FROM THE DOCUMENTS OF RODGER TUTT #19
JUDAS
Here is why the case of Judas does not disprove UR.
"Let us look carefully at the Greek text: kalon ên auto eiouk egennêthê ho anthropos ekeinos, “Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born” or “It were ideal for Him if that man was not born.” The question is asked, Who is the Him? The answer is in the preceding clause. There we have the pronoun autou, “Him,” and anthropo ekeino, “that man,” both referred to in such a way that we cannot mistake them. “The Son of Man indeed goeth as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!” “Him” is the Son of Man, “that man” is Judas.
The Him cannot refer to Judas, therefore the text can be paraphrased as, “Ideal were it for Him (the Son of Man) if that man (Judas) were not born.”
That is the understanding that the syntax requires.
Therefore, Mark 14:21 does not contradict Col. 1:15-20; 1 Tim. 4:9-11; Rom. 5:18, 19; etc., all teaching the ultimate salvation of Judas."
Regarding the confusion of the different versions, Louis Abbott adds the following note:
"Notice how the following versions translates this clause:
The ASV, 1901 margin, “Good were it for him if that man had not been born;”
Rotherham’s version, “Well for him if that man had not been born;”
Murphy’s edition of the Douay Version and the New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate, 1898,
“It were better for him, if that man had not been born;”
(the following three versions are quoted in the original spelling)
Wiclif, 1380, “It were good to hym if thilke man hadde not been borun;”
Tyndale, 1534, “Good were it for him if that man had never bene borne;”
Rheims, 1582, “it vvere good for him, if that man had not been borne.”
and repeating the conclusion
The Him cannot refer to Judas, therefore the text can be paraphrased as, “Ideal were it for Him (the Son of Man) if that man (Judas) were not born.”
IMO that is the understanding that the syntax requires.
Therefore, Mark 14:21 does not contradict Col. 1:15-20; 1 Tim. 4:9-11; Rom. 5:18, 19; etc., all teaching the ultimate salvation of Judas."
But even if it did refer to Judas, consider this.
A snippet from
BIBLE THREATENINGS EXPLAINED
tentmaker.org/books/BibleThr … ained.html
Scroll down and click on
BETTER NEVER BEEN BORN
“This was a proverbial expression among the Jews, and was not employed literally.”
It was the same meaning as we have today when we say “I wish I had never been born”, or “You will wish you had never been born.”
“But what about Judas Iscariot? Doesn’t it say it would have been better if he’d never been born?
Matthew 26:24 “The Son of Mankind is indeed going away, according as it is written concerning Him, yet woe to that man through whom the Son of Mankind is being given up! Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born!” It would have been ideal (pleasing and peaceful) for Jesus (the Son of Mankind/Him) if Judas (that man) had not been born. It was nevertheless necessary for him to be born and commit his sin of betrayal in order for scripture to be fulfilled. See Genesis 6:6; John 18:11; Matt. 26:39. (While many Bible versions mistranslate Matt.26:24, some do put the correct rendering in the margin.)
Concerning Judas’ title, “son of destruction”, John 17:12, the Greek word is apollumi, often translated, perish or lose. This word is used in the New Testament about 90 times. Many people, animals, and even things are described as being “lost”, “destroyed” or “perished”. It is unwise to assume the word describes “eternal damnation”. “For the Son of Mankind came to seek and to save the lost (apollumi).” Luke 19:10. The book All in All, by A. E. Knoch, is very informative on this and some other important topics, such as the eons, the 3 classes of vivification, “hell”, and “annihilation”. lighthouselibrary.com/read.p … searchfor=