Matt 26:24-25

[Perry]

Surely one of the most chilling exchanges in the entire Bible, to have Jesus tell you it would have been better for you not to have been born.

Does this statement have any ramifications with regard to views of hell?

[Paidion]

The idea that Jesus told Judas that he would have been better off not to have been born is an interpretation of what Jesus actually said.

Jesus, according to Matthew actually said: "Woe to that man through whom the son of man is delivered over." Then Jesus said:

καλον— ἠν—— αὐτῳ εἰ οὐκ ἐννηθη ————————ὁ ἀνθρωπος ἐκεινος
good were it for him if not had been begotten the man————that

This might be translated:

It were good for him if that man had not been begotten.

But to whom does the "him" refer? Many assume that it refers to Judas. If it does, then wouldn't the following be the natural way to say it, "It were good for him if he had not been born." Why does Jesus say "that man". I am inclined to think that "him" refers not to Judas, but to Jesus Himself.

In this verse, Jesus refers to himself in the third person. Let's consider Rotherham's translation:

The son of man, indeed, goeth his way, according as it is written concerning him,—but alas! for that man, through whom the son of man, is being delivered up: well, had it been for him, if, that man, had not been born!

It would have been better for Jesus personally if Judas had not even been begotten. He would not have had to undergo the excruciating pain of crucifixion.

To translate αὐτῳ as "for that man" as most translations do, is reading into the text what is already assumed. It is hard to believe that all of the following translations have rendered the word αὐτῳ ("for him") with the phrase "for that man": ASV, AV, Darby, EMTV, ESV, Murdoch, NKJV, NASB, Philips, RSV, Webster, Weymouth, and Williams. I have found only four translations in which the word αὐτῳ is faithfully translated as "for him", namely Rotherham, Douay, YLT, and CLV.

So with the understanding that it would have been better for Jesus personally if Judas had not even been conceived, the words do not seem to have any weight concerning our view of "hell".

[Homer]

It would have been better for Jesus personally if Judas had not even been begotten. He would not have had to undergo the excruciating pain of crucifixion.

So the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world" would not have been sacrificed if Judas had not been born! No Judas, God's plans thwarted! Hmm. Another desparate universalist argument?

[Perry]

Hi Paidion,

Now that you mention it, I think I've heard of that interpretation before, but I had forgotten it. Not being well versed in Greek I'll remain open to the possibility that what you have put forward is correct.

Even so, doesn't it still pose a problem for the universalist view? For, if Judas is eventually to be reconciled, wouldn't it be a net loss for God for Judas to never have been begotten? Or do you suppose that Jesus' statement was limited to the scope of His temporal human existence (i.e. "Son of man")?

[Perry]

So the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world" would not have been sacrificed if Judas had not been born! No Judas, God's plans thwarted! Hmm. Another desparate universalist argument?

I don't know.... Somehow the version Paidion has put forth doesn't seem all that impossible. Remember, at this time that this same lamb slain from the foundation of the world was praying that the cup could pass from Him. Given that mindset it doesn't seem all that unlikely that Jesus could have said something like "I would have been better off if Judas hadn't been born".

Still kind of spooky though, since it looks to me like he was speaking directly to Judas at the time... So that in modern vernacular, if Paidion is correct, it would have been more like "I would have been better off if you had never been conceived."

[Paidion]

So the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world" would not have been sacrificed if Judas had not been born! No Judas, God's plans thwarted! Hmm. Another desparate universalist argument?

So Homer, are you having difficulty in believing that Jesus was a real human being? That He possessed the full range of human emotions just like everyone else? Yes even fear? To emphasize his complete humanity,He said that He was "the son of man" many times. Indeed, the gospels record 72 times that He said this, but nowhere in the gospels did He say directly that He was the son of God. Yet, John records in John 10:36 that He indicated that He had said it. In any case, it seems that He affirmed His humanity a lot more often than He affirmed His deity.

Your bits of sarcasm are ludicrous.Jesus' feelings that He could have escaped what was in store for Him if Judas had not been born have no relevance to "God's plans" or His intention to go to His death which He indicated at various times to His disciples. The same feelings of wishing to escape the crucifixion came out on another occasion when He prayed, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me." Why not present your sarcasm also on that statement of our Lord's? For if the Father had let the cup of suffering pass from Jesus, then His "plans would have been thwarted."

He also manifested this human fear when He said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" Of course, God hadn't forsaken Him; He was with His Son through all that agony. But Jesus felt as if His God had forsaken Him. Can't you see that Jesus was a real man with real feelings? Those who denied this fact in the second century joined the gnostics.

As George MacDonald said in a letter to his father, "The first thing to know is to know Jesus as a man, and any theory about him that makes less of him as a man — with the ... notion of exalting his divinity — I refuse at once..."

And as for your question, "Another desparate universalist argument?" what I have written is not an argument of any kind. It is my support of proper translation of the Scriptures. If the ramifications happen not to support eternal punishment, so be it.

[steve7150]

Surely one of the most chilling exchanges in the entire Bible, to have Jesus tell you it would have been better for you not to have been born.

Does this statement have any ramifications with regard to views of hell?

User avatar
Perry








Could it be a bit of hyperbole? Jesus did use hyperbole on occasion and if it wasn't then why didn't he say it to the Pharisees?

[Paidion]

Even so, doesn't it still pose a problem for the universalist view? For, if Judas is eventually to be reconciled, wouldn't it be a net loss for God for Judas to never have been begotten? Or do you suppose that Jesus' statement was limited to the scope of His temporal human existence (i.e. "Son of man")?

Hi Perry,
It's a bit difficult for me to understand that there would be a "net loss" if someone had not been begotten. There are a limited number of persons who have been begotten and born. If God intends to reconcile all people to Himself, will the fact that more people, beyond this limited number, were not born indicate a loss for God? I can't see it. In the case of Judas, if he had not been begotten, he simply would not have existed, and so there never would have been this person for God to regard as a loss.

I don't know the answer to your last question. I simply think that Jesus was caught up in disappointment that one of His beloved disciples was going to deliver Him up to be crucified, and so He spoke out of that disappointment as a normal human being often will.

[Jepne]

I never had thought about the possibility that Jesus came to care for Judas, as we care for a friend who may have shortcomings (Juda's pilferings), but we love them anyway. I must still have some of that idea that Jesus took on the form of man, but really was above it all and didn't suffer the vicissitudes of life as we do. Thanks for this, Paidion.

[Homer]

Paidion,

For your understanding to be true it would necessarily follow that Judas would have been uniquely required for the crucifixion of our Savior to occur. No Judas, Jesus escapes the cross. I think God is more capable than that in carrying out His plans.

I'm sure you know your position on this matter is a common one among universalists who recognize it is problematic for their system, as most of the scriptures are.

I assure you I fully recognize Jesus' humanity.