It’s pretty hard, on that verse alone, to prove whether it is to be taken literally or not. Another in a list of mysteries that boggles the mind.
But the argument that it can’t be taken literally is clearly fallacious.
As I pointed out above:
**Non-existence is zero suffering, and zero joy.
Just as any positive number is greater than zero, a joyful existence is better than non-existence.
And just as any negative number is less than zero, suffering is worse than non-existence.**
A non-existent individual is a zero, experiencing zero suffering, and zero joy.
It’s perfectly logical (and literally true) to say that such a nonexistent individual (experiencing zero suffering, and zero joy) would be better off then an actual individual existing in nothing but pure, unendeng misery.
And in the realm of possibilities (all of which are known to God) there are an infinite number of such non-existent individuals, so lets not mistake word games for logic.
“My coffee is hotter than non-existent coffee” is only saying, “My coffee is hot.”
You cannot meaningfully compare something that exists with a non-something that doesn’t exist.
Though in maths, I do say that 1>0 Isn’t that comparing something with nothing? And I also say, “Some money is better than no money.”
Maybe it is just semantics. I shall leave it to wiser minds to decide.
I go cross-eyed just thinking about that. It’s like “The following statement is true. The previous statement is false.”
Cheers.
I doubt that Jesus meant it as something that philosophers should parse for days. The meaning of it rides on what a myriad of other verses mean in relation to the matter of after death punishment.
IMO, it is just semantics.
I have no wish to promote my own web site.
I cut the link to it in my signiture here, and I’ve thought of getting rid of it altogether (because I’ve questioned everything I publised on that sight for almost a year now.)
But I re-read something I wrote on this subject a long time ago, and since no one seems to have any better thoughts to offer, I offer it here for your consideration.
biblicaluniversalist.com/Judas.html
P.S. I started this topic heading because I wanted to know how the rest of you understood this passage, and any feedback on my thoughts here is welcome.
I find this whole line of argument uncompelling. Until they are saved by the grace and knowledge of Gods love, many, many people live lives wherein it would be better for them not to have been born. Clearly, Jesus accurately predicted that Judas reached that point - Judas killed himself. To say that this then means that his soul will never be redeemed doesn’t follow. Truth is still truth if it speaks of a point in time - call it “temporal truth”. (Paul calls us all “vessels of wrath”. Doesn’t mean we are always vessels of wrath.) For Jesus to say this about Judas, knowing that it was a “temporal truth”, may have been hyperbolic, and you may say that Jesus never speaks with hyperbole. But you may only say that if you’ve plucked out your own eye, and cut off your own hand, as He clearly instructed.
At that point in Judas’ existence (as after all of Job’s children were killed), they were in DEFICIT. Full stop. Truth. At that point, it was better not to have been born. Jesus said Peter would deny him three times. As he did. But that wasn’t the end of the story for Peter; it was a temporal truth. And it isn’t the end of the story for Judas. I have betrayed Christ, yet His love is greater than my infidelity. He keeps raising me, and He will draw all men, even Judas, unto himself.
That’s a helpful angle to take.
That really is the question. What is the end of our story? Are we characters in a tragedy, or a romance?
I also think it is important to note that we must interpret scripture with scripture. Was Jesus saying that Judas would be eternally damned? Obviously not! Jesus said that He would “draw all men to Himself”. Paul said that “all things are reconciled in Christ”. Is a damned Judas reconciled in Christ? NO! As a result we have to understand Jesus’ words as not having any bearing on the eternal destiny of Judas for he is most certainly a part of “all things” and “all men”.
That is an interesting POV.
The only problem I see, is that (if life begins at birth, and if the meaning of “had not been born” is never to have existed) it does seem to be the end of the story for Judas.
There would be no story at all if he never existed, and to say that that would have been better seems to imply that they’ll be no happy ending.
(But “never existed” is something Jesus didn’t say, and most Christians believe that life begins at conception, so maybe that would be reading something into the text.)
If it’s true that suffering is worse than non-existence, then as believers we should be the most miserable of all men. Would it have been better for Jesus (or I dare say for us!) not to have existed than suffer as he did?
Besides which, I have a whole army of disabled folks that would like a word with you about that notion. 
Are you talking about pure suffering?
Are you saying that these disabled folks get nothing out of life but suffering, that believers have no reward but suffering, or that Our Lord’s existinnce is nothing but suffering?
If that be the case, then yes, it would have been better for Him, Judas, and all the rest of us if we never existed.
But surely you know that, don’t you?
You know this is a straw man, don’t you?
Have you never read “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God”?
Or “…let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not”?
If Gethsemane and the Cross were all there were for Jesus, and if it bought us nothing but suffering, of course it would have been better if neither He or we existed.
So you know you’re talking nonsense here, don’t you?
I don’t know, Michael. You were the one that brought it up; I was referring to this post of yours…
You said that suffering was worse than non-existence.
Yes I did.
I take it as self-evident that suffering, in and of itself (with no end, no joy, and to no purpose) is worse than non-existence.
Now what was the point of your post?
Do you disagree?
I don’t understand why people are having problems with this. Michael is simply saying that it would be better to not exist than to suffer. Isn’t that self evident? Don’t we say that if God knew that most people were going to suffer for eternity in hell then why did he create them (in other words, wouldn’t non existence be preferable?). I would rather not exist than be in hell for eternity. There were times when I was sure that I was going to hell and I asked God if he could make me NOT exist because it was preferable. I’m not understanding why people are having trouble with this. I certainly have felt that way.
Thank you Chris.
What I’d really like is to get more serious feedback on Christ’s words in Matthew 26:24, that old article I wrote, Young’s alternate translation, and A. E. Knoch’s commentary on the passage (and believe me, I’m not an A. E. Knoch devotee.)
Someone I have the highest respect for says that the alternate translation makes sense grammatically (in Greek, which is why it’s rendered the way it is by Dr. Young), but makes no sense contextually.
I myself have trouble making any contextual sense out of “woe to the betrayer–it would have been good for the betrayed if that man hadn’t been born,” but that is what the Greek seems to say.
Can anyone make any contextual sense out of it?
Was the main point of what I wrote on the subject (that “not born” wouldn’t necessarily equal “never existed” if life begins at conception) at all relevant?
And what of A. E. Knoch’s contention that our whole theory of UR stands or falls on the meaning of this passage?
Hypotheticals. We never get the choice not to exist. And we know of no existence apart from suffering, so I am warming to this phrase “better if he had never been born”. It seems like it would have been better for the people of Sodom if they had never been born. God destroyed them completely. Yet in Ezekiel 16 the LORD says He will restore Sodom to it’s former estate.
Can anyone ever really repent, or ever really comprehend the horror they become without God, unless they reach a place where they admit “it would be better if they had never been born?”. Job. Jeremiah. Judas. Jimmy Stewart in “It’s a wonderful life.”
Maybe that state of mind, the realization of that truth, is the prerequisite for being…wait for it…“born again”.
Since Judas was born, wouldn’t the proposition “if that man had not been born” be a hypothetical?
(The one thing that seems clear is that Jesus wasn’t afraid of speaking in hypotheticals.)
I don’t get your logic here.
Jesus never said that it would have been better for the people of Sodom if they hadn’t been born–He said it would be more tolerable for them than for the people of His own generation.
And if they’re prophesised to be restored to their former estate, it would seem that it wouldn’t have been better for them if they hadn’t been born.
Now let’s get back to what Jesus said (or didn’t say) about Judas (and could someone please address the questions I asked in my last post?)
Michael, the Interlinear Scripture Analyser (free download) which includes the Concordant Version (Knoch’s version I think) as well as Rotherham, translated the passage in the way that indicates that it would be better for Jesus if Judas had not been born. In my opinion, the Greek seems to mean exactly that.
What I’m interested in (if you can provide it) is a link to Knoch’s writing in which he affirms that “our whole theory of UR stands or falls on the meaning of this passage.”
Thank you Don.
I already provided a quote and link (on page two of this thread), but here they are again.
gtft.org/ConcordantCommentary/CC01_Matt.htm
Now could you help me make contextual sense out of the “woe on Judas,” and the “better for Jesus”?
That’s where I have a problem.
Was “him” Jesus or Judas?
Is the dancer spinning clockwise or anticlockwise? 