> Matt 27:3-4 clearly states that he felt remorse for what he did and he wanted to attone but was rejected.

His atonement was rejected by the chief priests, human haters of Jesus with an axe to grind and an agenda to complete. They ignore the innocent blood, the righteous blood, Judas’s guilt, and also their own guilt in the matter. Their rejection cannot be used as an assessment of how God or the Gospel writers (in this case, Matthew, the apostle) felt. We look for other clues.

A.T. Robertson makes what I consider to be a worthy critique of Judas and the vocabulary used: "Probably Judas saw Jesus led away to Pilate and thus knew that the condemnation had taken place. The word doesn’t have an evil sense in itself. (Paul uses it of his sorrow for his sharp letter to the Corinthians, a sorrow that ceased when good came of the letter, 2 Cor. 7.8.) But mere sorrow avails nothing unless it leads to change of mind and life. This sorrow Peter had when he wept bitterly. It led Peter back to Christ. But Judas had only remorse that led to suicide."

I guess I'm still not convinced that the Bible vilifies him.

> The field that was then bought with the money he got for the betrayal was used to bury those that are considered outside of the society, which is again a clear indication of rejection.

Yes, the chief priests were very rejecting, but Matthew is reporting at this point, showing their callous regard for anything outside of their agenda, and how godless these religious leaders truly were. Who Matthew is clearly judging is the religious leaders, not Judas.

> The message here is clearly that the field, "his" field, is where those get buried that don't belong to us.

I'm not sure where you're getting that it was "his" field. The money legally belonged to Judas, but there it was on the floor of the temple. It was illegal for the priests to just take it back (Mt. 27.6), so they bought a field in his name.

Did Judas buy the field (Acts 1.18), or did the chief priests buy it (Mt. 27.7)? It was Judas’s money, and given the circumstances, the priests took Judas’s money and bought the field. It was Judas’s money that bought it, but the priests are the ones who made the transaction. In both cases the field is called the Field of Blood, so both are talking about the same money, the same transaction, and the same plot of land.

And, yes, it was used to bury "those who don't belong to us." I think this is far more a reflection on what godless jerks, hypocrites, and scoundrels the chief priests are more than any reflection on Judas. All through the book Matthew has been maligning the religious leaders of the day. This passage continues the theme of their guilt.

> John 13:27 that Jesus knew what Judas had in mind

I'm glad you chose John 13, because it shows how many times and in what ways Jesus is giving Judas an out. In v. 11, notice that Jesus even washed Judas's feet, and Judas let him. We know what was being spoken by Jesus’s action: Judas, you still have a chance to turn back. No one is forcing you to do this. Repent. Turn back to me. I love you.

Verse 12 is a searching question, particularly for Judas.

In verse 17 we see Jesus here, in a kind way, including an offer to Judas: you can still turn around from what you are planning.

In verse 21, we can see the pain Jesus's defection had caused Jesus. this was no railroading job of Judas as an innocent scapegoat.

When Jesus says outright, "One of you is going to betray me" (v. 21), you'd think it would pierce Judas's heart. Would he feel enough love for Jesus to desert his plan? Judas is by this time, no doubt, scared and a bundle of nerves, but we see he is still determined to follow through on his plan.

In v. 22 we see the disciples at a loss, presumably searching their own souls. Judas, still present in the room, also searched his own soul, and obviously closed down his own conscience and continued with his betrayal. He sealed his own fate.

Jesus treats Judas very respectfully, not pointing the finger in front of all 12 making a big scene (v. 26). Dipping and sharing bread was a token of friendship in their culture. Jesus is reaching out yet again, as he did when he washed Judas's feet, to convince his friend to turn back from his plan.

Michael Card observes: "A fairly good case can be made that, up until the betrayal, Judas might have, indeed, been one of Jesus's closest friends. After all, he had been chosen as one of the Twelve and entrusted with the moneybag, not a responsibility Jesus would have taken lightly. A reconstruction of the seating arrangement for the Last Supper indicates that, while John was sitting at Jesus's right hand, the place of the honored guest, Judas was sitting at Jesus's left, the place of the intimate friend (Ps. 41.9)."

Read Romans 9.14-33. Even those who are evil, ignorant, misshapen, and rebellious have a chance, through their own free will, to turn to the Lord and be remade as new creations. Jesus appealed to Judas over and over, especially at the Last Supper, washing his feet and dipping the sup with him. Judas had every opportunity to turn, exercise his free will, and be godly. But he didn’t.

But the whole story would unravel if Judas didn’t betray him. Here’s the deal: Judas was a betrayer long before Jesus picked him up. He was chosen as a disciple as a betrayer. We know that Judas skimmed off the money purse, betraying his own discipleship group. God didn’t force Judas to do what he did, but the conclusion was certain. Judas wasn’t set up, and there was always an opportunity to not do it. Judas chose it, and God knew he would choose it.

Let’s take Peter. There was also a prophecy that Peter would deny, and that Peter would fall away, and what Jesus said about that was, “Satan wants to sift you like wheat, but I will pray for you.” In other words, Peter had the same choice. Peter chose what Judas could have: Peter chose to turn back.

By verse 27, Judas must have been wiggling around in his own skin from anxiety. But even at this point Jesus gives him an out, and still treats him with kindness. Jesus offered the bread of intimate friendship to Judas, and he took it. This is the second act of betrayal, and it will be followed by a third one in the garden. (The first had been making the deal and taking the cash.) Judas betrayed Christ 3 times, just as Peter denied Christ three times.

I still don't see Matthew as vilifying Judas, but showing us the depth of Jesus's love and the lengths he went to turn Judas back. Larry Richards makes a comment I find interesting: "In a way Judas represents everyone to whom Jesus offers light and life, and who refuse to respond with faith. Judas had both seen and heard, yet failed to respond. But he did look like the other followers of Jesus, and he talked like them. No one, not even the other disciples, could tell he had rejected Jesus. Judas proved he could wear the mask of piety." I think these are the objects of Matthew's writing about Judas. I think the text is going out of its way to tell us how fairly Judas was treated.

The vilification is in my opinion in how he is treated when he showed remorse. Matt 27:3-4 clearly states that he felt remorse for what he did and he wanted to attone but was rejected. The field that was then bought with the money he got for the betrayal was used to bury those that are considered outside of the society, which is again a clear indication of rejection. The message here is clearly that the field, "his" field, is where those get buried that don't belong to us.

God did probably not force his hand, but it is obvious from John 13:27 that Jesus knew what Judas had in mind, even though the other Apostles did not understand at the point and interpreted it differently (13:28-29). I would interpret this so that there is an understanding that this will happen and that Jesus at the very least approved of it. This is why I do not understand why John 13:27 talks about Satan giving him that idea. Why would Satan aid in the fulfilment of the plan for salvation?

I'm looking for the place in the Bible where he was vilified. That's probably where we should start. In Matthew 27.4, he shows a sense of guilt for betraying innocent blood, but I don't see any vilification.

Let's see, in Acts 1.20, Peter regards the space he left in the Apostolic "band" to be a fulfillment of prophecy. I don't see any vilification.

So let's start with: Where in the Bible is Judas vilified? It seems to me he is treated rather matter-of-factly.

> I don't know if I'd consider him evil.

I don't see anywhere where the Bible considers him evil. If you know a text to that effect, let's talk about it.

> wasn't he just doing what he had to do?

Judas was not forced to do what he did. We can't say, "God made him do it." Judas had choices all along the way, and he made his own choices. God, who lives outside of time, had seen the act he was going to perform, but knowledge isn't causative. Judas made his own choices.

Let's talk some more about this.

Yes, he is crucial in the condemnation of Jesus, but wasn't that required for the salvation? Jesus had to die on the cross for the salvation to work, he himself said so (at least I would interpret John 19:30 that way). Without Judas' betrayal, would Jesus have been crucified and could the salvation have taken place?

If not, why was he still vilified by the Bible? He hanged himself in Matt 27:5, which I can somehow understand because he probably thought of himself as a bad person who deserved death, but 6-8 states clearly that the blood money is still unclean and must not be touched or accepted by the priests for the temple so they bought a potter's field with it. Acts 1:18 is even more direct by saying he bought a field with that money but died there by what seems to be divine interference, suggesting that god didn't agree with him betraying Jesus and essentially setting the crucifixion in motion.

In either case the field is then used to bury strangers, which at this time pretty much meant that anyone lying there is outside of society, an outcast, an unwanted person.

But didn't he just do what he was supposed to do? Jesus apparently even knew that Judas was going to betray him (John 13:27), even encouraged him to do it.

I don't know if I'd consider him evil. He had a very sorry part to play, but in the end, wasn't he just doing what he had to do? Without his betrayal, no crucifixion, without crucifixion, no salvation.