Matthew vs Acts in the narrative of Judas’ Hanging

Video: “12 Contradictions in the Bible” by Holy Koolaid
The texts in question: Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:16-19

Below are Mr. Koolaid’s statements (in bold) followed by my response.

“Now one of the most famous stories about Jesus is how His disciple Judas betrays Him with a kiss. But what happened to Judas afterward depends on which part of the Bible you read.”

It’s amazing how one’s beliefs plays into comprehending the Bible. The antagonist is already looking for problems in the texts before he even touches a Bible. When he comes across what he thinks is a contradiction he simply stops reading, slams the cover shut, and walks away. The believer is first looking to see what the verse(s)are teaching him or her. When he eventually comes upon a problem where two separate texts have different information, he first seeks to reconcile the texts with each other, or seeks after other related scriptures, or even looking to see how it fits in with the rest of the book, chapter, section, or even the Bible as a whole. When the texts seem contradictory the first thing he seeks to do is to see if the two texts can be reconciled.

“In the Gospel of Matthew, Judas storms back to the chief priests and returns the money that he was paid to betray Jesus by throwing it into the temple. But according to Acts, which was written by the same author who wrote the Gospel of Luke, Judas didn’t return the money at all.”

This is a gross misrepresentation of what Luke wrote in Acts. “Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness…” (verse 18) is a far cry from saying “Judas didn’t return the money at all.” In no way did Luke even imply this in his text. It’s simply a thought that Mr. Koolaid pulled out of thin air to try to make his argument sound reasonable.

Luke was right. As Matthew’s gospel points out, Judas’ 30 pieces of silver profited him with nothing more than a graveyard (Matthew 27:7). That’s the point Luke is making. It’s something that is often referred to as an irony of fate, where an intended action results in an unintended result.

“In Acts, Judas goes land shopping and buys a field with the money, while in Matthew the priests buy the field with the money.”

Could someone pretty please show me the verse where Luke writes that Judas went land shopping? How about the verse where Luke specifically wrote that Judas literally “buys a field?” It’s hard to find an atheist who treats the texts fairly and Mr. Koolaid is no exception.

Yes, the word acquire can mean to obtain something through a monetary purchase. It can also mean to obtain something through indirect means, as the case is here. It’s pretty obvious in Matthew’s text that Judas was “seized with remorse” because he had betrayed Jesus (Matthew 27:3) and tried to return the money in an effort to absolve himself of guilt. If Judas had kept the money he could have spent it on whatever he wanted. At least the priests had a minuscule amount of integrity to realize the money didn’t belong to them and that returning the money to the treasury would be wrong. So after Judas threw the money into the temple, rather than returning the money to the treasury (where it came from) or pocketing it among themselves, the priests spent Judas’ money and purchased the field for the purpose of turning it into a graveyard. Hence Luke’s remark “Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness…” (italics mine) is very astute in realizing the result of the final outcome concerning Judas’ blood money. Luke’s statement that the field was called “Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood” is in total harmony with what Matthew wrote in 27:6 of his Gospel, where even the chief priests recognized the money was the “price of blood.”

“In Matthew Judas feels so guilty for betraying Jesus that he goes and hangs himself but in Acts he’s strutting through his new field when he trips, falls and his intestines spill out.”

I don’t know what translation Mr. Koolaid uses but my text says “…falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out” (Acts 1:18). Please show me your translation that says Judas was “strutting through his new field when he trips [and] falls…” I know I said above that it’s “hard to find an atheist who treats the texts fairly and Mr. Koolaid is no exception,” but this remark is truly ridiculous. There’s just simply no excuse for such unfair and dishonest treatment of the text.

The question is can the two texts be reconciled? The answer is yes; this information supplements, but by no means contradicts, what is said in Matthew 27:5 (“Then he went away and hanged himself.”) While the text doesn’t specifically state why Judas’ intestines spilled out, there can be several possible reasons.

First is that by the time his body was found it was still hanging and it had decomposed to the point where the pressure created by the gasses had forced fluids to come out of his tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result and the skin stretches out like an overinflated balloon and eventually the stomach bursts open. This is not likely to be what happened though.

The second is that his body was no longer hanging when it was discovered, but had fallen to the ground due to the neck and throat decomposing enough so that the rope cut through it. His stomach then split open on impact with the ground. This is a stronger possibility but doesn’t quite seem to fit in with the text that states that Judas fell headlong and not that his head had separated from his body.

The third is that either the rope was improperly tied, or it had snapped, or the branch broke and he fell head first while his belly landed on a sharp object, such as a rock, causing his stomach to rip open and his intestines had gushed out. This reason is most likely since Luke says he fell headlong, or head first. This would be an agonizing way to die.