17Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"
18And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, "The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.""'
19So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
20When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. 21Now as they were eating, He said, "Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me."
22And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, "Lord, is it I?"
23He answered and said, "He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24The 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."
25Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, "Rabbi, is it I?"
He said to him, "You have said it."
This is another text that if it had been written the way I think of it, the choices of words would have been much different. Are those different choices in words different because the meaning is different than I had thought?
Take for example, the disciples’ reaction of “Lord, is it I?”. It just seems that if I were in a close group of people and was just told that one of us was going to betray another, that most reactions would be “I would never do such a thing!”, or “Tell us who it is and we will prevent it!”, not “Is it I?”
Is it simply that they have witnessed Jesus’ such perfect knowledge of the future, once again demonstrated in His instructions to arrange for the Passover meal, that they now trusted Jesus’ look into the future more than their own understanding of what they would do? They all must have felt some even remote possibility that it could be them for them to react with “Is it I?”
Three other times Jesus had told them that he would be betrayed, though this is the first time He said it would be one of His disciples. They knew Jesus would be betrayed, that it would have to happen as He said. Were they each preparing themselves in case they would be the one chosen to do the deed? Because they knew it was going to have to happen and that it could have been any one of them, I wonder if they thought that whoever had to do it could do it with little guilt.
But Jesus was quick to say that what He was going to have to do, He had to do. Sure, someone would have to betray Him as He predicted, but it is one of those things that is better left for someone else to do. Woe to the one who would betray Him. Jesus had no choice. His betrayer had a choice.
Usually when I read this text, and I think of Jesus’ claim of “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.”, I thought of it kind of like a curse. I thought He meant that his betrayer’s immortal soul would be so cursed that he would have been better off not being born. But maybe Jesus is just talking of his betrayer’s peace of mind. Would Jesus really curse the actions of someone doing something that had to be done? Could the actions of the betrayer not be forgiven?
The word woe means deep sorrow, grief. Jesus could just be explaining as I concluded in the previous text that sorrow should be felt for His betrayer, not anger. And no, the betrayer would not be able to do it with little guilt, for his guilt, sorrow, and grief would be so great that he would wish he had not been born. Would Jesus curse the man who did this? I don’t think so. I think He would feel deep sorrow and grief for the man.
Another interesting choice of words was the disciples’ reference to Jesus as Lord, and Judas’ reference to Jesus as Rabbi. Why was Judas asking Jesus “Is it I?” Did he ask simply to mimic the other disciples so they wouldn’t suspect anything? Or did he maybe really feel that what he was doing wasn’t the ultimate betrayal that Jesus was predicting? Was he already feeling some guilt that made him unable to call Jesus Lord, instead using a lesser title of Rabbi? Or was he losing respect for Jesus, and therefore no longer felt it right to call Him Lord? Again, Judas and his motives are things I really do not understand.
Jesus’ reply to Judas is another curious choice of words. It makes me think of later when Jesus is questioned by Pilate. He will be asked if He is king of the Jews, and instead of replying “Yes, I am”, Jesus will reply “It is as you say”. Jesus would not claim the words of his kingship himself. Here too as Judas questions Him, Jesus would not say, “Yes it is you.” He would not claim Judas as the one who would betray Him. I don’t think He is doing this to keep a secret from the others, but to emphasize that Judas’ choice to betray Him was his own choice. Jesus had no part in that choice. In fact, because Jesus didn’t automatically say, “Yes it is you”, maybe He was telling Judas that there was still time for him to change his plans.
He would not lay the task of His betrayal on any one man. But one man would choose to do it. And woe to that man.