In brief#

At the last supper Jesus pronounces a woe on his betrayer and says it would have been better for that man if he had not been born. He says it of one person.

The observation is simple. If the saying were equally true of everyone finally lost, singling out Judas would be strange. On eternal conscious torment (ECT), the view that the finally unrighteous exist for ever in conscious suffering, it is hard to see how it would not apply with full force to every person in that condition. Conditional immortality (CI), the view that unending life is a gift given in Christ, has room for degrees, and so for a saying that fits one man more than another.

This is a short argument resting on a single verse, and one reading of that verse substantially weakens it.

The saying#

The Son of Man goes, even as it is written of him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born.”
Matthew 26:24WEB, World English Bible, which is in the public domain

Mark 14:21 records the same saying in the same setting.

Why it is difficult on the traditional view#

If every person who is finally lost exists for ever in conscious suffering, non-existence would have been preferable for every one of them, and the comparison would be true of all without distinction. Saying it of Judas in particular, as a mark of how grave his act is, would then carry no information.

Defenders of the traditional view have a good answer. That position has always held that there are degrees of punishment, so not every lost person suffers to the same extent. On that reading Jesus marks out the singular enormity of betraying the Son of Man, identifying Judas as the gravest case rather than the only case. A statement can be uniquely apt for one person without being false of others.

Why it is difficult for universalism#

The saying is also awkward for universal reconciliation. If everyone eventually arrives at unending life with God, and any punishment along the way is finite, it would not have been better for anyone not to have been born, Judas included. An unending good outweighs a finite evil. The universalist has to explain why Jesus would say this of a man who is, on that view, finally saved.

Why it fits a view with degrees#

On the conditionalist reading, final punishment is consciously experienced, varies in severity with what a person knew and did, and ends in death. Within that picture the comparison Jesus makes is a real one. Some outcomes are worse than others, and for one man the sum of his life could genuinely be worse than not having lived it.

The caveat that weakens this argument#

Some interpreters read the saying as a Semitic idiom of extreme woe rather than as a comparative judgment about outcomes. On that reading it is a formula of lament and horror, of the same kind found elsewhere in Scripture when someone curses the day of his birth. It expresses the appalling nature of what is being done, not a claim that could be checked by weighing outcomes.

If that reading is right, the argument here has very little force. The saying would tell us how terrible the betrayal is and nothing about relative outcomes. Readers should weigh that seriously, because idiomatic readings of solemn sayings are common and often correct.

This page therefore treats the saying as a supporting observation, not as evidence that stands on its own.

What this argument establishes#

  • The saying distinguishes Judas from others, which reads most naturally as implying degrees in final outcome.
  • Universal reconciliation has difficulty accounting for the saying at all.

What it does not establish by itself#

  • That the saying is a technical statement about relative outcomes rather than a solemn warning or an idiom of extreme woe.
  • That the traditional view cannot express degrees. It can, and it does.
  • Anything about the nature or duration of final punishment.

The infinite-offence argument is RB3, whether annihilation counts as punishment is S30, and the universal-sounding texts are S25. Primary passage: Matthew 26:24. Related: Mark 14:21.

Sources and notes#

[Dear]

The three-way comparison between the traditional view, universal reconciliation and conditionalism is the source document's. The idiomatic reading is noted because it is a live option that materially weakens the argument.