> General Discussions
What's the Deal with "Ideal?"
Pax Vobiscum:
Ray interprets the translation of Mt 26:24 as, "Ideal were it for The Son of Man if Judas had never been born." But I cannot find a discussion concerning the implication of this.
Let's consider this carefully and soberly.
The sentence is worded in such a way as to present a hypothetical:
** The Son of Man would have been better off[/b][/u] if.... **
I know this sounds far-fetched, given that this is outside orthodox Biblical teaching, but there it is. Had the message been different from this, there are different ways of saying this that would have been clearer. Are we to say that Jesus did not choose His words "perfectly?" It would be a first and earth-shattering notion to say anything else.
If Jesus were following the plan of God, how could there possibly be anything "better?" I thought to myself that he must be talking about Himself as a man about to go through a very painful trial, but He uses the very powerful and loaded title of Son of Man -- ostensibly his Divine Right.
I looked at the Agony in the garden for a parallel -- but here's why I reject it.
When Jesus "pleaded His case," he was not asking to change the plan, only to keep the plan but do it another way. He never suggested a "better" way. This retains an unchanging divine plan.
Jesus in Mt 26:24 is plainly stating that there is an alternative or hypothetically superior plan that is different from the one He was currently living. This clearly (because of the subjunctive mood was used and not alternative moods) implies there is at least a possibility of a different divine plan. I also looked at the context of Jesus the man vs. Jesus the divine emanation. He referred to Himself using His most solemn self-descriptor -- Son of Man. I am sure that you are aware of the historical/theological context of that.
I have asked Ray this question, but would like to examine it here, also.
If you approach the question with no foregone conclusions, it rattles the bones of Free Will, God's sovereignty, Jesus' Divinity, and many other pillars of current discussions.
Peace
hillsbororiver:
Have you ever been betrayed by a friend, a loved one or a family member? Would perhaps the thought that if he or she had never been born your life would have been better, or at least less heartbreaking and painful? I believe the Lord was lamenting the anguish of actually being betrayed by one that he loved. He was in deep sorrow and pain. Someone else might of said; "My heart has been broken by Judas, I treated Him like a brother and he goes to my enemies to deliver me to them, I wish he had never been born."
Your question or postulation about His Word being perfect, to His purpose it is perfect, for it is not given for all to understand His Words at this (or that) time.
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not understand.
Remember this earthly mission in the flesh provided our Lord with experiences and temptations that we all go through, but He never once succumbed to any temptation, always doing the will of the Father. He always acknowledged the superiority of His Father and the fact that it was the Father's will He was to follow not His own, even that the Father knows of things that the Lord does not.
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Pax, I think I understood your question as it was meant, my apology if I am mistaken.
His Peace and Wisdom to you,
Joe
Martymonster:
I can't imagine that Jesus was talking about a alternitave superior plan.
I think God did it this way because it's the most perfect plan that could be.
The question is if there was an alternitave devine plan that was superior why would He pick the inferior?
Martinez
Kat:
Hi Pax,
Here is a email I found of Ray's concerning this scripture.
Maybe it will help you.
http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,43.0.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ray,
If the lake of fire is temporary, and even to be tormented for a long time and then have eternity with the Lord is better than to not exist at all, tell me what this is saying:
Mat 26:24 Indeed, the Son of Man goes, as it has been written about Him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It were good for him if that man was never born.
Is this saying it is better for Judas to not have existed than to be tormented and cleansed.?
I know this means something different than I am thinking.
thanks,
Dan
Dear Dan:
I have answered this many times in emails. There is a problem in the King James Translation. Read this verse from an Interlinear in the original word order found in the Greek Manuscripts, the the meaning is totally different:
"The indeed Son of the man goes as it has been written about HIM [Jesus]; Woe but to THE MAN THAT [Judas] through whom the Son of the man is delivered up; good [ideal] it was to HIM [Jesus, NOT JUDAS] if not was born THE MAN THAT [Judas, NOT JESUS]."
Plainly it would have been ideal for JESUS, if JUDAH had not been born. NOT ideal would it have been for JUDAS if JUDAS had not been born.
Consistant in this verse, "The Son of man" and "Him" and "Him" is JESUS, and "the man that" is JUDAS.
The "Him" (Jesus) in the first part of the verse does not change to "him" (Judas) in the second part of the verse: The "The Son of man--Him and Him" is constistantly Jesus, and "that man" and "that man" is consistantly, Judas.
God be with you,
Ray
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercy, peace, and love
Kathy
Pax Vobiscum:
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on January 16, 2007, 05:01:59 PM ---Have you ever been betrayed by a friend, a loved one or a family member? Would perhaps the thought that if he or she had never been born your life would have been better, or at least less heartbreaking and painful? I believe the Lord was lamenting the anguish of actually being betrayed by one that he loved. He was in deep sorrow and pain. Someone else might of said; "My heart has been broken by Judas, I treated Him like a brother and he goes to my enemies to deliver me to them, I wish he had never been born."
--- End quote ---
I had considered that this was just Jesus' lament as a man hurt (?) by His friend(s). If we look at the context of the discussions of Mt 26:24, Mk 14:21, and Lk 22:22 Jesus was "wrapping things up" at the last supper. More telling, is His referring to himself -- not in the first person as a lament -- but in one of the most loaded titles he could have used: Son of Man!
Finally, this sounds picky, but is crucial, the use of the subjunctive.
Now I do not want to sound like a prissy grammar teacher (subjunctive voice cuts across to Greek), but Jesus did not say, "My heart has been broken by Judas, I treated Him like a brother and he goes to my enemies to deliver me to them, I wish he had never been born" but He could have and it would have been much, much clearer! He is recorded in the subjunctive. That means hypothesis and contrary-to-fact. Must we not literally "take Him at His word?" How unfortunate that the Logos would misuse words?
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on January 16, 2007, 05:01:59 PM ---Your question or postulation about His Word being perfect, to His purpose it is perfect, for it is not given for all to understand His Words at this (or that) time.
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see and hearing they might not understand.
--- End quote ---
Here, I am focused on the irony, rather than feeling a bit slighted. The irony being that we are using Jesus' words to convey that not all will understand His words. However, this citation indicates that at least some (few, most, etc...??) will see, hear and understand. I am not sure to whom you refer.
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on January 16, 2007, 05:01:59 PM ---Remember this earthly mission in the flesh provided our Lord with experiences and temptations that we all go through, but He never once succumbed to any temptation, always doing the will of the Father. He always acknowledged the superiority of His Father and the fact that it was the Father's will He was to follow not His own, even that the Father knows of things that the Lord does not.
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
--- End quote ---
But Jesus clearly spoke and acted with the authority of God in these three cases. Here (by using the Son of Man title), He clearly was speaking authoritatively. Just a sentence ago, He was describing how another prophesy would be fulfilled.
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on January 16, 2007, 05:01:59 PM ---Pax, I think I understood your question as it was meant, my apology if I am mistaken.
His Peace and Wisdom to you,
Joe
--- End quote ---
Brother, you have no idea how I have agonized over this for the past five days, even pulling an earlier (and rather cryptic) post. I have searched and studied and prayed and inquired with some rather soulful colleagues.
I must say that with a pretty satisfying library, schooling, brain, and relationship with God, I cannot find a decent essay on this point. So this is new to me, too.
Yet it says what it says -- especially if we do not approach it "knowing" certain doctrines thought to be immutable.
This is an ice-thin area. Let us all walk verrrry softly and deliberately. I invite you all on this journey... wherever it may lead!
Peace
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version