It would be better for that man if he had not been born

[Andrew]

 Just one question about the Bible. Why does Jesus say of Judas that it would have been better had he never been born. If he is destined for a great destiny wouldn't it be more truthful to say that although he will die and have some pain in the afterlife, ultimately everything will be all good for him.



"but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born." Matt 26:24

[joeteekay]

This topic is one that has believers in UR pondering fairly often.

The traditional belief of the fate of Judas Iscariot is that he is burning forever in hell fire because of his appalling deed of betraying Jesus Christ. Most people would without second thought, consider it reasonable and just for Judas to burn forever in the bowels of hell for betraying the Son of God. But what does God have to say about the fate of Judas? No human no matter how evil, will burn forever in hell after dying.

A thorough article on this subject is available here:

http://www.theheraldofgodsgrace.org/Knoch/judasgod.htm

Also Gary has written on this subject:

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew3/D3-JudasIscariot.html

Finally a previous discussion on this forum:

http://tentmaker.org/forum/bible-threatenings-explained/judas-better-if-he-had-not-been-born/

:dsunny:

[DavidFord]

Why does Jesus say of Judas that it would have been better had he never been born. If he is destined for a great destiny wouldn't it be more truthful to say that although he will die and have some pain in the afterlife, ultimately everything will be all good for him.
"but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born." Matt 26:24

Which is better?: 
a) to die during gestation and immediately go to heaven, or
b) to be born, live, die, suffer tremendously for one's sins, be reconciled to God, and then finally go to heaven?

[CST]

This topic is one that has believers in UR pondering fairly often.

The traditional belief of the fate of Judas Iscariot is that he is burning forever in hell fire because of his appalling deed of betraying Jesus Christ. Most people would without second thought, consider it reasonable and just for Judas to burn forever in the bowels of hell for betraying the Son of God. But what does God have to say about the fate of Judas? No human no matter how evil, will burn forever in hell after dying.

A thorough article on this subject is available here:

http://www.theheraldofgodsgrace.org/Knoch/judasgod.htm

:dsunny:

OK, on that site, where to start reading? It's organisation seems very strange.

[joeteekay]

I agree CST. Sorry for making my post difficult to get to the heart of the subject matter. One important point I should have mentioned is that the King James Version incorrectly translates Mark 14:21:

Mark 14:21 (KJV) 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! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

A more accurate translation is this:

Mark 14:21 (Rotherham)  Because, the Son of Man, indeed, goeth his way,—according as it is written concerning him; but alas! for that man, through whom the Son of Man is being delivered up,—Well for him, if that man, had not been born!

If it were better for Judas never to have been born (as the verse in the King James version states) it is hard to see how he can have part in ultimate reconciliation, or how he can share eventual immortality with God (1 Cor. 15). So who is the "him" referring to?

"Him" and "that man" are 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. And how can it be otherwise in the balance of the sentence? It is simply out of the question for Him to refer to Judas. We must read on "well were it for Him [the Son of Man] if that man [Judas] was not born."


:2c:

[GodIsLove]

Oh yes! I read that interpretation a while ago and forgot.

[marie glen]

Not a bad link! I especially agreed with this paragraph:

linked article -

According to the most popular view Judas' full career would read something like this: Foredoomed by God, long before he was born, to betray the Messiah, chosen by Christ Himself to be the traitor, he proves too weak to perform his part, so Satan takes control of him until he has done the deed, and, driven by remorse, he takes his own life. As punishment he has been suffering in the flames of hell ever since and will continue to do so until the judgment of the great white throne, more than a thousand years hence. Then he will be tried and condemned to anguish unspeakable, above all other men, for a never-ending eternity in the lake that burns with sulphur, miraculously kept alive to undergo his agony.

We have tried not to exaggerate. Yet the plain statement seems so fiendish, so utterly and horribly repulsive that one wonders how sane human beings can bear to think of it. .....

Amen! seems so logical/hard to miss! Good article! {I only think of the reconciliation occurring on Judgment Day / at the judgment, which somehow over the centuries has become seen as somewhat non existent, with the unsaved/not yet saved :HeartThrob: resurrected and simply cast straight into a lof, created for the devil & his angels.. which of course, in Et, becomes hell, ignoring how hell is thrown to the lof, as is death, cast to the 2nd death..

[Dandelion]

Perhaps Jesus is referring to the personal agony that Judas went through, because he felt guilty, than what was going to happen to him, regarding punishment.

D.

[marie glen]

Perhaps Jesus is referring to the personal agony that Judas went through, because he felt guilty, than what was going to happen to him, regarding punishment.

D.

Good thought.. That makes a lot of sense! ..We get so used to thinking of certain verses in certain ways, which can be very misleading.. :thumbsup:

[CST]

I agree CST. Sorry for making my post difficult to get to the heart of the subject matter. One important point I should have mentioned is that the King James Version incorrectly translates Mark 14:21:

Mark 14:21 (KJV) 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! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

A more accurate translation is this:

Mark 14:21 (Rotherham)  Because, the Son of Man, indeed, goeth his way,—according as it is written concerning him; but alas! for that man, through whom the Son of Man is being delivered up,—Well for him, if that man, had not been born!

If it were better for Judas never to have been born (as the verse in the King James version states) it is hard to see how he can have part in ultimate reconciliation, or how he can share eventual immortality with God (1 Cor. 15). So who is the "him" referring to?

"Him" and "that man" are 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. And how can it be otherwise in the balance of the sentence? It is simply out of the question for Him to refer to Judas. We must read on "well were it for Him [the Son of Man] if that man [Judas] was not born."


:2c:

Hmm, you obvious don't need to be sorry, I can get to the article you linked to and read it easily enough. But that looks like an interesting site but it has a lot of diverse material and no way I can see to approach reading them in a structured way. Thanks, very much for the link.