(This [man] then indeed got a field with [the] reward of iniquity, and, having fallen down headlong, burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
The story of Judas cuts into Peter's speech with details found nowhere else — a field, a fall, and a body burst open. Two questions follow: how does this fit Matthew's account of the priests buying a field, and why record such a grim scene at all?
Peter is speaking when the chapter opens. Yet commentators read this verse and the next as a note from Luke, not as part of the speech.
Verses 18 and 19 are clearly not the words of Peter. They are a parenthesis in which Luke gives us further details of the terrible end of Judas.
Matthew says the chief priests bought the field with the returned silver. Here the buying is credited to Judas, and much depends on how strong the word for "acquired" really is.
People have discussed these passages a lot. People saw the field as Judas' field, because his money bought it. Some even say he bargained for it, and the priests then completed the deal and set the ground apart for this purpose. He got a field as the reward of his iniquity, since his money paid for it… It is very possible that "purchased" is too definite; he got a field.
Another writer answers from the side of ownership. The coins were Judas' money, whoever handled the deal.
The two statements about the buying of the field do not truly conflict. The chief priests carried out the transaction, as Matthew declares. Even so, that piece of ground, bought with the money, could be described in Peter's words: "This man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness." The money that bought it truly belonged to Judas. No doubt, if we had full details, we would see that the account of both apostles is correct in every part.
The phrase describing the money is not neutral. It places Judas alongside another man in Scripture who knew God's name and still sold his services.
In Balaam we see the character of what corrupts. He had a knowledge of God — he even says "the LORD my God." (Num. 22:18.) He called Israel's God his God. But his heart was trained in greed; he "loved gain from wrongdoing." Peter gives Judas this same character. (Acts 1:18.) Thirty pieces of silver were "the reward of his wickedness" given to the man who said to Jesus, "Greetings, Rabbi!" Both these men show a mark of religious falling away, which in the end perishes in its own corruption.
Judas held a real place among Jesus' twelve apostles and a share in their ministry. That standing changed nothing about what followed.
Man's unbelief may ruin him, but it cannot cancel the written word. Nor did the share Judas received in the ministry of Christ spare him from his awful sin and punishment. And the field he got from the wages of iniquity bore witness in letters of blood, after Judas left the place of service and apostleship he had forfeited, and went to his own place of torment.
Matthew reports a hanging; this verse reports a headlong fall and a body torn open. A common explanation joins them.
Matthew tells us he hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). It appears the rope broke, so that he fell headlong and all his bowels gushed out. Jerusalem knew this so well that people called the field bought with the betrayal money "the field of blood."
Luke records this not as a curiosity but as a caution to anyone who holds a religious position while the heart is somewhere else.
Here was an apostle — a preacher of the gospel, a man with a loud profession of faith. Yet under that cover lay "a heart trained in greed" — a heart which had a wide place for "thirty pieces of silver," but not a corner for Jesus. What a case! What a picture! What a warning!… He preached the gospel, but he never knew it, never believed it, never felt it. He had painted sunbeams on canvas, but he never felt their influence. He had plenty of heart for money, but no heart for Christ.
- Wages. Judas' pay was the reward of his wickedness — the same love of money that marks Balaam, a man who could say "the LORD my God" and still sell himself.
- Field. Those wages bought ground. Commentators differ on how far Judas himself closed the deal, but they agree the money was his, so the verse credits the buying to him.
- Fall. That field became his grave — a hanging, then a headlong fall. The end was so public that all Jerusalem named the place after it.
- Forfeit. He had a real place among the twelve apostles. The position never cancelled the sin, and he left it to go to his own place.
- Warning. The whole account is a note added for us. A man may preach a gospel he never believed, with a wide place in his heart for silver and no corner for Christ.
And it was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own dialect Aceldama; that is, field of blood.)
Peter's speech pauses over something the whole city already knew. The ground bought with the betrayal money had picked up a nickname: Akeldama, Field of Blood. The verse also raises a question commentators have long weighed. Who bought that field? Matthew says the chief priests did.
The word Luke keeps is not Greek. It is the everyday Aramaic of Jerusalem's streets, written out in Greek letters.
The word Akeldama, "field of blood," is Aramaic written in Greek letters. Different manuscripts spell it differently. The field was bought with the money paid to Judas for betraying his Lord, but in his despair he could not keep it. In that sense he bought the field, Acts 1:18-19; though the chief priests were the ones who actually bought it, Matt. 27:6-8.
Commentators have handled the apparent clash with Matthew's account in more than one way. One line treats verses 18 and 19 as Luke's own aside. It also finds the word "purchased" too strong for what happened: Judas got a field.
As regards Acts 1:18-19, and Matthew 27:3 etc., I take Acts 1:18-19 as a parenthesis of Luke's. The passages have been much discussed. People looked at the field as Judas' field, since his money bought it... he got a field as the reward of his iniquity, his money being used for this. We have not details enough to connect the two accounts of his death... It is very possible that "purchased" is too definite; he got a field.
Another writer reaches the same place by another road. The money belonged to Judas, so the deal the priests made with it still counted as his own act.
There is nothing inconsistent in the two statements about the buying of the field. The chief priests handled the deal, as Matthew tells us. Yet Peter could still say of that piece of ground that this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness. The money that paid for it really belonged to Judas... Peter spoke of it a few weeks after the event. Matthew may have written his Gospel only a few years after the death of Judas, when no one could have forgotten what happened.
Commentators differ on the details, because the accounts do not give us enough of them. But they agree that the two records tell one event from two sides.
Peter is not passing on a rumour. He points to a field anyone in Jerusalem could go and see, and to a written word Judas could not escape.
Man's unbelief may ruin him, but it cannot cancel the written word. Judas had been given a share in the ministry of Christ, and that did not spare him from his terrible sin and punishment. And the field bought with the wages of iniquity stood as a witness written in blood, after Judas left the place of service and apostleship he had forfeited and went to his own place of torment.
The leaders were careful not to stain the temple treasury with blood money. They bought a burial plot for foreigners instead, and that plot became evidence against them.
The priests had no scruples about buying His blood from Judas. Yet they shrink from putting the money into the temple treasury, because it was the price of blood... After talking it over, they buy a burial ground for foreigners... And by doing so they set up a lasting memorial of their own sin, and of the blood that was shed. Akeldama is all that remains in this world from the circumstances of this great sacrifice. The world is a field of blood, but that blood speaks better things than Abel's blood did.
Judas did not act alone. Peter has just called him the guide of those who arrested Jesus, and that link ties the field's name to the nation.
That field was bought with the price of the Lord's blood, and it was made the place to bury strangers in. And this had a meaning for Israel... Judas's act was Israel's act. He was guide to those who took Jesus. Acts 1:16. They were the ones who crucified and killed Him by wicked hands, as the apostle tells them, and their land is "Akeldama" to this day.
- Blood named. Akeldama is Aramaic for "field of blood." It was Jerusalem's own nickname for ground bought with betrayal money.
- Blood paid. The silver was Judas's, so the field counted as his even though the priests handled the sale. Commentators find no error in the two accounts, only two sides of one event.
- Blood published. Peter appeals to a fact every resident of the city knew. The field was a witness written in blood to the traitor's end.
- Blood remembered. The priests kept the treasury clean and set up a lasting memorial of their own sin instead. The world itself is a field of blood, yet that blood speaks better things than Abel's.
- Blood shared. Judas was guide to those who took Jesus, so his act was the nation's act, and the name attached to the land, not only to one man.