Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

Matthew 27:5

 

(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Acts 1:18

 

The Claim: Matthew says that Judas threw the money back into the temple and the priests bought the field, but Acts says Judas used that money to buy the field.

 

The Explanation:

 

First, I would like to look at a few more verses in Matthew 27 for some additional context and clarity.

 

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

Matthew 27:6-8

 

I’ve seen other Christians in debate address this topic in a variety of ways, and as such I’d like to start by making a few clear statements.

 

Yes, the 30 pieces of silver in Matthew 27:5 is the same 30 pieces of silver that Acts 1:18 is referring to.

Yes, the priests were the ones to physically take the money and buy the field with it.

Yes, the man referred to in Acts 1:18 is Judas.

Yes, the field referred to in Acts 1:18 is the same field referred to in Matthew 27:5-8

 

So, on to the real question at hand, does this scenario create a real contradiction?

 

What is actually going on here is that the priests are buying the field in the name of Judas. Buying the field in the name of Judas is considered the same as Judas buying it himself. That’s quite a leap into cultural idioms, which begs the question, “is there anything in Scripture that points to this scenario involving a cultural idiom?”

 

A closer look at verse 6 indicates that this is the case, which states, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” Because this was “blood money,” they could not put it with the temple’s treasury. In other words, they could not claim that money as money for the temple, or for themselves. Therefore, the money was still considered to be Judas’ money, so when the priests bought the potter’s field, they were buying the field in the name of Judas, and buying the field in the name of Judas is considered the same as Judas buying the field himself. Therefore, there is no contradiction due to the involvement of a cultural idiom.

 

Extra: This does beg another question. Is it reasonable to think that buying the field in the name of Judas has the same effect and meaning as Judas buying the field himself? Are there examples in Scripture to back up this idea?

 

Let’s start by looking back to 2 Kings chapters 18 and 19. We have King Hezekiah, and Sennacherib king of Assyria. They were sending messages back and forth to each other, using messengers. Sennacherib sent the Rabshakeh to deliver his messages, and even though Sennacherib himself didn’t deliver the message, the message was considered to be from Sennacherib due to the authority appointed to the messenger. King Hezekiah sent Eliakim, Shebna, and other senior priests to deliver messages, and these messages were taken as if Hezekiah himself was delivering the message.

 

We can see this sort of message delivery system throughout the Old Testament, and the concept appears in the New Testament as well. In Matthew 21:33-41, Jesus tells a parable of a master who owned a vineyard, and left it in the care of some tenants. The master later sent servants to his vineyard to get his fruit, with the expectation that the servants that the master sent would be regarded as if the master himself came.

 

The Bible speaks a lot about authority, such as casting out demons in the name of Jesus. Mark 16:17 says, “in my name they will cast out demons.” The part “in my name” is of utmost importance, as when demons are cast out, they are cast out in the name of Jesus. We see Jesus doing this throughout the Gospels, because Jesus has the authority and power to do so. We do not have that same power to cast out demons on our own, which is why it is done in Jesus name. When demons are cast out in the name of Jesus, it has the same effect as Jesus casting out demons. The concept of giving and using authority of someone’s name is huge in the Bible. In fact, in Acts 19:13-16, some men were unable to cast out evil spirits due to lack of spiritual authority.

 

So yes, it is reasonable to think that buying the field in the name of Judas has the same effect and meaning as Judas buying the field himself, given various examples throughout Scripture related to using and exercising authority “in the name of...”