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 nad 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
