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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
Our time might be better spent in seeking holiness via respect and studying the word of God rather than fanciful theology. The other evening in class Mark asked what theology meant and then whether it was a good thing or bad. Guess how I answered?
It's amazing to me how many people feel the need to "disprove" the bible. I also saw yesterday where someone has now written a book saying that Jesus had a father from the aspect that there was no virgin birth. It amazes me that people will spend so much time trying to disprove something, when like you said there were people who were actually there who can tell us the truth about what happened. Sounds like they need to spend their time reading & studying the bible instead of trying so hard to disprove it.
Post a Comment