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.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(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 Matthew 27:5-8, see Note on that passage. Here the field bought with Judas’s 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 Judas’s 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.”

Benson Commentary

Acts 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 Matthew 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 Genesis 42:38; Exodus 23:8; Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 7:16; 1 Timothy 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 Luke’s 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 Acts 1:16.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

1:15-26 The great thing the apostles were to attest to the world, was, Christ's resurrection; for that was the great proof of his being the Messiah, and the foundation of our hope in him. The apostles were ordained, not to wordly dignity and dominion, but to preach Christ, and the power of his resurrection. An appeal was made to God; Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, which we do not; and better than they know their own. It is fit that God should choose his own servants; and so far as he, by the disposals of his providence, or the gifts of his Spirit, shows whom he was chosen, or what he has chosen for us, we ought to fall in with his will. Let us own his hand in the determining everything which befalls us, especially in those by which any trust may be committed to us.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

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 Matthew 27:5, Matthew 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 Matthew 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. John 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, John 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" - πρηνής prēnēs (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 Matthew 27:5.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

18. falling headlong, &c.—This information supplements, but by no means contradicts, what is said in Mt 27:5.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Purchased a field; which Judas might have agreed for at that price, and yet the chief priests bought, {as Matthew 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, Matthew 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.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire 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, Matthew 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", 2 Peter 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 Gill on Matthew 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.

Geneva Study Bible

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.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Acts 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 (Matthew 27:6-8). This rhetorical designation, purposely chosen on account of the covetousness of Judas,[102] clearly proves that Acts 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: ἠθικὸν ποιεῖ τὸν λόγον καὶ λανθανόντως τὴν αἰτίαν παιδευτικὴν οὖσαν ἀποκαλύπτει. 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.

καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμ., etc.] ΚΑΊ is the simple and, annexing to the infamous deed its bloody reward. By πρηνὴς γενόμ.[103] κ.τ.λ., the death of Judas is represented as a violent fall (πρηνής, headlong: the opposite ὕπτιος, 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 Matthew 27:5.

ἐλάκησε] 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.

ἐξεχύθη] Comp. Ael. Anim. iv. 52: τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐξέχεαν.

[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 Matthew 27:5, and comp. Introd sec. 1.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Acts 1:18. οὗτος μὲν οὖν κ.τ.λ. This verse and the next are regarded in R.V. as a parenthesis (compare also W.H[107]), μὲν οὖν making the transition from St. Peter’s own words to the explanatory statement of St. Luke; see Rendall’s Appendix on μὲν οὖν, although he would place Acts 1:20 also in a parenthesis, Acts, p. 160 ff. For this frequent use of μὲν οὖν in Acts, see also Blass, who regards μέν as used here, as in other places, without any following antithesis expressed by δέ, 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.—ἐκτήσατο χωρίον. To harmonise this with Matthew 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 κύριος 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., ἐλάκησε μέσος), or that Judas should be spoken of as the possessor of the field, just as Joseph of Arimathæa 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.—ἐκ τοῦ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας pro τοῦ ἀδίκου μισθοῦ, a Hebraism, Blass, in loco, see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 268. The phrase only occurs again in 2 Peter 2:13; 2 Peter 2:15; on this use of ἐκ see Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 146. Combinations of words with ἀδικία are characteristic of St. Luke (Friedrich). In the other Evangelists the word is only found once, John 7:18.—καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμ. Wendt (following Zeller and Overbeck) and others maintain that St. Luke here follows a different tradition from St. Matthew, Matthew 27:6 ff., and that it is only arbitrary to attempt to reconcile them. But Felten and Zöckler (so too Lumby and Jacobson) see in St. Luke’s description a later stage in the terrible end of the traitor. St. Matthew says καὶ ἀπελθὼν ἀπήγξατο: 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 πρηνὴς γεν. is inconsistent with this. The words no doubt mean strictly “falling flat on his face” opposed to ὕπτιος, 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. ἐλάκησε: here only in the N.T. λάσκω: a strong expression, signifying bursting asunder with a loud noise, Hom., Iliad, xiii., 616; cf. also Acta Thomæ, 33 (p. 219, ed. Tdf.): ὁ δράκων φυσηθεὶς ἐλάκησε καὶ ἀπέθανε καὶ ἐξεχύθη ὁ ἰὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ χολή, for the construction cf. Luke 23:45.

[107] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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 Acts 1:18 (μὲν οὗν) 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 Acts 5:41, Acts 13:4, Acts 17:30, Acts 23:22, Acts 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 (Matthew 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 2 Peter 2:13; 2 Peter 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 (Matthew 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. 2 Chronicles 25:12. Buxtorf (Rabb. Lex. s. v. סכר) 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.

Bengel's Gnomen

Acts 1:18. Ἐκτήσατο, acquired possession of) purchased. Judas, indeed, did not pay the money, Matthew 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. 2 Kings 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 (Psalm 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, ἐκτήσατο, he acquired, or obtained, viz. not for himself, but in reality for others.—πρηνὴς γενόμενος, having fallen forward on his face [headlong]) The kind of death which Judas inflicted on himself (Matthew 27:5, note; he strangled himself, a death which is usually effected by hanging. So Ahitophel, 2 Samuel 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, τὸν ναὸν πυρὶ πρηνέα καταστήσειν. Πρηνῆ γένεσθαι does not mean to throw himself headlong.—ἐλάκησε μέσος, burst asunder with a crash [loud noise] in the midst) Hesychius explains ἔλακεν by ἐψόφησεν. And the μέσος makes the language more express and explicit. The verb coheres with πρηνὴς, as in Wis 4:19, ῥήξει αὐτοὺς ἀφώνους πρηνεῖς.—σπλάγχνα, bowels) He had himself previously laid aside the bowels of compassion: Psalm 109:17-18, “As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water.”

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 18. - Obtained for purchased, A.V., an unnecessary change; his iniquity for iniquity, A.V. It is obvious that this verso and ver. 19, which are placed in a parenthesis in the R.V., are not part of St. Peter's discourse, but are explanatory words inserted by St. Luke for the instruction of Theophilus and his other readers. Falling headlong; i.e. from the tree or gallows on which he hung himself (see Matthew 27:3-8). The only apparent discrepancies in the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke in regard to the purchase of the field, and the name given to it, are that, according to St. Matthew's more detailed account, it was the chief priests who actually purchased the field with Judas's money, whereas St. Luke says, less accurately, that Judas purchased it. Again, St. Matthew explains the name Akel-dama as being given to the field because it was the price of the "innocent blood" of Jesus betrayed by Judas, whereas St. Luke's account rather suggests that it was Judas's own blood shed in his fall which gave the name. But both accounts of the name might be true, some understanding the name in one sense and some in the other. (Compare the different accounts of the name of Beer-sheba in Genesis 21:31 and Genesis 26:32, 33; of the origin of the proverb, "Is Saul among the prophets?" 1 Samuel 10:11, 12 and 1 Sam 20:24; and other similar cases.) Though, however, there is no serious discrepancy between St. Luke and St. Matthew, it is probable, from the variations above named, that St. Luke had not seen St. Matthew's account. Acts 1:18

Vincent's Word Studies

Purchased (ἐκτήσατο)

See on possess, Luke 18:12. Better, as Rev., obtained. Judas did not purchase the field, but the priests did with the money which he returned to them, (Matthew 27:7). The expression means merely that the field was purchased with the money of Judas.

Falling headlong (πρηνής γενόμενος)

Lit., having become headlong.

He burst asunder (ἐλάκησε)

Only here in New Testament. Lit., to crack, to burst with a noise. So Homer, of the bones cracking beneath a blow ("Iliad," xiii., 616). Compare Aristophanes, "Clouds," 410.