Easter apologetics: Part 3. How did Judas die?

Opponents of Christianity often try to attack the faith by pointing out supposed contradictions in the Bible.  It’s a rather futile tactic because I don’t think their conclusion necessarily follows their premise.  What, if one passage of the Bible is wrong then all the Bible is wrong?  If two verses contradict each other, then there is no God?  It just doesn’t make any sense.  

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!

How did Judas die?

There are two passages that mention the death of Judas:

Matthew 27:3-5, Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:15-18, And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

One issue often raised by critics of the Bible is the question, “How did Judas die?” We know that after the arrest of Jesus, Judas, in a fit of remorse, ended his own life.  However, at  first reading, the two accounts we have of the event seem to contradict each other.  Matthew says simply, “[He] went and hanged himself,” while Acts says, “and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”  

Perhaps one reason this criticism is so enduring is because, unlike so many other criticisms, this one is not as easily rebutted. It doesn't necessarily mean that this is a valid criticism of the Bible; the fact of the matter is that the two passages are so scarce in detail that it's not obvious how to reconcile them. Actually, multiple explanations exist and we're just not sure which might be the correct solution.

It must be remembered that different people will describe the same event differently. Consider this analogy: police are called to a crime scene and find a dead man. They ask witnesses what happened. One witness says the victim was killed in a fight with another man. A second witness says the victim fell and hit his head. Using only these details, it seems like the witnesses have contradicted each other. However, the simple solution could be that two men were fighting when one fell, struck his head, and died. If we had more details, the passages from Matthew and Acts might be that simple to reconcile. Alas, we only have these two, short descriptions. There are at least 3 ways these events might be reconciled:

A SPIRITUAL FALL

I once read an intriguing possibility that Peter (Luke 1) was not describing the physical death of Judas but was merely describing his spiritual fall. This would be a fall in the same sense that Adam “fell” and died. Regarding the reference to “bowels,” there are multiple passages (especially in the KJV) where the “bowels” are a reference to mercy or compassion (Colossians 3:12, Philemon 1:7, 1 John 3:17, etc). So according to this theory, Judas may have died physically but he also “fell” spiritually and his bowels bursting is a reference to his act of betrayal.

I am a little skeptical of this as a possible solution but it could have merit. I've already mentioned that different people might describe the same event differently so Peter may have been speaking of his spiritual fall. Consider also that Peter is introducing the need to replace Judas among the apostles. We have no reason to believe the act of replacing the apostles was continued after subsequent deaths of the apostles – those apostles who remained faithful unto death. It could be then that Peter is introducing a doctrinal need to replace him, namely that he not only died but that he fell from grace.

A GRUESOME HANGING

I've heard various scenarios that attempt to explain how the hanging of Judas might have been especially gruesome and could fit the description in both passages. 

• The first is a rather mundane explanation that the rope Judas used was too long and rather than hanging, he fell to the ground. Alternatively, the rope simply broke during the attempt causing Judas to fall.  These are hardly plausible. A fall from a tree might be sufficient to kill a person but it would have to be an especially high tree for the body to break open. This is the least likely explanation that I've heard.

• A second possibility is that Judas wasn't “hanged” in the ordinary sense of the word but instead impaled himself – perhaps on a spear. The word “hanged” is also used in reference to the death of Jesus (Acts 5:30, Acts 10:39) who we certainly know wasn't hanged by the neck. Besides Jesus, the thieves crucified with him are also described as being “hanged” (Luke 23:39). If a person were impaled through the belly with a spear, it might be described that his bowels burst open and spilled out. I once considered this an extremely possible explanation but I later learned that the Greek word in Matthew 27:5 (apagcho, ἀπάγχω, Strong’s word 519) quite literally means “to choke.”  It is a different word than what is translated as “hanged” in Acts 5:30.  This may still be a possible explanation but I feel it is less likely.

• Yet another possibility occurred to me many years ago when I heard a radio news bite of a US state that was trying to hire an executioner. In that state (I believe it was Washington), the proscribed method of execution was still hanging even though no one had been hanged there for many years. In the sound bite it was mentioned how much is actually involved in a hanging. The rope should be the right length for the sentenced man's weight so that his neck will break and he will die quickly. If it is too short, he will die slowly by strangulation. However, if it is too long, the man could be decapitated! Please excuse the gore but if a person were decapitated and his stomach contents were regurgitated out of his esophagus, it might fit the description given by Peter.

POST MORTEM

When Peter spoke before the other apostles, it might have already been understood by all that Judas had already died. So rather than telling everyone that Judas had died (or how he died), Peter might be adding some information about an event that happened post mortem. As mentioned above, a body falling from a tree will not likely “burst open.” However, after death, the skin and tissues begin to decompose. The body also begins to bloat. Answers in Genesis gives this very graphic description:

Gruesome as it is, Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon: as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking), the skin easily broke, and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

In conclusion, let me remind my readers that we cannot know which of these possible scenarios might be the correct one. There could still be other explanations I have not discussed or even considered. But just these few possible scenarios clearly demonstrate that the passages in question need not be contradictory.

What the Bible really says about slavery

If you were to do a Google image search for “slavery Bible,” you'd get hundreds of images showing mostly dark skinned people chained, whipped, and tortured. Completely absent from the criticisms are Scripture references supporting the things the critics portray. There is no passage in the Bible, for example, that talks about putting slaves in chains. Why, then, are there so many pictures of blacks in chains with Bible verses written beneath them? Whether it's done out of ignorance or intentional deceit, it doesn't matter.  It’s a dishonest criticism.

When we hear the word, slavery, we immediately think about the subjugation of blacks in the South. It's a highly, emotionally charged word which is the impression critics want us to have. It's an unfortunate consequence of translation that words of different languages seldom have exactly the same semantic range of meaning. It's nearly unavoidable that when we substitute an English word for a Hebrew or Greek word, we interpret the text according to our understanding of the English word. In English, slavery sounds like a terrible thing which makes this criticism seem to have merit.

This is not a trivial point. This criticism's entire weight rests upon the negative connotation implied by the word, slavery. Critics routinely beat this drum by using disparaging language. It's a type of straw man argument - the argument by outrage - where the skeptic simply uses loaded words to describe the thing he’s criticizing.  It would be like a politician who might describe his opponent’s plan for Social Security reform as, “wanting to kill old people!”  The problem for the critic here is that the slavery mentioned in the Bible doesn’t remotely resemble slavery as the typical, modern reader understands it.

Some examples of the differences between the kind of servitude described in the Bible and the cruel slavery seen in other parts of the world are these:

• People could not be kidnapped and sold into slavery against their will. Exodus 21:16. 

• Slaves who ran away could not be forced to return to their masters. Deuteronomy 23:15-16.

• Slaves were required to be given a Sabbath day of no work, just like free men. Exodus 20:10. 

• If a master kills a slave, he is guilty of murder. Exodus 21:20.

• If a master permanently injures a slave, such as knocking out a tooth, he must free the slave. Exodus 21:26-27.

Nowhere in the Bible are masters commanded or even allowed to chain, torture, and kill their servants. Nowhere! Yet that is exactly the false impression critics want to portray when they show dark skinned people in chains.

When the Bible talks about “slaves,” it is primarily talking about 2 groups of people. First, a tiny minority of slaves were prisoners taken in war. War was a grim reality at the time of the Old Testament and conquered kingdoms meant defeated populations that needed to be dealt with. If you defeat an enemy, you can't simply pack up and go home or else you'll be fighting the same enemy again sometime later. The Law gave instructions in dealing with enemy prisoners that was more practical than internment camps and more humane than summary execution. This doesn't mean that God condones war or slavery. Just like Jesus said about the law allowing divorce (Matthew 19:8), laws dealing with captured prisoners were merely allowances made for people living in a fallen world. It doesn't reflect God's perfect will.

The more common type of slavery mentioned in the is what we might call indentured servitude. In biblical times (both the Old and New Testaments), there were no such things as government welfare or bankruptcy. Out of economic necessity, a person could pledge his future labor in exchange for things like forgiveness of debt, a lump sum of money, and food and shelter. Slaves in the ancient world were a socioeconomic class. They were chronically poor or indebted people who voluntarily entered indentured servitude because they could either not take care of themselves or they could not repay their debts.

Usually, entering into this kind of servitude was a lifelong commitment. If the master died, the slave would continue in the service of the master's family. This was also true of foreign slaves living in Israel. Jews, on the other hand, were required to forgive the debts of other Jews every 7 years (Deuteronomy 15:1-2) which also meant the debts owed by servants.  This was really the only difference between Jewish and non-Jewish slaves.  But even a freed Jewish slave could choose to remain in his master’s employ and serve him for the rest of his life.

In general, the Bible tries to make the arrangement more professional and less like slavery as we typically understand it. Colossians 4:1 commands masters to treat their slaves “justly and fairly.”  God ultimately does not distinguish between slave and master – both are equal in His eyes (Galatians 3:28).  In his letter, Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus, not as a slave but as a brother (Philemon 1:16).  Paul even refers to himself as a “slave” to Christ (Greek, doulos δοῦλος, [Strong’s 1401], Romans 1:1, et al). Indeed, Christ Himself gave us the parable of the unprofitable servant, Luke 17:7-10. He has forgiven my debt, paid the penalty for my sins, and given me eternal life. He is my Lord. I owe Him all I have and could serve Him my entire life and still never repay all He has done for me.

When asked to cite specific verses where the mistreatment of slaves is allowed, critics really can only resort to one verse, Exodus 21:20-21:

 

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.  Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”

 

The verse is cited to make it sound like it's OK to beat a slave as long as he doesn't die immediately; if he dies later, it's fine. This is another example of taking a passage out of context. The passage isn't talking about murder but about what happens if you injure a man but he doesn't die. In verses 18-19, the two verses immediately prior to the above verses, the Bible proscribes exactly the same punishment for fights between free men. The only difference is that if you strike a free man and he doesn't die immediately, but only remains in bed for a while, he must be compensated for the time he was injured. A slave that is struck but doesn't die immediately doesn't have to be compensated for the time he was injured because his work belongs to his master anyway!

In spite of all the things I’ve shared already in this post, I still understand that the idea of permanent servitude still will sound strange to a lot of modern readers. I've tried comparing it to something like being a squire or vassal – words that are less emotionally charged – but even these types of service don't exist anymore. It's just hard for some people to think of a being a “slave” as anything less than repulsive. They can't imagine being a slave as being a kind of job. They can't imagine a person wanting to be a slave. It might help if you think of the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32).  A man's son asked his father for his inheritance now. He took the money and went into a foreign land where he squandered it all. When the money was gone, he began to starve and considered returning to his father as a slave. Read the boy's thoughts (Luke 15:14-19):

 

“And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.”