The Evangelical Universalist Forum

It would be better to not have been born...

suicide and despair are not sins…

and also, i believe Jason is largely right: it is a cultural expression. we have examples of similar usages that don’t literally mean it would be better not to live at all.
life is better than no life at all.

i think what Jason has said about felix culpa is compelling too. i think there could be as many experiences of true fulfilment as their are people. ie what will satisfies me in the new kingdom (a mansion full of snakes and spiders to look after and a band to play with) will not be what satisfies a guy who would rather his mansion were more like a villa with loads of rooms full of model trains.
so maybe it’s wrong to compare my future happiness with someone else’s…both in quantity and quality. all we can know is that God has promised to whipe every tear, beat every sword into a plowshare, etc…and so we know that God will bring true joy to every heart…no matter how long it takes. and that joy will be Ultimate for every person in the end, when death and hades are finally destroyed.

i suppose what i’m saying is this is rather a pointless argument over semantics.

Then I didn’t sin last month (when I tried to end my own life, and woke up two days latter in ICU)?

Facing another day is still a challenge, and if I didn’t think suicide was a sin…

I doubt anyone would say that Judas ends up happier than Peter (or Hitler ends up more blessed than his victims), and if they end up in equal bliss (after Judas and Hitler have suffered temporal correction for their sins), your own logic shows that those who avoided (or were blessed with avoiding) the evil of that suffering are better off (or more blessed) than those who didn’t.

As Jason said (concerning aionian punishment):

i’m sorry you are struggling with depression at the moment. what i meant was this.
ok, suicide is a “sin” in the sense that it is not God’s plan…it stops Him being able to use you in this life, and any lessons yet to be learned…well who knows how God handles that.

but i would not view the despair and depression that drives people to suicide or self-harm as crimes in the same way i would judge theft or assault or lying etc.

suicidal urges and depression are things that should not be condemned. you are NOT a bad person because you feel that way. and God would rather gather you into His arms and tell you that it’s all going to be ok, just hang on…put your trust in Him.
i don’t believe that successful suicides earn judgement…they are sad things, to be mourned. a person who cannot stand living and ends their life is a VICTIM.

there is that awful Catholic belief that it is a “mortal” sin…but i don’t see that anywhere in Scripture.

you must fight the feelings of depression/worthlessness or whatever it is that’s causing you to see life this way. i would suggest STRONGLY seeing your doctor and getting medical help. there is no shame in this.
much depression in the world is a medical problem…but due to horrible, unfair, judgemental views, it is stigmatised and people are often told that if they have enough FAITH they can beat it. God says…have faith but TAKE SOME ANTIDEPRESSANTS as you are out of balance and it CAN BE HELPED.
sorry if this is saying stuff you already know…i can only relate what i’ve seen and experienced. and i’ve seen enough people speaking badly about the medical help that’s available that i have to risk overstating the case. also, sorry if this is irrelevant to you.

taking antidepressants and getting help for it is no different from getting a crutch if you’ve broken your leg, or taking cough medicine for a cold.

regardless, i can see that this is an emotive issue for you. i really don’t agree that those who die in the womb are somehow better off, if the life they were heading for involved the potential for sin or suffering. there is also good in the world, and that good is worth living for.

life is better than death.

i don’t feel you can quantify eternal happiness in the way you are seeking to. we cannot base entire doctrines on what are essentially figures of speech.

I don’t know where God said “have faith but take some antidepressants,” but I do know that not everything has a biochemical cause or solution.

I saw the one person I loved more than anything on earth (and who loved and trusted me more than anyone ever will) suffer for three months.

I was told that letting her die wasn’t murder, but I couldn’t let her die, and she did everything I wanted (for me, and it only prolonged her suffering.)

If I didn’t believe in God, sin, reconciliation, and a life beyond this, I couldn’t go on (and no pill is gonna change that, or should change that.)

I hope life is better than death (and there’s still life for my mother), but believe me—suffering (however temporal) is better avoided.

If Judas suffered the way I have in the last hours of his life, if he’s suffered like that post-mortem, and if he could have attained bliss without that suffering (by having died in the womb), it would truly have been better for him if he hadn’t been born.

that’s why i said sorry if what i said was irrelevant. but i know many people that should heed that advice.
it came from a place of caring. i am genuinely sorry to hear of the suffering you’ve endured.

just for solidarity, you aren’t the only one, i’ve been witness to some pretty awful things too (mother related as well). God will heal your hurts, though. and yes, God will bring about His purpose. there is hope, and more than hope.

i think you have a different perspective of what Jesus said…and a valid one. i don’t know that i totally agree from my point of view, but i think i begin to understand what you mean.

Thank you.

Compare father and son:

David: The LORD is my shepherd; he refreshes my soul; I fear no evil; He is with me; my cup overflows; goodness and love follow me; I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

Solomon: Humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place…the dead are happier than the living. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

Interestingly, Solomon says its better not to have been born because of the evil that people must witness and endure in *this *life. Given this, perhaps Jesus was saying to Judas, “You are about to do the most evil deed that ever will be done. You will discover a horror within your own soul that goes deeper than any man’s darkness. It will be more than you can bear. Woe to you, Judas. It will destroy your mind and your body. But know this. Whatever you do to me and to yourself, I will always be your friend.”

And maybe the alternate translation suggested by Paidon on the other Judas thread is correct.

Maybe He was saying it would have been better for Him (in His humanity) if the man who betrayed Him hadn’t been born.

Or maybe He was really saying it would have been better for Judas if he had died in the womb, because he would have attained bliss without all the prior horror, anguish and torment.

Why are some here stuck on just one interpretation?

Particularly when that interpretation is of a kind that would seem the least defensible to any non-universalist believer with an inclination to take scripture literally (in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise.)

Hi Michael,

The older I get, the less I know. I love Ps 131…

1 My heart is not proud, LORD,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul.
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.

3 Israel, put your hope in the LORD
both now and forevermore.

Since you don’t know–I guess you’d agree that the alternate translation (suggested by Paidon on the other Judas thread) could be correct.

Jesus could have been saying it would have been better for Him (in His humanity) if the man who betrayed Him hadn’t been born.

(Or He could have really been saying that it would have been better for Judas if he had died in the womb, because then he would have attained his final bliss without all the prior horror, anguish and torment,)

Thank you Allen.

Another important factor in this discussion is consideration of the Greek word which has been translated as “born”. The word is the passive form of “γενναω”. Strictly speaking this word does not mean “born” but means “begotten” or “generated”. If it means “born” then the active form means “give birth to”, and Matthew chapter 1 would begin with “Abraham gave birth to Isaac; Isaac gave birth to Jacob; Jacob gave birth to Judas, etc.” The active form when applied to a woman, would probably be best rendered as “conceived”.

However when we look at a clear case of someone being born, a different Greek word is used: the passive form of “τικτω”. For example “τικτω” rather than “γενναω” is used in the following sentence uttered by the angel to the shepherds:

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11

So the phrase in question perhaps should be translated, “It would have been better for him if that man had not been conceived.”

Thanks Paidion. If this plot thickens much more, we’ll need a hammer and chisel.

(Once again I’m dismayed by how much we lose in translation.)

Man, I’m really short on time . . .this was a conversation I had just last week . . .dealing with Judas not being born . . .because I’m new here . . .let me throw out my platform . . .I see everything is from a spiritual platform rather than a natural stage. Jesus’ words are spirit. Like his parables, he uses natural means to reveal spiritual truths. For me, “the man” isn’t about an individual named Judas . . . it’s about the OLD man never to have been born. The inward man of flesh . . .due to time, I’m gonna paste something I’d written to this last week on . . .not sure if I can get back today to check for responses or not. Definitely be back tomorrow . . .

I’d like to lob out a couple thougts on this thread if you don’t mind. One is, I personally think Judas was convinced that Jesus was going to literally take the throne back from the Romans. If you keep this story in the context of the day, the Jews avidly despised the Roman authorities and Jesus spoke much about ruling and reigning. In fact, I believe all of the disciples felt Jesus was going to literally take the throne. Even after his resurrection, they inquired of him as to when he was going to do that. So . . .when Judas put two and two together, I think he felt he was going to cause Jesus to force his hand . . . I think Judas thought that if he turned Jesus in, that Jesus would take the opportunity to call fire down from heaven and consume all of his enemies and once the Romans were burned up, Jesus would then be at the helm of Israel as a nation. But, like all the other disciples, Judas didn’t realize that Jesus was speaking of a spiritual kingdom, not a naturall one. But by the time Judas did realize Jesus wasn’t going to call fire down, it was to late and they killed Jesus. I don’t think Judas expected Jesus to be murdered. I think “that’s” what put him over the edge of his sanity. When he saw them kill Jesus, he knew that “he” was the kingpin that got Jesus killed. Once the plan fell apart, suicide was the only option left and it was also the result of one who wished they were never born. To take your own life is to despise the day of your birth.

I haven’t read through this thread so pardon me if I missed a discussion on this. But to me it seems only reasonable that Jesus is speaking in hyperbole as He often did, not literally or technically. It’s a means of highlighting just how bad of a situation a person is in.

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. If you eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.” “It would have been better that he was never born.” “It’s harder for a rich man to be saved than for a camel to go threw the eye of the needle.”

The point of the passage is how terrible it would be to be Judas, the one selected to betray the Lord! It wasn’t meant to be taken literally, I believe.

Yeah, I agree with ya on that one as well Sherman . . . it’s such a tough thing for us to do once it’s been engrained in us how we’re supposed to read the Bible, but for me, the truth is, the rules change the moment we move from natural to spiritual. In the natural, everything is based on logic and reason . . .as it should be . . .but in the spirit, it becomes like the quantum, things that “should” add up, don’t. And just by observing, we affect the process of the very things we can’t see. In the spiritual realm, the least becomes the greatest. Things that we give least attention to are the very things that activate illumination. In the natural, everything is confined to knowledge. The balances of what is good and what isn’t. What is white, what is black. Who is right, who is wrong. But in the Spirit, nothing is based on knowledge, everything is based on faith. Faith is seeing things that aren’t visible by natural means.

I tell it to people this way . . .In “this” realm, my mind is in “operation”. but when I move into the spiritual realm, “I” need to submit my mind from that of operation, to become one of “observation”. My mind can only “observe” what has already been done. It’s my “spirit” that goes into operating in that finished state. All my mind can “understand” is current state. Healing comes, light comes . . .when I can enter into the “finished state” of what’s already been done. And “that” can only happen “through” our relationship with God through Christ.

So . . when I see passages like this one that’s been brought up, rather than try to reason out why Jesus would tell us it’d be best if we weren’t ever born if we were to do this or that . . . I try allow my spirit to do what I see we were created to do . . .to “hover” over the face of the deep . . .the identity of the unknown (to us). You know the passage . . .the deep that calls to the deep. My spirit is the light within me, searching my most inward thoughts (Proverbs 20:27) my mind is blind to spiritual truths. In fact, my mind is at emnity to God’s truths. It can read the Bible just like any other mind of man, but it’s ability to see spiritual truth is nonexistent without the Holy Spirit breathing life into what’s being read. So . . .when I’m not seeing understanding with a passage, I hover . . .I ponder . . .I stay with it for a while and listen for sound to come out of it. There are times when it’s immediate, other times, not so much. And yet other times, I’ll see different variations or different “dimensions” of the same passage. I think this deal with Judas is one of those.

Logically, what Jesus is saying doesn’t seem to line up with the fact that life in and of itself is a gift from God. But yet is Jesus saying the gift God gave Judas is actually a curse? If God is no respector of persons, why would life for Judas be cursed when the rest of us aren’t? Unless . . .it’s meant to be seen as a spiritual truth rather than a natural statement.

I just don’t think like this. I don’t believe that we have a “soul” and a “spirit” each of which is somehow “us”, one of which reasons, and the other which somehow perceives — apart from reason. I believe that each of is is a person holistically, that everything that actually exists and operates is totally rational. “Body”, “soul”, and “spirit” are not three different entities, but three different aspects of the one entity, namely the whole person.

Our Lord, the “logos” of God, was and is, wholly rational. The word “logos” means “reason”; it is the word from which “logic” is derived. If we wish to submit to God’s work in our lives to bring us to the point of being in the image of Christ, then we must be rational, too.

One other thought (and I think this was proposed by a universalist named Andrew Jukes) is that Jesus might have been saying that it would have been better for Judas (as the man he was at the time he betrayed Christ) if he had never been born (or even ever existed, as long as he is the man he was.)

Paul talks a lot about “the old man” and “the new man,” and I think Jukes saw this as relevant to Christ’s words concerning Judas (assuming the standard translation is correct.)

According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT Words, in the passive voice gennao (Strongs # 1080) means “to be born.”:

studybible.info/vines/Beget,%20B … 0begetting,%20Born
sermonindex.net/modules/arti … &aid=37324

Out of dozens of translation & Greek-English sublinears i haven’t seen one that doesn’t translate the word as “born” at Mk.14:21:

biblehub.com/mark/14-21.htm
studybible.info/CLV

“The Greek term gennao (Strong’s Concordance #1080) underlying “born” can be confusing because it broadly means “to
procreate” or “to father,” and figuratively, to regenerate.” It can also be used as “to bear,” “to beget,” "to be born,
" “to bring forth,” “to conceive,” “to be delivered of,” “to engender,” and “to make.” The Greeks used the term for
both conception and birth, for the entire gestation process. Therefore other parts of Jesus’ and the apostle’s
instruction must be sought to reveal more clearly which Jesus means.

"In his The Complete Word Study New Testament, p. 313, Spiros Zodhiates reveals that gennao in this verse is aorist
subjunctive and in the passive voice. Word Pictures in the New Testament, “John,” p. 44, confirms that gennao is
“aorist passive subjunctive” here. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 104,
relates that, in the passive voice, gennao means “to be born.”

bibletools.org/index.cfm/fus … hiates.htm

Do you mean MARK 14:21?

It doesn’t matter if ALL translations render the word “εγεννηθη” in Mark 14:21 as “born.” The word means “begotten” or “generated” or “produced.”

If you download the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer, run the program, and look up the passage in the interlinear, you will find the immediate translation of “εγεννηθη” to be “generated.”

interlinear-scripture-analyzer-basic.software.informer.com/2.1/

In the following passages you will find that all translations render “μονογενης υιος” (monogenās huios) either as “only-begotten Son” or simply as “only Son.” None of them render it as “only-born Son”; yet the root word is the same one that you insist can mean “born.”

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
1 John 4:9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.

I’m curious how you translate the following:

Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb

John 9:2 And His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would
be born blind?”
19 “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”
20 “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind.
32 Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind.

John 16:21 A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets
the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world.

Acts 7:19 He dealt treacherously with our people and oppressed our ancestors by forcing them to throw out their newborn
babies so that they would die.
20 “And it was at this time that Moses was born; and he was lovely in the sight of God; and he was nurtured three
months in his father’s home.

Hebrews 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw he was a
beautiful child; and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
23 By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and
they were not afraid of the king’s edict.