Alternative Views of Hell

[Guest]

Matthew 26:24
"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”


Why did Jesus say this about Judas if he will eventually be saved anyway. Certainly no amount of suffering/correction can equal a time where it would be better that your not even born. Especially when one is going to be spending eternity with the Father, eventually anyway.

I saw an interesting rendering of this verse in my readings. I will let others judge as to it merits. In reading the words from the Greek, it seems it is possible to read it such that "It would be good for Him (Christ) if that man (Judas) had not been born." Apparently in the first case where the word "him" (strongs 846) is used it refers to Christ, Judas is first referenced as "that man" (strongs 444, 1565). If both references to "Him" are Christ, and both references to "that man" are to Judas, it reads much differently.

This is how it is rendered in Youngs Literal Translation:


"the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him(Christ), but woe to that man (Judas) through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him (Christ) if that man (Judas) had not been born."


(bold parentheses mine)

This is just one way to look at it. In any case, there are many sayings in first century literature that are startling to me and I am not sure how to understand them. I recommend care in reading too much into them. It is quite possible Jesus was not intending us to read into it the final state of Judas.

Mike

[Guest]

This is just one way to look at it. In any case, there are many sayings in first century literature that are startling to me and I am not sure how to understand them. I recommend care in reading too much into them. It is quite possible Jesus was not intending us to read into it the final state of Judas.


It may be hyperbole like Jesus saying "it would be better for him if a millstone were tied around his neck and he were tossed into the sea."
Or perhaps the word "all' is not literal and means most or majority and not literally every last person will be saved.

[Guest]

steve7150 wrote:

TK, Jesus is called "the savior of the world" , isn't it rather presumptious to believe only the few on the narrowpath in this life is meant by the "world?"

then why did jesus say it if it wasn't a true statement? if he didnt mean what he said, then he was either outright lying (against his character), being misleading (against his character), just kidding (against his character) or not being very nice (against his character). i guess another possibility is that he was mistaken (because he did not know God's ultimate plan) but i do not hold that this can be the case.

i must be missing something.

TK

[_Sean]

Matthew 26:24
"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”


Why did Jesus say this about Judas if he will eventually be saved anyway. Certainly no amount of suffering/correction can equal a time where it would be better that your not even born. Especially when one is going to be spending eternity with the Father, eventually anyway.

I saw an interesting rendering of this verse in my readings. I will let others judge as to it merits. In reading the words from the Greek, it seems it is possible to read it such that "It would be good for Him (Christ) if that man (Judas) had not been born." Apparently in the first case where the word "him" (strongs 846) is used it refers to Christ, Judas is first referenced as "that man" (strongs 444, 1565). If both references to "Him" are Christ, and both references to "that man" are to Judas, it reads much differently.

This is how it is rendered in Youngs Literal Translation:


"the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him(Christ), but woe to that man (Judas) through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him (Christ) if that man (Judas) had not been born."


(bold parentheses mine)

This is just one way to look at it. In any case, there are many sayings in first century literature that are startling to me and I am not sure how to understand them. I recommend care in reading too much into them. It is quite possible Jesus was not intending us to read into it the final state of Judas.

Mike

I can appreciate that Mike, thanks. But this isn't the only thing said about Judas:

John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition

Perdition seems to be the opposite of eternal life, the gift Christ has offered as described in 1 John 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

It seems that here and other places the bible gives us ways to tell if someone has eternal life or not. I don't see how this information would be of any use if someone can die in rebellion against God and still be saved later. It seems that all the "tools" the NT writers gave us aren't very useful in this respect if someone can repent after death.

[_Sean]

Jesus also said that "few" find the narrow path. was this a true statement, or not? he didn't say "few in this life;" he just said "few." if the actual statement of Jesus was true, isnt it rather presumptious to suggest that he really meant to say "few in this life?"


TK, Jesus is called "the savior of the world" , isn't it rather presumptious to believe only the few on the narrowpath in this life is meant by the "world?"

It says "few find it". Seems to suggest effort on our part to follow and obey Christ. Look at all the "failures" God had in the OT, always judging his people. Why didn't he just do a better job leading? Maybe because we can rebel if we want? Beyond God's control, even. Why could this not extend to final judgment, where people never repent.

[Guest]

steve7150 wrote:

TK, Jesus is called "the savior of the world" , isn't it rather presumptious to believe only the few on the narrowpath in this life is meant by the "world?"

then why did jesus say it if it wasn't a true statement? if he didnt mean what he said, then he was either outright lying (against his character), being misleading (against his character), just kidding (against his character) or not being very nice (against his character). i guess another possibility is that he was mistaken (because he did not know God's ultimate plan) but i do not hold that this can be the case.

i must be missing something.

TK

I realize that this requires a real shift in paradigm to consider it this way, but maybe He wasn't talking about "heaven when you die", but life in this age? After all Jesus came to announce that the kingdom of heaven (aka, kingdom of God) had drawn near. He also announced a coming judgment on Jerusalem within the lifetime of those present. I wonder how many times we (2000 years later) mistake his warnings and exhortations for that generation and take them to be a commentary on end of the world type of final judgment.

It seems clear that relatively few find life in this age. To "find" life we first have to "lose" it (cf: Mt. 10:39 - the word translated "lose" here has elsewhere been translated as destroyed).

Mike

[Guest]

I can appreciate that Mike, thanks. But this isn't the only thing said about Judas:

John 17:12
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition

Perdition seems to be the opposite of eternal life, the gift Christ has offered as described in 1 John 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

It seems that here and other places the bible gives us ways to tell if someone has eternal life or not. I don't see how this information would be of any use if someone can die in rebellion against God and still be saved later. It seems that all the "tools" the NT writers gave us aren't very useful in this respect if someone can repent after death.

Sean,

I have no doubt that when Jesus said Judas was lost, indeed he was.

When the Bible says someone is lost, and compare that to someone who HAS "eternal" life, you seem to see something being said that I don't necessarily see. I hear you saying "eternal" life means go to heaven and live with God forever. I see "eternal" life as a special kind of relationship with God where I know Him and He knows me. We have a depth of relationship, a trust, that is familial, a relationship that is not shared by a "murderer".

The Bible does indeed give us "tools" for determining whether someone has this kind of relationship with God (ie: whether they HAVE "eternal" life). Whether or not they can repent after they die seems a separate question. I do not find anywhere in scripture where this question is clearly addressed. I choose to hope that God will allow people, having "seen the light" to repent. That does not mean that they get with away all the sins they committed. We all will reap what we sow, and we will suffer loss for our poor choices. But I have hope in a God whose mercies never fail.

Mike

[Guest]

...but universalism, to me at least, seems to dilute the gospel to the point of being worthless.

TK,

I understand what you mean here. You are saying, why are there so many warnings against sin if everyone goes to heaven anyway? Don't you believe that there is a penalty for sin in this life? Do you believe your life in relationship with Christ is far better than without it? Aren't those reasons enough for someone to repent and follow Christ? Perhaps the whole Gospel message isn't about the afterlife, but about this life. Traditional teaching puts almost the entire focus on the afterlife: it makes this life almost incidental. I think it is the other way around. The bulk of the teaching and message is really about this life.

Todd

[Guest]

Are Christians the firstfruits?

James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

Rev 14:4
These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

If Christians are the firstfruits who are the later fruits?

Rom 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

This scripture seems to indicate that after the firstfruits are resurrected (redemption of the body) the rest of God's creation will also be delieverd from the bondage of corruption (physical death) unto the [same] glorious liberty of the children of God (Christians, firstfruits).

How do the traditionalist/annihilationist camps understand this?

Todd

[Guest]

then why did jesus say it if it wasn't a true statement? if he didnt mean what he said, then he was either outright lying (against his character), being misleading (against his character), just kidding (against his character) or not being very nice (against his character). i guess another possibility is that he was mistaken (because he did not know God's ultimate plan) but i do not hold that this can be the case.

It is a true statement and the broad road leads to DESTRUCTION and the number saved in this age is "few" and is a "little flock" Luke 13 because IMHO the rest of the world "yearns for the revealing of the sons of God" Rom 8.20.
Yet so are the other statements about Jesus being "the savior of the world" or coming not to judge the world "but to save it" also true.
Yet he will judge the world, but he said he did'nt come to judge but to save it.
So what gives? Different ages, different purposes at least that's how i see it.