Acts tells us about the early Christian church. When you hear it referred to as the "Acts of the Apostles" that is basically what the title "Acts" stands for. The writing tells us of the work the Apostles did during that time. Luke ended his gospel with Jesus' ascension and began Acts mentioning Jesus' ascension in the first paragraph thus tying the two writings together and establishing a timeline.
In the first parts of Acts, we read about the growth and spreading of the early Christian church in Jerusalem and how the Jews were accepting Christianity but then rejected it. With that rejection, Peter then directed the message to the Gentiles. As Acts progresses, we learn more of Paul, how he was converted, his imprisonment, and trial. The two main persons talked about in Acts are Paul and Peter and Acts accomplishes detailing a historical account of the early progression of the church immediately after Jesus’ ascension.
Luke was not an apostle. He was a well educated man and a physician. By his writings we know he was a companion of Paul and traveled with him. He was a Greek and the only Gentile Christian writer of he New Testament. Some scholars feel Luke ended Acts rather quickly causing them to believe he may have intended to write a third book.
In the start of Acts, Luke mentions Theophilus who some think may have been a Roman who helped finance Luke. Theophilus means “friend or beloved of God” and was a common Roman name. Some scholars say such a person never lived but that Luke was writing to all people who were friends and beloved of God. It appears to me that the majority of scholars believe Theophilus was a person to whom Luke was giving accounts of Jesus and His works in the Gospel of Luke, perhaps that he may follow Him. Luke then included him in Acts to show the progress and growth of the Christian faith.
In the opening of Luke, he wrote about the events just before His ascension. He cited numerous times when Jesus appeared to the apostles proving He was really alive. Jesus also talked to them about the Kingdom of God. Jesus instructed the Apostles to stay in Jerusalem until the Father sent the Holy Spirit to them. Jesus also mentioned that John (the baptist) baptized with water, but God would baptize them with the Holy Spirit.
The Apostles kept asking Jesus if the time had come for Him to free Israel and restore their kingdom. One might think they were still locked in the worldly view of getting their kingdom back. However, many times in the Old Testament, the receiving of the Holy Spirit was connected to the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. So it is logical for them to think once the Holy Spirit had come, the freedom and restoring of Israel would come also. Jesus told them that the Father alone knew when the freedom of Israel would come but they would surely soon receive the power of the Holy Spirit. When that happened they were to be witnesses of all Jesus did and to teach people everywhere.
After that instruction, Jesus was taken up in a cloud and they watched Him rise out of sight. They stood there straining their eyes to see Him go until two white robed men were suddenly in their midst. In verse 11, the men spoke saying, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing here staring into heaven? Jesus has been taken from you into heaven, but someday He will return from heaven in the same way you saw Him go.” To me, this seems to say that Jesus' mission was complete and now they needed to get busy doing what they had been instructed to do. Earlier, Jesus told them “And you will be my witnesses, telling people everywhere," so now go and do so. I also feel that this speaks to us today, telling us that we should stop looking toward heaven and not be fixed on when He will return but to get busy and tell the world about Him, what He has done, and the salvation He offers.
The Apostles immediately returned to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives and back to the room they had been staying in. Acts then listed those who were there; Peter, James, John, Phillip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. *Take note here: Verse 14 tells us; “They all met together and were constantly united in prayer, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, several other women, and the brother of Jesus. If we are seeing Acts as a view into the early stages of the church, then I believe we should see being united in prayer as the first and foremost thing we as the church and we in the church should be doing - constantly. Honestly, we seem to spend more time talking about prayer than actually praying. Too often, it seems as if prayer is what we do when we can't figure something out in our human minds or human strength. It is grossly neglected and under exercised.
We know Judas, who had been one of the Apostles, was now dead. In front of the Apostles and the group of about 120 people, Peter spoke about Judas' acts and death being a fulfillment of the Scriptures. The Scriptures predicted Judas' actions long ago by the Holy Spirit through King David.
Acts continues with more detail about Judas buying a field with the money he received for betraying Jesus and eventually falling headfirst and his body splitting open spilling out all of his intestines. The news of his death spread to all of Jerusalem and they gave the field the name "Akeldama" which means “Field of Blood." (I would like to comment further on Judas but will do so at the end of this writing rather than interrupting our progress here.)
Peter said those things had been written about in the Book of Psalms where it says, "Let his home become desolate, with no living thing in it," and "Let someone else take his possession.” Peter continued by saying that Judas needed to be replaced by someone who was traveling with them and the Lord, from the time the Lord was baptized until He was taken from them. As we know, Jesus instructed the Apostles to witness the truth about Him and His resurrection to all the world. Whoever would replace Judas would be charged with doing the same thing. Whoever this new apostle would be would have to have witnessed Jesus and His ressurection. I imagine it would be difficult for anyone to believe a testimony about Jesus resurrection from a person who had not witnessed it themselves.
With that criteria in mind, they nominated two men. Joseph called Barsabbas also known as Justus, and Matthias. Again, the first thing they did was pray. To me, their prayer was not one of qualifications but a prayer of the heart. They prayed, “O Lord you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.”
They asked the Lord who knew the hearts of the men to choose. It appears to me the heart of the man was the most important thing to judge by. Both men had met the criteria as witnesses of Jesus' resurrection but beyond that only the heart of the man seemed to matter.
They were specific. They asked for an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry. They gave a reason for needing a replacement for Judas for he had deserted them and was now gone. They then cast lots. Casting lots in that time may have been taking two stones and writing one name on each stone. The stone would then be put into a pot and shaken. The first stone to fall out would be the one chosen. It is noted that this was the last time in the Bible where casting lots was used to determine God’s will. It was also written in Proverbs 16:33, “We may cast lots, but the Lord determines how they fall.” thus showing how casting lots was seen as the Lord’s choosing.
They cast lots and Matthias was selected and now became an apostle making the 11 once again 12. Thus ends chapter 1.
Back to Judas' death and the Field of Blood. If you read Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19 it appears there are two different accounts of Judas, his actions, death, and the field. I felt some explanation should be offered. As Christians, we may be confronted by such questions or challenges. This is one that I believe we should be able to respond to if asked about it. It is worth the few minutes to read the article below. I believe it is also worth it to do some of your own research on this, as I always learn more that way. There is nothing that brings greater reward in our Christian walk than reading and studying the Scriptures. If we don’t make studying the Bible one of the biggest part of our lives, we are missing out on more than can be imagined.
I have done some research on my own and I feel most comfortable with what is in the included writing below. I have read many scholars who express the same view. This particular writing comes from Tekton Apologetics.
Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Acts 1:18-19 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. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Here are a series of problems claimed of these two accounts.
Matthew has Judas hanging himself, while Acts says he fell over and busted his guts open. So which is correct?
Here are the explanations to be considered:
The standard explanation given by harmonists is that Judas hanged himself, and then his body fell and broke open.
This has some promise: Judas hanged himself on Passover and before a Sabbath, and no Jew was going to touch the hanging corpse (touching a dead body caused defilement; it would have been work to take it down on the Sabbath; added to that, death by hanging was especially a disgrace; and hoisting a dead body isn't an attractive vocation if it isn't on your property), so it is safe to assume that Judas hanged himself and that the branch or rope eventually broke.
Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n] notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while. This reading is found in later Syriac, Georgian and Armenian mss., though perhaps as an attempt at textual criticism of the sort we are doing.
Skeptics do regularly scoff at the suggestion that such a combination of events could happen, and yet be reported differently, but Eddy and Boyd in The Jesus Legend have discovered an almost exactly analogous case involving the lynching of two brothers in 1881. [424] Two different witness accounts indicated that the brothers were hanged from two different places: a railroad crossing, and a pine tree. Historians would have concluded that there was a contradiction until researchers found photographs proving that both accounts were correct: The brothers had been hanged in both locations, having been apparently first hanged from the crossing, and then later taken down and hanged on the pine tree.
Taken together I still consider the "hanging body/rope broke" solution possible -- but now find something else even more likely. But first let's look at another answer:
Matthew does not even describe Judas' death at all. Here is how one site puts it:
The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.
A check of the lexicons shows that such a meaning is indeed possible, but I found only one actual example listed -- the vast majority of the meanings given were for a physical hanging; there was only one example of a figurative meaning as described. So I would say that this is a possible solution, but not likely.
However, I would now opt for the idea that this is an example of Matthew's creative use of an OT "type". This would combine the idea that Matthew is not actually describing Judas' death, with Matthew's use of the OT texts as typologies.
Audrey Conrad, in "The Fate of Judas" (Toronto Journal of Theology [7] 1992), notes that Matthew's unique words "departed" and "hanged himself" are found in combination in another place in the LXX:
2 Samuel 17:23 And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.
Conrad notes that rabbinic interpretation of Ps. 41:9 ("Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.") thought that Ahithophel was the traitor David was describing -- and of course this same verse was applied by Jesus to Judas (John 13:18).
Conrad still thinks there are not enough parallels (!) but we would maintain that the parallels are sufficient, and that Matthew is indeed alluding to the traitor Ahithophel in this passage, and is therefore NOT telling us that Judas indeed hanged himself, but that Judas fulfilled the "type" of Ahithophel by being a traitor who responded with grief and then died. Matthew is thereby making no statement at all about Judas' mode of death, and Luke's "swelling up" stands alone as a specific description of what happened.
It makes no sense for the author to tell us that Judas' guts burst without telling us why it happened. Spilling out of guts because of swelling is such a rare event that surely if Luke believed that this extraordinary thing actually happened to Judas, he would have made certain to provide the extraordinary explanation for its occurrence.
This "surely" is the objection of a low-context modern demanding full explanations for every unusual event, but when it comes down to it, neither Luke nor any person could have been able to "provide the explanation" without knowing why it happened. Unless Luke or some other physician had access to Judas (not likely) they could not so much as mount a guess as to "why". (See link 1 below -- secular historians have no problem with similar ideas.)
Matthew says the priests bought the field, but Acts says that Judas did. So who did it?
The alternate site opts for this explanation:
The chief priests did not want to put the money paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because blood money was used to purchase the field it was called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1.
The problem here is that both Acts and Matthew connect the purchase specifically with Judas' act of treachery. Thus I cannot accept this solution. However, it does lead into our own answer. There are a few factors here -- one linguistic, the others sociological.
The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word:
Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one.
Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context.
How does this mean anything with regard to Judas?
First, note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his.
And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will:
It seems too much of a coincidence, that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas died in.
Not at all. Once Judas died in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery.
If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his anymore, it belonged to the priests.
This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]:
Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent...
The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean (link 2 below) -- though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means.
Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point.
Matthew says the name 'Field of Blood' came because it was bought with blood money. Luke says it was because Judas split his guts all over. So which is it?
This objection assumes that what was "known unto all the dwellers" was Judas' gut-bust episode, but it would seem that the phrase modifies all that precedes it: "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."
Judas' gut-burst would hardly warrant a "field of blood" designation for the whole property. There would not be blood everywhere. The "Field of Blood" name was derived -- even as Matthew says -- from the act of purchase with the reward of Judas' iniquity -- what iniquity? The betrayal of innocent blood, which Luke recorded in his own Gospel.
" When you closely study it, the Word of God fits together without contradiction". (Comment from Cortright Fellowship explanation on the same topic.)