BOOK UPDATES: Better Had Judas Not Been Born? (Mt. 26:24)

NOTE: Please see further comments below video script.

NOTE: Please see further comments below video script.

Video Script

I believe Jesus forgave Judas. One of the last things Jesus said while hanging on the cross, was “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do (Luke 23:34).” Do you think Judas was not included in that prayer? Isa said, “All we like sheep have gone astray, everyone has turned to his own way, and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6).” Does this promise not include Judas? If we take a deeper look at the Judas story, we may find that God’s grace extends even to him.

Did you know that Jesus and Peter both said the Scriptures had to be fulfilled concerning Judas (John17:12; Acts 1:16-17)? Did you know that Satan actually entered Judas at the same moment Christ commanded Him to go and do His act quickly (Jn 13:27)? There’s quite a dynamic here: Scripture being fulfilled, Jesus’ command, and Satan entering – all working together motivating Judas to a particular task. If you had been Judas with Satan entering you under these circumstances; how would you have acted?

Jesus said “When I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Your name; those whom You have given to me I did guard, and none of them was destroyed, except the son of the destruction, that the Writing may be fulfilled (John 17:12 YLT).” Judas was numbered with those given to Christ yet Christ excluded him from His protection. Why? Because Scripture had to be fulfilled regarding Judas in two ways: First, he had a mandate to deliver Jesus to the chief priest at the designated time and place. And second, regarding his judgment or final fate in this world. His destruction in this passage is clearly an earthly one as we see by the time frame mentioned. Jesus said “WHEN I was with them in the world I was keeping them (John 17:12 YLT).”

Can you imagine the agony that Judas went through when the full realization of his crime hit him? Matthew says, “When Judas saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” Then He “threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself ( Mt 27: 3-5).” There’s little doubt in my mind that Judas sincerely repented of his crime and found forgiveness before God – a God that Scripture says is abundant in mercy (Psalm 86:5,15).

But you’ll ask me, doesn’t the Bible say in Mt.26:24 that it would have been good for Judas had he not been born? Well, a lot of people think that. But is it true? I don’t think so and here’s why.

First, the passage does not say it would have been good for Judas had his mother never conceived him, only that he had not been born. There’s a big difference. Who believes the gates of Heaven are shut to the those who die in infancy or in the womb? Please reflect on this passage: “If a man begets a 100 children and lives many years…but his soul is not satisfied with goodness…I say that a stillborn child is better than he (Ecclesiastes 6:3).” Perhaps the truth is more like this: “It would have been good for Judas had he not been born, but stillborn.”(Also Job 3:11-16)

Second, it is more likely a discrepancy in translation. Young’s Literal Translation of Mt. 26:24 reads, “The Son of Man doth indeed go, as it has 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.” This says it were good for him (Christ) if that man (Judas) had not been born. This is radically different! This is one of twelve translations I know of (see below) that read like this. Dr. Leander Van Ess, in his German version, states it this way: “for him were it better, such a human were never born.”

If all our translators had truly realized the great pain and anguish Christ went through as a result of being betrayed by a close friend, I suspect most translations would have stated it as the translations below. This translation makes perfect sense and is true to the Greek. Consider the Online Greek Interlinear: “Ideal it-was to-him if not was-born the human that.”

For a captivating look at the Judas story, I highly recommend Judas Iscariot Revisited And Restored by Ivan Rogers. Order it on Amazon.com. It will help you appreciate even more how really unlimited God’s grace is.

END SCRIPT

Matthew 26:24 or 24b from 13 Translations:

“The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him [the Son of man]: but woe to that man [Judas] by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him [the Son of man], if that man [Judas] had not been born.” – Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (Bolding in brackets mine for emphasis. Same principle applies in following translations)

“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!” – Rotherham Translation

“Forsooth man’s Son goeth, as it is written of him; but woe to that man, by whom man’s Son shall be betrayed; it were good to him, if that man had not been born”. – Wycliffe N. T.

“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.” – Concordant Literal Translation

“The Son of Man doth indeed go, as it has 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.” – Young’s Literal Translation

“…for him if that man.” (footnote lit.) – New American Standard Bible (Updated Edition 1995)

“…for him if that man.” (footnote gr.) – Revised Version (1881)

“…for him if that man.” (footnote gr.) – American Standard Version (1901)

“…for him were it better, such a human were never born.” – Dr. Leander Van Ess, German Version

“On the one hand, the Son of the Man (=Adam’s son; = the representative human; = the eschatological messianic figure) is progressively leading the way under (or: is now going away) – just as (correspondingly as) it has been written about and concerning Him. Yet tragic will be the fate for THAT MAN through whom the Son of the Man is in the process of being turned over. It was continuing being beautiful for Him [i.e., for the Son of the man] (or; It was being ideal to Him; It was existing fine for Him) – if THAT MAN was not brought to birth (or: had [just] not been born)!” – Jonathan Mitchell N.T.

“The indeed son of the man goes as it has been written about him; Woe but to the man that, through whom the son of the man is delivered up; good it was to him, if not was born the man that.” – The Diaglot New Testament

“…Ideal it-was to-him if not was-born the human that.”   – Online Greek Interlinear Bible http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat26.pdf

“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] – Interlinear Greek – English New Testament

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY (Knoch)

German Bible Scholar and translator, A.E. Knoch wrote:

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

³ Knoch, Adolph E. “The God of Judas Iscariot.” 1999. God’s Truth for Today. Comp. Richard Charles Condon. Concordant Publishing. 2 May 2006. http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/knoch/judasgod.htm.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY (Livermore)

Assuming that the common translations of this passage are correct, here are a few thoughts by author Daniel P. Livermore (reference below).

“It had been good for that man if he had not been born.”—Matt. 26:24.

These words are supposed, by many professed religionists, to teach the endless perdition of Judas. How could it have been said of Judas, it is asked, “It had been good for that man if he had not been born,” if he is finally to be saved? If he is to reach heaven at last, it certainly was good for him to have been born.

Many erroneous ideas have arisen in regard to the meaning of this passage by supposing that it had reference to the condition of Judas in the immortal state of existence. This language had not the least reference to the final condition of Judas. It was a common proverb among the Jews in our Savior’s day, to indicate any severe calamity to befall an individual, without any reference to the future world. It had special application to events connected with this life. When any fearful calamity or judgment was to come upon an individual, it was common to say, “It were good for that man if he had not been born.” It was a proverbial expression, or an expression in common use among the Jews, to denote any severe chastisement or great misfortune, or terrible calamity. The Savior, knowing its use, and aware of the fate of Judas, very appropriately applied it to him. Similar expressions had long been in use. Job cursed the day of his birth, and said: “Let the day perish wherein I was born.” Job 3:1-3. Solomon said: ” If a man live many years, and his soul be not filled with good; and also that he hath no burial: I say that an untimely birth is better than he.” Eccles. 6:3. This is the same as saying, “It had been better if he had not been born.” It was a common proverb to denote any great misfortune coming upon an individual; and as Judas would be overwhelmed with sorrow and smitten with grief and anguish, plunged into the greatest distress by a vivid sense of his sins, it was very properly applied to him without any reference to his immortal condition.

Kenrick says, in his Exposition, the expression—

“‘It had been good for him, if he had never been born,’ is a proverbial phrase, and not to be understood literally: for it is not consistent with our ideas of the divine goodness to make the existence of any being a curse to him, or to cause him to suffer more, upon the whole, than he enjoys happiness. Rather than do this, God would not have created him at all. But as it is usual to say of men who are to endure some grievous punishment or dreadful calamity, that it would have been better for them never to have been born, Christ foreseeing what Judas would bring upon himself, by delivering up his Master into the hands of his enemies, applies this language to him.”

We call the reader’s attention to the following from Dr. Adam Clarke, the Methodist commentator, upon this subject. He enters into a labored argument to show that Judas may be saved, and that his repentance was sincere, genuine, and acceptable to God. After mature deliberation, he thinks that “there is no positive proof of the final damnation of Judas in the sacred text.” This is the opinion of one of the most learned and distinguished divines of the orthodox church. Dr. Clarke shows clearly that the language that stands at the head of this article was a proverbial expression to denote the state of any flagrant transgressor without regard to the future world. But we will let this distinguished commentator speak for himself. He says:

“Judas was indisputably a bad man; but he might have been worse: we may plainly see that there were depths of wickedness to which he might have proceeded, and which were prevented by his repentance. Thus things appear to stand previously to his end. But is there any room for hope in his death? In answer to this, it must be understood,—first: That there is presumptive evidence that he did not destroy himself; and, second: That his repentance was sincere. If so, was it not possible for the mercy of God to extend even to his case? It did so to the murderers of the Son of God; and they were certainly worse men, (strange as this assertion may appear), than Judas. Even he gave them the fullest proof of Christ’s innocence: their buying the field with the money Judas threw down, was the full proof of it; and yet, with every convincing evidence before them, they crucified our Lord. They excited Judas to betray his Master, and crucified him when they got him into their power, and therefore St. Stephen calls them both the betrayers and murderers of that Just One, (Acts 7:52), in these respects they were more deeply criminal than Judas himself; yet, even to these very betrayers and murderers, Peter preaches repentance, with the promise of remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 3:12-26). If, then, these were within the reach of mercy, and we are informed that a great company of the priests became obedient to the faith, (Acts 6:7), then certainly Judas was not in such a state as precluded the possibility of his salvation. Surely the blood of the covenant could wash out even his stain, as it did that more deeply ingrained one, of the other betrayers and murderers of the Lord Jesus.

Should the 25th verse be urged against this possibility, because it is there said that Judas fell from his ministry and apostleship, that he might go to his own place, and that this place is hell. I answer,—first: It remains to be proved that this place means hell; and, second: It is not clear that the words are spoken of Judas at all, but of Matthias: his own place meaning that vacancy in the apostolate, to which he was then elected.

To say the repentance of Judas was merely the effect of his horror; that it did not spring from the compunction of heart; that it was legal and not evangelical, etc., is saying what none can with propriety say but God himself, who searches the heart. What renders his case most desperate, are the words of our Lord. (Matt. 26:24). “Wo unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born!” I have considered this saying in a general point of view in my note on Matt. 26:24, and were it not a proverbial form of speech among the Jews to express the state of any flagrant transgressor, I should be led to apply it, in all its literal import, to the case of Judas, as I have done in the above note, in the case of any damned soul; but when I find that it was a proverbial saying, and that it has been used in many cases, where the fixing of the irreversible doom of a sinner is not implied, it may be capable of a more favorable interpretation than what is generally given to it. I shall produce a few of those examples from Schoettgen, to which I have referred in my note on Matt. 26:24.

In Chagigah, fol. 2, 2, it is said, ‘Whoever considers these four things, it would have been better for him had he never come into the world, viz.: That which is above; that which is below; that which is before; and that which is behind. And whosoever does not attend to the honor of his Creator, it were better for him had he never been born.’

In Shemoth Rabba, sect. 40, fol. 135, 1, 2, it is said, ‘Whosoever knows the law, and does not do it, it had been better for him had he never come into the world.’

In Vayikra Rabba, sect. 26, fol. 179, 4, and Midrash Coheleth, fol. 91,4, it is thus expressed; ‘It were better for him had he never been created; and it would have been better for him had he been strangled in the womb, and never have seen the light of this world.’

In Sohar Genes, fol. 71, col. 282, it is said, ‘If any man be parsimonious towards the poor, it had been better for him had he never come into the world.’ Ibid, fol. 84, col. 333. ‘If any performs the law, not for the sake of the law, it were good for that man had he never been created.’

These examples sufficiently prove that this was a common proverb, and is used with a great variety and latitude of meaning; and seems intended to show that the case of such and such persons was not only very deplorable, but extremely dangerous; but does not imply the positive impossibility either of their repentance or salvation.

The utmost that can be said for the case of Judas is this: he committed a heinous act of sin and ingratitude; but he repented, and did what he could to undo his wicked act: he had committed the sin unto death, i. e., a sin that involves the death of the body; but who can say, (if mercy was offered to Christ’s murderers, and the gospel was first to be preached at Jerusalem, that these very murderers might have the first offer of salvation through him whom they had pierced), that the same mercy could not be extended to wretched Judas? I contend, that the chief priests, etc., who instigated Judas to deliver up his Master, and who crucified him—and who crucified him, too, as a malefactor, having at the same time, the most indubitable evidence of his innocence — were worse men than Judas Iscariot himself; and that if mercy was extended to those, the wretched penitent traitor did not die out of the reach of the yearning of its bowels. And I contend farther, that there is no positive evidence of the final damnation of Judas in the sacred text.’ —Clarke in loco.

This learned commentator contends that the repentance of Judas was genuine, and that “there is no positive evidence of the final damnation of Judas in the sacred text.” Why, then, are we gravely asked, did he go and hang himself, as Matthew affirms? (Matt, 27:5) We would here state, that Luke gives a somewhat different account of his death. See Acts 1:18: “And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” How, then, are we to reconcile this apparent discrepancy between the two evangelists? One affirms that he hanged himself, the other that he fell headlong and burst asunder. The difficulty in question arises from an incorrect translation of the Greek word apegzato, here rendered “hanged himself.” It does not necessarily have this meaning, and may be rendered, “was suffocated, as with grief or anguish.” Eminent critics, as Dr. Clarke says, believe that Judas was suffocated with excessive grief. “Wakefield (he adds), supports this meaning of the word with great learning and ingenuity.” Dr. George Campbell, an eminent Scotch Presbyterian divine, says that “the Greek word plainly denotes strangling, but does not say how, by hanging, or otherwise. It is quite a different term that is used in those places where hanging is mentioned.” He also adds, that it may be rendered, “was suffocated.” Wakefield renders it, “was choked with anguish.” This rendering of the original is supported by high authority, and is evidently correct.

Judas was overwhelmed with a sense of his sin, and sincerely repented before God, carried back the ill-gotten gain, and died of excessive grief, “was chocked with anguish,” or “was suffocated.” His grief was most intense; his anguish so burdensome, that he reeled beneath the oppressive load of guilt and sorrow, and fell prostrate to the earth, being suffocated with grief. He gave every evidence possible of deep sorrow for sin, and of genuine repentance.          Judas was born, called, fell, and suffered a terrible death.  What a waste!  But the Savior would not leave it there.”

Reference: “Proof-Texts of Endless Punishment Examined and Explained (pages 107-115) by Daniel Parker Livermore; Chicago IL; 1862;  S. & A. Emerson Printers, 174 Clark Street, Chicago; Univ of Michigan Book Collections: “Americana”;  http://www.archive.org/details/prooftextsendle02livegoog

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY (Rogers)

Assuming again the common translations are correct, here are a few thoughts by Ivan Rogers (reference below):

“But to some, the fate of Judas is thought to have been sealed when the Lord said, ‘It would be good for him if he had not been born.’  When Jesus says, “woe to that man,” many Bible scholars jump to the conclusion that Judas was thereby doomed eternally….” This ‘woe’ was an exclamation of the Good Shepherd’s pity for one of his flock who was in the process of becoming prey to the wolves of his own fallen nature…Has it ever been said before in the history of humanity that anyone was better left unborn?  Is it possible that, for whatever reason, sometimes, nothingness is seemingly better than existence?  Has anyone else ever actually suggested that, under certain circumstances, death would be preferable to life?  Let us remember the anguish of poor old Job who, having lost everything, denounced the day of his birth, saying, “O why was I not hidden in the ground like a stillborn child, like an infant who never saw the light of day?” (Job 3:16).  Even the prophet Jeremiah rued the day of his own birth, saying, “Why did I ever come out of the womb to see trouble and sorrow and to end my days in shame?” (Jer 20:18).

In this context of impending judgment and sorrow, Jesus was also referring to Judas as if he were the ‘representative man’ – the by-product of Adam’s fall.  The descent of humanity was finally reaching its nadir.  The poisonous seed of sin that was sown in Eden’s garden with Adam was about to reach full bloom in Gethsemane’s garden with Judas…. Had not the Christ called Judas to partnership in his great redemptive enterprise… a favored position of honor at his side… invested … the spiritual and material assets of his kingdom?  And yet, typical of all fallen humanity, Judas would violate every facet of his sacred trust.  God, who had said of Adam’s beginning that, “it was very good” (Gen 1:31), would now say of Judas’ ending that it would be “good…if he had not been born.”

The anguish Jesus expressed over Judas’ failure reminds us of the same kind of sorrow we see in the heart of God prior to the flood of Noah’s time.  Genesis 6:6 states, “The Lord was grieved that he had made (Heb:  asah “brought forth”) man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.” Yes, the God who brought forth the first human beings has often had cause to lament the birth of his wayward offspring.  But notice how the Creator accepted full responsibility for all who had been born and later failed, saying, “…I have made them” (Gen 6:7).  It is true, Judas was destined to suffer and his guilt would prove to be more than he could bear.  Yet, in the end, the gentle Savior would graciously bear the brunt of it for him (Isa 53:5)….

Thus, of fallen humanity it would be written, “there is no one who does good, not even one” (Rom 3:12).   Better if “that man” (or any man) had never existed, with nothing to lose, than to be endowed with God’s goodness, only to finally lose it all.  Here, typified in Judas, God’s highest creation (humankind) had now fallen to the lowest level.  At last, the biblical fall had fully run its course and ruined the race.

Oh yes, Judas, like all of us, would have been better left unborn.  But, good news!  In the resurrection of Christ there is a promised “new birth” for transgressors, one that more than compensates for the weaknesses of this mortal flesh.   Read all about it and rejoice:  “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Pet 1:3).

He who died and rose again for the transgressions of others is also said to be the “firstborn from among the dead” (Col 1:18). In the resurrected Christ, Judas, who was always named last among the Twelve, may actually turn out to have been among the first of those who are said to have been granted “new birth.” After all, Jesus did say, “So the last will be first…” (Mt 20:16).

It is comforting to know that God’s love for us (and for Judas) did not begin at our physical birth, nor does it end with our physical death. God knew his created children would miserably fail their earthly birthright; thus, he made provision for a heavenly second birth.  And this he did “before the creation of the world” (1 Peter 1:18-20).  Yes, Judas was born, called, fell, and suffered a terrible death.  What a waste!  But the Savior would not leave it there.”

Reference: “Judas Iscariot: Revisited and Restored”  “Discovering Grace in an Unlikely Place.” By Ivan Rogers Xulon Press 2008 (From chapter six pages 53-55 – not consistently quoted in order presented)

http://www.amazon.com/JUDAS-ISCARIOT-REVISITED-Ivan-Rogers/dp/1606478095/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304946004&sr=1-1