Yep, that’s the MacDonald passage I was thinking of, but I couldn’t remember which sermon it was in. Thanks for posting it! 
Yes he was “given that position” just like the rest of the apostles; he was called and appointed… he simply betrayed that calling “that the Scriptures would be fulfilled” and paid the unfortunate consequences thereof in terms of losing his life.
He was a Diabolos when Jesus chose him, not a word He’d use of a Believer.
I’d like thank everyone for their insights, I think I feel this matter is settled. Everything said about Judas can still be consistent with Universalism.
If anyone is curious about the False Prophet theory I mentioned it’s here.
midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_21.html
Part 4 is where I talk about Judas, but I draw on arguments from the previous 3 parts. The fifth part was added very recently.
Yeah, Jesus would never ever ever use a term like “you Satan” for a person He had chosen to be a true apostle. 
And if any number of apostles betrayed and abandoned Jesus, down to cursing themselves to denounce Jesus, so that the scriptures would be fulfilled, surely they must be lost after that: Jesus would never ever go after them to restore them to fellowship, once they’ve served their purpose of being traitors, which must be the only purpose Jesus ever had in calling such eventual traitors.
Right? 
(I can’t accept arguments of that sort against Iscariot, because they fit the other apostles just as well: the principles being appealed to are falsified in Jesus’ practice regarding them. Even when I thought Iscariot must be lost, I didn’t think so due to such arguments.)
I’m reminded of a passage by G. K. Chesterton about the papacy of Rome. He said it was unnecessary for Protestants to reject the papacy because of the sinfulness of various Popes throughout history. Chesterton said that one need go no further than Peter (the first Pope in Roman Catholic thought) to find grounds for rejecting the papacy. After all, Peter committed a sin unthinkable for any of the later Popes: He claimed that he didn’t even know who Jesus was!
Not being born doesn’t equate to not existing. Could this passage mean that it would have been a better situation at that point for Judas if he had died in the womb? (He would still have existed.)
This is something I have wondered also Micah. For those who wish to take the passage literally rather than as hyperbole, Jesus said “better off not being born” rather than “better off not being conceived”. Judas would have been better off dying in the womb than having to answer to God for what he did - but this does not imply that his situation is hopeless.
I had put forth that thought on this very forum some time ago, but somebody (I don’t remember who!) said that the Greek text would not allow for it.
Whoever it was may be correct, because I just looked it up and it seems that the same Greek word refers to Jesus in the womb prior to his birth in Matt 1:20.
I tried to prove universalism for some time, but unfortunately it is impossible. You will not like it, but here it goes…
Judas Iscariot convinced me that universalism cannot be true. You hear the arguments against the Judas point (“hyperbole” - really? That could be said about anything in the bible in order to avoid the message) and I guess that makes clear how desperate universalists are.
It is like the sin against the Spirit, it will not be forgiven in the coming age. Or take Hebrews 6 - true apostates cannot be renewed to repentance. It is impossible. Simple. Or take Hebrews 10 - for apostates there is no sacrifice left, but only an expectation of judgement. If the sacrifice of Jesus is not available for these people it is clear that forgiveness is not available.
Perhaps it means that the corrective punishment and guilt Judas would endure would be more difficult than anything a person might experience in a natural life.
Badger, I deleted the ditto post. Your first one didn’t get through because nobody’s post gets through the spamcatcher the first few times, leading to some lag until an ad/mod finds it in the queue.
The phraseology used by Jesus about Judas is used elsewhere in the Bible for a couple of people no Jew or Christian thinks are forever lost, so the phrase by itself doesn’t signify someone is forever lost. Simple.
Whether the phrase is hyperbole or not is beside the point, although it is in fact hyperbole, as its other scriptural usages signify: if it was literally true, the people of whom it was said (Job, and Jeremiah if I recall offhand correctly), wouldn’t have gone on to expect their situation to improve after all.
I truly am sorry that the scriptures aren’t always as simple as they look, because everyone’s job (no pun intended ) in understanding them would be easier and we could focus time and energy on doing other things. But the fact is that they aren’t always as simple as they look. The sin against the Holy Spirit is only one such example, since you mention it: the contextual details do not at all add up to a hopeless punishment, and strongly warn instead against having an attitude that someone cannot or will not be saved by God. The simple explanation turns out to be too simple, and worse than wrong.
(Hebrews 10 is another example: the Hebraist salts his point by citing OT scriptures where God is vindicating the rebels He punishes to death, leading them thereby to finally repent and be restored to fellowship with God and with their fellow creatures. It’s a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God, but it’s far from hopeless.)
That is going to be an interesting discussion. Usually people discuss in order to convince others, to spread their view. And on the one hand that is my goal here, too. However, I would not mind being convinced of universal salvation, most certainly not. I just cannot see it happening.
Back to topic. I think Job and Jeremiah are quite different from Judas/Jesus. First, they did not have the same eternal perspective and knowledge as Jesus had. He knew the whole fate of Judas, both in this age and in the age to come. His statement about Judas was much more accurate than the emotional expressions used by Job or Jeremiah. Second, he introduced his statement by a “woe”, a typical introductionary term for predictions of actual judgment.
Let us also take a look of Hebrews 10. My actual point was that the verses say “there is no sacrifice left”. It is clear then that they cannot receive forgiveness, because the sacrifice of Jesus is the only means to receive forgiveness. This is quite similar to Hebrews 6, where it literally says that apostates cannot possible be renewed to repentance.
I am afraid you went over these texts too quickly. Clearly they express that there is no way of salvation for them, because they cannot possible meet the necessary requirement (repentance) and they cannot gain access to the only means (the sacrifice of Christ). I think these are very clear and shocking statements, if I was not convinced of the goodness and wisdom of God I would say unfortunately.
Wow, I could not dissagree more with this. I myself am a hopeful Universalist, but I believe your arguements are easily diffused and already have been by many articles. Meaning, if a skeptic like me thinks those arguements are weak… Well, they probably are.
You are mistaken. The Greek word for “to bear” is “τικτω”, and the Greek word for “beget” or “generate” is “γενναω”. The writer used “γενναω” to indicate what Jesus said in this verse, that is, "it were better if that man had not been begotten (or generated or conceived).
“γενναω” is also the word used in Matthew 1:2. Abraham begot Isaac. He did not give birth to Isaac.
On the other hand, “τικτω” is used in Matthew 2:2 “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?”
Ah – thanks for the clarification from the Greek there, Craig, Geoffrey, Paidion. So “γενναω” is never used to mean birth? (I should really learn Greek. )
Interesting that the indirect object ‘him’ that we tend to think is referring to Judas might actually be referring to Jesus, like Gabe and Paidion were mentioning. Were you saying that was not possible grammatically, though, Jason? Curious to hear more discussion on that point…[Edit – I since discovered that you had a link above related to this – thanks!]
I like George MacDonald’s explanation, although I guess even an earthly life lived in the worst way possible would still serve as a reference point, a beginning of lessons to be learned over time, and so not really ‘useless’ in the long-term.
Thanks for the correction and explanation Paidion. I also corrected myself a few hours after posting my incorrect 'wonderings", so hopefully not too many will be confused by my error. It does highlight the problem with just looking at the english translation doesn’t it. 
It’s all semantics so I wouldn’t go beating up on yourself unnecessarily… like indeed it is literally true that Abraham didn’t “give birth to Isaac” but that doesn’t so much make the case either considering Abraham also didn’t “conceive” Isaac either. Thus according to the literal English “begotten” or “born” make sense etc – take Jesus’ “unless a man is born again” meaning “begotten again” – same difference really.
You insisted on a “simple” answer, rather than to discuss the actual details on the page – including not-incidentally the few dozen pages of analysis I linked to when giving a relatively quick answer to Mithrandir’s original post, among which were a discussion of scriptures I myself volunteered as being, in my estimate, more of a problem than Iscariot being better off not born (or conceived as Paidion rightly clarifies, though it doesn’t actually matter either way) – and now you are complaining that the answer isn’t detailed enough. While going back to insist on a simple answer without even investigating the extra detail claims for Heb 10.
That isn’t a discussion. That’s mere ideology defense: simple answers are to be preferred and extra details ignored when that looks more convenient; simple answers are to be rejected and extra details referred to when that looks more convenient.
As for the metaphysics of your reply: essentially it requires that Jesus from the position of the 2nd Person of God in eternity could have inspired emotional and/or poetic hyperbole in prophets (of which there are tons of examples, even if those particular statements are discounted for not being prophetic per se) yet would not be expected to make any emotional and/or poetic hyperbole Himself when kenotically poured out in the Incarnation. Or, if you reject trinitarian Christianity, the same problem comes up a slightly different way: that God can and did (and would do so afterward for RevJohn) inspire prophets with emotional and/or poetic hyperbole language, but would not be expected to do so for Jesus.
Neither of those are tenable positions.
As for the linguistics of {ouai}, there is at least one time Jesus says it while not being judgmental per se, and more of a cry of pity and warning, namely to the women mourning Him on the way to the cross (Matt 24:19 and parallels in Mark and Luke), since if the Romans do this when the tree is green, what will they do when the tree is dry, which of course must refer to a literal tree that is important to them somehow since there is no way God and/or Jesus would ever talk in poetically figurative language, right?
But yes, every other time in the NT the term is used for judgmental language, and I’m not even disputing that Jesus is judging Iscariot there. I’m disputing that the judging is hopeless – and I would also dispute an implicit claim that someone cannot possibly be judging and also making a cry for pity on the object of judgment. Even with men that is not impossible, but even if it was, what is impossible with men is possible with God (as Jesus said specifically in regard to the unbelief of His own apostles on God’s competency in saving sinners from sin); which ought to be sufficiently obvious since if God could not possibly seek the salvation of those whose sins He judges against, no one could ever possibly be saved, yourself included.
To that I would add that even when Jesus uses the “be wailing” term {ouai} against the Pharisees in the Greater Condemnations of Matt 23, He still ends with prophesying that they shall accept Him with praise as Jehovah one day anyway, even though due to their insistent rejection He is leaving their Temple to them desolate (referencing the curse of the visible Presence of God departing the Temple).
Moreover, one of those wailings is aimed not only at the world because of stumbling blocks (which may be a cry of pity for the world), but against the one through whom stumbling blocks come – and that’s a judgmental critique aimed directly at the apostles themselves, with the strongest possible language, in Matt 18, Mark 9, and (though more partially) Luke 9! The apostles plural, not singular as though only Iscariot is in view, with Peter, John, and James being the apostles specifically named as included in the extended set of connected rebukes. No Christian anywhere thinks Peter, James, John, or any apostle other than Iscariot will be hopelessly lost however; so a judgmental {ouai} aimed at someone, with actual threats of them being sent into the unquenchable eonian fire of Gehenna and to the tormentors and by no means shall they be entering into the kingdom of the heavens, is not a linguistic signal for them being hopelessly lost in the future. For that matter, neither by reference would the strongest hell warnings be a signal that those being denounced thereby are hopelessly lost. (Beyond which would be an appeal to what Jesus Himself explained to the apostles as the actual purpose of the eonian unquenchable fire of Gehenna. Which turns out to be the complete opposite of hopeless condemnation.)
Beyond even that, {ouai} is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew exclamation oy (as in the Yiddish “oy vey”), which is used for prophetic denunciation occasionally in the OT against people who will be even slain by God when He comes visibly for judgment against the wicked – after which those who have been punished that way will appeal to the survivors for reconciliation, and God will accept their repentance and clean away their murders and evil with the spirit of fire and of burning, bringing them to be at peace with Himself and with their former victims. (That’s in Isaiah 3 and 4, going back into chapter 2.) Which has more than a little connection to Jesus’ explanation of the purpose of “the fire the eonian” in Mark 9 Compare also with Isaiah wailing, against his own sin of unclean lips in the presence of YHWH Most High (later said by John the evangelist to have been a vision of Jesus) “Woe to me for I am ruined!” Which was true, for Isaiah was a sinner, too, but far from hopelessly ruined. Examples could be multiplied of judgmental “woes” in the OT said about those who have been or who will be punished by God, even to death – but it turns out they weren’t hopelessly punished after all.
So, no, appealing to {ouai} as a term of judgment is far, far too simple.
As for Hebrews 10, if it was indeed impossible for apostates to come to repentance afterward and be saved, the Hebraist would not have cited the scriptures he did about apostates coming to repentance, after punishment, and being saved. Which I mentioned before, for discussion, but which you aren’t going to discuss, preferring a too oversimple reply (again) while saying I’ve looked at the same verses too simply – which on the face of it must be nonsense. If you want to complain that I’m too complex and detailed for such a simple topic, that would at least be consistent.
But set aside discussion of his referential citations: if it was impossible for apostates who are thereby under the curse to come to repentance and be saved, then none of the apostles could be saved, especially Saint Peter, since they all abandoned Him, and Peter went so far as to curse himself in order to deny Christ – and I can not only cite testimony from Jesus warning what will happen if that happens (denying the deniers before our Father in the heavens), I can cite testimony from Jesus on that topic directly connected (by Luke’s topical arrangement at the very least) to the sin against the Holy Spirit which shall not be forgiven!
If you answer that Peter’s flagrant self-cursing to deny Jesus was before the gift of the Holy Spirit, I will answer that so was Iscariot’s betrayal, since those all happened the same night (and indeed Jesus warns Simon Peter that, in effect, he is no better than Iscariot but will fail his oaths of loyalty by being sifted by Satan. Which is exactly what happens.)
The appealed principle fails by very obvious counter-examples to the contrary, ones relevant to Iscariot’s own betrayal. Whatever the Hebraist means, he cannot be talking about the mere fact of apostasy being impossible to repent of; citing him against Iscariot on such a principle turns out to be worse than useless.