Expert: Rev C.Brian Ross - 8/25/2009

Question
QUESTION: How do you reconcile the differences between Acts and Mathew about the death of Judas. Which one is correct?

What did Judas do with his reward? Who bought the Field of Blood? Why is it called the Field of Blood? How did Judas die?

Thanks for your time,
Kevin


ANSWER: Hi Kevin.

Thank you for your interesting question.

This is, I would suggest, one of the many cases in which the alleged discrepancy is more imagined than real!  Let’s look, briefly, at what the two evangelists say:

Matthew states that Judas, filled with remorse (but not repentance!), threw the 30 pieces of silver that he had been paid for his treachery, on to the floor of the Temple.  The priests realised that they couldn’t accept it back again for Temple use as it was money “paid for murder” (27:6, NLT) – thus condemning themselves!  A field was bought with the money and, according to Matthew, it was named ‘the Field of Blood’.

When Luke records the incident as an explanation of the words of Peter, he states that Judas bought the field.  This is a typically Semitic way of making a point.  Judas did not personally purchase the field but, since the money was his, he was deemed to have done so.  It’s a wee bit like me paying someone to shoot you.  I would not have pulled the trigger, but I would be deemed (in most legal jurisdictions) to be as guilty as the person whom I had hired.

The other apparent ‘difference’ is that Matthew records simply that Judas went out and hanged himself, while Luke states that he fell and burst open, spilling out his intestines.  However, it is totally within the bounds of probability that, having hanged himself, the rope eventually broke.  His body would already have been distended and the fall could quite easily have caused his stomach to burst.  Note that it was only his intestines that spilled out.  Remember, too, that the Jews would not have been particularly keen on taking down the dead body of a suicide, so he might have hung there for several days!

It is worth noting that both accounts do converge again with the name given to thefield purchased with the blood money.

I trust that this may have helped to clarify the situation for you.

Blessings

C.Brian Ross (Rev)


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you for your answer, but I still have questions. The Bible does not say that field was bought, or that Judas was deemed to have bought it. It says that Judas bought it and then it also says that the priests bought it. It also does not say that having hanged himself, the rope broke when he fell. Isn't making things up that are not actually in the Bible sort of not allowed?

And why would someone say that Judas fell and leave out the more important part of the story about hanging? That's like saying someone was eaten by wild dogs, and leaving out the fact that first you shot him.

And I have to disagree that the accounts  converge about the naming of the field. They have very different reasons for why the field was named.

Not both of these stories can be true and I am wondering if one of them can be taken as the account of an account. That is, Luke is honest that Peter told him this story, but Peter was not telling the truth...or something like that?

Thanks for your time,
Kevin

Answer
Hi, again, Kevin!

May I apologise, most sincerely, for the delay in getting back to you.  I took delivery of a new PC on the day after my original reply, and have had great difficulty getting an internet connection made.  The wonders of nodern technology!!

I accept your full right not to accept the answer I have given.  However, it is my answer, and certainly satisfies me!  I fear that you are endeavouring to impose your own cultural outlook on that of 1st century Judaism.  It's a wee bit like me referring to myself as my father's son.  In Biblical terms, I am also the son (we would say 'descendant') of my grandfather, great-grandfather etc., etc.

Hanging, to the Jewish mind, was a cursed way of dying (Deut.21:23), so it is perfectly reasonable for one author to leave out that reference.

Yes, you are quite correct in saying that "making things up that are not actually in the Bible [are] sort of not allowed?"  However, when we are clear that we are speculating where the Bible is silent, and as long as we are not building a doctrine on that speculation, I have no difficulty with endeavouring to use extraneous information in order to explain what others see as a difficulty.

The bottom line is, as my late grandmother would have said, that "There ae nane sae blin' as them as wilnae see" ("There are none so blind as those who have made up their minds not to see").   

If perceived differences such as those to which you have referred are all that are holding you back from committing your life to the Lord Jesus, then I would encourage you to make that move first, and deal with such 'problems' afterwards.  Like Thomas, who had serious questions about the risen Jesus, you may find that when you have a persoanl encounter with Him, your disbelief goes out through the window, and you fall at His feet: "My Lord, and my God". (Jn.20:28)

I trust that this will have helped a little more but, if not, then I have to say that I doubt very much if anything I could say would do so.  "Convince a man against his will; he's of the same opinion still" (Granny)

Blessings

C.Brian Ross (Rev)