Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 1:18
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.
18. It seems best to treat this verse and the following, which break the connexion of St Peter’s remarks on David’s prophecies, as no part of the Apostle’s speech on the election of Matthias. St Luke most likely derived the words from St Peter, from whom he no doubt gathered the facts for this part of his history, and the Apostle would thus at a later time emphasize to St Luke, by a minute description, the ruin which came upon Judas, though in his public address he had only spoken in the words of the Psalmist.
These two verses (18 and 19) are connected in themselves by the copulative conjunction, but the particles which introduce Act 1:18 ( ) express no more than a confirmation of the statement in which they occur, and a transition to some explanatory matter. They are frequently employed in a similar manner by the writer of the Acts (as Act 5:41, Act 13:4, Act 17:30, Act 23:22, Act 26:9). But that which stamps the passage as a parenthesis is the demonstrative pronoun which stands at the head of it. The position of the Greek words would be represented by This man you are to know acquired, &c. If it had been a continuous narrative we should have had some connection of the following kind: “He had obtained part of this ministry, and yet he with the reward of his iniquity, &c.” without the insertion of any demonstrative, or indeed of any pronoun at all, in the Greek.
Now this man purchased a field ] Rather, acquired, which probably was the sense intended by the A. V., as it was an old sense of the English word purchase. This may be said not only of him who buys, but of him who becomes the occasion of another’s buying. The field was bought by the chief priests (Mat 27:5-8) with the money which Judas returned, but as they could not take that money for the treasury, they were likely to look upon what was purchased with it as still the property of the traitor. St Luke’s employment of the unusual word “acquire” in a narrative where he calls the price of the land “the reward of iniquity,” and speaks of the immediate death of Judas, makes it clear that he views (and that the people of Jerusalem did the same) the field Akeldama as the field which Judas acquired, though it became, from the circumstances, a public possession for a burial ground.
the reward of iniquity ] This expression is only found in N. T. here and 2Pe 2:13; 2Pe 2:15. So that it seems to be a Petrine phrase. The A. V. conceals the identity of the Greek words in these three passages by giving them in each place a different English rendering.
and falling headlong, &c.] This can only have occurred after the hanging mentioned by St Matthew (Mat 27:5). It appears from St Luke’s narrative here that the death of Judas, attended by all these dreadful circumstances, took place in the spot which the chief priests eventually purchased. This, if a fit place for an Eastern burying ground, would be of a rocky character where caves abounded or could easily be made, and it would be the more rugged, if, as St Matthew’s narrative intimates, it had been used for the digging of clay for the potters. If in such a place the suicide first hanged himself and the cord which he used gave way, it is easy to understand how in the fall all the consequences described in this verse would be the result. For a similar result to bodies falling on rocks, cp. 2Ch 25:12. Buxtorf ( Rabb. Lex. s. v. ) suggests that the expression of St Matthew, “hanged himself,” might be rendered “he was choked,” as if by asphyxia, from over-excitement and anguish. He says the Jews have so explained the end of Ahithophel, and that a like explanation might suit in the Gospel. And St Chrysostom, Hom. xxii. ad Antiochenos, uses the expression to be strangled by conscience. But this view seems to be surrounded by far more difficulties than the belief that St Matthew merely mentioned one single incident in the suicide’s fate, while St Luke, because his purpose seemed to ask it, has described the death of Judas in such wise as to shew that his destruction was as terrible as anything of which David had spoken in the Psalms to which St Peter had referred.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Now this man … – The money which was given for betraying the Lord Jesus was thrown down in the temple, and the field was purchased with it by the Jewish priests. See Mat 27:5, Mat 27:10, and the notes on that place. A man is said often to do a thing when he furnishes means for doing it. Compare Mat 27:60, And laid it (the body of Jesus) in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock. That is, had caused to be hewn out. Joh 4:1, when, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. Through his disciples, for Jesus himself baptized not, Joh 4:2. The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known maxim, Qui facit per alium, facit per se.
The reward of iniquity – The price which he had for that deed of stupendous wickedness – the betraying of the Lord Jesus.
And falling headlong – The word here rendered headlong – prenes (Latin pronus, whence our English word prone) – means properly bent forward, head-foremost; and the idea is, that his position in hanging himself was such that when the cord broke he fell headlong, or fell forward on his face. This can easily be supposed if he threw himself from a rock or elevated place. He first hanged himself, and then fell and was burst asunder. See the notes on Mat 27:5.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 18. Purchased a field with the reward of iniquity] Probably Judas did not purchase the field himself, but the money for which he sold his Lord was thus applied, see Mt 27:6-8. It is possible, however, that he might have designed to purchase a field or piece of ground with this reward of his iniquity, and might have been in treaty far it, though he did not close the bargain, as his bringing the money to the treasury proves: the priests, knowing his intentions, might have completed the purchase, and, as Judas was now dead, applied the field thus bought for the burial of strangers, i.e. Jews from foreign parts, or others who, visiting Jerusalem, had died there. Though this case is possible, yet the passage will bear a very consistent interpretation without the assistant of this conjecture; for, in ordinary conversation, we often attribute to a man what is the consequence of his own actions, though such consequence was never designed nor wished for by himself: thus we say of a man embarking in a hazardous enterprise, he is gone to seek his death; of one whose conduct has been ruinous to his reputation, he has disgraced himself; of another who has suffered much in consequence of his crimes, he has purchased repentance at a high price, c., &c. All these, though undesigned, were consequences of certain acts, as the buying of the yield was the consequence of Judas’s treason.
And falling headlong, he burst asunder] It is very likely that the 18th and 19th verses Acts 1:18 Acts 1:19 are not the words of Peter, but of the historian, St. Luke, and should be read in a parenthesis, and then the 17th and 20th verses Acts 1:17; Acts 1:20 will make a connected sense. (ln the case of Judas, and the manner of his death, see the observations at the end of this chapter. See Clarke on Ac 1:26.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Purchased a field; which Judas might have agreed for at that price, and yet the chief priests bought, (as Mat 27:7) by a strange providence, leading of them to that purchase; howsoever, eventually he bought it, as throwing back to them their money which paid for it, Mat 27:5.
Falling headlong, he burst asunder; it is said he hanged himself, which implying only his death by suffocation, whether he died out of horror of his fact, or laying violent hands on himself in such circumstances as may agree with this relation, it is not material to determine.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. falling headlong, &c.Thisinformation supplements, but by no means contradicts, what is said inMt 27:5.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now this man purchased a field,…. This verse, with the following, seem to be the words of Luke the historian, which should be read in a parenthesis; for there was no need to have acquainted the disciples with the manner of Judas’s death, which was so well known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; nor would Jerusalem, and the inhabitants of it, be mentioned with that propriety by Peter, when he, and those he spoke of, were upon the spot; nor could there be any necessity of his explaining a word in their own tongue, which they understood, and that in a language unknown unto them; nor does it seem likely, that in so short a time as five or six weeks, the field should have obtained the name of “Aceldama”, and be commonly known by it. The Ethiopic version calls this field, “a vineyard”; and so it might be, and yet the potter’s field too. It is somewhat difficult, that Judas should be said to purchase it, when Matthew says the chief priests bought it, Mt 27:7. Both are true; Judas having received his money of the chief priests two days ago, might not only intend to purchase, but might really strike a bargain with the potter for his field; but repenting of his sin, instead of carrying the money to make good the agreement, went and threw it to the chief priests, and then hanged himself; when they, by a secret providence, might be directed to make a purchase of the same field with his money; or he may be said to purchase it, because it was purchased with his money. The Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions render it, “he possessed” it; not in person, unless he was buried there, as he might be; and so all that he got by his wretched bargain, was only so much ground as to be buried in; or the sense may be, “he caused it to be possessed”; by returning the money which the chief priests used this way;
with the reward of his iniquity; that is, with the thirty pieces of silver, given him as a reward for that vile action of his betraying of his Lord and master: so the reward of divination, or what Balsam got by soothsaying, which was an iniquitous and wicked practice, is called, “the wages of unrighteousness”, 2Pe 2:15
and falling headlong he burst in the midst; either falling from the gallows, or tree on which he hanged himself, the rope breaking, upon a stone, or stump, his belly was broke, and burst; or falling from the air, whither he was violently snatched up by Satan, who was in him, and by whom he was thrown down to the earth, and who went out of him by a rupture made in his belly; or being in deep melancholy, he was strangled with the squinancy, and fell down on his face to the ground, as the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions render it,
and burst asunder: and all his bowels gushed out; through the rupture that was made. So we read of a man that fell from the roof of a house, , “and his belly burst, and his bowels came out” l. And this was the miserable end of Judas. The death of Arius, as related by Athanasius m, from Macarius the presbyter, who was present, was much after the same manner; who reports, that having swore to the orthodox faith, and being about to be introduced into the church at Constantinople, after the prayer of Alexander, the bishop of it, he went out to the seat, to ease nature; when he, on a sudden, fell down headlong, and burst in the middle, and immediately expired: and Epiphanius n compares his exit with this of Judas, who observes, that he went out in the night to the vault, as before related, and burst asunder, as Judas of old did; and came to his end in a filthy and unclean place. Ruffinus says o, that as he sat, his entrails, and all his bowels, came from him into the vault; and so he died in such a place, a death worthy of his blasphemous and corrupt mind. As to the seeming difference between the Evangelist Matthew and the Apostle Peter, it may be reconciled by either of the ways before mentioned;
[See comments on Mt 27:5] though it seems most likely, that Judas not being able to bear the torments of his mind, he hanged himself, as Achitophel did, and was not strangled by the devil, or by any disease; and that he fell down from the tree on which he hung, either the rope breaking, or the tree falling; and so the things happened to him which are recorded: or he might fall from hence, either through a violent strong wind which blew him down; or through the rushing of wild beasts against the gallows, on which he hung; or by the devil himself, who might throw him down from hence after he had dispatched himself, as some have conjectured: or, which seems best of all, he might be cast down from hence by men, either of themselves, or by the order of the civil magistrates, not enduring such a sight, that one that had destroyed himself should hang long there; and which, according to the law, was not to be admitted; and these not taking him down, in a gentle manner, but using some violence, or cutting the rope, the body fell, and burst asunder, as is here said: and it should be observed, that the Evangelist Matthew speaks of the death of Judas, in which he himself was concerned; and the Apostle Peter reports what befell his carcass after his death, and in which others were concerned. The Vulgate Latin renders it, and being hanged, he burst in the middle; as if this happened to him upon the gallows, without falling.
l T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 56. 2. m Epist. ad. Scrapion, Vol. I. p. 523. n Contra Haeres. l. 2. Haeres. 68. o L. 1. c. 13.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Now this man (H ). Note again without a corresponding as in 1:6. Verses Acts 1:18; Acts 1:19 are a long parenthesis of Luke by way of explanation of the fate of Judas. In verse 20 Peter resumes and quotes the scripture to which he referred in verse 16.
Obtained (). First aorist middle indicative of , to acquire, only in the middle, to get for oneself. With the covenant money for the betrayal, acquired it indirectly apparently according to Matt 26:14-16; Matt 27:3-8 which see.
Falling headlong ( ). Attic form usually . The word means, not “headlong,” but “flat on the face” as opposed to on the back (Hackett). Hackett observes that the place suits admirably the idea that Judas hung himself (Mt 27:5) and, the rope breaking, fell flat on his face and
burst asunder in the midst ( ). First aorist active indicative of old verb (here only in the N.T.), to clang, to crack, to crash, like a falling tree. Aristophanes uses it of crashing bones. is predicate nominative referring to Judas.
Gushed out (). First aorist passive indicative of , to pour out.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Purchased [] . See on possess, Luk 18:12. Better, as Rev., obtained. Judas did not purchase the field, but the priests did with the money which he returned to them (Mt 27:7). The expression means merely that the field was purchased with the money of Judas.
Falling headlong [ ] . Lit., having become headlong.
He burst asunder [] . Only here in New Testament. Lit., to crack, to burst with a noise. So Homer, of the bones cracking beneath a blow (” Iliad, “13, 616). Compare Aristophanes,” Clouds, ” 410.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Now this man purchased a field,” (houtos men oun ektesato chorion) “This one (of the twelve, Judas) bought a field,” a piece or plot of ground, as alluded to in Zec 11:11-14; Mat 27:3-10.
2) “With the reward of iniquity; (ek misthou tes adikias) “Out of (the) pay, wages, or reward of unrighteousness; for his traitorous sale of his Master for thirty pieces of silver, as foretold also, Jer 19:1-3; Zec 11:12; Mar 14:10-11.
3) “And failing headlong, he burst asunder in the midst,” (kai prenes genomenos elakesen Mesos) “And having become swollen up in the middle he burst asunder,” burst open in the middle of his belly, a self-willed suicide whose conscious memorex system of burning guilt he no longer willed to endure or survive. He was led by covetous greed and its wages to a suicide grave, Pro 1:22-29.
4) “And all his bowels gushed out,” (kai eksechuthe panta ta splagchna autou) “And all of his bowels were poured out of him;- Peter stated a fact, but he did not heap scorn or abuse upon Judas or call him “the traitor.” This indicates remarkable emotional restraint on the part of Peter who certainly recognized the betrayal of his Lord as an atrocious and murderous act. Memories of the passion (suffering) of our Lord were surely yet vivid in Peter’s mind, 1Pe 2:21-24.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
18. And he truly It seemeth unto me a thing like to be true, that this narration of the death of Judas was put in by Luke; therefore, it seemeth good to me to include it within a parenthesis, that it may be separated from Peter’s sermon. For to what end should Peter here reckon up unto the disciples those things which they already knew well enough?
Secondly, it should have been an absurd thing to have spoken after this among them, that the field which was bought with the money that was given to betray Christ was called of the Hebrews, in their own mother tongue, Aceldama. But whereas some do answer, that Peter spoke this unto the Galileans, whose speech did disagree with the Jewish tongue, it is but vain and frivolous. In very deed they did somewhat disagree in pronunciation; yet not so much but that they did well understand one another; like as do these of Paris and the men of Rouen.
Furthermore, how could this be a fit word for Jerusalem, where Peter made his sermon? To what end should he interpret in Greek among the Hebrews their own mother tongue? Therefore doth Luke of himself put in this sentence concerning the death of Judas, lest Peter’s words might seem strange (62) through ignorance of that history.
He possessed a field This word hath a double signification, which, in my opinion, doth rather signify in this place to possess than to get; yet because it skilleth little whether way we read it, I leave it indifferent. And he speaketh after this sort, not because Judas had the use of the field, or that he himself did buy it, seeing it was bought after his death. But Luke’s meaning was, that his burial was the perpetual note of ignominy; was the reward which he had for his falsehood and wicked act. Neither did he so much sell Christ for thirty pieces as his apostleship. He enjoyed not the money; (63) he only possessed the field. Furthermore, it came to pass through the marvelous providence of God, that the very common name of the field should be a note of infamy for the priests, which had bought (the) innocent blood of [from] the traitor. He saith that the Hebrews did call it by that name in their tongue, because he himself was a Grecian born; and he calleth that the Hebrew tongue which the Jews did use after the captivity of Babylon, namely, such as was mixed of the Assyrian tongue and of the Chaldean tongue.
It is written in the book of Psalms He taketh away, by authority of Scriptures, all offense which might have happened by reason of the falling away of Judas. Yet might this place seem to be greatly wrested: First, in that David did not wish that these things might befall any particular person, but (in the plural number) he wisheth them unto his enemies. Secondly, it seemeth that Peter doth apply these things amiss unto Judas, which were spoken of the enemies of David. I answer, that David doth there speak after this [afterwards] of himself, that he may describe the condition and state of Christ’s kingdom.
In that Psalm (I say) is contained the common image of the whole Church, which is the body of the Son of God. Therefore, the things which are there set down must needs have been fulfilled in the head, which are indeed fulfilled, as the evangelists do testify, know, if any man object that those things which there were spoken against the enemies of David do not fitly agree unto Judas, we may easily gather that they do so much the rather agree with him, because David doth not respect himself as being separated from the body of the Church; but rather as he was one of the members of Christ, and so taking upon him his image, he steppeth forth in his name.
Whosoever shall mark that this singular person was attributed to David, that he should be a figure of Christ, will not marvel if all these things be applied unto him which were prefigured in David. Although, therefore, he doth comprehend the whole Church, yet he beginneth at the head thereof, and doth especially describe what things Christ should suffer by the hands of the wicked. For we learn out of Paul’s doctrine, that whatsoever afflictions the godly suffer, they are part of the afflictions of Christ, and serve to the fulfilling of the same, (Col 1:14.) This order and connection did David observe, or rather the Spirit of God, who meant by the mouth of David to instruct the whole Church. But as touching the persecutors of Christ, all that which is commonly spoken of them is by good right referred unto their standard-bearer; whose impiety and wickedness, as it is most famous, so his punishment ought to be made known unto all men. If any man do object again, that that which is recited in the Psalm is only certain cursings, and not prophecies; and that, therefore, Peter doth gather improperly that it was of necessity that it should be fulfilled, it is soon answered. For David was not moved with any perverse or corrupt affection of the flesh to crave vengeance; but he had the Holy Spirit to be his guide and director. Therefore, what things soever he prayed for there, being inspired with the Holy Ghost, they have the same strength which prophecies have, because the Spirit doth require no other thing than that which God hath determined with himself to perform, and will also promise unto us. But whereas Peter doth cite out of the Scriptures two diverse testimonies; by the first is meant, that Judas, together with his name and family, should quite be extinguished, that his place might be empty; the other, which he fetcheth out of the 109 Psalm, tendeth to this end, that there should be another chosen to supply his place. These seem at first to be contrary; namely, a waste habitation and succession. Yet, because the Spirit saith only, in the former place, that the adversaries of the Church should be taken away, that their place might be empty, and without one to dwell therein, in respect of themselves, this is no let why another may not afterward supply their empty place. Yea, this doth also augment their punishment, in that the honor, after it was taken from him that was unworthy thereof, is given to another.
And his bishopric The Hebrew word could not be translated more fitly. For פכודה (pecudah) doth signify a jurisdiction or government, so called of the overseeing and beholding of things. For as for those which interpret it wife, the text (64) refuteth them; for it followeth in the next verse, of his wife, that she may be made a widow. Therefore, after that he had wished that the wicked may be deprived of his life, he addeth, moreover, that he may be spoiled of his honor; neither doth he stay here, but also he desireth that another may succeed him, whereby, as I have said before, his punishment is doubled. In the meanwhile, he noteth by the way, (65) that this false, treacherous, and wicked person, whereof he speaketh, should not be some one of the common sort, but such an one as should be indued with honor and dignity; from which, nevertheless, he shall fall. And out of this place must we learn, that the wicked shall not escape scott free, which have persecuted the Church of God; for this miserable and wretched end is prepared for them all.
(62) “ Lectoribus obscura essent,” might be obscure to his readers.
(63) “ Argento potitus non est,” he did not obtain the money.
(64) “ Contextus,” context.
(65) “ Oblique,” indirectly.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(18, 19) Now this man purchased a field.Better, acquired, got possession of, a field, the Greek not necessarily including the idea of buying. On the difficulties presented by a comparison of this account with that in Mat. 27:5-8, see Note on that passage. Here the field bought with Judass money is spoken of as that which he gained as the reward of his treachery. The details that follow are additions to the briefer statement of St. Matthew, but are obviously not incompatible with it. Nor is there any necessity for assuming, as some have done, that there were two fields known as Aceldama, one that which the priests had bought, and the other that which was the scene of Judass death. The whole passage must be regarded as a note of the historian, not as part of the speech of St. Peter. It was not likely that he, speaking to disciples, all of whom knew the Aramaic, or popular Hebrew of Palestine, should stop to explain that Aceldama meant in their proper tongue, The field of blood.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
18, 19. These two verses we hold, in accordance with the opinion of Olshausen and others, to be not the words of Peter, but an explanatory parenthesis inserted in the speech by Luke. Peter’s hearers might know all the circumstances, but Luke’s readers might not. (See note on Act 1:19-20.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
18. Purchased a field He did not purchase the field in his own person, nor intentionally. He did it through the priests, by setting agoing the causes by which it became purchased. He hoped to enrich himself; he only bought a burial-ground for refugees like himself. So often our human thought attributes an effect back to an earlier cause or agent. So Joseph “laid the body of Christ” in the tomb through others’ hands. Mat 27:60.
(See note on Joh 4:2.)
Burst asunder Matthew says that Judas went and hanged himself. Luke here adds that he also fell, burst asunder, and his bowels gushed out. It is impossible for objectors to make out any contradiction here, for all the circumstances may be true of the same person as successive items in the same event. Judas may have hung himself on some dizzy precipice, and the rope breaking may have let him fall, breaking himself asunder on some projecting point of rock and crushing him at bottom by the force of his fall. No one can say this was the method; but this hypothesis, at least, shows that there is no impossibility for both accounts to be true. (See notes on Mat 27:5-8.) But, it is asked, Why does each omit what the other states, precisely as if he knew nothing of it? Matthew, we answer, like a rapid historian, intends only to mark his death by suicide; Luke, whose account evidently intends to be incomplete, presupposing an abundance of circumstances he does not narrate, is painting those opprobrious points in the traitor’s death which indicate the Divine abhorrence of his wickedness.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong (or ‘prone’), he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”
Among the Jews, when a man had entered into a contract from which he wanted to withdraw for conscience sake, and the other party refused to accept the money back, a means was provided by which he could take whatever was involved to the Temple and officially hand it back there. By that means he was seen as exonerated from guilt for what he had done. And that is what Judas had done (Mat 27:3-7). But there were limits as to what contracts could be so revoked, and Judas’ money was not acceptable to the Temple because it was blood money. It could not therefore be taken into the Temple treasury.
So the money remained Judas’ until it was decided what to do with it. The authorities then met and decided that it should therefore be used for a non-sacred purpose, by assisting Gentiles (Jews could not be helped with blood money). So Judas’ money was used to obtain the potter’s field to bury strangers in, and in essence Judas ‘obtained the field’.
We learn here also more detail as to the inglorious death of Judas. The full story of what had happened had now clearly become known. When a man hangs himself his greatest problem is to ensure a quick death, and it was regularly recognised that this could be achieved by a sharp drop once the rope was around the neck. Judas had probably chosen some high spot (a cliff or tree) within the land bought with his money (indicating his clinically depressed state) from which to carry out his suicide (Mat 27:5), and putting the rope round his neck had leaped to his death. It would appear from Peter’s description here that this had resulted in his being ‘burst asunder so that all his bowels gushed out’. We need not take this too literally. This could easily have happened, for example, if the rope broke and he fell onto rocks below (so Augustine), or if in the fall he swung against something jagged or pointed. All we finally know is that he hung himself and finished with his stomach burst open. (Papias is cited by Apollinarius as indicating that there was something particularly gruesome about his death, and he regularly talked about such things with the ageing Apostles). This gruesome death would be seen as accentuating his guilt. It probably reminded Peter of another who had rebelled against the Davidic house whose bowels had also gushed out (in LXX also eksechuthe), a fitting end to a traitor (2Sa 20:10), which would further serve to explain why he details it here.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 1:18. Now this man purchased a field, &c. It means, Occasioned the purchasing a field. It is worth observing, that an action is sometimes said in scripture to be done by a person who was the occasion of doing it. See Gen 42:38. Exo 23:8. Rom 14:15. 1Co 7:16 and 1Ti 4:16. To what has been said in the note on Mat 27:5 on the death of Judas, we subjoin the following observationsof different writers. Casaubon observes, that Judas hanged himself; but the rope breaking, he fell down, and, by the fall, broke his belly. He supposes therefore, that St. Matthew relates only the beginning of the history, and St. Luke the conclusion. Stephanus, in his Lexicon, says, that when Judas had put the rope about his neck, throwing himself forward from the place where he stood, he burst his belly by the shock which he received; and with this opinion Dr. Whitby seems to agree. Hensius interprets the word in Matthew, he was suffocated by the anguish of his mind; to which he applies what is said by the LXX. 2Sa 17:23 and Job 7:15 and adds, “such a suffocation is wont to occasion a rupture;” which he thinks is applicable to St. Luke’s account. Gronovius understands the word to signify he hung himself, but then he interprets the expression , falling headlong, in a passive sense, as if Judas’s body, when dead, was cut down by some other person, and so burst by the fall. Lastly, Perizonius, agreeing with Hensius, understands St. Matthew as speaking only of a suffocation arising from a melancholy disorder; which sense of the word he proves from a variety of examples, But then he supposes, that thisdid not kill Judas, who afterwards threw himself down from an eminence upon his face, and broke his belly by the fall; which is what is referred to by St. Luke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 1:18 . This person now acquired for himself a field for the wages of his iniquity a rhetorical indication of the fact exactly known to the hearers: for the money which Judas had received for his treason, a place , a piece of land, was purchased (Mat 27:6-8 ). This rhetorical designation, purposely chosen on account of the covetousness of Judas, [102] clearly proves that Act 1:18 is part of the speech of Peter, and not, as Calvin, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others think, a remark inserted by Luke. With regard to the expression of the fact itself, Chrys. correctly remarks: . To go further, and to assume what also the fragment of Papias in Cramer’s Cat. narrates that the death of Judas took place in the field itself (Hofm. Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 134; Baumg. p. 31; Lange), is not warranted by any indication in the purposely chosen form of representation. Others, such as Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, Ewald, have been induced by the direct literal tenor of the passage to assume a tradition deviating from Matthew (that Judas himself had actually purchased the field); although it is improbable in itself that Judas, on the days immediately following his treason, and under the pressure of its tragical event, should have made the purchase of a property, and should have chosen for this purchase the locality of Jerusalem, the arena of his shameful deed.
., etc.] is the simple and , annexing to the infamous deed its bloody reward . By . [103] . . ., the death of Judas is represented as a violent fall ( , headlong : the opposite , Hom. Il. xi. 179, xxiv. 11) and bursting . The particular circumstances are presupposed as well known, but are unknown to us. The usual mode of reconciliation with Matthew that the rope, with which Judas hanged himself, broke, and that thus what is here related occurred is an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing. Luke follows another tradition, of which it is not even certain whether it pointed to suicide . The twofold form of the tradition (and in Papias there occurs even a third [104] ) does not render a tragical violent end of Judas unhistorical in itself (Strauss, Zeller, and others), but only makes the manner of it uncertain. See, generally, on Mat 27:5 .
] he cracked , burst in the midst of his body, a rhetorically strong expression of bursting with a noise . Hom. Il. xiii. 616; Act. Thom. 37.
] Comp. Ael. Anim. iv. 52: .
[102] Beza aptly remarks that the mode of expression affirms “non quid conatus sit Judas, sed consiliorum ipsius eventum .”
[103] Which cannot be rendered suspensus (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio).
[104] See on Mat 27:5 , and comp. Introd sec. 1.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
XXVII
CHRIST BEFORE PILATE AND HEROD
Harmony, pages 196-206 and Mat 27:3-30
You will understand that our Lord was tried before the Sanhedrin, as we saw in the last chapter, on the charge of blasphemy, penalty for which was stoning. We will find in this discussion that Jesus is first tried before the court of Pilate on the charge of treason, and then differently charged with sedition, the penalty of these two charges being crucifixion, and on the same two charges he was tried before the Galilean court of Herod. We have yet to consider his trial before the court of God on the charge of sin, with the penalty of physical and spiritual death, and finally, we will consider his trial before the court of hell on the charge of sin, with the penalty of passing under the power of the devil.
So that this discussion commences at the last verse on page 196 of the Harmony, Mat 27:2 , “And they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him up to Pilate, the governor”; or, as Mark puts it, Mar 15:1-2 , “They bound Jesus and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate”; or, as Luke expresses it, Luk 23:1 , “And the whole company of them rose up, and brought him before Pilate”; or, as John has it, Joh 18:28 , “They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace; and it was early.”
We have seen in the preceding discussion that Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court, on the charge of blasphemy, and condemned. We have seen that in every step of the proceedings they violated their own criminal law. Just now the important thing to note is that they also violate the Roman law. In this particular they had no right to even try a capital offense. Of course, we know that a capital offense is one of which the penalty is death. That is, capital offense comes from the word caput (root, “cap,” connected with kephala) , meaning “the head.” And capital offense is one in which one loses his head. The right to-try-such an-offense Rome never granted to the conquered provinces. The position is untenable that any conquered province might try and condemn, but the Roman representative had to execute.
On this point Mr. Greenleaf says, “If they (the Sanhedrin) had condemned him, they had not the power to pass sentence, this being a right which passed from the Jews by conquest of their country, and really belonged to’ the Romans alone. They were merely citizens of the Roman province; they were left in the enjoyment of their civil laws, the public exercises of their religion, and many other things relating to their police and municipal regulations.” They had not the power of life and death. This was a principal attribute of sovereignty which the Romans took care to reserve to themselves always, whatever else might be neglected. Tacitus says that the imperial right among the Romans was incapable of being transmitted or delegated, and that right was the jurisdiction of capital cases, belonging ordinarily to the Roman governor or general. The word is praeses , answering to our word president, or governor of the province, the procurator, having for his principal duties charge of the annual revenue and the cognizance of capital cases. Some procurators, like Pontius Pilate, had the jurisdiction of life and death, but it could not be expected that Pilate would trouble himself with the cognizance of any matter not pertaining to the Roman law, which consists of an alleged offense against the God of the Jews, and was neither acknowledged nor even respected by the Romans. Of this the chief priests and elders were well aware.
To show that Mr. Greenleaf is right in that contention, I will give three instances from the New Testament upon that point. The first is Act 18 , in the city of Corinth, and under the Roman governor Gallic. When Paul was accused under him, and brought before the judgment seat, Gallic says: “If indeed, it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villainy, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you, but if they are questions about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; I am not minded to be a judge of these matters.” So a little later, when the mob treated the chief of the synagogue with indignities, it is said, “But Gallic cared for none of these things,” i.e., as a Roman officer he had nothing to do with them. So it was impossible for Pilate to take cognizance of anything brought against any matter of the Jewish religion, such as the accusation of blasphemy.
The next case that I cite is in Act 23 , where the chiliarch, or military tribune, called Claudius Lysias, writes a letter to Felix, who at that time was governor (Act 23:27 ) : “This man was seized by the Jews, and was about to be slain of them, when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman. And desiring to know the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him down into their council; whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds.”
The next case that I cite is from Act 25 ) when Festus was governor in place of Felix. So we see we have Pilate, Felix, Festus, and Gallic, all testifying upon the point to which I am now speaking. Festus cited Paul’s case to King Agrippa (Act 25:14 ): “There is a certain man left prisoner by Felix, about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, asking for sentence against him. To whom I answered, that it was not the custom of the Romans to give up any man, before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity to make his defense concerning the matter laid against him. When, therefore, they were come together here, I made no delay, but on the next day sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought. Con-erning whom, when the accusers stood up, they brought no charge of such evil things as I supposed: but had certain questions against him of their own religion.” And he declined to take any jurisdiction of such a question.
Further upon this point, I now give what the great French lawyer, Dupin, says: Let us distinctly establish this point; for here I entirely differ in opinion from Mr. Salvador. According to him (p. 88), “the Jews had reserved the power of trying, according to their law; but it was in the hands of the procurator alone that the executive power was invested; every culprit must be put to death by his consent, in order that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons that were sold to foreigners.” No; the Jews had not reserved the right of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of the conquest; and this was not merely that the senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries; but it was done, in order that the conqueror might be able to reach those individuals who should become impatient of the yoke. It was, in short, for the equal protection of all, as all had become Roman subjects; and to Rome alone belonged the highest judicial power, which is the principal attribute of sovereignty. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive authority, which would have left the judiciary and legislative power in the hands of the conquered people he was not simply an officer appointed to give an exequatur or mere approval (visa) to sentences passed by another authority, the authority of the Jews. When the matter in question was a capital case, the Roman authorities not only ordered the execution of a sentence, but also took cognizance ( coynito ) of the crime; it had the right of jurisdiction a pnon, and that of passing judgment in the last resort. If Pilate himself had not had this power by special delegation, vice praesdis, it was vested in the governor, within whose territorial jurisdiction the case occurred; but in any event we hold it to be clear that the Jews had lost the right of condemning to death any person whatsoever, not only so far as respects the execution, but the passing of the sentence. M. DUPIN, Testimony of the Evangelists, pages 601-602.
We must not forget that Judea was a conquered country, and to the Roman governor belonged the right of taking cognizance of capital cases. What then was the right of the Jewish authorities in regard to Jesus? The Jews had not the right reserved of passing sentence of death. This right had been transferred to the Romans by the very act of conquest; and this was not merely that the Roman senate should not have the means of reaching persons who were sold to foreign countries, but that Rome might have charge of all cases of life and death. Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in Judea, was not merely an agent of the executive authority, he having left the judiciary in the hands of the Jews; not simply an officer appointed to execute a Jewish sentence passed by any authority, but when the matter in question was a capital case the Roman authorities could not only order the execution of the sentences, but they also claimed the right of passing upon the crime itself, with the right of jurisdiction over the question, and of passing judgment in the last resort. The Jews had lost the right to try a man for a capital offense, or to condemn to death any person whatever. This is one of the best settled points in the provincial law of the Romans.
If the Jews had the right of trial in capital cases, and the Roman power was exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was brought before Pilate the proceedings would have been after this fashion: “Jesus has violated the Jewish law of blasphemy, and we have condemned him to death, and do bring him to you that you may approve and execute the sentence.” But what are the facts? When they bring Jesus before Pilate they say not one word about the offense of blasphemy, but bring a new charge. Pilate puts the question, “What accusation bring you against this man?” And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a King.”
That is the charge they prefer against him before the Roman Court. That is the new case. And Pilate examines whether Jesus Christ was guilty of treason against the Roman governor in claiming to be a king. So he examines the case by asking questions of Jesus himself: “Art thou the King of the Jews?” And after Pilate had finished his investigation he brought in his verdict of the case before him. He has heard the people and he has heard Jesus, and now here is his sentence: “And Pilate said unto the chief priests and the multitudes, I find no fault in this man.” (Top of page 200 in the Harmony.) That is the decision.
The decision having been rendered upon that charge of treason, they bring another charge (Luk 23:5 , Harmony page 200) : “But they were the more urgent, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place.” This is what we call sedition, that is, stirring up a tumult; so they changed the accusation. When they bring that charge against him before Pilate he merely notes the fact that they have spoken of Galilee, and as Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee, happened to be in Jerusalem at this time, and as the offense, according to this charge, commenced in Herod’s territory, Pilate wishing to avoid the responsibility of deciding the case, refers it to Herod.
We will see how it goes before Herod. On page 201 of the Harmony we find that Herod, after maltreating him, sends him back to Pilate. Page 203 shows that Pilate announces Herod’s verdict: “I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof you accused Him; no, nor yet Herod: for he sent Him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by Him.” So there we have a double verdict, that under the second charge Herod finds no offense against the Roman law, and Pilate says the same thing that he hath done nothing worthy of death. No fault in him under either of the accusations. So that is the third verdict of equivalence that has been pronounced twice by Pilate and once by Herod.
Pilate now wishes to smooth things, for he knew that the Jews were very turbulent, and that the position of the Roman officer in Judea was always a hazardous one, since accusations could be made against him to Rome. Pilate had been moved by a message from his wife. She had had a dream. So she sends to Pilate while on his judgment throne, and says, “Have thou nothing to do with this man.” Now, the Jews were urging Pilate on from one side, and his wife restraining him on the other. Burns, in “Tam O’Shanter,” says, about the attitude of men toward the good counsel of their wives: Ah, gentle dames! it gars me greet To think how many counsels sweet, How many lengthened, sage advices, The husband frae the wife despises!
Therefore, Pilate proposes an expedient. He says, “There is a custom among you that at feast time some guilty man shall be pardoned. Now, you have a man here, a murderer and a robber, whose name is Barabbas, and it is within my province to pardon a man. Suppose you let me pardon Jesus, or, would you prefer that I pardon Barabbas?” It is a strange thing to the lover of justice that after Pilate had twice acquitted this Man he now proposes to pardon him. He could not pardon a man that had been acquitted. The Jews make their choice; they say: “Not this man, but Barabbas; release that robber to us; don’t you release this man.” Pilate then has Jesus crowned with thorns to show his contempt for their accusation that he would be a king, and invests him with purple, and brings him before the Jews, and exclaims (in words, that, put together, make a great text for a sermon: “Ecce homo”; “Behold the man!” “Ecce Rex!” “Behold the King!” When the Jews persisted that they preferred that Barabbas should be released to them, then Pilate put this question, which has been the theme of many sermons, “What then shall I do with Jesus, who is called the Christ?”
Very many years ago at a meeting of the old General Association, Dr. A. E. Clemmons, pastor at Marshall, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana, preached a sermon from that text, and made this stirring application: This question comes to every man. Every man is under obligation to accept Jesus Christ as King, and if he rejects Christ then the question arises, “What shall I do with Jesus? He is in the world; he is preached in ten thousand pulpits; I cannot ignore him; I must make some disposition of him; what shall I do with him? Shall I count him as an impostor, or shall I accept him as my Saviour?”
Having made that point clear, Dr. Clemmons then passed to his last question: “In not trying to dispose of Jesus Christ you reject him. Then later the question will come to you in this form, ‘What will Jesus, who is called the Christ, do with me?’ ” Showing that there would come a time when the despised Nazarene would occupy the throne of eternal judgment, and according to the manner in which you disposed of him when the question was up to you, so will he dispose of you when the question is up to him.
Their answer to the question was, “Crucify him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate says, “Why don*t you take him and crucify him yourselves?” Then they said, “We have no jurisdiction; we have not this power of life and death; you have. We bring the case to you, and we tell you now that we charge him with being an enemy of Caesar, claiming himself to be a King; and if you let this man go, you are not Caesar’s friend.” It was a favorite custom of the Jews to prefer charges against the governors of Judea before the Roman court at Rome itself, and many a governor of Judea was recalled on charges preferred against him at Rome. When Pilate heard that, he was terrified. He knew that it was an easy thing to shake the confidence of Caesar in any of his subordinates, and he was afraid. He therefore fell upon another expedient. He washed his hands, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this man; I wanted to let him go; you forced me to put him to death; you are responsible.” Then they said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
When you see Pilate go through that form of washing his hands, as if by washing his hands he could divest himself of the responsibility to render just judgment, you are reminded of the incident in the play of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, in which Lady Macbeth, having instigated the death of the king, Duncan, and stirred up her husband to usurp that king’s throne, her conscience and her imagination were always washing off the blood spots on her hands. The great author relates how she became insane; and she was all the time going to the basin and washing her hands, then looking at them and saying, “This blood on my hands would make the sea red; all of the ocean cannot wash it the stain of blood on this lily-white hand.”
Pilate never recovered from his cowardly betrayal of his trust. History and tradition both tell us that he was pursued by undying remorse, and there is a tradition that when he was banished to the foot of the Alps, every time a storm was about to come a dark mist would gather over a mountain named after Pilate. There is a very thrilling reference to that in one of Scott’s novels. Whenever the people looked up and saw Mount Pilatus wrapped in mist they would cross themselves and say, “Avoid thee, Satan.” So tradition and history have tied the name of Pilate to that cloud-covered mountain.
And Pilate finally signs the death warrant of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he had twice acquitted, and concerning whom he had said, “I find no fault in him; he is guilty of no crime.” On page 206 of the Harmony we have an account of the indignities Christ suffered at the hands of the soldiers. Let the reader study that for himself.
QUESTIONS 1. Who brought the case of Jesus before Pilate and what great illconsistency in the Jews manifested at the palace?
2. In what particular did they violate the Roman law in the trial of Jesus?
3. What was the testimony of Tacitus on this point?
4. Was it the province of Pilate under Roman law to merely execute a sentence of the Sanhedrin concerning an offense against Jewish law or must he assume original and complete jurisdiction and try the case brought before him solely in view of an offense against Roman law?
5. What three special cases in the Acts illustrate this fact and what the point in each case?
6. What was the testimony of Dupin?
7. If the Jews had the right in capital cases, and the Roman power was exercised merely to execute a Jewish sentence, then when the accusation was brought before Pilate, what would have been the proceedings?
8. But what are the facts in the case?
9. What, therefore, was Pilate’s first demand and what was their answer?
10. What was Pilate’s second demand and their reply?
11. Would he have counted within his jurisdiction a charge of blasphemy against the Jewish God?
12. What threefold accusation against Roman law, therefore, did the Sanhedrin substitute for the charge of blasphemy and wherein consisted the atrocious malice of their accusation?
13. What one word covers all these accusations?
14. Was this threefold charge within Pilate’s jurisdiction?
15. What question, therefore, did Pilate ask Jesus, what was his answer, then what question did he ask Pilate and why?
16. What explanation did Christ here make to Pilate as to the nature of his kingdom and what was Pilate’s first verdict in the case?
17. What new charge did his accusers now prefer against him?
18. What was the legal term of this offense, was it a punishable offense against Roman law and was it within Pilate’s jurisdiction?
19. What circumstance in the new charge enabled Pilate to evade trying the case by referring it to another tribunal?
20. In referring a case from one Roman court to another, was it customary and necessary to make a formal statement of the case? (See Act 23:26-30 ; Act 25:25-27 .)
21. Would such a statement in this case include the charge of treason, of which Pilate himself had acquitted Jesus, as well as the new charge of sedition and why?
22. How did Herod receive Christ, what interest did he manifest in our Lord, what was the procedure of the trial before Herod and how did this incident affect the relation of Herod and Pilate?
23. Under Roman law in this case would Herod announce his verdict directly to the Sanhedrin or would he send it through Pilate, and why?
24. What was Herod’s verdict on both counts as announced through Pilate?
25. What was Pilate’s verdict on the new charge?
26. What is now the legal status of the case?
27. What was, therefore, Pilate’s plain duty?
28. What Latin proverb of law would now be violated if the defendant’s life is again placed in jeopardy on either of these adjudicated cases?
29. Why, then, does Pilate hesitate and parley with the accusers?
30. What admonition came to Pilate on the judgment seat?
31. Cite the reference in Burns’ “Tarn O’Shanter” to a husband’s disregard of wifely admonitions.
32. What expedient does Pilate now suggest in order to save the life of Jesus and vet placate his proud accusers?
33. What was the infamy of this proposal?
34. Under Pilate’s proposal what deliberate choice did the Sanhedrin make?
35. How do the apostles subsequently bring home to them with terrific effect this unholy and malicious choice? (See Act 3:14-15 .)
36. How did Pilate again seek to appease their wrath?
37. What text for a sermon cited, what is the application and what was their answer to Pilate’s question?
38. How does the Sanhedrin now confess their mere pretense in making charges against Roman law and terrify Pilate by stating the case under Jewish law?
39. What were the circumstances of Pilate’s reopening of the case, what examination followed, what effort did Pilate again make and what was the result?
40. Why could not Pilate render a formal verdict on this count?
41. To what old charge do the Jews recur and thereby bully the cowardly Pilate into once more occupying the judgment seat, thereby reopening the case under Roman law?
42. What time in the day was it now, reconciling John’s sixth hour with the time in the other Gospels?
43. Why does Pilate now say, “Shall I crucify your king”?
44. By what dramatic form does Pilate now seek to divest himself of responsibility and guilt in the judicial murder of one whom he still declares innocent, but condemns, what incident in the classics referred to, and what the tradition concerning Pilate?
45. In what awful words do the bolder Jews assume the responsibility for Christ’s death?
46. To what indignities was Jesus then subjected?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 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.
Ver. 18. And all his bowels gushed out ] Because he had no bowels of compassion toward his Master, he burst in the midst with a huge crack (as the word signifieth), by a singular judgment of God. So Foxford, chancellor to the bishop of London, a cruel persecutor in Henry VIII’s time, died suddenly in his chair; his belly being burst and his guts falling out before him. So Arius voiding out his bowels, sent his soul as a harbinger to the devil to provide room for his body. Papias (that ancient millenary, scholar to St John) tells us ( In Traditionibus quas vocant Apostolicis ), that Judas having hanged himself, the rope broke, and he lived some time after, and was crushed to death by the fall of a cart that was to pass by him; but this is a mere fiction of his, and it gives us cause to credit Eusebius, who saith that this Papias, though much reverenced for opinion of his holiness and learning, yet was homo ingenii pertenuis, a slender-witted man.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
18. ] This verse cannot be regarded as inserted by Luke ; for, 1. the place of its insertion would be most unnatural for an historical notice; 2. the forbids the supposition; 3. the whole style of the verse is rhetorical, and not narrative, e.g. , .
The does not appear to agree with the account in Mat 27:6-8 ; nor, consistently with common honesty, can they be reconciled, unless we knew more of the facts than we do . If we compare the two, that of Matthew is the more particular, and more likely to give rise to this one, as a general inference from the buying of the field , than vice vers . Whether Judas, as Bengel supposes, ‘initio emtionis facto, occasionem dederat ut Sacerdotes eam consummarent,’ we cannot say: such a thing is of course possible[, but is certainly not contemplated by St. Matthew’s account, where the priests settle to buy the field, on deliberation, what they should do with the money]. At all events we hence clearly see that Luke could not have been acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew at this time , or surely (not, he would have repeated St. Matt.’s account, as Wordsw. unfairly represents me to say, but) this apparent discrepancy would not have been found. The various attempts to reconcile the two narratives, which may be seen in most of our English commentaries, are among the saddest examples of the shifts to which otherwise high-minded men are driven by an unworthy system. See as a notable example, Wordsw.’s note, written since the above. I need hardly say to any intelligent and ingenuous reader, that his way of harmonizing, viz. that as the Jews are said to have crucified our Lord when they were only the occasion of his being crucified, so Judas may be said to have bought the field when he only gave occasion to its being bought by the Chief Priests, is entirely precluded here by the words , ‘out of the wages of his iniquity,’ which plainly bind on the purchase to Judas as his personal act.
. . ] The connexion of this with the former clause would seem to point to the death of Judas having taken place in the field which he bought. See also Act 1:19 .
will hardly bear the meaning assigned to it by those who wish to harmonize the two accounts, viz. that, having hanged himself, he fell by the breaking of the rope. , Hesych [9] , , , Galen, cited by Wetstein. , , , Etymol. Nor again is it at all probable that the Apostle would recount what was a mere accident accompanying his death , when that death itself was the accursed one of hanging . What then are we to decide respecting the two accounts? That there should have been a double account actually current of the death of Judas at this early period is in the highest degree improbable , and will only be assumed by those (De Wette, &c.) who take a very low view of the accuracy of the Evangelists. Dismissing then this solution, let us compare the accounts themselves. In this case, that in Mat 27 is general , ours particular. That depends entirely on the exact sense to be assigned to ( , , 2Sa 17:23 ): whereas this distinctly assigns the manner of his death, without stating any cause for the falling on his face. It is obvious that, while the general term used by Matthew points mainly at self-murder , the account given here does not preclude the catastrophe related having happened, in some way, as a divine judgment, during the suicidal attempt . Further than this, with our present knowledge, we cannot go. An accurate acquaintance with the actual circumstances would account for the discrepancy, but nothing else .
[9] Hesychius of Jerusalem, cent y . vi.
Another kind of death is assigned to Judas by cumenius, quoting from Papias: . , , , , . Theophylact quotes the same on Mat 27 , but without the last words, . . . ., which De Wette supposes to have been inserted from cumenius having misunderstood Papias. If so, the tradition is in accordance with, and has arisen from an exaggerated amplification of, our text. See the whole passage from Theophylact cited, and a discussion whether it is rightly ascribed to Papias, in Routh, Reliqui Sacr, vol. i. p. 9, and notes.
] cracked asunder : it implies bursting with a noise. It is quite possible that this catastrophe happening in the field, as our narrative implies, may have suggested its employment as a burial-place for strangers, as being defiled. So Stier, Reden der Apostel, i. 10.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 1:18 . . . . This verse and the next are regarded in R.V. as a parenthesis (compare also W.H [107] ), making the transition from St. Peter’s own words to the explanatory statement of St. Luke; see Rendall’s Appendix on , although he would place Act 1:20 also in a parenthesis, Acts , p. 160 ff. For this frequent use of in Acts, see also Blass, who regards as used here, as in other places, without any following antithesis expressed by , Grammatik des N. G. , pp. 261, 267, see also Hackett’s note in loco . Spitta, Feine, Weiss, see in these two verses an editorial interpolation. . To harmonise this with Mat 27:5 , an explanation has been often used to this effect, that although Judas did not purchase the field, it was purchased by his money, and that thus he might be called its possessor. This was the explanation adopted by the older commentators, and by many modern. Theophylact, e.g. , describes Judas as rightly called the of the field for the price of it was his. It is no doubt quite possible that St. Peter (if the words are his and not St. Luke’s) should thus express himself rhetorically (and some of his other expressions are certainly rhetorical, e.g. , ), or that Judas should be spoken of as the possessor of the field, just as Joseph of Arimatha is said to have hewn his own tomb, or Pilate to have scourged Jesus, but possibly Dr. Edersheim’s view that the blood-money by a fiction of law was still considered to belong to Judas may help to explain the difficulty, Jesus the Messiah , ii., 575. Lightfoot comments, “Not that he himself bought the field, for Matthew resolves the contrary nor was there any such thing in his intention when he bargained for the money,” and then he adds, “But Peter by a bitter irrision showeth the fruit and profit of his wretched covetise:” Hor. Heb. (see also Hackett’s note). Without fully endorsing this, it is quite possible that St. Peter, or St. Luke, would contrast the portion in the ministry which Judas had received with the little which was the result of the price of his iniquity. pro , a Hebraism, Blass, in loco , see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 268. The phrase only occurs again in 2Pe 2:13 ; 2Pe 2:15 ; on this use of see Simcox, Language of the N. T. , p. 146. Combinations of words with are characteristic of St. Luke (Friedrich). In the other Evangelists the word is only found once, Joh 7:18 . . Wendt (following Zeller and Overbeck) and others maintain that St. Luke here follows a different tradition from St. Matthew, Mat 27:6 ff., and that it is only arbitrary to attempt to reconcile them. But Felten and Zckler (so too Lumby and Jacobson) see in St. Luke’s description a later stage in the terrible end of the traitor. St. Matthew says : if the rope broke, or a branch gave way under the weight of Judas, St. Luke’s narrative might easily be supplementary to that of St. Matthew. Blass, in loco , adopts the former alternative, and holds that thus the narrative may be harmonised with that of St. Matthew, rupto fune Iudam in terram procidisse . It is difficult to see (as against Overbeck) why . is inconsistent with this. The words no doubt mean strictly “falling flat on his face” opposed to , not “falling headlong,” and so they do not necessarily imply that Judas fell over a precipice, but Hackett’s view that Judas may have hung himself from a tree on the edge of a precipice near the valley of Hinnom, and that he fell on to the rocky pavement below is suggested from his own observation of the locality, p. 36, Acts of the Apostles (first English edition), see also Edersheim, ubi supra , pp. 575, 576. At all events there is nothing disconcerting in the supposition that we may have here “some unknown series of facts, of which we have but two fragmentary narratives”: “Judas,” B.D. 2 , and see further Plummer sub v. in Hastings’ B.D. : here only in the N.T. : a strong expression, signifying bursting asunder with a loud noise, Hom., Iliad , xiii., 616; cf. also Acta Thom , 33 (p. 219, ed. Tdf.): , for the construction cf. Luk 23:45 .
[107] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Now = Therefore. Verses Act 18:19 form a parenthesis.
this man = this one, indeed.
purchased = caused to be purchased. Figure of speech Metonymy (of Effect). App-6. See App-161.
field = place, or holding. Greek. chorion. See note on Mat 26:36.
reward = pay. Greek. misthos. Sin pays its wages (Rom 6:23).
iniquity. App-128. Compare 2Pe 2:13, where the same Greek words are translated “wages of unrighteousness”.
headlong. Greek. prenes. Only here.
burst asunder. Greek. lakeo. Only here. Dr. John Lightfoot (1602-75) writes: “The devil, immediately after Judas had cast back his money into the temple, caught him up into the air, strangled him, threw him headlong, and dashed him in pieces on the ground”. He refers to Tobit 3.8, and adds, “That this was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem, argues that it was no common and ordinary event, and must be something more than hanging himself, which was an accident not so very unusual in that nation. “Works, viii, pp 366, 367. This requires that Mat 27:5 be read, “He was hanged, or strangled”, instead of “hanged himself”.
gushed out = were poured out.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
18.] This verse cannot be regarded as inserted by Luke; for, 1. the place of its insertion would be most unnatural for an historical notice; 2. the forbids the supposition; 3. the whole style of the verse is rhetorical, and not narrative, e.g. , .
The does not appear to agree with the account in Mat 27:6-8; nor, consistently with common honesty, can they be reconciled, unless we knew more of the facts than we do. If we compare the two, that of Matthew is the more particular, and more likely to give rise to this one, as a general inference from the buying of the field, than vice vers. Whether Judas, as Bengel supposes, initio emtionis facto, occasionem dederat ut Sacerdotes eam consummarent, we cannot say: such a thing is of course possible[, but is certainly not contemplated by St. Matthews account, where the priests settle to buy the field, on deliberation, what they should do with the money]. At all events we hence clearly see that Luke could not have been acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew at this time, or surely (not, he would have repeated St. Matt.s account, as Wordsw. unfairly represents me to say, but) this apparent discrepancy would not have been found. The various attempts to reconcile the two narratives, which may be seen in most of our English commentaries, are among the saddest examples of the shifts to which otherwise high-minded men are driven by an unworthy system. See as a notable example, Wordsw.s note, written since the above. I need hardly say to any intelligent and ingenuous reader, that his way of harmonizing,-viz. that as the Jews are said to have crucified our Lord when they were only the occasion of his being crucified, so Judas may be said to have bought the field when he only gave occasion to its being bought by the Chief Priests,-is entirely precluded here by the words , out of the wages of his iniquity, which plainly bind on the purchase to Judas as his personal act.
. .] The connexion of this with the former clause would seem to point to the death of Judas having taken place in the field which he bought. See also Act 1:19.
will hardly bear the meaning assigned to it by those who wish to harmonize the two accounts,-viz. that, having hanged himself, he fell by the breaking of the rope. , Hesych[9] , , , Galen, cited by Wetstein. , , , Etymol. Nor again is it at all probable that the Apostle would recount what was a mere accident accompanying his death, when that death itself was the accursed one of hanging. What then are we to decide respecting the two accounts? That there should have been a double account actually current of the death of Judas at this early period is in the highest degree improbable, and will only be assumed by those (De Wette, &c.) who take a very low view of the accuracy of the Evangelists. Dismissing then this solution, let us compare the accounts themselves. In this case, that in Matthew 27 is general,-ours particular. That depends entirely on the exact sense to be assigned to (, , 2Sa 17:23): whereas this distinctly assigns the manner of his death, without stating any cause for the falling on his face. It is obvious that, while the general term used by Matthew points mainly at self-murder, the account given here does not preclude the catastrophe related having happened, in some way, as a divine judgment, during the suicidal attempt. Further than this, with our present knowledge, we cannot go. An accurate acquaintance with the actual circumstances would account for the discrepancy, but nothing else.
[9] Hesychius of Jerusalem, centy. vi.
Another kind of death is assigned to Judas by cumenius, quoting from Papias: . , , , , . Theophylact quotes the same on Matthew 27, but without the last words, . …, which De Wette supposes to have been inserted from cumenius having misunderstood Papias. If so, the tradition is in accordance with, and has arisen from an exaggerated amplification of, our text. See the whole passage from Theophylact cited, and a discussion whether it is rightly ascribed to Papias, in Routh, Reliqui Sacr, vol. i. p. 9, and notes.
] cracked asunder: it implies bursting with a noise. It is quite possible that this catastrophe happening in the field, as our narrative implies, may have suggested its employment as a burial-place for strangers, as being defiled. So Stier, Reden der Apostel, i. 10.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 1:18. , acquired possession of) purchased. Judas, indeed, did not pay the money, Mat 27:5, He cast down the pieces of silver in the temple-And the chief priests took the silver pieces-and bought with them the potters field: but yet he either had determined to purchase it: comp. 2Ki 5:26 [Elisha to Gehazi, Went not mine heart with thee when, etc.]; or by making the commencement of the purchase, gave occasion to the priests to consummate it. The wretched man did not believe that the cause of Jesus would be a lasting one: and in the event of its coming to nought, he had marked out, against the time to come, a dwelling-place for himself and those belonging to him (Psa 109:9 implies he had a wife and children, Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow: let his children be continually vagabonds and beg), whither they might betake themselves; and he wished to provide for his and their livelihood. Others explain it, , he acquired, or obtained, viz. not for himself, but in reality for others.- , having fallen forward on his face [headlong]) The kind of death which Judas inflicted on himself (Mat 27:5, note; he strangled himself, a death which is usually effected by hanging. So Ahitophel, 2Sa 17:23), was at the time well known. Therefore it is taken for granted in this place; and what followed that act is added, namely, the position of the dead body after it had been cast out with ignominy, viz. lying prostrate on the face; whereas those decently buried are laid out lying on the back. The passage may be illustrated from a book written in elegant Greek, 3Ma 5:41 (43), where a king, most hostile to the Jews, threatens that he will level the temple to the ground by fire, . does not mean to throw himself headlong.- , burst asunder with a crash [loud noise] in the midst) Hesychius explains by . And the makes the language more express and explicit. The verb coheres with , as in Wis 4:19, .-, bowels) He had himself previously laid aside the bowels of compassion: Psa 109:17-18, As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
this: Mat 27:3-10
with: Num 22:7, Num 22:17, Jos 7:21-26, 2Ki 5:20-27, Job 20:12-15, Mat 25:15, 2Pe 2:15, 2Pe 2:16
and falling: Psa 55:15, Psa 55:23, Mat 27:5
Reciprocal: Exo 32:35 – General Deu 27:25 – General 2Sa 18:18 – Absalom’s place 2Sa 20:10 – and shed 1Ch 10:4 – Saul took 2Ch 21:15 – thy bowels fall Psa 70:3 – back Psa 109:18 – so let Pro 29:1 – General Zec 11:13 – Cast Mat 18:7 – but Mat 26:15 – thirty Luk 9:25 – what Luk 14:30 – General Luk 16:15 – God Luk 22:5 – and covenanted Act 8:20 – Thy
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
Purchased a field refers to the “potter’s field,” mentioned in Mat 27:7. With the reward of iniquity. Judas did not personally have any part in purchasing this field, for it was done after his death (Mat 27:5-8). The phrase means the field was bought with the money that Judas had received as a reward for betraying Jesus. Falling headlong. If two statements seem to disagree, they should not be taken as a contradiction if it is possible for both to be true. The other record of the death of Judas says he “hanged himself.” There were no “up-to-date” scaffolds available in those days, so Judas would naturally select a place, such as a tree near a precipice, for clearance of his body when he plunged from the footing under him. Then when his weight pulled suddenly on the limb (as the tradition reports it), his body broke it off and he was ruptured as he fell down upon the rocks below.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 1:18-19. Some commentators have supposed these two verses to be an explanatory clause inserted by St. Luke, and do not consider them a part of St. Peters speech. But the rhetorical style of these verses would seem to show that they are part of the original discourse.
The account here given of the death of Judas differs in some slight particulars from St. Matthews story of the same event. The first difference is easily solved. In the Acts, St. Peter says Judas bought a field with the money paid for his betrayal of his Master. St. Matthew gives, no doubt, the exact account of the transaction when he tells us the field was purchased by the priests with the money Judas earned. This by no means contradicts the statement in the Acts, where Judas by a common figure of speech is said himself to buy the field which his money purchases.
The second discrepancy. The manner of the traitors death is explained by the very probable suggestion that Judas hung himself from the branch of a tree on the edge of a precipice overhanging the valley of Hinnom; and that the rope breaking, he fell to the earth and was dashed to pieces. Dr. Hackett in his Commentary on this book gives an account of his visit to the supposed spot of Judas death, and states how perfectly satisfied he felt with this explanation as being so entirely natural.
The third variation is the difference in the reasons assigned in the Acts and in St. Matthews Gospel for the name Aceldama given to the field. St. Matthew states it was because the field was purchased with the price of blood; St. Luke (in the Acts), because of the traitors violent death. There is nothing improbable in the hypothesis that both these reasons, one as much as the other, contributed to the awful title by which the field was afterwards knownAceldama, the field of food.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Act 1:18-20. This man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity That is, a field was purchased therewith: for that reward, being restored by him to the chief priests, had been paid by them for the purchase of a field, which, in some sense, he might be said to have purchased, having supplied the money that paid for it. See note on Mat 27:3-10, where the next clause also, namely, his falling headlong, and bursting asunder, (in consequence, probably, of the rope breaking wherewith he hanged himself,) so that his bowels gushed out, is explained at large. It is justly observed by Dr. Doddridge, that an action is sometimes said in Scripture to be done by a person who was the occasion of doing it. See Gen 42:38; Exo 23:8; Rom 14:15; 1Co 7:16; 1Ti 4:16. And it was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem The fact was public and notorious, and, the circumstance being extraordinary, it was so much noticed as to become the subject of general conversation; insomuch as that field Which was so purchased; is called in their proper tongue, (Chaldaio-Syriac,) Aceldama, the field of blood As being bought with money which was, in more senses than one, the price of blood; having been the cursed hire for which Judas sold the blood of his Master, and, in effect, his own. We must either suppose that Luke added the expression, that is, the field of blood, to the words of Peter, for the use of Theophilus and other readers who did not understand the language of Palestine, or that the whole verse is to be considered as Lukes words, and to be read in a parenthesis. It may not be improper to observe here, that Aringhius (in his Romans Subterran., p. 436) mentions a funeral inscription dug up in the Via Nomentana, in Italy, by which it appears that the fate of Judas became a proverbial form of cursing. For it is written in the book of Psalms See note on Act 1:16.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
See notes on verse 15
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS
Mat 27:3-10; Act 1:18-19. Matthew: Then Judas, the one having betrayed Him, seeing that He was condemned; giving way to remorse, brought the thirty pieces of silver to the high priests and elders, saying, I sinned, betraying the innocent blood, And they said, What is that to us? You see to it. Repented, in E. V. is incorrect, as it is not metanoeo, the word properly translated repent in the New Testament, but metamelomai, which means to be flooded with remorse. When man repents, God always saves. Hell is full of remorse, but no repentance. If the lost souls in perdition could repent, salvation would take them out quickly. Repentance is one of the graces of the Holy Spirit; who never visits people in hell: Judas had passed the dead-line possessed by Satan, so that he could not repent. The remorse that seized him was really a prelude of hells torment. That is the reason why he committed suicide. Even this prelude of damnation is so awful as to drive people precipitately into suicide.
And throwing down the money in the temple, he went away, and having gone, hanged himself. The Temple Campus is very near Pilates judgment- hall. I am perfectly satisfied that Judas had no thought of the matter turning out as it did. He did not believe they could arrest Him or hurt Him, as he had seen them try it over and over, and always fail. We are not apologizing for him. He had yielded to the love of money and become a poor backslider, thus opening the door for Satan to tempt him along that line.
Jesus had pronounced him a thief, doubtless because of his intention to sell Him for money when he was satisfied that they could not take Him. Judas, as well as the other eleven, was on the constant outlook for Him to put forth His miraculous power, which he had so often witnessed, extricate Himself from His enemies, and, as they hoped, ascend the throne of Judea. Now that he sees the last hope of His release is gone, Pilate having ceased to labor for His deliverance, signed His death-warrant, and acquiesced in His crucifixion, he gives way to despair, and is inundated with a flood of intolerable remorse, so that, rushing to the temple, where the money was kept, and throwing it all down, he ran away off out of the city, beyond the deep Valley of Hinnom, and hanged himself.
Then indeed he purchased the ground from the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he bursts open in the middle, and all his bowels ran out. This was known to all those living at Jerusalem, so that that place is called, in their language, Aceldama, that is, Place of blood. (Act 1:18-19.)
Judas was a robust Jew, corpulent and heavy. In his precipitation, crazy with remorse, he hanged himself to a tree whose limb extended out over the deep chasm of Hinnom. The rope broke, and he fell a great way, and was dashed to pieces on the rocks beneath. N. B. The Israelites, and especially in that day, either buried in caves or in stone sepulchers hewn out of the cliff. During my recent tour, I visited the tombs of Aceldama, and went into a number of them as large as an ordinary room in a dwelling, where, on the shelves prepared for the dead bodies, I saw great piles of bones, illustrating the custom of bringing a corpse into a tomb, and laying it on the dry bones of others which have long been there wasting. I saw vast piles of human bones in those tombs, confirming this Scripture in reference to the purchasing of this portion of those rugged cliffs with the money which Judas threw: down. So many Jews, from all parts of the world, thronged the metropolis during the festivals, that it was not improbable that many strangers would die and be buried there. A reason why they sold it so readily was because the death of Judas had defiled it, and in Jewish estimation rendered it unclean. You see all this predicted in Zec 11:12, and Jer 32:6. The sad fate of Judas should put a tremor on us all when we contemplate the love of money, as his financial office as apostolical treasurer surely prepared the way for his apostasy and ruin. I never would have a money office.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
1:18 Now this man {q} purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and {r} falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
(q) Luke did not consider Judas’ purpose, but that which followed it, and so we used to say that a man has done himself harm, not that he wanted and intended to, but in respect of that which followed.
(r) The Greek words signify this much, that Judas fell down flat and was torn apart in the middle, with a tremendously great noise.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Luke inserted these verses assuming his readers were unfamiliar with Judas’ death and did not know Aramaic, the language spoken in Palestine in the first century. This helps us understand for whom he wrote this book. Judas purchased the "Field of Blood" indirectly by returning the money he received for betraying Jesus to the priests who used it to buy the field (Mat 27:3-10). Perhaps the name "field of blood" was the nickname the residents of Jerusalem gave it since "blood money" had purchased it.
This account of Judas’ death differs from Matthew’s who wrote that Judas hanged himself (Mat 27:5). Undoubtedly both accounts were true. Perhaps Judas hanged himself and in the process also fell (lit. flat on his face) and tore open his abdomen. Perhaps the rope or branch with which he hanged himself broke. Perhaps when others cut his corpse down it fell and broke open as Luke described. The traditional location of Hakeldama is southeast of Jerusalem near where the Hinnom and Kidron Valleys meet. This description of Judas’ death stressed the awfulness of that apostle’s situation. It was Judas’ defection, which led to his horrible death, and not just his death, that led to the need for a successor. Matthias succeeded Judas because Judas had been unfaithful, not just because he had died. Thus this text provides no support for the view that Christ intended one apostle to succeed another when the preceding one died. We have no record that when the apostle James died (Act 12:1-2) anyone succeeded him.