Better had Judas not been born? Mt. 26:24
See this link for my Judas Video which is followed with commentary by others: CLICK HERE
Short Answer:
This passage does not say that it would have been better for Judas if his mother had never conceived him, only that he not had been born. There is a big difference. Ecclesiastes 6:3 says, “If a man begets a hundred children and lives many years…but his soul is not satisfied with goodness…I say that a stillborn child is better than he.” It could be the same with Judas; “Woe to that man…it would have been good for that man if he had not been born [but stillborn].”
An alternative answer taken from the first edition of “Hope Beyond Hell”:
The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born. (Mt. 26:24)
This passage posed a real obstacle for me as I contemplated the Blessed Hope. It did not take long to resolve however, once I dug deeper and found that this is a mistranslation. Observe closely the difference in how the following literal translations read. The Wycliff and Tyndale translations read the same. The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 put in the margin “Good for him if that man.”
♦ The Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! Good it were for him if that man had not been born (Mt. 26:24 YLT).
♦ The Son of Mankind is indeed going away, according as it is written concerning Him, yet woe to that man through whom the Son of Mankind is being given up! Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born (Mt. 26:24 CLT)!
♦ The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born (Mt. 26:24 Douay).
♦ The Son of Man, indeed, goeth his way, according as it is written concerning him,—But alas! for that man, through whom the Son of Man, is being delivered up: Well, had it been for him, if, that man, had not been born (Mt. 26:24 ROTH)!
Consider how the Greek Interlinear presents it:
o <3588> {THE} men <3303> {INDEED} uiov <5207> tou <3588> {SON} anyrwpou <444> {OF MAN} upagei <5217> (5719) {GOES,} kaywv <2531> {AS} gegraptai <1125> (5769) {IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN} peri <4012> {CONCERNING} autou <846> {HIM,} [Christ] ouai <3759> de <1161> tw <3588> {BUT WOE} anyrwpw <444> ekeinw <1565> {TO THAT MAN} [Judas] di <1223> {BY} ou <3739> {WHOM} o <3588> {THE} uiov <5207> tou <3588> {SON} anyrwpou <444> {OF MAN} paradidotai <3860> (5743) {IS DELIVERED UP;} kalon <2570> {GOOD} hn <2258> (5713) {WERE IT} autw <846> {FOR HIM} [Christ] ei <1487> ouk <3756> {IF} egennhyh <1080> (5681) o <3588> {HAD NOT BEEN BORN} anyrwpov <444> ekeinov <1565> {THAT MAN.} [Judas] (Mt. 26:24).
German Bible Scholar and translator, A.E. Knoch wrote:
Dr. Leander van Ess, in his German version, renders it “for him were it better, such a human were never born.” In the context immediately preceding, the identity of those referred to is fixed beyond question. It may be set forth as follows: Him = The Son of Mankind; That man = Judas.
The (Son of Mankind) is indeed going away, according as it is written concerning (Him). Yet woe to “that man” through whom the (Son of Mankind) is being betrayed! Ideal were it for (Him) if “that man” were not born!
If it had read “Ideal were it for “that man” if “he” had not been born (as usually mistranslated) then both would refer to Judas. But no unprejudiced reader of the English or the Greek can possibly refer the Him to anyone but our Lord, Who is so termed in the preceding sentence. But if all the translations ever made rendered the passage incorrectly, that would not prove anything except human fallibility. The original speaks of the Son of Mankind as “Him” and of Judas as “that man,” and makes it clear that it were ideal for Him if that man were not born.
The real cause of this mistranslation is the hardness of the human heart. On the one hand, who has been concerned with the feelings of our Lord and His distress at having the traitor in His company? Even His saints seem utterly unable to sympathize with Him in this trial. On the other hand, they have allowed a just indignation at Judas” dreadful deed to degenerate into vindictiveness, and attribute to our Lord the harshness of their own hearts. In judging Judas they have condemned themselves.
The Scriptures show the utter helplessness of Judas. How could he flee from his fate? Not only were the powers of evil against him, but the powers of good were just as determined to make him play his part. God Himself had determined the role he should have. What can a mortal do when
Satan, Christ, and God all force him to commit a deed so awful in his own eyes it drives him to desperation and death?
It may help if I confess I once feared to face this issue. I tried to find a way for God to get out of this dilemma. The idea that He could make vessels for dishonor (Ro. 9:21), and then punish them eternally was incredible. And I was right. God could not do such a thing. My mistake was to disbelieve God’s plain statement and all the evidence which sustains it in the Scriptures, because I had accepted a false theology in regard to His future dealings with these vessels which He fits for destruction. Because I now know God will not only deal justly with them, but lovingly, I am able to believe God, and glorify God, and exult in the God Who remains Love, even when He hardens and hates. (3)
FOR MORE: CLICK HERE
References:
³ Knoch, Adolph E. “The God of Jusdas Iscariot.” 1999. God’s Truth for Today. Comp. Richard Charles Condon. Concordant Publishing. 2 May 2006. http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/knoch/judasgod.htm
From Hope Beyond Hell Revised 2010 page 224; Hope Beyond Hell Revised 2007 pages 206-208
September 22, 2011
Gerry, I am happy to read that Judas has a sympathizer.
As you state in your work, Judas did not have a choice in the matter. He is God’s Hand-man in the earth performing the Will of HIM.
Kudos to you
Andy
June 21, 2012
I have been studying the topic of “God’s MERCY for all”, for 30 years and see Yeshua’s (Jesus’s) statement, regarding Judas, as describing a BETTER state for him if he had qualified for the office of Apostle, that he had been called to, rather than being forever marked as “The Betrayer”. Sure, God will bring him to repentance, as we know, “Every knee will bow…”, but he would have had a better reward if he had not betrayed, or not been born (Stillborn).
Before we judge and condemn Judas we need to consider that our sins are what Christ had to die for.
We have all betrayed !
Christ has never called me “Friend” to my face as he did Judas. (Matt. 26:50) If we are to “Love our enemies” why do we think that Christ hates Judas? When Christ prayed “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), why do we think that Judas is the exception or that God won’t answer Christ’s request? And why try to “Weasel” out of giving that forgiveness, by saying that Judas was already dead when Christ made the request?
Where is our heart of love toward our enemies?
Those who are forgiven the most will love the most. (Luke 7:41-48) Have we repented, as Judas did, to the point of “Hating our own life” (Luke 14:26) which Christ said was necessary to be His disciple?
Where is our Mercy?