Everything about Judas Iscariot

[Angelos]

Glory to God in the highest & peace to His people on earth

I would like to discuss the allegedly controversial points concerning Judas Iscariot in the Gospels. The first one is about Judas’ tragic end. Matthew states that Judas regretted handing Jesus over to His adversaries and took his own life after Jesus’ arrest:

Matthew 27:3-5. Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and went and hanged himself with an halter.

The Acts of the Apostles, however, narrates Judas’ tragic end from a radically different perspective and does not point out his regret and repentance as the cause of his death. Actually, Judas’ death is bound to a disastrous accident in the Acts:

Acts 1:18-19. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

The only common point between these two narratives is that Judas is said to be hanged. What are the reasons for all the other differences between Matthew and Luke’s account?

Thanks for your comments from now

Angelos

 

[Liberian]

Angelos,

If I may add a little more confusion, my translation of Acts 1:18 does not say “being hanged;” it says “falling headlong.”

One of my arguments against the inerrancy of Scripture has been this discrepancy: who bought the field with Judas’ money? The other discrepancies (the “bursting asunder” is not inconsistent with hanging oneself if the rope breaks after the body has been dead for a while) can be resolved. (I would add that the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is without error when properly interpreted. I accept this teaching and simply do not know what the proper interpretation is of these passages.)

The question of what happened to Judas is one of those things that I have filed under “I will ask God that when I get to Heaven, assuming I make it that far.” It doesn’t really have an impact on my faith or morals.

• Liberian

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have heard about the “problem” between these two verses quite a few times, the only thing I still fail to understand is where exactly the “problem” is. I simply dont see any sort of contradiction be it explicit or implicit.

 

[Georgess]

If the confusion comes from assuming that Judas was the one who bought the field , it can be considered that the temple authorities were the ones who used the money to buy it , since they did not want the blood money to be deposited in the treasury !

The Priceless worth of The Precious Blood , that has purchased our salvation !

 

[Angelos]

Angelos,

If I may add a little more confusion, my translation of Acts 1:18 does not say “being hanged;” it says “falling headlong.”

One of my arguments against the inerrancy of Scripture has been this discrepancy: who bought the field with Judas’ money? The other discrepancies (the “bursting asunder” is not inconsistent with hanging oneself if the rope breaks after the body has been dead for a while) can be resolved. (I would add that the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is without error when properly interpreted. I accept this teaching and simply do not know what the proper interpretation is of these passages.)

The question of what happened to Judas is one of those things that I have filed under “I will ask God that when I get to Heaven, assuming I make it that far.” It doesn’t really have an impact on my faith or morals.

• Liberian

Hi Liberian,

I think your translation is correct. This is why I used the word “disastrous accident” while referring to the depiction of Judas’ death by Luke in the Acts. We should take into account the fact that the narrative about Judas in Acts has a deliberately negative tone that targets to highlight Judas’ betrayal in association with his replacement with Matthias.

The seeming discrepancy has no impact on my faith either; however, I prefer asking God through prayer the reason for the differences between these two narratives while I am in my mortal body. I’ll present my comments soon as soon as I find more free time and get over the cold in my nose

Peace to all

 

[Fidelis]

Matthew 27:3-5. Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and went and hanged himself with an halter.

versus

Acts 1:18-19. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

There is no contradiction: Both accounts are true.

Apparently Judas first hanged himself. Then, at some point, the rope either broke or loosened so that his body slipped from it and fell to the rocks below and burst open. (Some have suggested that Judas didn’t do a very good job of tying the noose.) Neither account alone is complete. Taken together, we have a full picture of what happened to Judas.

 

[Liberian]

Catholic Dude,

The only “problem” that I have is that in Matthew we find that the Temple priests, after some consultation, bought a field with Judas’ money, while in Acts we find that Judas bought a field with the money himself.

And again, this is only a problem if people try to hold the Bible up as both inerrant and completely clear to the individual reader. Personally, I am perfectly willing to wait until the Magisterium has nothing better to do than to try to figure out exactly what happened; it really doesn’t have any bearing on my faith or morals.

• Liberian

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Someone killing themself doesnt worry if they own the land, it clearly was seen as a cursed plot and called the field of blood. If there was an actual money transaction it most likely was the pharisees with the silver that couldnt be used for “noble” purposes anylonger.

 

[Angelos]

Glory to GOD in the highest & peace to His people on earth.

Let me clarify my point through questions:

1. Why doesn’t Luke mention Judas’ regret and repentance leading him to suicide?
2. Why does Luke insist that a disastrous accident befell Judas in the field he himself had bought?
3. Why does Luke give us (at least me!) the impression that he is trying to depict Judas’ tragic end as a means of divine punishment?
4. Why in Luke are Judas’ betrayal and death associated with the sin of greed?
5. Why does Matthew stress that the idea of buying a field belonged to the Pharisees rather than to Judas?
6. Why does Matthew claim that the field bought by Judas’ money was reserved for the burial of strangers?
7. Why does Matthew narrate Judas’ suicide before Lord Jesus’ death?

I hope these questions will help you a bit

 

[Georgess]

Having to deal with the 'difficult 'passages in the Scrpipture , has been in my experience, like walking with little pebbles in the shoes …or even like the grain of sand that can initiate the pearl …

This is with the hope of helping any who find the above passage(s) problematical - if it has to do with the verse in Acts , where it says Judas possessed the field of iniquity …that does not have to mean he himself had purchased it …the authorities having ascribed the ownership of the ’ field of iniquity ’ to him …

30 pieces of silver …like the many allurements that can come into our own lives …to deny our faithfulness to The Lord …whether it is unholy relationships…or love of pleasures …pride …

11/30 is Feast of St Andrew …someone of whom far less is said in the Scripture than of his brother St.Peter …even though it was St.Andrew who first comes to The Lord …may be he was content and faithful, to his role … to be unlike Judas …

May his prayers be with all , esp. for the upcoming talks for Church unity !

 

[Angelos]

Seeing that no one has answered my questions and seemed eager to comment on this issue so far, here I am posting my comment. It’s up to you to accept or refute my personal dealing with the alleged problems and accusations

Judas Iscariot in Matthew

Matthew depicts Judas as a traitor that subsequently repents and commits suicide due to the unbearable feeling of guilt. In the first place, Matthew does not narrate Judas’ repentance and tragic death as something that occurs all of a sudden with a drastic change in the course of events in Judas’ life with Jesus. As a consequence of textual unity and faithfulness to the principle of thematic consistency, Matthew implies that Judas began to feel guilty at the Lord’s Supper. The question posed by Judas after Jesus’ prediction gives the first sign of his sorrow:

26:24-25. The Son of man indeed goes as it is written of him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born. And Judas that betrayed him answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He said to him: Thou hast said it. (Matthew singles out Judas as the disciple that asks Jesus this question)

Nevertheless, Judas’ repentance & unbearable sorrow leading him to suicide functions as a significant event that is directly associated with an Old Testament prophecy indicating God’s wisdom and foreknowledge. Rather strikingly, Judas’ regret and his indignation expressed through the throwing of the thirty pieces of silver to the temple results in the realization of a certain prophecy in Jeremiah’s book. Matthew surprisingly says that Judas and the Jewish religious authorities act in accordance with what Jeremiah said hundreds of years ago:

27:9-10. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave them unto the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed to me.

Although it may seem a bit baffling to many and problematic to some critiques that Matthew attributes this certain prophecy to prophet Jeremiah, it is not at all easy and reasonable to claim that Matthew made a big mistake by confusing Zechariah with Jeremiah. It takes one a considerably long time to be convinced that Matthew focuses on a prophecy present in Jeremiah’s text with a few secondary predictions drawn from Zechariah’s book. However, the most important point about this prophecy is that it is mysteriously related to the relation between the Jewish religious authorities and Judas Iscariot, the traitor. Thus, Judas is involved in God’s plan and astonishingly functions as the major accomplisher of a certain prophecy in the Old Testament, which indicates God’s transcending will and might to make use of Jesus’ betrayer as an instrument.

The key word that points at Jeremiah’s book rather than at Zechariah’s for the correct source of the prophecy in Matthew 27: 9-10 is “appointed to me”. The Lord appoints – or commands – prophet Jeremiah to buy a field, and the same prophet strikingly regards the act of purchase as the fulfillment of God’s prophecy in the 32nd chapter of his book:

32:6-8. And Jeremiah said: The word of the Lord came to me, saying: Behold, Hanameel the son of Sellum thy cousin shall come to thee, saying: Buy thee my field, which is in Anathoth, for it is thy right to buy it, being next akin. And Hanameel my uncle’s son came to me, according to the word of the Lord, to the entry of the prison, and said to me: Buy my field, which is in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is yours, and thou art next of kin to possess it. And I understood that this was the word of the Lord.

to be continued…

 

[Angelos]

Obviously, Jeremiah gives testimony to God’s might and wisdom by recounting how a prediction made by the Lord comes true. In the same way, Matthew first narrates the dialogue between the Judas Iscariot and some Pharisees and states how Judas’ regret and the return of the money latently force the Jewish leaders to buy a field. Then he makes associations between the purchase of a field by the chief priests and God’s commandment given to Jeremiah to buy a field for one of his kinsmen. It is most likely that Matthew so courageously ascribes that prophecy to Jeremiah because God inspires and enables him to see many associations between the 32nd chapter in Jeremiah’s book and the incident occurring after Judas’ regret and bringing the money of betrayal back to the Temple. First of all, Matthew discovers the remarkable similarities between the two parties in Jeremiah’s book and Judas’ close friendship and compliance with the Jewish authorities. It should be kept in mind that Jeremiah is a priest and he buys the field not for himself, but for a relative that has no right to purchase. Thus, He takes money from his cousin to buy a field and eventually fulfill God’s promise:

32: 8-11 And Hanameel **my uncle’s son **came to me, according to the word of the Lord, to the entry of the prison, and said to me: Buy my field, which is in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is yours, and thou art next of kin to possess it. And I understood that this was the word of the Lord. And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle’s son, that is in Anathoth: and I weighed him the money, seven staters, and ten pieces of silver. And I wrote it in a book and sealed it, and took witnesses: and I weighed him the money in the balances. And I took the deed of the purchase that was sealed, and the stipulations, and the ratifications with the seals that were on the outside.

In Matthew Judas Iscariot is the person that goes to the Jewish religious leaders and indirectly causes them to buy a field. Since he throws the money back into the Temple with the feeling of guilt and subsequently kills himself, the chief priests symbolically inherit money from Judas, who is the equivalent of Jeremiah’s cousin in the metaphorical sense of being someone’s kinsman:

** 27:3-5**. Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, Saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and went and hanged himself with a halter.

The second significant similarity between the narrative in Jeremiah 32 and what occurs after Judas’ suicide is based on the notion of divine commandment. Jeremiah buys the field for his cousin primarily because God commands him to do so; the act of purchase is carried out with honesty in accordance with the law:

32:9-12. And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle’s son, that is in Anathoth: and I weighed him the money, seven staters, and ten pieces of silver. And I wrote it in a book and sealed it, and took witnesses: and I weighed him the money in the balances. And I took the deed of the purchase that was sealed, and the stipulations, and the ratifications with the seals that were on the outside. And I gave the deed of the purchase to Baruch the son of Neri the son of Maasias in the sight of Hanameel my uncle’s son, in the presence of the witnesses that subscribed the book of the purchase, and before all the Jews that sat in the court of the prison.

In Matthew, the chief priests and scribes decide to buy the potter’s field primarily because they cannot put the money back into the Temple treasury. Interestingly, their final decision to buy a field results from their will to use the money lawfully:

27:6-7. But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the corbona, because it is the price of blood. And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter’s field, to be a burying place for strangers.

 

[Angelos]

final part:

God commands Jeremiah to preserve the documents of the purchase in an earthen vessel so as to signify the continuity of the contract:

32:14. Thus said the Lord of hosts the God of Israel: Take these writings, this deed of the purchase that is sealed up, and this deed that is open: and put them in an earthen vessel, so that they may continue many days.

In Matthew, the religious leaders decide to buy the potter’s field, which is lexically related to earthen vessels (pottery). More, the means of the purchase is remembered for many years through the name given to the field in terms of representing the price of blood:

** 27:8**. For this cause that field was called Haceldama, that is, the field of blood, even to this day.

Finally, the field bought by Jeremiah is destined to serve foreigners since the invasion of Jerusalem is at hand:

32:25. And sayest thou to me, O Lord God: Buy a field for money, and take witnesses, whereas the city is given into the hands of the Chaldeans?

The potter’s field bought by the chief priests serve not the buyers, but strangers coming to Jerusalem:

27:7. And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter’s field, to be a burying place for strangers.

It is also likely that Matthew discovers a link between the purchase of a burial place for strangers and Jeremiah’s description of the fields bought during Jerusalem’s invasion by foreigners:

32:43. And fields shall be purchased in this land: whereof you say that it is desolate, because there remains neither man nor beast, and it is given into the hands of the Chaldeans.

In the light of these verses, it is clear that Judas Iscariot’s regret and suicide are closely related to the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. Like Matthew, Luke and John also state that Judas’ becoming one of the twelve and betraying Jesus were the indispensable part of God’s plan. Judas served Jesus in everything good and bad he said and did with no knowledge of his involvement in the history of salvation.

Next time I shall try to show how Luke reiterates this fact in the Acts of the Apostles.

Peace to all seeking the truth in Christ!

 

[inJESUS]

Matthew does combine different prophecies into one harmonious passage.

I agree with your posts so far Angelos.

 

[Angelos]

Hi again! I am temporarily back

JUDAS ISCARIOT IN THE ACTS

First, Luke highlights Judas’ greed as the cause of his betrayal and implies that Judas’ love for money overrode his love for the Lord. Interestingly, evangelist John, too, describes Judas Iscariot as a greedy person that steals the money collected for the poor. Besides, Judas tells lies in John’s Gospel to pretend to be defending the rights of the poor:

John 12:3-7. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: Why was not this ointment sold for *three hundred pence *and given to the poor? Now he said this not because he cared for the poor; but because he was **a thief **and, having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial.

In this incident, we see that Judas gives the imminent signal of his betrayal as well as he implies the reason for turning from an apostle to a traitor: he likes money more than Jesus and prepares to get more money by selling Jesus out to His adversaries. Luke portrays Judas’ betrayal and tragic death in the Acts in close association with Judas’ sin by getting closer to John’s Gospel, which highlights greed as the primary characteristic of the betraying apostle. In the Acts Peter describes the horrible details of Judas’ death as the natural outcome of his sin (greed) with regard to the concept of **divine justice **taking place instantly:

1:18. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.

While narrating in the Acts the significant incidents occurring in the early days of the Church as indicators of immediate divine judgment, evangelist Luke highlights the sins stemming from one’s extreme love and devotion to money. As a result, it is possible to regard the description of Judas’ horrid death in the Acts as the primary typology illustrating the consequences of sinful deeds related to greed. As the prominent example of thematic unity and textual consistency in the Acts, Luke also recounts at length the tragic end of a greedy couple:

Acts 5:1-5. But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, and by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou should lie to the Holy Ghost and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? And after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.

5:7-11. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in. And Peter said to her: Tell me, woman, whether you sold the land for so much? And she said: Yea, for so much. And Peter said unto her: Why have you agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door: and they shall carry thee out. Immediately, she fell down before his feet and gave up the ghost. And the young men coming in found her dead: and carried her out and buried her by her husband. And there came great fear upon the whole church and upon all that heard these things.

 

[Angelos]

continuing…

It should be kept in mind that Luke in the Acts underscores the act of selling lands and bringing the money to the apostles as a common practice that displays believers’ devotion to Christ and His church:

4:34-37. For neither was there any one needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the apostles. And distribution was made to every one, according as he had need. And Joseph, who, by the apostles, was surnamed Barnabas (which is, by interpretation, The son of consolation), a Levite, a Cyprian born, having land, sold it and brought the price and laid it at the feet of the Apostles.

In short, Barnabas and those selling their lands to contribute to the needy constitute a sharp contrast to greedy sinners like Judas Iscariot (the first one of those mentioned in the Acts) and Ananias-Saphira.

More, other kinds of sins related to monetary issues are of great significant throughout Luke’s second book in the New Testament. For instance, Peter rebukes a magician that offers him money, thinking that the Spirit of God is like a commodity for sale:

8:18-21. And when Simon saw that, by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying: Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him: Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee: because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter. For thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

To be continued…

 

[Angelos]

continuing from above

Now that we know how the description of Judas’ death in the Acts of the Apostles from a perspective totally different from the one employed by Matthew is compatible with the main issues highlighted by Luke, whose handling of the issue serves to maintain thematic unity in His book, we can put forward another question concerning the association between Matthew and Luke’s narrative styles peculiar to themselves. In other words, it is clear that Luke’s text wields consistency within itself, but is there any sign to prove that this consistency is also present between the chapter narrating Judas Iscariot’s suicide in **Matthew 27 **and the chapter relating the disaster befalling Judas as a result of his sin in Acts 1?

My personal response to this question would be “YES”. I believe that it is definitely possible to capture the harmony between Matthew and Luke’s narratives despite the apparent differences, and the inferential harmony emanates from the fact that both these Evangelists alluded to the book of the same prophet named Jeremiah, Matthew directly whereas Luke latently though. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke’s narratives also differ from each other since these Evangelists refer to two different chapters of the same book of prophecy. We so far know that Matthew points out the link between the prophecy in the 32nd chapter of Jeremiah’s book and the incidents leading to the purchase of a field after Judas’ suicide in the 27th chapter of his Gospel. Which chapter could be the counterpart in Jeremiah’s book for Luke’s narrative in the 1st chapter of the Acts with regard to Judas’ sin and punishment embodied in a disastrous death? A close analysis of the 19th chapter in Jeremiah reveals amazing parallelism between the severe punishment of the people of Judah because of their sins and the severe punishment of Judas Iscariot due to his sins of betrayal and greed. Read how Judah’s destruction is symbolized through the breaking of a pot by Jeremiah:

19:10-11. And thou shall break the bottle in the sight of the men that shall go with thee. And thou shall say to them: Thus said the Lord of hosts: Even so will I break this people, and this city, as the potter’s vessel is broken, which cannot be made whole again: and they shall be buried in Topheth, because there is no other place to bury in.

God asks Jeremiah to break a potter’s vessel so that the imminent destruction of Judah can be foretold and proclaimed. The fall and disastrous death of the inhabitants of Judah are predicted through the breaking of the pot beyond repair. Strikingly, Peter in the Acts interprets Judas Iscariot’s catastrophic death in close association with the symbolic destruction the sinful people of Judah. The only difference is that the symbol in Jeremiah turns into reality in Judas Iscariot’s life. His fall and the gushing forth of his bowels corresponds to the fall of the potter’s vessel and its breaking into pieces beyond repair:

** 1:18. **And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and **falling headlong **he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

to be continued …

 

[Angelos]

Moreover, there are astonishing similarities on a *symbolic level *between the sins of the people of Judah, and the sins of Judas Iscariot (Note how Judah and Judas are similar). Jeremiah blames the people of Judah for shedding innocent blood to the honor of their false gods:

**19:3-4. **And thou shall say: Hear the word of the Lord, O ye kings of Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus said the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold I will bring an affliction upon this place: so that whosoever shall hear it, his ears shall tingle: Because they have forsaken me, and have profaned this place: and have **sacrificed **therein to strange gods, whom neither they nor their fathers knew, nor the kings of Judah: and they have filled this place with **the blood of innocents. **

Peter’s speech in the Acts 1: 18 implies that Judas bought a field with the price of iniquity when he betrayed his true Lord Jesus and sold Him out to His adversaries. Thus, Judas Iscariot’s major sins are worshipping the idol of his greed, sacrificing His Lord Jesus to his love for money, and causing the shed of innocent blood.

Another interesting parallelism between the punishment befalling the people of Judah and Jerusalem and the horrid death befalling Judas Iscariot in Jerusalem is related to the new name of the place where destruction takes place. In Jeremiah, the punishment causes many people to change the name of the place where the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem previously live:

19:6. Therefore behold the days come, said the Lord, that **this place shall no more be called **Topheth, nor the valley of the son of Ennom, but the valley of slaughter.

19:8. And I will make this city an astonishment, and a hissing: every one that shall pass by it, shall be astonished, and shall hiss because of all the plagues thereof.

The field bought by Judas Iscariot is likewise renamed after the inhabitants of Jerusalem witness the disaster that befalls the owner of the field in the same place pertaining to his evil deeds:

1:19. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Finally, Peter quotes a verse from the Psalms that talks of sinful people in plural form while explaining the results of Judas Iscariot’s death as a prophecy:

1:20. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let **their **habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

This plural form might refer to the symbolic association between Judas Iscariot and the inhabitants of Judah in Jeremiah’s prophecy. The notion of desolation, too, is present in Jeremiah’s prophecy with regard to the uncleanness of the place where the people of Judah and Jerusalem lived:

19:13. And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah shall be unclean as the place of Topheth: all the houses upon whose roofs they have sacrificed to all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings to strange gods.

The interrelation between the prophecy of the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem in the 19th chapter and the prophecy of buying a field in the 32nd chapter of Jeremiah’s book is apparent through the repetition of the verse above in the 32nd chapter:

32:29. And the Chaldeans that fight against this city, shall come and set it on fire, and burn it, with the houses upon whose roofs they offered sacrifice to Baal, and poured out drink offerings to strange gods, to provoke me to wrath.

Consequently, it is not weird to see two different narratives relating Judas Iscariot’s death in the New Testament since these narratives are interrelated in the same way as the two prophecies in Jeremiah’s book. What seems contradictory is actually the natural outcome of approaching this significant incident in accordance with two different but linked prophecies in Jeremiah.

Now that I have finished presenting my comments, this thread could be closed if there is no one to comment on my posts.

Peace & blessings to all

 

[steppenwolf1218]

Glory to God in the highest & peace to His people on earth

I would like to discuss the allegedly controversial points concerning Judas Iscariot in the Gospels. The first one is about Judas’ tragic end. Matthew states that Judas regretted handing Jesus over to His adversaries and took his own life after Jesus’ arrest:

Matthew 27:3-5. Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and went and hanged himself with an halter.

The Acts of the Apostles, however, narrates Judas’ tragic end from a radically different perspective and does not point out his regret and repentance as the cause of his death. Actually, Judas’ death is bound to a disastrous accident in the Acts:

Acts 1:18-19. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

The only common point between these two narratives is that Judas is said to be hanged. What are the reasons for all the other differences between Matthew and Luke’s account?

Thanks for your comments from now

Angelos

In comparing Luke to the other three cannonicals on any point, it is essential to bear in mind that Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts for mainly a Greek gentile audience. These required more detail and closure which is why Luke goes into more detail about most everything. Small discrepancies will not discount the overall event. The event occurred. It’s the details that are open to the observer. Since neither Matthew nor Luke were eyewitnesses, they depended on what was known and the guidance of the Spirit. Matthew thought the details concerning Judas not to bear much interest to his readers but Luke obviously does.

Also there are many unanswered questions about Judas. Like why did he betray Jesus? For some it is based on John’s account of Judas being a grafter (taking funds meant for the poor for himself). Some point to Judas being a Zealot. It is thought he may have either not thought Jesus to be the type of Messiah for the Zealots or possibly Judas believed in his heart that if he handed Jesus over to be executed then Jesus would surely use His divine powers to stop the execution and show the world his true identity. When it was obvious to Judas that wasn’t going to happen, then he became remorseful. From this perspective it could be said that Judas’ conversion happened at that point but even then it was not complete as he put his faith and life into the hands of his own remorse rather than place it in the hands of his Savior.

To add to the confusion, there is the recently released Gospel of Judas. I don’t believe it to be a Gnostic writing but I do wonder about the authenticity and reliability of the actual author. I’m not sure if I will take the time to break it apart myself. I personally don’t consider that to be in anyway detrimental to my faith but it could pose some serious questions to be answered. For now, I’ll leave that to the Vatican to discern as it should be.

 

[Angelos]

Hi steppenwolf1218. Thanks for your post

To add to the confusion, there is the recently released Gospel of Judas. I don’t believe it to be a Gnostic writing but I do wonder about the authenticity and reliability of the actual author. I’m not sure if I will take the time to break it apart myself. I personally don’t consider that to be in anyway detrimental to my faith but it could pose some serious questions to be answered. For now, I’ll leave that to the Vatican to discern as it should be.

I personally believe - to the point of certainty - that The Gospel of Judas is one of the prevalent writings of Gnostic heresy. The opening verse of this apocryphal text bases the reliability of the issues discussed on the notion of secrets and their revelation to Judas Iscariot by Jesus in private:
“The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before He celebrated Passover”

This fake Gospel never endorses the Incarnation, the fundamental Christian tenet; it uses the word “appear” to describe Jesus’ existence in the world even before His resurrection:
"When Jesus appeared on earth, he performed miracles and great wonders for the salvation of humanity.

Thus, the concept of pretense is employed throughout this Gospel:
“Often he did not **appear **to his disciples as himself, but he was found among them as a child”

In the first chapter, Judas Iscariot is distinguished from the other apostles as a result of his laudable courage and the peculiar possession of the truth:
They all said, “We have the strength”. But their spirits did not dare to stand before him, *except for *Judas Iscariot. He was able to stand before him, but he could not look him in the eyes, and he turned his face away.

Accordingly, Judas - the supposed writer of this Gospel, is the only one to know Jesus’ origin:
Judas said to him, “I know who you are and where you have come from. You are from the immortal realm of Barbelo. And I am not worthy to utter the name of the one who has sent you”.

Apparently, this fake Gospel attributes the knowledge of all the unfamiliar gnostic names and terms to Jesus and Judas:
"Adamas was in the first luminous cloud that no angel has ever seen among all those called God.

“The twelve aeons of the twelve luminaries constitute their father, with six heavens for each aeon, so that thare are seventy-two heavens for the seventy-two luminaries”

“And look, from the cloud there appeared an [angel] whose face flashed with fire and whose appearance was defiled with blood. His name was Nebro, which means ‘rebel’, others call him Yaldabaoth. Another angel, Saklas, also came from the cloud. So Nebro created six angels - as well as Saklas - to be assistants, and these produced twelve angels in the heavens, with each one receiving a portion in the heavens”.

Naturally, this Gospels asserts that Judas was the only one chosen to hear the mysteries of the Kingdom. Thus, Jesus wants him to separate himself from others and be aware of the prerogatives granted to him. Interestingly, Jesus predicts Judas will be replaced with someone else:
Knowing that Judas was reflecting upon something that was exalted, Jesus said to him, “Step away from the others, and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal. For someone else will replace you, so that the twelve [disciples] may come to completion with their god”.

Judas said, “Master, as you have listened to all of them, now also listen to me. For I have seen a great vision”. When Jesus heard this, he laughed and said to him, "You thirteenth spirit, why do you try so hard?“But speak up, and I shall bear with you”. Judas said to him, "In the vision I saw myself as the **twelve disciples **were stoning me and persecuting [me severely].

More, Jesus supposedly gives a promise to Judas in private about the end of the world:
“You will become the thirteenth, and you will be cursed by the other generations - and you will come to rule over them. In the last days they will curse your *ascent *to the holy [generation]”.

Finally, Judas is claimed to be superior to all the apostles in this Gospel since he is expected to save Jesus from his body. As a result, Judas saves Jesus through his betrayal. Jesus says to Judas:
" But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me."

The conclusion says nothing about the crucifixion, but it comes to an abrupt ending when Judas - upon Jesus’ supposed request - hands Jesus over to the religious leaders.

to be continued…