The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Matthew 26:24

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

I’m pretty sure we have already discussed this verse but I would like to to call it back to attention.

This is the usual translation (Darby):

The Son of man goes indeed, according as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is delivered up; it were good for that man if he had not been born.

The Apostolic Bible Interlinear translation renders it thus:

But woe to that man by whom the son of man is deliverd up. It was good to him, if was not born that man.

The Greek text can be read here:

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex … 99.01.0155

My Greek is way too limited to exclude the possibility that the traditional rendering is correct but I’m inclined to believe that it’s impossibly correct to the Greek to understand it as it were better for Jude if he himself would never been born.

The most natural understanding given the word order is I think, that it would have been better for Jesus if Jude (that man) had not been born.

I also had another thought, is it possible to understand that it were better for Jude, if Jesus had not been born? In the first sentence ‘that man’ is Jude, it the second sentence ‘that man’ would be Christ then and ‘him’ refer to Jude, maybe it is a play with words? This would only make sense from annihiliationist point of view though.

What do you think?

BTW Wycliffe translating the Latin Vulgate rendered it thus:

Forsooth man’s Son goeth, as it is written of him; but woe to that man, by whom man’s Son shall be betrayed; it were good to him, if that man had not been born.

#2

One of the longer threads on this topic can be found here.

My grammatic analysis and cultural argument can be found downthread there, but for ease of reference I’ll repost it here.

#3

Simply stated, it was Hyperbole, overstatement, meant to draw attention to how bad it is and will be for Judas who betrayed Jesus, and was not meant to be taken literally. He has certainly been vilified throughout history. His life was cut short due to committing suicide. All this, even though Jesus could certainly have stopped him, and could even be seen to have set him up.

It is similar to Jesus’ saying that it would be better to cut one’s hand off, pluck one’s eye out, than to sin with it and be cast into Hinnom Valley. This statement used both hyperbole and metaphor. Most students of the Word readily admit that Jesus wasn’t promoting self-mutilation as a means of holiness. And yet infernalists insist on taking the mistranslation of Gehenna as Hell - literally.

#4

Without re-reading Jason’s interpretation (which I’ll do later – I remember it was interesting but don’t have time just now), there is the point that it would have been better for Judas not to have been BORN, not that it would be better for him if he had never been CONCEIVED. This argument, to me, seems more effectual for folks who take scripture hyper-literally. (I used to do that . . . duh! The ancients were capable of hyperbole. Who would’ve suspected?) :unamused:

Of course eventually you HAVE to get over the literalism hump, but if you’re not up to that just yet, the above makes perfectly good sense so long as you believe the pre-born baby to be a person. (Which yes, I do, and so do most literalists.)

#5

Sorry @ Jason, I hadn’t found the old thread. I got curious since that verse was mentioned in another forum. If I understand you right you support the traditional rendering?

My primary question is, if one could understand that verse that it would have been better for Judas if Jesus had never been born, and its implications on universalism.

I have heard that statement “never been born” vs. “never been conceived”, but I do not uderstand the implications of it - is it related to abortion?

I think the verse could also be translated that way, is this correct?

But woe to that man by whom the son of man is delivered up. It was good to him, if was not begotten that man.

#6

Sven, I understand English isn’t your first language, so I’m not talking down to you to explain – conception means when the sperm and egg come together to begin the development of a child. If something happens to the developing child and it dies before being born, that is spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage). Of course, an induced abortion also causes the death of the child and ends the development process.

I’m told that the Jews counted a person’s life from the estimated time of conception rather than from the actual birth, so if that’s correct, they would have seen Judas as a person even if he had not lived long enough to be born alive. That’s the significance of “conceived vs. born.” A baby in the womb can’t commit sin, and can’t commit the horrible sin of betraying its Lord to the cross.

#7

I know what “conception” means even if English is not my mother tongue :wink: I suppose “to beget” carries the same notion? I also know about the flowers and bees :laughing:

The Talmudists as far as I know are said to have believed that an unborn child could sin in the womb. But what I do not understand is the implication on universalism (and/or abortion?) in this context.

BTW I rather do not agree with Jason’s understanding, I believe the verse says that it were better for Jesus if Jude has not been born, maybe not so much due to His death, but due to the experience to be betrayed by a close friend.

#8

Yes. Technically the grammar could mean that it was better for the Son of Man if Judas had not been born, but the grammar certainly means “if Judas had not been born”, and culturally the saying would imply “better for X if X had not been born”. So it’s “better for Judas if Judas had not been born”.

In other words, “if that-very-man had not been born” refers to the same “woe to that-very-man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed”. “That-very-man” is certainly Judas in one case, therefore certainly Judas (by parallel construction) in the other case.

I honestly have no idea what the implications would be, but the grammar in Greek probably cannot run that way anyway.

Not necessarily active abortion, but dying in the womb, yes. The typical and probably oldest scriptural example is Job, wishing he had died in his mother’s womb or soon afterward.

Poking around a little this afternoon, I don’t see any evidence to indicate a clear way of distinguishing the two meanings aside from whether the relation is to a man or a woman. (The ancients didn’t think a woman contributed anything significant in material so to speak – Jesus being born of the flesh of Mary was a rather new idea, one not explicitly found in scripture per se. So if the verb refers to a person in relation to the mother it would mean to be born of the woman; if it refers to a person in relation to the father it would mean being begotten by the father. Since there is no relation expressed here it could grammatically mean either one. As a cry for pity on the person, which was its Biblical usage in the OT, it applied to dying in the mother, so that could be understood here.)

I agree with others above that the statement is probably meant to be emotional hyperbole, by the way, not a statement of technical religious fact. But the important point either way is that typically it would be a call for pity and salvation on the person so described.

#9

Yep Sherman I’d say this is simply it in a nutshell and so deals if any supposed problem. :slight_smile: