I found a book called “Judas Iscariot: Revisited and Restored” by Ivan Roger, and though I have read it once before, this time the authors points seem to be sinking in a bit more.

The general theme of the book is that much of the popular understanding of Judas, and his relationship within Christianity, is colored by theological presuppositions and general bias against Judas.

In our previous discussion, we considered the Greek word translated as “betray” within the gospel of Matthew, and offered the possibility that it could be translated as deliver, as opposed to betray.

In this post we will consider Matthew 26:24, where the Lord speaks of “woe” on the one who will deliver Him to the high priest. Let’s take a moment to read the verse.

Mat 26:24 ESV – The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

The author of the book provides two questions to consider. Does the term woe carry with it a sense of responsibility? And secondly, what is the message “…would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”?

Woe

As Jesus comes to the end of His ministry, He begins to pronounce His woes on those who will enter into judgement. The Pharisees, the Scribes, Judas, pregnant women and young mothers. What? Pregnant women and young mothers? Entering into judgement? Am I assuming something I shouldn’t?

Mat 24:19 ESV – And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!

The word “woe” (or “alas” as translated in this verse) is a translation of οὐαί ouaí and is a primary exclamation of grief. I have always introduced the idea of judgement with this word, but that is an additional concept Carl brings into the verse, especially when I hear it about those dang Pharisees! (Don’t forget your pharisaical tendencies Carl!)

The term strictly carries with it the idea of grief, and not necessarily that of responsibility. The Lord expresses His grief, even when it comes to those opposing Him. Jesus, in pronouncing woe on those who would be instrumental in His crucifixion, was expressing grief over their future. And He was pronouncing grief over the future of Judas, but is He pronouncing an eternal judgement of hellfire and condemnation on Judas? I have to admit that I find it difficult to see this interpretation as a clear teaching from this verse. His heart is breaking over the suffering His disciple was going to experience in the future. Like those pregnant women and young mothers. But Carl, the next phrase is where we get the judgement and condemnation poured out on Judas! So let us consider the phrase “better for that man if he had not been born”.

Better for that man if he had not been born.”

The author associates “that man” with Judas, which I also have as I read through this passage. He refers to Judas as a representative man, a man that stands in the place of all humanity in being a traitor to the Messiah, and that each of us deserves judgement. I get this, yet it didn’t seem to make a difference for me in my understanding of Jesus statement.

A few years ago, I was looking at this verse and stumbled over an alternate translation that associates “that man” with Jesus. Hold up now before you think I have flipped my lid. Consider a literal translation, such as Youngs Literal Translation.

Matthew 26:24 YLT – 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.’

Did you catch the difference in who “that man” is?

…good it were for him (Judas) if that man (Jesus) had not been born. That is a completely different message!

Consider all that is going on in this portion of the verse.

First off, it speaks of life, and not simply existence. There is a difference. It is not that “that man” was never conceived, but that he had not been born. A still born baby existed, but never lived outside of the womb. I am not sure if this fine point makes a difference, or if this is simply a Hebrew prophets way of describing no existence better than having existed, even for a short duration. Yet even with that, to assign the hell fires of eternal condemnation to Judas based on this turn of phrase, seems like we just can’t wait to get Judas into hell. We sure like to hate him!

Secondly, the turn of phrase, that of “better to not have been born”, may not be referring to Judas if I am understanding the literal translations. No matter, based on both my preconceived ideas of “woe” and identifying who should have not been born, this verse is not so clear as I thought regarding Judas’ destiny of eternal torment.

What think ye? Leave me a comment below

In my next posting, we will consider the command Jesus gave to Judas at the last supper. Somewhat of a challenge to our (my) thinking, to say the least.

I look forward to your return for our next posting on this book at Considering the Bible, and if you have found my ruminations to be a blessing (or a challenge), invite your friends to join us.

---

Follow Considering the Bible on WordPress.com

Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.