Catholic Commentary
Announcement of the Betrayer
21But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.22The Son of Man indeed goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man through whom he is betrayed!”23They began to question among themselves which of them it was who would do this thing.
Luke 22:21–23 records Jesus announcing at the Last Supper that one of his disciples will betray him, despite the meal's sacred bond of table fellowship and God's predetermined purpose for the Passion. The disciples respond by questioning themselves rather than accusing one another, reflecting both divine providence and human moral freedom in the betrayal.
Jesus announces his betrayer while the body of Christ still hangs in the air—intimacy and treachery sharing the same breath, the same table.
Luke 22:21 — "But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table."
Luke's placement of this announcement is deliberately shocking. Unlike Matthew (26:20–25) and Mark (14:17–21), who locate the betrayal announcement before the institution of the Eucharist, Luke places it after (22:19–20), so that the words "This is my body given for you" hang in the air when Jesus speaks of his betrayer. The Greek word for "betrays" (paradidōmi, παραδίδωμι) carries a freight of meaning: to hand over, to deliver up, to surrender into another's power. It is the same verb used throughout the Passion narrative for what Judas does, what the authorities do to Pilate, and what God the Father does in giving up his Son for humanity (Romans 8:32). The word is deliberately polyvalent.
"The hand… is with me on the table" is a precise detail of terrible intimacy. In the ancient Near Eastern world, to share bread was to share life and pledge loyalty (cf. Psalm 41:9). For a hand to reach across that same table in betrayal was not merely a crime but a desecration of the covenant bond created by communal eating. Luke's use of "table" (trapeza) also echoes 22:30, where Jesus promises the disciples they will eat and drink at his table in the Kingdom — a promise that Judas, by his choice, forfeits.
Luke 22:22 — "The Son of Man indeed goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man through whom he is betrayed!"
This verse is among the most theologically dense in the entire Passion narrative. Jesus holds in perfect tension two realities that human reason strains to reconcile: divine providence ("as it has been determined," kata to hōrismenon) and human moral freedom ("woe to that man"). The verb hōrizō — from which we derive "horizon" — means to mark out a boundary, to fix, to decree. It is used in Acts 2:23 to describe the same event: "this man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed." The Passion is not an accident of history; it moves within the purposes of God.
Yet Jesus does not dissolve Judas's agency into mere fate. The "woe" (ouai) is a prophetic lament-cry of the Hebrew tradition (cf. Isaiah 5:8–22; Amos 5:18) — a word simultaneously of grief and of judgment. It would be meaningless if Judas had no real freedom. The "woe" presupposes that another path was available to him. Jesus mourns the man who has chosen to become the instrument of a necessary but terrible act.
"The Son of Man goes" — the present-tense verb with its quiet determination — echoes the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, who "was led like a lamb to the slaughter" and "did not open his mouth." Jesus walks toward death with full knowledge and full consent.
Luke 22:23 — "They began to question among themselves which of them it was who would do this thing."
The Greek syzētein ("to question/debate among themselves") conveys a troubled, searching conversation. Significantly, Luke does not record that anyone pointed a finger at Judas — the disciples turned not outward in accusation but inward in examination. The question "which of them" (tis ara eiē ex autōn) — using the optative mood to express a genuine, open uncertainty — is a moment of profound communal humility. Each disciple suspects himself capable of what Jesus has described.
Typological and Spiritual Senses
In the typological sense, Judas recapitulates the figure of Ahithophel, King David's trusted counselor who betrayed him and hanged himself (2 Samuel 15–17), a figure who was understood by the early Church as a type of Judas (cf. Psalm 41:9; 55:12–14). Just as David crossed the Kidron Valley weeping when betrayed (2 Samuel 15:23), so Jesus would cross the same valley into Gethsemane. In the spiritual (tropological) sense, the disciples' self-questioning is a model for ongoing Christian examination of conscience: not "which of my neighbors is the sinner?" but "Lord, is it I?"
Catholic tradition brings three distinctive lenses to this passage.
1. Providence and Freedom: The Thomistic Resolution. The tension in verse 22 between divine determination and human guilt is resolved in the Catholic tradition not by collapsing one into the other but by affirming both at a different ontological level. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q. 19, a. 8; I, q. 23, a. 3) teaches that God's providence operates not by overriding created freedom but by working through it — God moves secondary causes according to their own natures. Judas sins freely; God, who foresees that free act from eternity, incorporates it into a providential plan without authoring the sin. The Catechism affirms: "God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil" (CCC 311), while simultaneously teaching that "with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world 'in a state of journeying'... toward its ultimate perfection" (CCC 310).
2. Sacrilege and the Eucharist. Luke's post-institution placement of this announcement gives the passage eucharistic weight that Catholic theology takes with great seriousness. St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew, 82) meditates on the horror of Judas receiving the sacred bread while harboring his betrayal: "He that dipped his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray Me." The Church's tradition of requiring proper disposition for reception of the Eucharist (CCC 1385; 1 Corinthians 11:27–29) finds its paradigmatic warning here. One can sit at the Lord's table and be simultaneously engaged in his betrayal.
3. The "Woe" as Pastoral Grief. Pope St. John Paul II, in Dominum et Vivificantem (§46), meditates on the sin against the Holy Spirit as the definitive closure of the will to God's mercy. The Church does not teach that Judas's damnation is certain — that judgment belongs to God alone (CCC 1037) — but the "woe" signals that the consequences of freely chosen betrayal of encountered Love are of the gravest possible order. Origen (Commentary on Matthew) and St. Augustine (City of God, I.17) both wrestle with Judas as a figure of the soul that receives immeasurable grace and yet turns away.
The disciples' question — "which of them it was who would do this?" — is the passage's most searching gift to the contemporary Catholic. Every examination of conscience at Mass, before Communion, or before Confession is a re-entry into that question. Pope Francis has repeatedly warned against "spiritual worldliness" — the condition of being present at the sacred table while simultaneously pursuing agendas of self-interest, ambition, or compromise with the world's values (Evangelii Gaudium, §93–97). This passage demands that Catholics resist the comfortable assumption that proximity to Christ — regular Mass attendance, parish involvement, theological literacy — is the same as fidelity to Christ. Judas was present at the Last Supper. The concrete spiritual practice this passage invites is not a morbid self-accusation but the honest, humble question before each reception of the Eucharist: In what area of my life is my hand on this table while my heart is arranged against Him? That question, asked sincerely, is itself already a movement away from Judas and toward Peter — who also failed, but turned back.
Commentary