THREAD: Judas appears to die in quite different ways in the texts of Matt. 27 and Acts 1.
That fact raises a number of important questions.
The most obvious is how the two accounts are supposed to be reconciled.
But an equally important question to consider is *why*...
That fact raises a number of important questions.
The most obvious is how the two accounts are supposed to be reconciled.
But an equally important question to consider is *why*...
...Matthew and Luke would want to portray Judas’s death differently.
As far as the first of these questions is concerned, I cannot better Peter Williams’ thread (not least because I can’t read half of the languages it includes), which can be found here:
As far as the first of these questions is concerned, I cannot better Peter Williams’ thread (not least because I can’t read half of the languages it includes), which can be found here:
I’ll instead, therefore, focus my attention on the second question.
Matthew has Judas hang himself.
Why?
My guess is as follows: because Matthew wants us to view Judas’s death in light of a particular Biblical incident.
How many people are said to hang themselves in the OT?
Matthew has Judas hang himself.
Why?
My guess is as follows: because Matthew wants us to view Judas’s death in light of a particular Biblical incident.
How many people are said to hang themselves in the OT?
Not many.
Ahithophel is certainly a contender.
But Ahithophel is said to have *strangled* himself to death (וַיֵּחָנַק וַיָּמָת), which may well have involved a rope and the like, but does not involve the verb ‘to hang’ (תלה).
Ahithophel is certainly a contender.
But Ahithophel is said to have *strangled* himself to death (וַיֵּחָנַק וַיָּמָת), which may well have involved a rope and the like, but does not involve the verb ‘to hang’ (תלה).
Ahithophel’s master, Absalom, therefore seems a better candidate.
Absalom’s death is an unusual one.
While he is out on his mule, Absalom gets his head stuck in the branches of an oak tree.
His mule, however, continues on its way,
Absalom’s death is an unusual one.
While he is out on his mule, Absalom gets his head stuck in the branches of an oak tree.
His mule, however, continues on its way,
which leaves Absalom’s body inconveniently ‘suspended’ (תלוי) in midair (2 Sam. 18.9–10).
An aside: Joab is said to thrust three spears ‘into the heart of Absalom’ (בְּלֵב אַבְשָׁלוֹם) while Absalom is stuck ‘in the heart of the tree’ (בְּלֵב הָאֵלָה), which seems a deliberately evocative turn of phrase.
Is the repetition of the word ‘heart’ meant to hint at Psa. 12’s description of those who speak ‘with a heart and a heart’ (בְּלֵב וָלֵב), i.e., those who deal treacherously with their neighbours?
Either way, Absalom dies a decidedly Judah-esque death (18.17),
which is significant to the events of Matt. 26–27, as we’ll soon see.
First, however, a brief word about the concept of ‘friendship’.
which is significant to the events of Matt. 26–27, as we’ll soon see.
First, however, a brief word about the concept of ‘friendship’.
In the OT, the concept of friendship is a decidedly fraught one.
Friends can either be a support or a thorn in the side.
The first person who is referred to as a ‘friend’ in Scripture is Hira (cp. Gen. 38),
Friends can either be a support or a thorn in the side.
The first person who is referred to as a ‘friend’ in Scripture is Hira (cp. Gen. 38),
but Hira isn’t a very good friend to Judah (since he helps Judah to cover up his sin).
Job’s friends don’t do him much good either (though for pretty much the opposite reason).
Scripture does sometimes refer to friends in a more positive light.
Job’s friends don’t do him much good either (though for pretty much the opposite reason).
Scripture does sometimes refer to friends in a more positive light.
Proverbs 18.24b, for instance, refers to a friend who is ‘closer than a brother’.
But 18.24a qualifies what is said in 18.24b, since it warns us not to have too many friends.
Someone who has particularly grievous experiences with his friends in Scripture is David.
But 18.24a qualifies what is said in 18.24b, since it warns us not to have too many friends.
Someone who has particularly grievous experiences with his friends in Scripture is David.
David is repeatedly betrayed by the people who are closest to him (Psa. 41.9, 55.12–14. 20–21), a prime example of whom is Absalom.
These considerations are very relevant to our present concern, since, when Jesus is betrayed by Judas (in Matt. 26), Jesus refers to him as his ‘friend’ (26.50).
Jesus’ statement is no mere formality; it frames Matt. 26’s events in light of precisely the concept of ‘friendship’ outlined above, particularly in the case of *David’s* experiences.
Jesus is David’s greater son. Hence, just as David is betrayed by those closest to him, so too is Jesus.
And that, I submit, is why Matthew focuses his attention on Judas’s Absalom-esque fate.
If Jesus is a Davidic Messiah, then Judas is an Absalomic betrayer.
And that, I submit, is why Matthew focuses his attention on Judas’s Absalom-esque fate.
If Jesus is a Davidic Messiah, then Judas is an Absalomic betrayer.
Hence, just as Samuel’s narrative leaves Absalom hung from a tree by means of his own devices (and as a result of his own self-ambition), so too does Matthew’s (in the case of Judas).
In sum, then, Matthew’s description of Judas’s death makes sense in the context of his gospel and is carefully thought out:
🔹 Matthew in particular portrays Jesus as a ‘son of David’ (1.1).
🔹 Matthew in particular portrays Jesus as a ‘son of David’ (1.1).
🔹 Matthew in particular focuses on Jesus’ ‘betrayal’—a word/concept mentioned more in Matthew than in Mark and Luke combined.
🔹 Matthew alone has Jesus refer to Judas as his Absalomic ‘friend’ (26.50).
🔹 Matthew alone has Jesus refer to Judas as his Absalomic ‘friend’ (26.50).
🔹 And, consequently, Matthew alone has Judas share Absalom’s fate, i.e., Matthew has Judas hung rather than ‘burst open’ at the seams.
————————
All well and good, one might say. But what about Luke?
————————
All well and good, one might say. But what about Luke?
Well, Luke has a different focus to Matthew.
For a start, his account of Jesus’ betrayal is shorter. (It consists of two verses rather than four: cp. Matt. 26.47–50 w. Luke 22.47–28.)
For a start, his account of Jesus’ betrayal is shorter. (It consists of two verses rather than four: cp. Matt. 26.47–50 w. Luke 22.47–28.)
Luke instead devotes his attention to Jesus’ experiences in the garden of Gethsemene (22.39–46), where Luke (uniquely) has Jesus’ sweat fall to the ground like drops of blood.
Appropriately, then, whereas Matthew focuses on Judas’s asphyxiation, Luke focuses on Judas’s blood (Acts 1.18–19) and hence brings out the grim irony entailed in Judas’s fate.
While Jesus prays for his disciples and his sweat falls to the ground like drops of blood, Judas’ conspires with Jesus’ enemies, and his whole *body* will ultimately fall to the ground and stain the earth with its blood.
An aside: That Ἀχελδαμάχ begins with an /a/ is neat because it corresponds to Arabic /ḥaql/ = ‘fertile field’ (rather than /ḫaql/).
Luke may also (like Matthew) have a particular OT incident in mind.
Luke’s account of Judas’s death is distinctive in two main ways:
a] whereas Matthew describes what the chief priests ‘lawfully’ do with Judas’s money, Luke describes it as ‘the reward of his iniquity’, and
Luke’s account of Judas’s death is distinctive in two main ways:
a] whereas Matthew describes what the chief priests ‘lawfully’ do with Judas’s money, Luke describes it as ‘the reward of his iniquity’, and
b] whereas Matthew simply says of Judas ἀπήγξατο = ‘he hung himself’ (without the gory details), Luke describes the violence and bloodshed associated with Judas’s death/downfall.
The question, then, is as follows: where in the Biblical narrative does an unrighteous man (unlawfully) acquire a plot of land, only for his dead body to be cast into that plot of land and his blood to stain its soil?
In the story of Naboth’s vineyard (2 Kgs. 9.25–26 cp. 1 Kgs. 21)—a story which is highly relevant to Luke’s gospel.
Luke’s is a gospel of upheavals and reversals.
It begins not with a royal genealogy, but with an account of two little-known women in Judah’s foothills.
Luke’s is a gospel of upheavals and reversals.
It begins not with a royal genealogy, but with an account of two little-known women in Judah’s foothills.
These women sing songs about vindication and about God’s exaltation of the humble (Luke 1.52–53).
And Jesus twices describes his kingdom in similar terms, i.e., as a kingdom in which the humble are exalted and the exalted humbled (14.11, 18.14).
And Jesus twices describes his kingdom in similar terms, i.e., as a kingdom in which the humble are exalted and the exalted humbled (14.11, 18.14).
That the book of Acts begins with Judas’s Ahab-like demise is therefore appropriate.
Ahab is allowed to reject God’s ways and exploit God’s people for many years, but, in the end, justice catches up with him.
Ahab is allowed to reject God’s ways and exploit God’s people for many years, but, in the end, justice catches up with him.
As such, Judas’s Ahab-like demise functions like a beacon on dangerous ground.
Let men be warned: The establishment of God’s kingdom will bring powerful tyrants (like the Herod of Acts 12) to justice,
Let men be warned: The establishment of God’s kingdom will bring powerful tyrants (like the Herod of Acts 12) to justice,
and those who reject the Gospel in favour of ill-gotten gains will ultimately end up in the same state as Judas and Ahab.
THE END.
THE END.
