Inquiry:
What did Judas do with the silver? Acts 1:18 says that he bought a field with it, but Matthew 27:5 says he threw it on the ground. Is there a contradiction?
Response:
Matthew tells us:
…he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed (Matthew 27:5)
Judas didn’t keep the silver or purchase anything with it. He returned it to those who gave it to him (Matthew 27:3). When they did not share his concern that the Lord was condemned, he threw it down before the Jewish leaders and left.
What should they do with it? It could not go back to the treasury, it was blood money (Matthew 27:6). So they used it to buy a field in which to bury strangers (Matthew 27:7). Matthew says the land was called the Field of Blood (27:8). Luke also tells us it was called this. He records,
…it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood (Acts 1:19)
It seems the origin of the money used to buy the field was known among the general populace, and thus the name Field of Blood.
Matthew tells us the chief priests purchased the field, but Luke says of Judas,
…this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity… (Acts 1:18)
How do we reconcile the two accounts? Judas may have told the chief priests when they paid him for his betrayal that he planned to buy a field with the money. He may have already had a contract in place. If so, the leaders simply did what he had intended to do. Or, it may be that they chose to buy the field simply as a way to discard the blood money. It is likely that when they purchased the field, they did so in Judas’ name – on his behalf, as it were. This would explain why Luke’s account says the purchase was Judas’, not the chief priests. It was his money, not theirs.
The difference in the texts is a matter of perspective and logistics. There is no contradition.
Links: YouVersion | GROW magazine
Return to the article archive
