Madam, - I wonder if Caravaggio, in between versions of The Taking of Christ, ever paused to consider the uniquely unfortunate position in which Judas Iscariot found himself. His presence among the disciples was solely to fulfil the Old Testament prophecy of the manner in which Jesus would be put to death.
Jesus predicted his betrayal on a number of occasions, most notably at the Last Supper, where he made it clear that he knew the identity of his betrayer. If he came into the world to save sinners, why did he not, at that point, try to dissuade Judas - maybe by offering to turn himself over to the authorities who, sooner or later, would have arrested him anyway?
Matthew tells us that Judas, having accepted the 30 pieces of silver, later handed the money back in a fit of remorse, before hanging himself. Thus he fulfilled the two requirements for salvation: faith and repentance. Some would probably assert that, by committing suicide, he died in a state of mortal sin, but modern thought would certainly make allowances for his state of mind, which we can scarcely imagine.
When a successor to Judas is chosen, as recounted in Acts, the other disciples seem to dismiss him as a villain, and take the view that he got his just deserts, but I believe we should revise our verdict on him. It is clear that he could have behaved in no other way, and that his actions were effectively predestined.
We, at times of moral crisis, can exercise our free will, but Judas was denied this possibility. Is it fair that his name should be associated only with treachery, when he played such a central part in the story of our redemption? - Yours, etc.,
PAUL GRIFFIN, Cilgerran, Cardigan, Wales.