I glanced at the headlines this morning, and saw that the Dallas Morning News is going to do a series on Judas. Was he the traitor of Jesus? Or was he actually obeying Jesus by turning Him over to the authorities? So, we are going to have some "scholars" 2,000 years after the fact try to convince us that they have suddenly received these keen insights. They will tell us that what the church has traditionally believed has been wrong.
This seems to be the new fad. Supposed scholars reshaping the story, as if we have arrived at a new age of enlightenment. They haven't uncovered new information. But the implication is that those before them have just not been as savvy as they are. And major universities actually pay these folks to sit around and dream up this garbage.
Let's go back to the event in question. John was there! Not one of these folks with their PhD's were there (By the way, I think higher learning is marvelous. What I am opposed to is heresy masked in higher learning). John wrote that "the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus" (Jn. 13: 2). Now, unless the devil had suddenly become a "team player" -- allied with Jesus, this doesn't bode well for making Judas look like the hero.
And bless his heart. If he was actually doing Jesus such a favor, then Luke was really smearing Judas after he had killed himself. (By the way, why did Judas hang himself if turning Jesus over to the authorities was such a favor to Him?) In Act 1: 18, Luke says "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field." "Wickedness?" Since when did that go hand-in-hand with being allied with Jesus?
Oh, well. Unfortunately there are many gullible people who will listen to this nonsense because so much of it makes the gospel more palatable and more politically correct. But it's amazing what the story says when we just let it tell itself.