The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.## Introduction - In Plain Language: Jesus tells his disciples that he will go to his death because Scripture says so, but he warns that the person who betrays him will face terrible consequences — it would have been better if that person had never been born. - Big idea: This verse holds together two truths: Jesus’ suffering fulfills God’s plan, and the human choice to betray carries grave personal responsibility and judgment. - Key points: - Jesus sees his coming suffering as the fulfillment of Scripture, not as mere accident. - The phrase “woe unto that man…” expresses a strong moral judgment against the betrayer. - The shock of “better not been born” is Semitic hyperbole used to show how catastrophic the betrayer’s fate will be. ## Context - Where this verse fits in: This line is part of the Last Supper scene in Matthew’s Passion narrative. Jesus has just predicted that one of the Twelve will betray him and is responding publicly to the disaster of that betrayal. - Story timeline: It’s the night before Jesus’ crucifixion, in Jerusalem, during the Passover meal. Jesus is addressing his disciples at the table. The immediate audience includes the Twelve apostles; Judas Iscariot is present and is the implied subject. - Surrounding passage: - Just before (Matthew 26:21–23): Jesus says, “One of you will betray me,” the disciples are distressed and ask who will do this, and Jesus identifies the betrayer by saying the one who dips with him will do it. - This verse (26:24) is Jesus’ comment: he must go as written in Scripture, but woe to the betrayer. - Immediately after (26:25–26): Judas asks, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” and then departs; Jesus goes on to institute the Lord’s Supper and then later prays in Gethsemane and is arrested. ## Explanation - Quick take: Matthew 26:24 balances two realities — Jesus accepts that his suffering fulfills prophetic Scripture, and he pronounces a severe condemnation on the person who betrays him. The verse stresses both divine purpose and human culpability. - In Depth: - “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him” — Jesus points to Scripture (the Old Testament prophets and psalms) that announced or foreshadowed a suffering servant or the fate of the “son of man.” He sees his path to death as part of God’s revealed plan. This doesn’t remove human choice, but it locates Jesus’ suffering within God’s redemptive purpose. - “But woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!” — “Woe” (Greek ouai) is prophetic language of judgment and lament. It is not casual; it shows severe moral consequence. The person who betrays Jesus violates deep trust and brings disaster on himself. - “It had been good for that man if he had not been born” — This hyperbolic statement says the betrayer’s future misery will be so great that nonexistence would be better than what comes. It’s meant to shock and underline the seriousness of conscious, treacherous rejection of Jesus. It is not an instruction about life-and-death decisions for others, but a prophetic denunciation of the betrayal’s moral gravity. - Tension between divine plan and human freedom: The verse shows both — Jesus goes “as written” (God’s plan) and yet the betrayer is personally responsible and judged. Biblical theology often holds these two together: God accomplishes his purposes through real human choices, for which people are accountable. ## Key Words - Son of Man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ho huios tou anthrōpou) — a title Jesus uses for himself that can carry the sense of humanity, a prophetic figure, and a Messiah who suffers and is vindicated. - ὑπάγει (hypagei) — “goes” or “proceeds” (here: goes to his fate, his suffering and death). - γέγραπται (gegraptai) — “it is written” (points to Scripture/prophecy being fulfilled). - παραδίδεται (paradidetai) — “is betrayed” or “is handed over” (passive form, indicating the action of betrayal directed at Jesus). ## Background - Cultural/literary notes: In ancient Mediterranean culture, sharing a meal and dipping the same bread signified close fellowship. Betrayal by a table-fellow was especially treacherous. Prophetic “woe” sayings and hyperbolic curses were common motifs to express extreme warning or condemnation. - Literary background: Matthew frequently ties Jesus’ actions to “as it is written” to show continuity with Scripture and to present Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s story. ## Theology - Theological insights in plain language: - God’s redemptive plan includes Jesus’ suffering; Scripture expectation and Jesus’ vocation align. - Human choices matter: even when an event fits God’s plan, the people who make destructive choices are morally responsible and face judgment. - The seriousness of betrayal: rejecting Jesus after close association with him is depicted as one of the gravest sins. ## Application To Your Life - Different audiences: - For workers/colleagues: Be mindful that betrayal of trust harms relationships and has serious consequences — protect integrity in small and big decisions. - For parents: Teach children that actions have consequences; loyalty and honesty matter deeply. - For leaders/ministers: Close proximity to good does not guarantee personal faithfulness — humility and accountability are crucial. - For seekers/doubters: This verse shows both that Jesus’ suffering had purpose and that personal response to him matters. You are invited to trust, not betray, what you know of God. - Reflection question(s): - Where am I tempted to betray trust or compromise my integrity for gain or comfort? - How do I respond when I see God’s plans at work but also feel the weight of my own choices? - Short prayer: - Lord, give me the courage to live faithfully, to honor trust, and to turn away from choices that harm others and myself. Help me to follow you, not betray you. ## Translation Comparison - KJV (King James Version): “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.” - NIV (New International Version): “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” - ESV (English Standard Version): “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.” - NRSV (New Revised Standard Version): “The Son of Man goes as it has been written of him; but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” - NASB (New American Standard Bible): “The Son of Man is going 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.” - Why differences matter: - Tone and clarity: “goeth” (KJV) is archaic; modern versions use “goes” or “will go,” which sound clearer to contemporary readers. - “Would be better” vs “had been good” — modern translations use a conditional “It would have been better” to convey the sense of hypothetical regret more directly than older phrasing. - “That man” / “that one” / “who betrays” — small wording changes affect readability and sometimes emphasize the personal nature of the condemnation. Overall the core sense is consistent: fulfillment of Scripture and a strong warning against betrayal. ## FAQs - Q: Does Matthew 26:24 prove that Judas’ betrayal was predestined and he had no choice? A: This verse shows two truths at once: Jesus recognizes his suffering as part of what Scripture predicted (“as it is written”), and he calls the betrayer to account. Biblical authors often hold divine purpose and human responsibility together. Saying an event fits God’s plan is not the same as saying the human actor had no freedom. Scripture elsewhere calls people to repent (showing moral responsibility) and also shows God sovereignly working purposes out. Many Christians conclude that Jesus’ death was foreknown and used by God for redemption, while those who carried out the betrayal (like Judas) acted freely and are morally responsible for what they did. The verse itself does not settle detailed debates about predestination and free will; it aims to show that God’s redemptive purposes and human choices interact in complex ways, and that betrayal of Jesus is judged severely. - Q: Does “it would have been good for that man if he had not been born” mean suicide would be better than sinning? A: No. This statement is a prophetic hyperbole — an extreme way of saying the betrayer’s outcome will be catastrophic. It’s not a moral endorsement of suicide or a permission to harm oneself. Jesus’ words are a condemnation of the act of betrayal and its spiritual consequences, not an instruction about life and death choices for others. Christian teaching consistently affirms the value of life; when Christians read passages like this, they understand them as warnings about the seriousness of rejecting God and the tragic consequences that may follow, not as encouragement to die. If you or someone you know struggles with suicidal thoughts, seek immediate help from trusted people and professionals. ## Cross References - Psalm 41:9 — “Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me.” (echoes betrayal by a table-friend) - Zechariah 13:7 — “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.” (prophetic imagery Matthew links to Jesus’ suffering) - Mark 14:21 — parallel saying about the betrayer and the disaster that follows. - John 13:21–30 — John’s account of Jesus identifying Judas and Judas leaving into the night to betray him. - Luke 22:22 — “The Son of Man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed.” (Luke similarly balances plan and responsibility) ## Deeper Study - Commentary synthesis (high-level): Most commentators read Matthew 26:24 as combining fulfillment language (“as it is written”) with a moral denunciation of betrayal. The verse connects to Old Testament texts that speak of a suffering or struck leader and emphasizes the gravity of abandoning or actively turning against the Messiah. Scholars differ on the implications for Judas’ ultimate fate; some see this as a statement about eternity, others as a present lament about the disaster his action brings. The verse is often discussed in relation to theological questions about providence and free will but functions primarily in Matthew as a poignant moral and theological warning in the Passion story. - Group study bullets: - Read Matthew 26:21–26 aloud, then discuss how the group feels about the contrast between “as it is written” and “woe to that man.” - Compare Matthew’s wording with John 13 and Luke 22 — what different emphases do you find? - Talk about trust and betrayal in your own community: what systems or relationships are vulnerable to this kind of failure, and how can you guard against it? - Consider pastoral responses: how should a community welcome someone who has betrayed trust but wants to repent? ## Related verses (compare and contrast) - Psalm 41:9 — why: shows the betrayal-by-a-friend motif that Matthew echoes and helps readers see the emotional depth of the betrayal. - Zechariah 13:7 — why: often seen as prophetic background for Jesus’ suffering and the disciples’ scattering — highlights the “as it is written” element. - John 13:21–30 — why: John’s narrative gives detail (Jesus’ private identification of Judas and Judas’ exit) that complements Matthew’s concise pronouncement and helps readers see the human drama. ## Talk to the Bible Try the “Talk To The Bible” feature to dig deeper. Suggested prompts: - “Show me Old Testament passages Matthew might mean by ‘as it is written’ in Matthew 26:24 and explain how they connect.” - “Compare how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John present the betrayal and explain the main differences in tone and emphasis.” - “Explain the different Christian views on Judas’ fate and what Matthew 26:24 contributes to that discussion.”
