> General Discussions

Judas Contradiction

<< < (2/2)

ericsteven:

--- Quote from: Paul on May 06, 2008, 04:10:22 PM ---What about the silver? Matthew says he threw the silver on the floor of the temple; Acts says he took the silver and purchased a field with it.

--- End quote ---

Hi Paul,

Here's a theory that sounds reasonable and may help your understanding.

The money itself was profaned by the way it was used in the covenant the priests made with Judas to betray Jesus.  The priests considered the money unclean, so they could not allow it back into the treasury.  So when they bought the field, in order to avoid any kind of association with the use of unclean or ‘blood money,’ they purchased the field in the name of Judas, whose money it truly was.  Any record of the transaction from that point forward would show that Judas had purchased the property.  If this is the case, then neither record necessarily contradicts the other.  It’s just that we are seeing two different points of view.  Matthew knew (somehow) that the Pharisees were the ones who actually used the money to buy the field, while Peter, as written down by Luke in Acts, had common knowledge based on records that bore Judas’s name. 

There still may be questions, but does that help?

God Bless,  Eric

Paul:
Yeah, wow, thanks. That's an example of the little clues the Bible leaves us.

Roy Monis:
Hi! Paul

Yes I believe Eric could have hit the nail on the head as communication in Peter and Paul's day wasn't quite 21st century style.

God bless

Love in Christ Jesus.

Roy'

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page