Closed Study

I realize there's not a lot of material here in the first chapter, but chapters 2 and 3 are pretty packed so I didn't want to combine chapter 1 with all that material and decided we should comb through chapter 1 on it's own before moving into the next two chapters.

So, with that said, the first thing I see in chapter 1 is that we learn Jesus stayed with the apostles forty days after His resurrection. According to verse 3, Jesus spent that time discussing with the apostles the kingdom. It's not said here, but I would imagine that just as He did before the crucifixion, He probably taught them about the kingdom by way of parables. But that's just my opinion, I don't have any scripture to back it, only the precedent that Jesus previously spoke about the kingdom in parables.

Before Jesus ascended, we see here that He commanded the apostles to stay in Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit to be sent upon them. I think verse 5 is important because we see that Jesus tells the apostles that even though John baptized with water, they will be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Why do I think that's important? Even today, we have some of the bigger denominations telling believer's that in order to be saved one of the requirements is that after believing in Jesus, we must be baptized in water to complete the salvation process.

The thing is, I don't see where that is biblical. As I already mentioned, here in Acts, we have Jesus telling the apostles that they will be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not by water. Also, throughout the New Testament, Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, never tells us that we must be baptized in order to be saved. What does he tell us we must do? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved (Acts 16:31), period. Not, believe and be baptized. Not, believe and tithe a tenth of your income. Just believe. Have faith in Jesus to save you from your sins, nothing more. As it's known in Christian circles, "faith plus nothing". And Jesus Himself made this clear several times during His earthly ministry (John 3:14-18, John 4:10-26, John 11:25-27, John 5:24, 39-40; 6:35-47). So you can see where I find that verse 5 is very important as it is critical in interpreting the established doctrine of many denominations correctly.

The next thing we see here in Acts is that the apostles ask Jesus during these forty days, are you going to establish the kingdom now? As a side note, I've said before that it's important to know that Christianity for the Gentiles did not begin with the ministry of Jesus, but rather on the road to Damascus when Paul was met by Jesus and converted. We see it here again in Acts when the apostles are asking Jesus if He is going to establish the kingdom at that time. The apostles had no idea that salvation and the kingdom was going to be offered to anyone but the Jews. And this continues to be their opinion until Peter is commanded to go to the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:19-20). So of course the main thing on the minds of the apostles at that time is when will the kingdom be established that was prophesied, I mean, this is the basis of their faith in Jesus, that He is the Messiah of Israel. That He came to save the Israelites just as it was prophesied, and this was Christ's message while He was on the Earth. But of course, Jesus, being God, knew that salvation would be offered to the Gentiles, but He chooses to keep that secret until Paul's ministry begins.

Okay, so after the forty days, Jesus ascends into Heaven with the apostles watching Him being taken into the clouds. And we know from the Gospel of Matthew that it was at that time that Jesus gave them the commandment to take the Gospel into all the world. And not to be redundant, but once again, we know that the apostles did not see this as a commandment to take the gospel to the Gentiles. We know this because the Jews reject that idea throughout the rest of the Book of Acts until Paul comes along and through the commandment of Christ, becomes the apostle to the Gentiles, and more accurately, until Peter stands up for Paul's ministry after visiting the house of Cornelius.

Finally, the last event that takes place in this first chapter is the choosing of a replacement for Judas Iscariot. There's really nothing much to discuss in that particular case as it's pretty straight forward; they pray, cast lots and choose Matthias. What I'd like to go over is verse 18. I have to tell you, Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 have given me fits in previous years. I could never reconcile these two verses as they would appear to contradict each other quite strongly. Having been taught and believing that the Bible is inerrant, that is without error, I struggled with these two verses for many years. Now, honestly, I will admit that while I've reconciled it in my own mind, others may not agree. And that is fine because what I'm going to share is the opinion of man and cannot be backed by scripture because the scriptures do not address Judas' fate any further than what we are given in these two verses as well as the prophesies in Psalms. And yet, I think it's possible that if you meditate on what I am going to share, you may just decide it makes the most sense.

Now, there is one explanation that I will admit I believed for many years and it goes like this: The two varying accounts of Judas' death were written by two different people, Matthew and Luke. They both wrote what they had heard, but the issue was that they had heard two different stories and that's why the two accounts are so wildly different from each other. Have you ever played the rumor game? This is where a group of people sit in a long line or in a circle, then the first person whispers a statement into the ear of the person sitting next to them. This goes on all the way down the line and by the time you reach the last person, the statement is usually very different than it began. This seemed like a very reasonable solution to the so-called contradiction. In fact, it's so reasonable I believed this to be the explanation I was looking for and I went with it for many, many years. Then one day I realized that for this explanation to be correct it meant that while one account of Judas' death was correct, the other was not. That contradicts the fact that the Bible is inerrant, because if just one thing is not correct then it is not without error, which means it could not have been written by God Himself because God makes no errors.

Okay, let's talk about what I now believe is the answer to why these two accounts are so different. I will warn you, this explanation requires a willingness to think beyond what the scriptures offer because there are no verses in the Bible itself to back this claim. But on the other hand, it does have the benefit of fitting into what I believe is an attribute of God's Holy Word. What I mean by that is, sometimes God will include something in His Word that requires faith beyond pure logic. This particular theory, while it cannot be proven by scripture, does carry the benefit of being possible both scientifically, as well as spiritually. However, the latter is only possible if you have faith to believe that God would put something in His Word that in order to be true you have to be willing to believe both accounts are true without any direct explanation, simply based on faith that God is who He says He is and if He says both accounts are true, then they are true regardless of what anyone else might claim. Before I share the theory that I heard a number of years ago, let's take a look at both accounts in the Word.

Here is the account from Matthew:


And, this is the account according to Luke in The Book of Acts:


Like I had done for so long, most people are going to read these two verses and think that the Bible has contradicted itself. But I believe that the problem is we are too used to getting the whole story from each gospel, and then repeated in another gospel, that we don't bother to think that each verse from different accounts could be a part of the whole. And that is the basis that stands behind this theory I believe that both accounts are true and together they tell a wider picture if you are willing to believe.

Let me explain in detail what I believe happened based on what these two accounts offer. First, as we are told, Judas goes back to the chief priests and tries to give them back the thirty pieces of silver because he knows he has condemned himself by betraying Jesus. When the chief priests refuse him, he leaves there and, with the devil whispering in his ear, he loses his mind and ends up hanging himself. The hanging is as far as Matthew takes us, but just because that's all Matthew offers, it does not mean that's where the story ends. We are told several places in the scriptures that the chief priests take the thirty pieces of silver and use it to buy a field, the same field that Peter in Acts says that was the place where Judas meets his end. Forget for a moment that Peter's account seems to contradict Matthew's. The fact that the chief priests end up buying that field tells us that at the time Matthew says Judas hanged himself that the field would not have been owned by anyone. A good reason why Judas would hang himself there, I mean, people don't normally commit suicide in highly populated areas. So, if Judas hanged himself by a tree in that field, with no one owning the field it is reasonable to say that his body could have been hanging there from that tree for many days and nights. Given the time of year, the body would have been hanging in the sun and both exposure and decomposition would have been setting in after a few days. After decomposing for an unknown number of days, with the added weight the branch on which Judas hanged himself could have snapped, dropping his decomposing body to the ground. Could this be interpreted as falling headlong as Peter offers? I believe it is very possible. And with all the exposure and decomposition to the body, I also believe that when his body fell from the branch that it would have likely burst open on impact with the ground which could have easily led to his organs having "gushed out" as Peter also offers.

So you see, just because they are not detailed in the same account, it doesn't mean that both accounts cannot be true. I continue to believe that both are indeed true and together give a fair amount of insight into the fate Judas suffered in response to his betrayal of the Lord. Now the fact that he would suffer for his betrayal can definitely be backed by scripture. Psalm 109:8 says "Let his days be few; and let another take his office", referring to his death and replacement within the apostles, but if you want to know just how sinful his act of betrayal was seen as by God, read all of Psalm 109.

So what do you think? Agree, disagree, have something else to offer? Post in reply and let us all know what you think.