contradictions or misunderstandings

Hopefully, we all know who Judas Iscariot was, but just to refresh, he was the betrayer or our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.   He secretly agreed to betray Jesus to the chief priests and elders for 30 pieces of silver. His sign to them was to kiss Jesus to identify him to them.  

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus informed his disciples during the Last Supper that one of them would betray him. When they asked who it would be, Jesus said, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.”  He then dipped a piece of bread in a dish and handed it to Judas, identified as the “son of Simon Iscariot.”  After Judas received the piece of bread, “Satan entered into him.” (John 13:21-27). 

Now, the book of Matthew 27 reads that Judas Iscariot out of guilt for his betrayal committed suicide by hanging himself.   After Jesus was condemned, Judas, feeling remorse, returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.  He recognized that he had sinned and betrayed innocent blood.  He then hanged himself.  

But according to the Book of Acts (written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke), Judas didn’t kill himself immediately after betraying Jesus; instead, he went and bought a field, where “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18). This spontaneous-combustion-like process was a common form of death in the Bible when God himself caused people’s deaths. 

A contradiction or misunderstanding?  Misunderstanding, of course!

The accounts in Matthew and Acts about Judas’s death may seem different at first glance, but they actually complement each other to form a fuller picture. 

Acts 1:18 describes his body falling and bursting open, which probably happened after the hanging—possibly due to the rope breaking, decomposition, or even someone cutting him down. Rather than contradicting each other, these passages illustrate different stages of the same tragic event, adding depth to the narrative of Judas’s end. Together, they show how both accounts emphasize the consequences of betrayal while highlighting different details of the sequence.

Also, keep in mind the timing of Judas’s death. Judas died close to the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus was crucified on Passover and resurrected on the Feast of First Fruits. Both are Sabbath holidays, and the Israelites were forbidden to work on those days. If Judas hung himself during this time (which seems likely), it’s possible no one would have cut him down. Instead, he would have hung there decomposing until either the rope or the branch he hung from broke. At which point, Judas’s body would have fallen to the ground and burst open.

The two accounts of Judas' death work together to make a complete picture of how he died.  After he hanged himself, his body was left there to decay.  A decaying corpse will bloat from gases if left alone.  After hanging there for some time, his dead, bloated body fell and struck the ground bursting open.  Indeed, there were two witnesses:  Matthew who saw him hang himself, and the doctor Luke (who wrote the Book of Acts) describing the horrors of his death.

By the way, Judas' return of the unwanted blood money led to having a Potter's Field (sometimes called the "field of blood") today where people are buried who are unknown, poor and/or have no one to claim their body.

In 1 Timothy 4:4 it reads, "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving"...  So, does this mean that every animal is good for food?  Seemingly, reversing what God said in the Old Testament about clean and unclean animals.  The answer is no!  Some try to suggest that Paul is throwing out God's laws of what a healthy diet consists, as if anyone could.  But take heed whenever someone does this.   The laws of God, as presented in the Pentateuch, are as relevant today as they were in biblical times.  Plus, our common sense and a bit of knowledge let us know that not all creatures are good for us to eat.  For example, there is a starfish whose flesh contains a neurotoxin for which there is no antidote and is certainly not listed in the Old Testament group of clean animals.

Here again the scripture is taken out of context.  Examining context is one of the keys to understanding the bible.  If you read the preceding verses, you will find that Paul is not talking about The Laws, but rather "doctrines of demons" who will cause some to depart from the faith.  There were man-made laws forbidding marriage and teaching the avoidance of food that God created for us to eat.  Paul addressed these same concerns in Colossians 2:22 where it was forbidden to eat meat on a particular day of the week - fish on Friday, Christians should only eat vegetables, etc.

Also, the words sanctified and set apart are used in the verses and God gave us permission to eat what He has set apart by His Word in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

In Act 10:9-11, Peter's words are also taken out of context, and his trance is symbolic and is not about food but about all types of people.   As a conscientious Jew, he rejected the food, claiming that he had never eaten anything impure or unclean. A voice corrected him that he should not call anything impure that God has made clean. This cancellation of all distinctions between clean and unclean foods then became a simile for the cancellation of all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 11:15-18). 

ONE

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest); Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the sequence to focus on the sixth day, when God made mankind. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man and woman.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1—2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” There is no contradiction, though, because Genesis 2:5 does not say how long before man’s creation there was no plant life. In fact, the previous verse mentions the first and second days of creation (at which point there were no plants), so it makes sense that Genesis 2:5 would mention there were no plants. Several days of creation occur between Genesis 2:6 and Genesis 2:7. Verse 7 details the creation of man on the sixth day. Verse 8 mentions the garden that God had created for him—the fourth day is spoken of in the past tense. The trees that God makes to grow in verse 9 are those in the garden. So the passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation on the third day; Genesis 2:5 speaks of the first and second days when there was no vegetation; and Genesis 2:9 speaks of the specific growth of trees in Eden.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.