The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Judas

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

Would Judas have been better off if he never existed?

What does this passage mean?

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." (Matt. 26:24, NIV.)

the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but wo to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born.’ (Matt. 26:24, Young’s Literal Translation.)

The second translation is interesting, but doesn’t the context of “woe unto that man (Judas) by whom the Son of man is betrayed” indicate that indicate that it would have been better for Judas if HE hadn’t been born?

If he is ultimately saved, forgiven, and reconciled to God; how could it have been better for him not to have been born?

#2

Jesus’ expression “It would be better for him if he had not been born” is probably a proverbial form of speech that was common among the Hebrew people, and should not be understood literally. Jeremiah uses similar language concerning himself (20:14-18):

See also Job chapter 3. Both Job and Jeremiah are essentially saying the same thing about themselves that Jesus said concerning Judas (i.e., “It would be better for me if I had not been born!”).

#3

In Young’s Literal translation, He seems to be saying that it would have been better for Him (as a man) if Judas hadn’t been born (but that doesn’t seem to fit the context of the “woe” pronounced against Judas.)

Also, I see Jeremiah and Job wishing they hadn’t been born because they couldn’t see past their present suffering.

That seems a little different from what Jesus said.

#4

I think Jesus was quoting the Jeremiad. He is constantly quoting bits of Isaiah, and these phrases would have, I think, been known to his listeners - even I thought immediately of Job cursing his mothers womb, and I’m no scholar. I don’t think at the end of his life Job (or Jeremiah) felt that way, but at a very real and tangible moment, as he scraped his boils with a potshard, Job indeed saw no benefit to his birth. At that real moment, before a future rerurbishment or redemption, Job’s life had a “negative balance”. Jesus prophesies that Judas will see his own life the same way, and he does - because he ends his own life.

You buy a car. The engine throws a rod that same weekend. You say “it would have been better if I’d never bought this car”. Fair enough, true enough, at that moment. Next day, the prior owner’s son shows up, says his dad taught him to drive in that car, and repurchases it for twice what you paid for sentimental reasons, blown motor and all. Now you’re glad you bought the car, but the fact it ended up a good deal was something of a miracle.

Our lives end up a good deal, even though we blow our motors, but only because the son redeems them.

#5

I tend to agree with other commenters so far, except to clarify that Jesus is deploying the saying in regard to Judas and not to Himself.

I had another more detailed entry on this topic in another thread elsewhere, but I’ll try to summarize.

Grammatically it’s possible that the pronoun refers to “the Son of Man”, i.e. to Jesus, Who is the immediately prior reference. However, it’s also grammatically possible that the pronoun refers back to the preceding identical pronoun which was certainly about Judas; and the phrase typically doesn’t involve a split subject, so we can expect it to be deployed about Jesus or about Judas, not about both. And from comparing those two options, it makes no sense in this context for Jesus to be saying that it would have been better for Himself if He had not been born.

It’s a call of pity for Judas, in other words. (Not a statement that Judas existed in some sinless state before he was born to suffer as Jesus’ betrayer.)

#6

How else should it be taken?

Judas is not referring to himself like Job and Jeremiah are. Jesus is talking so it’s not the same and bad hermeneutics unless you can find another example of Jesus talking to or about someone else (elect) in the same manner.

#7

I wrote an OP that touched on this matter. You can find it here:

A Case for Judas

#8

Uhhh… did you intentionally link to a quiz on mental-floss involving Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Dondi…?

#9

:laughing:

Here’s the link: A Case for Judas

Sonia

#10

But if Judas ever finds fogiveness and happiness, how could Jesus say it would have been better if he had never been born?

Isn’t this a very strong argument against UR?

#11

Not if Jesus meant it in a relative (to this life) vs. absolute sense.

#12

In defense of Young’s translation (the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born), I found this comment interesting.

ccel.org/ccel/chadwick/mark.txt

It’s interesting because it’s from a non-universalist who aparently sees little hope for Judas, and yet finds something “very strange” in the word order and emphasis.

But it still seems strange to me that Christ would start by pronouncing woe on Judas, and end by saying it would have been better for Him (in His humanity) if Judas hadn’t been born.

It seems like the two thoughts are disconnected, but maybe I’m missing something?

#13

Just tossing another idea out there:

“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man (Judas) by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for him (Judas) if that man (Jesus) had not been born.”

Does that work grammatically?

Sonia

#14

If it did, wouldn’t it still imply that Judas was forever lost?

(It would be tantimount to saying that Jesus wasn’t his savior, and it would be better for him if there were no God.)

#15

I think we also need to remember that Judas was fulfilling prophecy; even though he was (unfortunately for him) chosen as a vessel for dishonor. I kind of see this in the same way as Israel being cut off (temporarily, for all Israel will be saved according to scripture!) so that the “fullness” of the gentiles can come in.

#16

We think that if Judas went to heaven, then after being forgiven and spending time in heaven it definitely would have been worth it, even with the awful thing that he did. But I think that Jesus was speaking in much more practical terms. Jesus, if you look at his ministry didn’t spend lots of time talking about what we would be doing after we died, though he did talk about it. He spent the greater part of his ministry talking about how we should be HERE, NOW. In this life, with our neighbor, our enemy, our eyes and our hearts. I don’t think he was making an eternal pronouncement about an ethereal afterlife here - it was much more practical. How many of you have ever done something that you are really ashamed of? I have. Just because I’m forgiven doesn’t mean that I willingly share it with the masses…it’s embarrassing. Imagine being the one who betrayed GOD!! The shame would be absolutely astounding, unbearable. You would suffocate in it. You would certainly feel, as Judas did, “I wish I was never born.” He certainly wasn’t going to think, “Hey, I’ll be forgiven and it will all be worth it in the end.” I think we stretch Jesus’ words when we think he was making an eternal pronouncement on Judas’ state. Even thinking about heaven, I would still hate to be the guy who betrayed God.

#17

God allowed Judas to kill himself before the Resurrection of Christ (rather than having Judas meet the resurrected Christ). So, either God preferred this scenario, or could/would not override Judas’ Free-Will.
What does this tell us if anything?
Wouldn’t the message of Jesus have been more clear to all of us if we could have record of Jesus talking to Judas post-resurrection? What do you think He would say?

#18

(I wish I could have found my original article on this, to point back to.)

In the other refs mentioned by posters upthread, the person being referred to (typically the speaker himself) is being presented as an object of pity for the hearers of the speaker.

No one anywhere thinks Job or Jeremiah won’t be saved by God; neither do most people (though a few universalists back to Origen have thought otherwise) think Job or Jeremiah lived in some pre-incarnate perfect existence from which they were punted (apparently by God) into human life where they might be miserable. Culturally, the statement is recognized to be a poetically hyperbolic way of appealing to God (or at least to the listener) for pity on the person being so described.

Granted, a super-vengeful heart might read such a statement, in regard to someone else, as meaning something like “you’re going to wish you had died in the womb before I’m through with you!” The question is whether we’re supposed to have that kind of heart toward sinners like ourselves, or whether we’re supposed to have the heart toward other sinners that we expect (or at least hope) God has toward us.

#19

Which ultimately is any of us as sinners! :slight_smile:

I think sometimes Christians get the idea (especially if they’ve been raised into the faith) that our sins don’t mean so much, or aren’t as bad, as those people over there. We aren’t traitors against God; we haven’t helped nail Him to the cross, and woud never do so!

(I don’t mean you specifically, db. I’m just pointing out that any interpretation that specially calls out Judas as if any of us are better than him, is missing a pretty big point. :slight_smile: Judas betrayed Him, but Peter went so far as to curse against himself in denying and abandoning Him. Judas was called a devil and a son of perdition, but Peter was called Satan.)

#20

I don’t think any one suggeted Judas had any kind of pre-incarnate existence.

Leaving aside the question of whether life begins at conception (and assuming for the moment that it begins at birth), saying that it would have been better for him if he hadn’t been born (and given Young’s translation, A.E. Knoch’s translation, and Luthar’s German translation, I’m still not sure that’s what Jesus said) would seem to imply (to me) that the continued existence of Judas would be more of a curse than a blessing to him.

My question is how Our Lord could make such a statement (again, if that’s what He said) if He knew that Judas will eventually have reason to thank God for his creation?

As for Job and Jeremiah, I see no hyperbole involved.

Their statements expressed their own personal feelings at times of great suffering, and I’m sure they both (especially Job) genuinely wished they hadn’t been born at the tme they spoke their words.

The fact that they were their words (expressing their feelings), and not objective statements of fact from our Lord, makes them irrelevant here.

Do you have anything better than this Jason?

Does anyone?