Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > It repented God that He made man

Forum Quick Jump

29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Lee Merrill
booted

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723

Posted 6/5/2005 1:58 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Jeff,

jefscott said...
Jeff: The fact that one might be forgiven and the other might not may have nothing to do with which is worse.

That's a good point, though I would tend to think that the one sin that cannot be forgiven would be the worst one. But if not, it does also seem that Jesus saying "all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven" might well imply that no one will ever blaspheme in this unforgiveable way...

Blessings,
Lee

==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 7/20/2005 1:45 PM (GMT -6)

Lee and Jeff,

I just wanting to toss in another explanation of the Matthew 26:24 issue with Judas. I have read others who state the the passage does not say that it would have been better for Judas had he not been born, but insted it would have been better for Jesus had not Judas been born. Let me explain...

At the beginning of verse 24, "The Son of man goeth as it is written of Him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!"

Note that the pronoun "HIM" refers to Jesus, and the phrase "THAT MAN" refers to Judas.

There are experts who will contend that the Authorised version of the original Greek from Matthew 26:24 has no real foundation. The the margin of the Revised Version it is corrected to say "Good were for HIM, if THAT MAN has not been born."

Rotherham's Emphasized Version renders the same verse "well would have it been for HIM, if THAT MAN had not been born."

The Roman Catholic Douay and Leander versions also concur with this rendering.

The "HIM" refers to Jesus Christ and the "THAT MAN" refers to Judas.

Consider the situation. How agonizing was it for Christ knowing full well that Judas would eventually betray Him! Christ shared many of the secrets of the kingdom with His twelve disciples. In His three years with His disciples He most likely shared intimate moments with each. How difficult this must had been knowing that His traitor was in their mist! It would have been better for Christ had His traitor never been born!

If this rendering is the correct rendering of the original then this statement speaks nothing of Judas' eternal state.

klock

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/20/2005 5:11 PM (GMT -6)

I can't comment on the Greek, but the context doesn't fit to referent the pronoun "him" to Jesus.

How is it better for Jesus if Judas wasn't born? What would Jesus have done then? Live to a ripe old age? The issue wasn't that Jesus was really close to His disciples and one of them betrayed Him. The issue is that Christ already knew who would betray Him, was expecting--indeed, looking forward to it in that it would bring about the ultimate consumation of Christ's purpose for coming--and was tying the soon-betrayal into the Passover.

Finally, it wasn't an issue of being better for Christ if His traitor wasn't born. It would have been worse, so to speak; without the betrayal, a guarantee of another to get the job done or some other way to get Jesus on the cross, we would all yet be in sin and Jesus would be without the joy set before Him, having endured the cross, despising its shame, sitting down now at the right hand of the Father.

Someone check the Greek on this, please.

Starkman

My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?

klock
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 30

Posted 7/20/2005 10:34 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman-

At the beginning of the passage the "Him" refers to Jesus and the "that man" refers to Judas as I have shown in my earlier post. Why would this change for the second half of the verse. Obviously there were those on the KJV revision committee that at least defended the necessity of having the correction in the margin of the Revised version. There is no disagreement that the traitor and Christ's ordeal was a necessary evil toward the good of all humanity according to the purposes of God. I would think that it was very difficult for Christ to teach and shepard His disciples knowing full well that the traitor was among them. Would you not have an incredibly difficult time sharing that which is most important to you with someone you know will eventually betray your very life? Would it not have been ideal for the Lord if He didn't have to deal with His eventual traitor in this manner?

Klock

Post Edited (klock) : 7/20/2005 10:37:13 PM (GMT-5)

29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:41 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual