Judas and The Potter’s Field

An apparent discrepancy in the two accounts of Judas' actions after his betrayal of Jesus has often provoked a query. Matthew (ch. 27.3-10) says that immediately after the trial before the High Priest at which Jesus was condemned, and whilst He was being taken to Pilate, Judas repented of his action and took the thirty pieces of silver back to the priests, declaring that he had betrayed an innocent man. Finding them completely indifferent, he threw the money on the floor of the Temple, went away and hanged himself. It was the priests, reluctant to put the money into the Temple treasury "because it is the price of blood", who used it to buy the "potters field" for use as a burying place for "strangers" i.e. non-Jews who happened to die whilst in Jerusalem. Hence it was thereafter called the "field of blood".

Luke, in Acts 1.15-20, records Peter as saying that Judas himself purchased a field with the thirty pieces of silver, fell headlong therein and his body burst asunder, whence it was called the "field of blood".

Who did purchase the field, Judas or the priests? What was the real origin of its name, "the field of blood", the fact that it was the scene of Judas' tragic death or that it had been purchased with blood money?

At first sight it seems that the accounts are contradictory and cannot both be true. As with so many apparently contradictory passages in the Bible, the two accounts can be understood perfectly harmoniously if the entire transaction is reconstructed. The first point to notice is that the priests "covenanted" with Judas for thirty pieces of silver if he would betray Jesus (Matt. 26.15). This implies that he would receive the money when he had fulfilled his obligation. [This is not borne out by some translations, which give the sense of the money being actually paid out, others simply state that the amount was agreed.] As soon as Jesus was taken into custody and brought to the High Priest's house where the Sanhedrin was assembled, Judas would be calling upon some appointed official who would pay him his money. This would have been between nine and twelve o'clock at night; by six the next morning the illegal trial was over and Jesus on his way to Pilate. Now it is in the highest degree unlikely that Judas, during those few early morning hours, would find anyone willing to negotiate the sale of a piece of land - and on the eve of the Passover to boot! Whenever Judas agreed to buy the land, it was not that night.

But before the second trial began before Pilate, Judas was back with the money. It had been in his possession for less than six hours.

The High Priest and his supporters began seriously to consider the arrest and execution of Jesus a week before the Crucifixion. The raising of Lazarus had alarmed them; as they themselves said, with that act there was danger of the whole nation becoming adherents of Jesus and they feared for the consequences, both political and ecclesiastical. So they discussed the possibility of having both Jesus and Lazarus put to death, "but, they said, not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people" (Matt. 26.5). The Feast of Passover would begin in a week's time; the city would be thronged with people from other parts, including many turbulent Galileans who knew Jesus to be of their own province, and there could be a mass uprising in favour of the man they plotted against. The trial and execution must be carried through and completed before the commencement of the Feast, and that was the day after Passover itself.

In this dilemma the visit of Judas came as an unexpected assistance. That visit must have been during the course of their deliberations at some time between six days (John 12.1 and 4) and two days (Matt. 26.2 and 14) before the day of the Crucifixion. The agreement was made and Judas went off satisfied that within the next few days the money would be in his possession.

This is when he went off to buy the field. He could not yet pay over the money for he had not yet been paid. He could however agree the matter with the owner and they would "strike hands" on the bargain, probably with witnesses, as is related of Abraham buying the land from Ephron the Hittite in which to bury his wife. From now on the field belonged to Judas and he was bound to pay the money at the agreed time a few days hence.

What was his purpose in buying the field anyway? The motives of Judas in the whole matter of the betrayal have always been shrouded in obscurity for no real lead is given us in the Gospels. The most reasonable explanation is that he realised full well the supernatural powers possessed by Jesus, was convinced that He was the Messiah, but was sorely perplexed at his hero's refusal to use his powers to dispossess both the Roman occupying authorities and the ecclesiastical powers and establish himself by force as King of Israel, so fulfilling the ancient prophecies. By scheming to put Jesus in a position where He would be compelled to use his power to avoid condemnation and death, Judas would have precipitated the establishment of the Kingdom and more or less urged his Leader into the kingly position. If this was in fact the motive of the betrayal then this business of buying land might have been connected with some idea of providing a site for some great dream palace suitable for his king, or an arena from which the ceremonious announcement of the Kingdom could be made. No one can know for sure, but that this field was intended for something that had relation to Jesus and his assumption of sovereignty after He had delivered himself in some spectacular fashion from his captors may well be the solution of the enigma. And then, as the mockery of a trial dragged towards its climax, Judas suddenly realised that Jesus had no intention of saving himself. He intended to go, as He so often said He would go, to death.

In the shock of that discovery the demented man went first to the priests, with his unavailing cry. In unreasoning despair and remorse he flung the money before them and rushed out to the field he had contracted to buy, and there hanged himself on one of its trees. How long the body hung there we do not know; it may have been for days or even longer. Probably a superstitious horror of his deed precluded men from approaching it. At length the rope parted and the body crashed down to the rocky ground and was dashed to pieces. Peter recounted what was an accredited fact in all Jerusalem.

Now the field was defiled - defiled with the blood of a traitor. The former owner would want nothing to do with it; moreover a bargain had been struck and he wanted his money. To resolve the problem he went to the priests, who were the administrators of legal affairs. They also had a problem - the money was in their possession but it was tainted money, the price of blood. They had not hesitated to shed the blood of an innocent man but they would not use blood money for sacred purposes. They picked on an obvious solution. They paid the money over to the vendor who then was satisfactorily dismissed from the transaction. The field, now their property, itself defiled with blood, became a useful cemetery for any who were not of the covenant people, not Jews, and therefore could be buried in such ground without compunction. Aceldama was the Aramaic name by which it became known in after days, "the field of blood", doubly so because it was purchased by the betrayal and death of Christ and because it held within itself the blood of the betrayer.

Thus viewed, the two accounts are in harmony and every statement in each account fits into its place in one consistent narrative.
AOH