Now, I get that, if the Bible isn’t reliable, then what we can know about God becomes suspect but I hardly see that as proof that God isn’t real, that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and that our sins can’t be forgiven! Of course, I am of the opinion that the Bible is 100% accurate and that all criticisms directed at the Bible will disappear with a fair reading of the text. I was just pointing out that an alleged contradiction, even one which is not easily explained, isn’t proof of anything!
Many examples of alleged contradictions surround the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus: things like, how many women went to the tomb? What time did they arrive? How many angels were there? What did Judas do with the 30 pieces of silver? How did Judas die? This Easter season, I thought I’d make a series of posts dealing with the most often used criticisms of the events, and conclude the series with a day by day discussion of what Jesus may have been doing each day during the Passion Week.
Please keep checking back!
What did Judas do with the 30 pieces of silver?
In my last post, I dealt with the controversy surrounding the death of Judas. Besides the question of how did Judas die, another criticism often raised is what did Judas do with the money he received for betraying Jesus?
Matthew 27:5 says, “And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.”
Acts 1:18 says, “Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.”
So which is it? Did he return the money or did he buy a field with it? People who raise this objection must not have thought about it for very long. If you think about it for more than a moment, it's really not hard to see how both verses can be true. Imagine this hypothetical scenario:
I work in a bank and a customer offers me $100 to perform a questionable transaction for him (perhaps he's trying to launder money). I take the money and perform the transaction. That night, I take my wife to a nice dinner with the $100. However, after a few days, I feel guilty for having done it and so I take $100 from my savings account and go to my customer saying, “I shouldn't have done that transaction. Here's your money back. Don't ask me to do it again.”
Now, what did I do with the money: did I take my wife to dinner or did I return it? I did both, of course. The same then could be said for Judas. He certainly could have bought a field with the money but later, when guilt overtook him, he returned 30 pieces of silver to the priests. In that case there’s no contradiction at all.
Another possibility is that Judas had only agreed to buy the field (contractually) but changed his mind before paying for it. This actually leads us into a little more complicated question which is, who bought the “Field of Blood”?
Who bought the Field of Blood?
Acts 1:19 says it was the field which Judas had bought and where he died that was called the Field of Blood. In Matthew 27:6-8, the priests did not want the money Judas returned so they decided to buy a field in which to bury strangers. That field also became known as the Field of Blood. So who bought the Field of Blood? There are a few very plausible explanations.
One very simple possibility is that there were 2 fields referred to as “the Field of Blood.” This is not unusual; for example, there are probably many different cities that have a dangerous section of road called, “Dead Man’s Curve.” Even in the same city, there might be more than one road called, “Dead Man’s Curve” by different residents.
There didn’t necessarily have to be two different fields, though. It is possible that these passages could refer to the same field. As we’ve already discussed, if Judas had only contracted to buy the field and died before paying for it, the Pharisees could have paid the owner for the field with the money Judas returned. Many times people will use an agent to make a large purchase yet it is still the one who paid the money – rather than the agent – who is considered the buyer. So it could be said that Judas was the buyer (because it was bought with his money) and the Pharisees were the buyers (acting as agents for Judas).
There is still another very simple explanation. When the Pharisees were looking for something appropriate to do with the “blood money,” they might have decided to buy the same field from whoever inherited it from Judas. Thus, Judas bought the field, Judas died, then the beneficiaries of Judas sold the field to the Pharisees.
As is often the case with biblical contradictions, it’s not that we can’t see how different passages can be reconciled, it’s a case of not knowing which of many explanations is the correct one. The good news is that we don’t have to know. We can simply rest peacefully, knowing that the veracity of the Bible is not in threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment