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.
JasonPratt, I had not seen/read the links, so let us put that strawman aside. I honestly had felt that you had went over the text too quickly. And apparently I was wrong, my fault. Now, let us soften the tone here and try to have a fruitful discussion - if you like.
Back to the topic. In my opinion no unbiased reader, who simply reads the Judas text, would take the words of Jesus as figurative. This is foreign to the context. The context is an incredibly heavy sin, and judgment/suffering introduced by a “woe” - which you admit normally introduces real descriptions of judgment/suffering. I did not indicate that “woe” introduces a hopeless judgment/suffering, but only that it is linked to judgment/suffering. (I would like to add, though, that your understanding of Isaiah 4:2ff. seems to be quite confused. Yes, fire and judgment wash away the guilt. But just before that Isaiah says that there will be a remnant (hence, not all will remain) - this seems to be the natural context of this cleansing from sin/guilt through judgment - the riddance of certain people, therefore there is only a remnant left.)
What the “woe” introduces then for Judas is judgment/suffering and the only statement about this suffering/judgment is “it would be better for him if he had not been born”. The text in itself does not provide the slightest indication that this is figurative and assuming figurative language without contextual or literary evidence opens the door for every nonsensical interpretation of every passage in scripture. We can only expect a passage to be figurative, when the passage or its context gives us a reason for that expectation. I think that is a basic exegetical rule. So let us apply this rule here: The sentence is not embedded in poetic language of any kind, nor is it obviously figurative like the green/dry tree illustration, which you have referred to. Jesus predicts a very heavy sin and he simply makes a short and extreme statement about the consequences. The context is a predicted sin, which puts Judas in the most extreme opposition to and separation from Jesus and hence justifies the natural step of taking the prediction of judgment at face value, and not just as hyperbole.
Imo you are also wrong about my argument from metaphysics, as you put it. Not everything said by a prophet is inspired, some statements are simply expressions of their (and not God´s) feelings, as it is the case with many statements of various people in the bible. God wanted these statements to be recorded in the bible, but that obviously does not mean that God always spoke through everyone who is cited in the bible. Add to that my former statement about there being no indication of a figurative meaning of “better of not being born” in the case of Judas.
The warnings for Peter et al. in Mt 18 and elsewhere are different from the woe statement directed against Judas, since they describe the normative judgment over sin, which we can only escape from through the blood of Christ. Judas, on the other hand - and this shows us how important context is - learns about his woeful fate in the context of his betrayal, which puts him in opposition to Christ and hence makes the Mt 18 warnings (and other warnings for those, who cannot rely on the blood Jesus) apply to him.
I would concede that there is perhaps a tiny bit of hope for Judas, but not because of the arguments which you have made, but because of his reaction when he learns that Jesus is going to be judged (Mt 27:3ff.). Here he shows some degree of repentance. On the other hand, after that expression of regret he commits suicide, which indicates that there was no reconciliation with Jesus. And this adds another puzzle piece to our understanding of “better off not being born” - he probably died in sin and without real repentance. Nevertheless, if the degree of repentance visible in Mt 27:3ff. was enough to save Judas, then the “better off not being born” statement only applied to his state before that repentance. I hope it, but I doubt it.
My mention of Hebrews 6 and 10, in the context of this thread, obviously caused you to think that I connect this with Judas. My mistake - I do not think that these passages apply to him, but only mentioned them as other examples of cases, where judgment is eternal. Let me adress your points, though: Peter´s denial of Jesus fits neither Hebrews 6 nor Hebrews 10, as Peter was not yet in the new covenant at that point. We both agree on that.
Hence, the warnings of Hebrews remain, and they are as clear as it could be:
- impossible to restore them again to repentance (Hebr 6),
- no sacrifice for them (Hebr 10).
These points cannot possibly disputed in my opinion. I do not know which OT citations you are referring to, when you speak about apostates coming back to faith. The author(s) of Hebrews speak(s) about capital punishment in the old covenant (which, contrary to your claim, certainly is not connected with hope) and describe(s) the punishment for new covenant apostasy as even worse and as leaving no sacrifice. I do not get how one could possibly deny the necessary implications of having no access to the sacrifice of Jesus.
Hmm – that take on Hebrews 6 and 10 doesn’t seem to jibe with experience. There are plenty of people who get off the path, even denying Christ, who later repent of that. It just doesn’t make sense that God would be so arbitrarily capricious as if to say ‘sorry you had your chance; I don’t care if you want to repent and return to Love; I’d rather torment you for eternity/annihilate you.’
It also seems rather arbitrary to say ‘oops, sorry – that offer of being able to repent again? Yeah, that was good for Peter and maybe even Judas – sorry that expired with the Old Covenant. You’re stuck with this less gracious New Deal.’ Is there really that big of a difference between Old and New: it still all boils down to Love as highest law, the grace of God to lead you to faith and lead you in the destruction of any non-Love/sin in you. It’s still all through Christ, regardless of where in time and space each person is.
Amen. Some of the best defense of Universalism is just plain common sense. The belief that God doesn’t expect us to make decisions with common sense is brained-washed by theologians and makes God unjust at the core. For example, now when I read someone refuting something, I shake my head and say “wow, what are they smoking?” and then, rather the defend it, I just chuckle and move on knowing that God will deal with that person as He sees fit in his own time. Just the same way God has dealt with me. God is just and fair. But most of Christianity paints an unjust and terribly petty God who cares more about legal fiction than overall lifestyle morality. I just can no longer accept that with any part of my being.
Exactly.
Universalism isn’t merely the one option that I think is most probable amongst many. Rather, universalism is the only one that isn’t self-refuting nonsense. I’d sooner believe that God was the skunk that sprayed my beagle as believe that He does not save all His creation.
Well-said, Gabe and Geoffrey.
Ok, two approaches are present here:
(1) actual dealing with the passages in scripture
(2) inventing a wishful image of God and pitting it against scripture
Obviously, I am only going to address those statements, which take approach (1), as the other approach is outside of evangelical Christianity. This would be a topic to discuss in the context of evangelisation, not in the context of Christian discussion.
Ok, so let us look at Hebrew 6 & 10 from a Christian perspective. Hebrews 6 & 10 describe a complete departure from the faith. This faith is the full Christian faith, which was revealed only after the resurrection of Christ. And this revelation was connected to intense experiences with the Holy Spirit, as it explicitly mentioned in Hebrews. Peter´s pre-crucifixion denial of Jesus is quite different from a departure of the post-resurrection “full Christian kerygma and experience”. The appeal to Peter is inconsistent, as Peter did not fulfill the criteria of Hebrews 6 & 10. This is not a question of whether or not the grace of God has changed. It is a question of the greater gravity of sin and rebellion, which results from the rejection of a much greater revelation and experience. This is plain in Hebrews 10.
In sum, no example in scripture which would allow for an only “hypothetical” interpretation of Hebr 6 & 10 has been presented here. Perhaps there are examples. If they exist, I would be glad to learn about them.
As to personal experience or impressions, they cannot be used as an argument against scripture. We need to read and interpret scripture according to our best ability an then proceed to interpreting our experience from the perspective of scripture. Otherwise we treat our own experience and perception of reality as just as absolute as God´s word. Not only do I reject such an approach, I do not consider it as Christian. Of course everyone is free to see it different, but if our world view does not root in Christ, but in our thinking, we have to ask ourselves, whether or not we belong to him.