I saw an interesting rendering of this verse in my readings. I will let others judge as to it merits. In reading the words from the Greek, it seems it is possible to read it such that "It would be good for Him (Christ) if that man (Judas) had not been born." Apparently in the first case where the word "him" (strongs 846) is used it refers to Christ, Judas is first referenced as "that man" (strongs 444, 1565). If both references to "Him" are Christ, and both references to "that man" are to Judas, it reads much differently.Sean wrote:Matthew 26:24
"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.”
Why did Jesus say this about Judas if he will eventually be saved anyway. Certainly no amount of suffering/correction can equal a time where it would be better that your not even born. Especially when one is going to be spending eternity with the Father, eventually anyway.
This is how it is rendered in Youngs Literal Translation:
"the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him(Christ), but woe to that man (Judas) through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him (Christ) if that man (Judas) had not been born."
(bold parentheses mine)
This is just one way to look at it. In any case, there are many sayings in first century literature that are startling to me and I am not sure how to understand them. I recommend care in reading too much into them. It is quite possible Jesus was not intending us to read into it the final state of Judas.
Mike