't deserve it--that, in fact, because of God's mercy there is reason to go on living in spite of how badly I just fucked up.

True, although (a) Judas wasn't a Christian at the time of the crucifixion; he was Jewish; (b) you're implying here that Christians would never commit suicide, which is tantamount to saying that clinical depression is impossible for Christians.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
ETA: and of course Jesus had to drag "I love you" out of Peter. What decent human being would rush to repeat those words so soon after having totally denied them by his actions? It must have been like chewing broken glass for Peter to say so.

This kind of flies in the face of your words about Peter's puppy-dog like willingness to do what Jesus asked. If we're playing "what do you expect?" I'd expect he'd be too eager to say the words out of his joy at Jesus' resurrection and desire to make right what he f***ed up.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

huh??? Feeling like we've drifted into a miscommunication void here.... will have to come back at a slightly more leisured moment and try again.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Only if you think that using Scripture to understand Scripture is digressing. I thought that was the Lutheran way.

By digression, I meant Pharaoh.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But Christian repentance isn't just regret or remorse.
True, although (a) Judas wasn't a Christian at the time of the crucifixion; he was Jewish; (b) you're implying here that Christians would never commit suicide, which is tantamount to saying that clinical depression is impossible for Christians.

Of course I don't mean that, my own problems with depression have been referred to a zillion times on Ship, which I thought you, at least, would have come across. And I threw in the word "Christian" in contrast to "secular". I could have said "believers' " or something to cover the technicality, but that would have just fuzzed the issue further.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
ETA: and of course Jesus had to drag "I love you" out of Peter. What decent human being would rush to repeat those words so soon after having totally denied them by his actions? It must have been like chewing broken glass for Peter to say so.
This kind of flies in the face of your words about Peter's puppy-dog like willingness to do what Jesus asked. If we're playing "what do you expect?" I'd expect he'd be too eager to say the words out of his joy at Jesus' resurrection and desire to make right what he f***ed up.

Must be a personality thing. Me, if I had said (beg pardon, publicly communicated) that I loved Jesus so much that even if all my peers fell away, I would still be faithful unto death, and then screwed up, the last thing I'd be doing is saying anything that would bring the memory of the first occasion back to the memory of my hearers. I'd let my actions speak for me instead of words for a long, long time. And having Jesus publicly force the issue--well, I'd say it (as Peter did), but I wouldn't be at all happy to have him probing that wound--and right in front of those who heard me fuck up the first time.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0