Why Judas Iscariot Wasn't a Sinner

Since I freely admit to be a non-practicing Christian, some will question how I can question matters of doctrine without opening myself to an allegation of hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty. I ask only that you first consider the following arguments and then my conclusion.

***

With the possible exceptions of Pontius Pilate and Satan, Judas Iscariot is probably the most hated figure in the history of Christianity. Although he is held in contempt by the vast majority of those who profess to follow the examples set by Jesus of Nazareth (except for the "forgiveness" parts), I propose that these condemnations of Judas are inconsistent with Christian theology and, therefore, to categorically condemn Judas as the epitome of sin is call into question the foundational principles of the Christian faith.

We may begin with the assumption that the statement "Judas Iscariot was a sinner" is indeed true. But for this statement to be accepted as true, it presupposes that we have established a broadly-encompassing definition of what a "sin" is or, more precisely, what is it that qualifies some course of action as being "sinful?"

There are many scriptural sources that identify specific, willful, acts as being sinful but, surprisingly, there is no Biblical source that gives a more broadly-encompassing definition of sin. We may, however, infer from scriptures such as 1 John 3: 4 ("Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness") and 5:17 ("All unrighteousness is sin") that, since "sin" is equated with "lawlessness" and "unrighteousness,' then "not sin" must therefore be "embracing the 'law'" and "righteous" where "law" is taken to be the "Law of Moses" as given in the Torah and that "righteous" is the same as "pleasing to God."

From the above, it would appear that we would be justified in concluding that we do not sin if we obey God's will (respect God's laws) or if we do not act in a manner that would prevent another person from obeying God's will. Likewise, we infer that not to do the will of God is to commit sin.

At this point we need no scriptural authority to validate our knowledge that God is omnipotent, which is to say "all powerful and all knowing." Furthermore, as both the Doctrine of the Trinity and John 1:1-3 will testify, God the Father and Jesus the Son are manifestations of each other. From this we know that to do God's will is not only pleasing to God but also pleasing to the second person of the trinity because, obviously, the son cannot contradict himself if he is truly part of the trinity.

If we accept the view that God is all-knowing, then we must also acknowledge that the second person of the trinity (Jesus) is also all-knowing. Since God is omnipotent and all-knowing, God must have full knowledge a priori (before) of future events, as would Jesus himself. This brings us to a critical decision point.

Since God is all-knowing, then God must have had a priori knowledge that Judas would betray Jesus; because if God was not aware of Judas' future actions then God is not truly omnipotent and Judaeo-Christian theology is constructed from a false premise.

Recall that we have previously established that to do God's will is not a sin. We also have determined that God is, by virtue of omnipotence, aware of the outcome of human history. Since God must have been aware of what Judas would eventually do, then Judas was merely "playing the role" assigned to him by God. Since that role given to Judas would have been God's will, and since to do God's will is not to sin, we must therefore conclude that Judas did not sin.

***

Over the years I've discovered that the very people whose initial response was to categorically declare Judas to be a sinner will also be the ones whose reactions to the above-presented argument will practically always be hostile and usually followed by my inclusion in some ever-expanding list of known sinners, blasphemers, and heretics. Since I do not feel that merely asking someone to reconsider their apparently misinformed opinions is sufficient reason for them to pray for my to condemnation to Hell, I developed two "theories" to explain such harsh responses.

I first I was willing to dismiss such hostility as nothing more than the intellectual equivalent of a knee-jerk response brought about by digging themselves into a logically- indefensible position by accepting their own dogma as being infallible and therefore above doubt. But there is another, and far darker, explanation as well.

There are far too many people in this world who believe that only their beliefs are correct; that they (and the few others of the same persuasion) represent the "One True Faith" and that those who foolishly cling to the "errors" of any other faith must be made to recognize their errors or risk the wrath of God. Sadly, and all too often throughout the course of history, these "True Believers" in the "One True Faith" will see themselves as the agents of God's wrath and then behave accordingly.

I simply submit that if the "True Believers" cannot convince me of the virtues of their faith by demonstrating it by the examples of their lives, then they have forfeited any moral argument that compliance with the terms of that faith should be required by secular law or though some other form of intimidation. If you can show me, then all will be well and good. If you cannot show me, shut up and let someone else try.

I leave you, gentle reader, with something that Jesus of Nazareth must have said on many occasions:

Shalom.