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]

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pax, I think I understood your question as it was meant, my apology if I am mistaken.

His Peace and Wisdom to you,

Joe   

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

[Pax Vobiscum]

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

Thank you for this, Kathy.  I, too, have searched the site.  Ray doesn't really comment on the fallout of this translation only on the translation itself.  I have asked him to speak on the ramifications of this translation but have been told this could take up to 5 months.

Most "mainstream" Bibles translate and interpret these verses the traditional way:  Jesus was dissing Judas with an admonishment reserved for the worst of the worst.  This translation (Knoch?) turns everything upside down when taken to its logical conclusion.

Peace

[hillsbororiver]

Hello Pax,

Jesus explained many times that His Word was Spirit, not given to human wisdom or logic, without His Spirit revealing the meaning of these Words the natural man will see them as confused, illogical and foolish. If this were not the case all we would need is teachers with Ph.D's in English or Languages and all the Truth and Wisdom contained within the scriptures could be broken down into "plain language" for all to understand. This has never been the case nor will it ever be.

As a matter of fact;

1Co 1:27  But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1Co 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither,  can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called:

You mention Jesus using His Son of Man title as a sign of authority, does that mean He never used it in conjunction with His humanity only His divinity?

How would one interpret these scriptures;

Mat 8:20  And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

This certainly appears to use the Son of Man title for a fairly basic desire, here He is comparing Himself to a beast not even the emotional heartbreak most of humanity suffers at one point in time, betrayal of a loved one.


Mat 11:19  The Son of man came eating and drinking and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Does this infer Jesus was a party animal who enjoyed getting drunk with a bunch of losers?

Without His Spirit guiding us, if we use human logic we are going to find many a stumbling block in our paths.

1Pe 2:8  And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto  also they were appointed.

His Peace and Wisdom to you,

Joe

 

[bobf]

I don't think there is a problem even if the "orthodox" transalation is correct.

In judgment there are those who will prefer death over life. They will seek death and not find it. They will beg for the mountains to fall on them. They will bless the wombs that are barren (wish never to have been born).

Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

Luke 23:28  But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. 29  For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. 30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. 31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

Isaiah 2:19  And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

Revelation 9:5  And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. 6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Revelation 6:16  And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17  For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Hosea 10:8 The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.[/list]

Even Job wished to never have been born.

Job 3:11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

Job 10:18 Wherefore then hast thou brought me forth out of the womb? Oh that I had given up the ghost, and no eye had seen me![/list]

Jeremiah expressed the same thought.

Jeremiah 20:18 Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed with shame?[/list]

Youngs Literal Translation translates it the way Ray says it should be.

Matthew 26:24 the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but wo to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born.'

Mark 14:21 the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but wo to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up; good were it to him if that man had not been born.'
[/list]

But still, its not clear to me that the "him" in "...good were it to him..." refers to Christ rather than Judas, because it also says "WOE to that man [Judas]..."

If it is referring to Judas, I simply see it as telling us that FOR Judas (i.e. from his perspective) he will  prefer to be dead or not to have been born when he is judged.

[rrammfcitktturjsp]

To All,

   Okay set 'em up my friends.  "I deal"  you 7 cards, and you seven cards, and you seven cards. And the rest of  you get to watch. 

  Sincerely,



  Anne C. McGuire

[TimothyVI]

"Most "mainstream" Bibles translate and interpret these verses the traditional way:  Jesus was dissing Judas with an admonishment reserved for the worst of the worst.  This translation (Knoch?) turns everything upside down when taken to its logical conclusion."

Even when accepting the main stream interpretation, I did not think that Jesus was admonishing Judas. After all, Judas just did what he had to do. Jesus picked him as one of the twelve for just that purpose. How could Judas have done differently? Instead, I thought that Jesus was expressing sorrow for Judas, sorrow for the pain that Judas had to go through in this life. Judas would have truly been better off if he had not even been born.

Now, looking at this new interpretation of that verse. Why would Jesus say that it would have been better for Him if Judas had never been born? Jesus knew that, if not Judas,  it would have had to have been someone else in order to fullfill scriptural prophesy.

Tim

[Pax Vobiscum]

Thank you, Tim, for the wonderful (and more loving) read on the "orthodox" translation.  I think that is a lovely idea.

As to the "new" translation....

I believe that this translation was recognized in the late 1800s (if my sources are correct). 

As far as your other idea, what I thought about was that Jesus used a pronoun -- not Judas' name.  We only inserted Judas.  So whoever fulfills the role of betrayer would be the person in the statement.

Such a slippery slope...

Peace

[TimothyVI]

Thank you, Tim, for the wonderful (and more loving) read on the "orthodox" translation.  I think that is a lovely idea.

As to the "new" translation....

I believe that this translation was recognized in the late 1800s (if my sources are correct). 

As far as your other idea, what I thought about was that Jesus used a pronoun -- not Judas' name.  We only inserted Judas.  So whoever fulfills the role of betrayer would be the person in the statement.

Such a slippery slope...

Peace

Hi Pax,
By "new" interpretation I meant new to me. The first time that I heard about that translation was when I read what Ray said about it.
Let's continue with your thought . Even if Jesus had used  a pronoun, or the name of George or James or Samantha. Wouldn't the
meaning of the sentence be the same? It would have been better for Jesus if that person had never been born.

Why would Jesus express that lament when the outcome of His mortal life had to end the same as it did, regardless of whether He was betrayed or not.
The people coming to get Jesus knew what he looked like. They did not need Judas to point Him out. The betrayer was required so that prophesy could be fullfilled, and perhaps for other reasons that I do not yet quite comprehend.


I suppose that a person could think that perhaps Jesus was really insinuating that it would have been better for Him if this whole idea of being betrayed to crucification had never been born. If there could have just been another way.

Just my rambling thoughts.

Tim

[Hokie0000]

This is an interesting conversation . I looked up the verse in the NASB which is the translation that is most true to the original Greek text.  It says, "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."  Therfore, Pax, you are right to interpret the verse that way you have with "would have been better". The subjunctive mood implies multiple meanings.....from the encyclopedia
"It typically expresses wishes, commands (in subordinate clauses), emotion, possibility, judgment, necessity, and statements that are contrary to fact at present. The details of subjunctive use vary from language to language."  It can be a sugesstion or a judgement or a command.  Taken in these three ways give different ways inwhich the text could be understood. But the commonality is that fact that what ever is being said is contrary to what is actually happening.  No matter what, the Son of Man will be betrayed.  But, why do we only understand it in terms of someone at the table.  I take it a step farther and see Jesus expanding this out ot us today....2000 years later....who are still betraying him. 

Chap Lex

[eggi]

Isn't this verse among the same lines?

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. (Mark 9:42 KJV)

[Craig]

I looked up the verse in the NASB which is the translation that is most true to the original Greek text.  It says, "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." 

I've never heard that the NASB was the most true, how do you know this for a fact? (I personally wouldn't put it in the top ten, but thats just my opinion)  I've read that Rotherman's is the most true, (another opinion) and it states:

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, had it been for him, if, that man, had not been born!

That translation supports Rays view.  I do not know greek and I have not looked at the original scrolls,  but I would say this would be a tough verse to translate and in my feeble mind, it doesn't much matter anyway.

Craig

[Pax Vobiscum]

This subject was launched after I realized that a few translations of the Bible have Jesus, in a solemn mood, speaking in a hypothetical.  As I read it in this new light, I saw that it forced us to at least consider that Jesus had at least considered something that was not in fact, fact.

I never meant to disagree with Ray's take on this except that he has not commented on the implications of this translation -- only the translation itself -- which, at the very least can be described as "out of the mainstream."  Hear me when I say that "mainstream" is no ticket to Truth.

The more I pondered the clearly written translation the more puzzled I became with (what I consider a fascinating area for discussion) the responses.  Not to pick, Craig, but "... (The words of Jesus in this situation don't) really matter"?

So I turn to Ray again.  Ray's words on "listening to scripture" are:

...But there are little words and phrases, if you understand them, will explain a whole gamut of things.  ... pay attention to the words.  Don't just read over them and try to get an overview.   Pay attention to the words, all the words.   Man should live by every word (Luke 4:4),  all scripture are by inspiration of God, all these words are important. 



These words are important, indeed.

Peace

[Chris R]

Hello,

Interseting thread, It should at least be noted that "anthropos" [man] does not always mean a individual person. Nor does "auto" [he] always mean one sex or the other but one or both, or "all".

Now im not suggesting Christ was talking to all mankind, but perhaps just those "men" whom the son of man was delivered to.

It might be feesable, although perhaps incorrectly, that the verse could be interpited something like this.

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to "those men" by whom the Son of man is betrayed! "better" were it for "those men" if "themsleves" had "not" been born.

Sometimes , although not always, singular man [autos] has been translated to more than one individual, but rather several individuals. As is the case of "[Anthropos]"

Although it doesnt answer your question Pax, it is at least interesting to look at some variables.

Peace

Chris R