Fellow Believers in Christ: Question about Judas and the Potter's Field?

Welcome back my friend ... it's so nice to actually have a Biblical question posed once again. Thank you!

Matthew 27:3-10 (specifically vv. 6-10) Judas' act of throwing the betrayal money into the temple caused the religious leaders some problems. They did not feel the money should be put into the temple coffers since it was blood money, money paid to bring about a man's death. Yet they had had no scruples about giving it out in the first place (Matt. 26:15). They decided to take the money and buy a parcel of land (apparently in Judas' name, Acts 1:18) in which was a potter's field, a place where potters dug for clay, became known as the Field of Blood (Matt. 27:8), or Akeidama in Aramaic (Acts 1:19).

6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”

Acts 1:18-19 ... Though Judas himself did not personally buy a field, he did so indirectly. The priests used the betrayal money Judas flung into the temple to make this purchase in Judas' name (Matt. 27:3-10).

I hope this explains it to you well enough for you to grasp the truth of God's Word. One thing to remember, God's Word does not have any contradictions ... only readers who may not interpret it correctly. There's only one way to interpret the Bible and that is God's way He gave to us through the multiple writers He used ... what was their directions from the Holy Spirit as they wrote.

After Judas threw the silver into the temple, it was the hypocritical leaders (who paid him the money) that declared the money 'unclean" because they had used it to get Jesus murdered.

As for the 2 different versions of Judas' final outcome, it is possible that he hung himself, maybe even off one of the olive trees up on the Mount of Olives, which means he tied off on a branch a rope, and up out over the side of the Mount. Either the branch broke and his body fell down into the rocks, or after hanging himself, the rope broke and dropped his body into the rocks.

The two accounts can be in harmony. One the means that he tried to die (hanging), the other, the end result (broken branch or rope that causes his fall).

And no, he did not die in the potter's field.

There are times as with the accounts of the Gospels concerning the events recorded after Jesus was placed on the cross, where a witness who wrote the Gospels and Acts proved they had a different perspective on such things. Judas purchasing a field was the result of what happened after Judas threw the silver. The author of Acts was either not aware of the details of who gave the money to the former owner, or decided not to put it in the story.

So I don't see a problem with that comparison.

Actually Acts 1:18 says, 'this man' does not say Judas. It no doubt refers to the Pharisees taking the money of Judas and buying it. Matthew 27:6-8

Some good answers here, particularly by Saved By The Lamb.

The fact is, Judas Iscariot bought the field, because it was his money; basically, the Jewish religious leaders refused his return of it, therefore it was technically still his. Therefore, Judas Iscariot "bought" the field.

As for Judas hanging himself,, he did -- otherwise Matthew wouldn't say he had.hanged himself.. The fact that he [that is, his body] fell following this, and therefore burst open, is not a contradiction, but a further detail: like when Ahab died, and the dogs licked up his blood, after the chariot was washed off in the Pool of Samaria.

While that was prophesied, and the fate of Judas's corpse was not (to the best of my recollection), there's no reason that God wouldn't use Judas's fate (it was known the inhabitants of Jerusalem, don't forget) to bring to mind again the events of Jesus's death, and the proclamation by His disciples of His Resurrection.

And what a warning of the failure to accept Christ as God, Lord and Saviour.

He did not buy the field himself. He went to the chief priest and the older men to return the 30 pieces of silver, saying "I have sinned when I betrayed righteous blood." The chief priest did not know what to do with the money. It was not lawful to drop it into the sacred treasury because the money was the price of blood. So they consulted to buy the potter's field with the 30 pieces of silver, to bury strangers. The field was called the field of blood. The reason Peter say "the betrayer purchased the field with the wages of unrighteousness", was because he provided the money and the reason to buy the blood field.

the Pharisees purchased it with the money that was returned

that's what the money went for, the potters field

and that's where he hung himself

It is made up stories. Think for a minute, why in the world did Christ need someone to betray him if he is walking around with a huge following. Find Judaism, and you will find truth.

the best thing to remember is that it probably happened both ways. he hung himself and the rope broke and his bowels were sacattered.

PRIMOA, good sir! It's been ages since either of us was here! I hope you're keeping well. :)

I don't know why there is a difference in Luke's account and Matthew's account. I think we sometimes limit ourselves with our teachings about how the Bible came to be. We believe that it was all inspired and God told them what to write verbatim, that every single word is utterly true and God-given. But then we encounter contradictions like this, and it calls all of that into question, when really, it shouldn't. Perhaps the simple truth is that there were two stories circulating about what happened. One said that it was Judas who used the money to buy a field; one said that it was the Pharisees who bought the field with the money Judas gave back to them. Personally, I think it makes more sense that the Pharisees bought the field. Judas had no time to buy a field - he went to the priests in the afternoon, from what I can tell from the text, and then went straight on to dinner, and after that everything happened. He returned the silver to them pretty much within 24 hours of receiving it, and it sounds like he was at the trial watching the whole thing unfold. He was so remorseful that he killed himself...I don't think he stopped in the middle of all that to carry out a real estate transaction. So what seems likely is that the Pharisees bought the land that Judas died on, after he died. I don't know why Peter said otherwise.