> General Discussions

Question about Judas

(1/4) > >>

PKnowler:
How do people who believe in universalism interpret this scripture, if everyone get saved?

Mark 14:21
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." 

Thanks, Paula

mongoose:
Paula,
  Just because everyone is going to be reconcilled to God in the end, doesn't mean that the process will be one that is enjoyed.  It is the same for our "fiery trials".  Judas will have the carnal man removed from him as well, and that is not a process any of us enjoy as we are going through it.

Hope this helps.

mongoose

Kat:
Hi Paula,

I would say that Judas is the most notorious man known, to Christendom anyway.
What a distinction to have, the man who betrayed Christ, our Saviour.

I think what is meant by that verse,
is it would be better if he had not been born to that perticular distinction.

He will be brought up in the Great White Throne Judgment,
along with everybody else who was not in the first resurrection.

mercy, peace, and love
Kat

PKnowler:
Both of your responses, Kat & Mongoose, resonate with my spirit. I am satisfied with the answer, much more than some other answers I have gotten that have left me questioning.

Thank you!
~Paula

Dan.ng:
Hi Paula,

Below is a similiar question on Mark 14:21 & reply by Mr Ray Smith for your info. Hope that it is useful.

Hi
  I'm curious to know what your views are on Mark 14:21 where it says that it would have been better for Judas Iscariot if he had never been born.
Traditionally I have always been taught that this means that he went to a place so horrible that it would have been better that he wasnt even born and that this place is Hell.
If his punishment isnt eternal or lengthy but just to be burned in a lake of fire a death that would only take a few seconds or minutes at the most why would the Lord say the above.
I'd like to know what your views are on Mark 14: 21.
I'm approaching this with an open mind and only telling you what I've been taught.
Yours Yiannis.


Dear Yiannis:
I have answered this question many times in the past. My time is short now, So I will make this quick:  This verse does NOT say that it would have been better for Judas if Judas had never been born. This is a King James translation problem.
 
The King James reveres the order of words as found in the Greek manuscripts in the last part of this verse:
 
Here is how it reads in the manuscripts:
 
"The Son of man indeed goes as it is written of HIM [Who is 'Him?'  Why, the Son of man] but woe to THAT MAN [Who is 'that man?'  Why, Judas] by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good [or 'ideal'] were it for HIM [The Son of man, NOT, Judas. The manuscripts put 'HIM' before 'that man'] if THAT MAN had never been born."
 
So here is what is being said: "...woe be to Judas by whom Jesus is betrayed. Ideal were it for Jesus if Judas had never been born."
God be with you,
Ray   

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page