Account Of Judas's Death In Matthew 27 example essay topic

Ever since you told me what your YL leader said, I have been studying it. Once I got into the word, I realized that I had dealt with this topic before, when our leader was "testing" our response to "questions of contradiction". This is what I have concluded. First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of hanging. All it says is that he 'went and hanged himself. ' Luke however, in Acts, tells us that 'and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.

' This is a pretty clear indication (along with the other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle, etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear cut. Notice verse 5... ' Then he... went and hanged himself. ' Matthew does not state death as being a result. The Greek word used is APAGCHO.

Matthew 27: 5 is it's only occurrence in the New Testament. In the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus), it's only used in 2 Samuel 17: 23: "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he was buried in his father's tomb". Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel 'hanged himself' [APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, 'and died'.

Here we have no doubt of the result. In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died. Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure. It simply means 'hang oneself'.

So, my line of reasoning to dispel the contradiction myth is that the 'two' accounts of Judas' death is this... Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does say Judas 'hanged himself', but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the hanging incident. However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matthew and Acts, more specifically the death of Judas.

So what happened to Judas? Well my opinion is that only God knows, but this is what I personally believe (there are many other theories of how Judas died, but it is such an unimportant topic when placed to the gospel as a whole, but know that the Bible is ERROR-FREE and any conclusion must be biblically based). Immediately following the account of Judas's death in Matthew 27, Jesus Christ is tried for the last time. Pontius Pilate allows the Son of God to be delivered into the hands of wicked men and crucified. Jesus bore the cross to Golgotha, and there He hung for six agonizing hours, suspended between Heaven and earth. Jesus cried with a loud voice, and yielded His spirit to His Father.

As the last breath escaped the lips of the precious Son of God, ". ... the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and the Earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose" (Matthew 27: 51-52). The exact time between verse 5 and verses 51 and 52 is not known, but approximately six to nine hours had elapsed. It was during this time that Judas hanged himself. The Bible relates that when Jesus died, there was an earthquake so mighty that rocks were broken and graves were opened. One may assuredly presume that an earthquake strong enough to rend a rock might also be powerful enough to break a rope or cord, specifically the rope from which Judas was hanging. Consequently, it follows, that while Judas did in fact hang himself, the cord from which he was suspended, broke, and he fell headlong, burst asunder, and his bowels gushed out.

To the next topic, in my opinion, saying that Judas bought the field is just as correct as saying that the priests bought the field. I believe this could have been played many ways, but these two being most probable. The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean.

Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point. The other possibility is that perhaps here, the following maxim holds - 'He who does a thing by another, does it himself. ' That is, yes it was the chief priests who actually bought the field, but Judas had furnished the occasion for its purchase. Thus, the verse in Acts could be employing a figure of speech where we attribute to the man himself any act which he has directly or indirectly procured to be done. Either way you look at it, I believe both are correct, due to the two totally different styles of writing between Luke and Matthew and the interpretation of each.

You can see that many things that appear to our finite minds as discrepancies are merely a lack of understanding on our part. The Bible commands us to seek wisdom and understanding; however, when worldly learning contradicts the Word, we must as the Apostle Paul declares, "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ" Philippians 3: 8.