Acts 1:15-26 describes the events when the disciples came together, talked about what happened to Judas (the person who betrayed Jesus), and cast lots to choose the a new 12th apostle to replace Judas.
Three things stood out to me to explore in this passage: 1) how Judas died; 2) what those two Psalms passages are talking about; and 3) what happened to Matthias and Joseph who was called Barsabbas. Apparently I'm long-winded and I get carried away when I look things up and try to figure them out, so I spent a lot of time trying to figure out the first thing above.
I've decided to post all of the points in this specific post, but branch it out over a few days.
How Judas died
The first thing deals with the story of how Judas died, which seems different from what Matthew 27:5 recounts (which says that Judas hanged himself). I looked at a few sources to see how they might have made sense of this apparent conflict. Here's a basic breakdown:
- Acts for Everyone (NT Wright) - Doesn't make any attempt at resolving the conflict. Either it was "actual suicide, as Matthew says, or [it] was the sudden and violent onset of a fatal disease, as Luke suggests..." ¹
- Eerdmans International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Either Judas hanged himself, or he died and his innards gushed out. ²
- The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha - it only says, "According to Mt 27.5, Judas hanged himself." ³
- The Oxford Study Bible - "The meaning of fell headlong is uncertain; Papias (an early second-century Christian) took it to mean 'became swollen.' According to Matt 27.5, Judas hanged himself." ⁴
- Matthew Henry's Commentary - Most confusing for me (I find Matthew Henry's Commentary generally confusing, though. Maybe too wordy?). Seems to try to put Matthew and Acts together, and kind of take a bit of a metaphorical interpretation? It said something like Judas suffocated or was choked with grief and horror at what he did. Or something like, the devil had possessed Judas and choked him until he swelled and burst and his bowels gushed out.⁵
- NIV Study Bible - most overt attempt to reconcile the two passages - "...it appears that when the body finally fell, either because of decay or because someone cut it down, it was in a decomposed condition and so broke open in the middle. Another possibility is that 'hanged' in Mt 27:5 means 'impaled' (see NIV text note on Est 2:23) and that the gruesome results of Judas's suicide are described here." ⁶
It seems there isn't much resolution for the most part (based upon the few sources I looked at), and different sources believe differently about what happened. I'm not sure what to make of this, but it did take me on an interesting tangent for a bit, seeing how the different interpretations or perspectives may have been informed by the differing assumptions about Judas. Matthew Henry's Commentary, for example, has a seemingly very negative view of Judas, and the NIV Study Bible makes the most overt attempt to reconcile the two apparently differing accounts (probably because both MHC and NIVSB are aimed at maintaining as much factual unity and consistency within the Bible as possible? Not sure about that apparently metaphorical interpretation, though). The two Oxford Bibles seem to try to be more tempered and balanced when it comes to their respective positions on Christianity, and so they don't seem to have that "slant." They're more willing to just note that this is what this says, and that's what that says - the end. NT Wright, interestingly, seems to have the same or similar stance as the Oxfords (What is it with these Oxford people? 🤔 😄). The Eerdman's encyclopedia is the most interesting to me. The account I read there, though, was not a commentary on this section of Acts. It's an encyclopedia, so it talked in detail about Judas - where he came from, what kind of person he might have been, what theories might exist to explain why he betrayed Jesus, etc. I didn't read the whole description for him, but it was still interesting to read the theories.
I suppose there's no spiritual/moral lesson to be learned here from my Part I reading of Acts 1:15-26. I probably could reflect on that and say something like, "Judas fulfilled God's will but not God's will for his willing so he died a wretched death and is forever cursed in infamy. Don't be like Judas." But I'm not going to say that; I think that finding a spiritual/moral lesson may not necessarily be my goal here in reading through the Bible. Rather, I think what I hope to accomplish in doing it is to: 1) just read the Bible; 2) think about whatever comes to mind in my reading of it; and 3) maybe learn something in the meantime. Whether what I learn has some greater spiritual significance, it might not be my immediate goal (though I acknowledge that this is probably what I hope to be the case in the long run).
In the meantime, what I did gather from reading these accounts of Judas is an old lesson - it's better to read multiple sources on a thing, in order to try to gain a greater understanding and perspective of that thing.
What those two Psalms passages are talking about
updated 04/27/19
This is in connection to Acts 1:20, where Peter was talking about how the Scriptures were being fulfilled in the events surrounding Judas. Two Psalms passages were quoted, and the New Oxford Annotated commentary writes the following: "Scripture foresaw the situation (Ps 69.25) and dictates a course of action (Ps 109.8). In Acts citations from the Hebrew Bible are based upon on the Greek version, the Septuagint." ³ Here's a side-by-side comparison of the passages (what is written in Psalms vs. what is written in Acts). The NRSV version is based upon the Hebrew Bible, so I've decided to add another translation I found online from the Septuagint (LXX)⁷:
May their camp be a desolation;
let no one live in their tents. |
Let their habitation be made desolate; and let there be no
inhabitant in their tents:
|
‘Let his homestead become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’; |
Psalm 109:8
(LXX)
|
||
May his days be few;
may another seize his position. |
Let his days be few: and let another take his office of
overseer.
|
‘Let
another take his position of overseer.’
|
It's interesting to notice these little differences between them. I think there's a limitation in doing this intertextual criticism using the English translations rather than the Hebrew or Greek, but I can still try. My problem with these (and it was a problem when I was taking Biblical Interpretation in seminary) was that I wasn't all that good in noticing what the differences and patterns signified. I might notice them, but I didn't get beyond that to any deeper meaning that might exist. So in my initial reading here, this is what I notice:
In addition to this compare/contrast, I went ahead and read Psalm 69 and 109. Psalm 69 is "A Prayer for Deliverance from Persecution." I read it over a few times, and I think I would need to read it over several more times. It's hard to see the connection to Judas, unless you are actively looking for connections (in which case there's a danger of reading your assumptions into it, rather than letting the Scripture speak to you itself and reveal to you what it was meant to reveal). Maybe some parts could relate to Jesus (he was not welcomed in his own home; there were times when he and the disciples were ridiculed, probably most when he was being tortured and crucified; v.21b said "...and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink" even though I don't think anyone gave Jesus poison for food, which is what is stated in v.21a). So it can connect, but I can see how someone might interpret this as a stretch. Once we get to v. 22-29, though, I can see better how one might relate it to Judas. He did acquire that plot of land (CC: Acts 1:18), so yes, it was desolate because he died and therefore didn't inhabit it.
Psalm 109 is a "Prayer for Vindication and Vengeance." Essentially the chapter seems to be more of a prayer to curse the person who is wicked or who has committed wickedness against the innocent. What sticks out to me here is verse 6: "...Appoint a wicked man against him; let the accuser stand on his right." I'm wondering what is mean here by "right." It seems that a person who was to someone's right is ordinarily a trusted, close friend (as in "right-hand man"). And it was one of these trusted who accuses. The word "he," though, is kind of pretty ambiguous. I'm not sure if "he" is referring to the innocent man who is being attacked or if the guilty man who is falsely accusing and attacking the innocent. Is the guilty man now getting another wicked man to accuse him?
I imagine for both of these chapters (Psalm 69 and 109), it would take days, months, and years of meditation for their words to reveal themselves. I think this is one of the beauty of the Psalms. They can take a lifetime of contemplation, and they can still inform and reveal new lessons. I think in my skepticism it's still important for me to recognize that the people in the NT times were those who ate, slept, and breathed the Scriptures. Their whole lives were informed by the Scriptures, and I think these Psalms are included. I would do well to be more humble and let them with their lifetime of meditation of the Psalms teach me, rather than vice versa (even if I still have questions and doubt). One reading in an hour or two wouldn't be enough. But for now, I'll leave it at that. Maybe one day I'll come back to them.
updated 04/28/19
Before moving on to Matthias and Joseph, I wanted to add a quote from NT Wright that I thought was worthwhile. He talks about the importance of the OT Scriptures to the early church, and writes that it was not just something like a mere history book or geneology.
What happened to Matthias and Joseph
There wasn't a lot that I wanted to add here concerning Matthias and Joseph. What stood out to me in the Wright commentary was that we really have no idea and no clue what happened to these two after this event where we discover that Matthias is chosen. Their names are recorded, and then that's it. It's somewhat lost in history what they may have done and how their works may have affected others (whether positively or negatively).
These effects or affects seem so impersonal to me. I guess the seemingly impersonal nature of this will just have to be left as is, as a divine mystery. We can guess that Matthias did play a significant role in the history of the church, and that role he played must have had long-lasting effects in Christendom. We can hope that Joseph did to. I'll be an even more obscure name in the history books. What will become of my affects, I suppose, are God's business and not mine.
Walk on.
- The description of the homes in all three are different, and seem to be dependent upon cultural context. The Hebrews, for example, probably lived in camps. Maybe the LXX in trying to put it on more lay terms by using the word "habitation." Both use the word "tent." What is interesting here is that camps and tents seem to connote less permanent residences (that the people had their places to live, but where they lived was more temporary and they could move on later). In Acts, the place of habitation, described as a "homestead," seems less temporary.
- Maybe there's something significant between "be a desolation," "be made desolate," and "become desolate." The Hebrew version seems to see it as a noun. The LXX version seems to be an adjective. The Acts version is apparently an "intransitive verb" (not sure what that means. Sorry, not an English or ESL type).
- In reference to Ps 109, I'm not sure why Peter in Acts decided to take out "Let his days be few." Maybe this was already assumed that Judas' days were few.
- What's interesting in Ps 109 is that there seems to be a big difference between "seize his position" (something that seems done by force, like a political office is forced out of power) and "take his office of overseer"/"take his position of overseer." Judas was the treasurer (who oversaw the money), so it makes sense that this was connected to him.
In addition to this compare/contrast, I went ahead and read Psalm 69 and 109. Psalm 69 is "A Prayer for Deliverance from Persecution." I read it over a few times, and I think I would need to read it over several more times. It's hard to see the connection to Judas, unless you are actively looking for connections (in which case there's a danger of reading your assumptions into it, rather than letting the Scripture speak to you itself and reveal to you what it was meant to reveal). Maybe some parts could relate to Jesus (he was not welcomed in his own home; there were times when he and the disciples were ridiculed, probably most when he was being tortured and crucified; v.21b said "...and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink" even though I don't think anyone gave Jesus poison for food, which is what is stated in v.21a). So it can connect, but I can see how someone might interpret this as a stretch. Once we get to v. 22-29, though, I can see better how one might relate it to Judas. He did acquire that plot of land (CC: Acts 1:18), so yes, it was desolate because he died and therefore didn't inhabit it.
Psalm 109 is a "Prayer for Vindication and Vengeance." Essentially the chapter seems to be more of a prayer to curse the person who is wicked or who has committed wickedness against the innocent. What sticks out to me here is verse 6: "...Appoint a wicked man against him; let the accuser stand on his right." I'm wondering what is mean here by "right." It seems that a person who was to someone's right is ordinarily a trusted, close friend (as in "right-hand man"). And it was one of these trusted who accuses. The word "he," though, is kind of pretty ambiguous. I'm not sure if "he" is referring to the innocent man who is being attacked or if the guilty man who is falsely accusing and attacking the innocent. Is the guilty man now getting another wicked man to accuse him?
I imagine for both of these chapters (Psalm 69 and 109), it would take days, months, and years of meditation for their words to reveal themselves. I think this is one of the beauty of the Psalms. They can take a lifetime of contemplation, and they can still inform and reveal new lessons. I think in my skepticism it's still important for me to recognize that the people in the NT times were those who ate, slept, and breathed the Scriptures. Their whole lives were informed by the Scriptures, and I think these Psalms are included. I would do well to be more humble and let them with their lifetime of meditation of the Psalms teach me, rather than vice versa (even if I still have questions and doubt). One reading in an hour or two wouldn't be enough. But for now, I'll leave it at that. Maybe one day I'll come back to them.
updated 04/28/19
Before moving on to Matthias and Joseph, I wanted to add a quote from NT Wright that I thought was worthwhile. He talks about the importance of the OT Scriptures to the early church, and writes that it was not just something like a mere history book or geneology.
It was a huge and vital story, the story of the earlier part of God's purposes, full of signposts pointing forward to the time when, further forward from within the same story, the plans God was nurturing would come to fruition. Prophets and kings had listened to what the spirit had been saying to them, and had written things which, like seeds sown in the dark earth and long watered, would eventually emerge as plants and would bear fruit.⁸I think this adds to what I said above concerning the need to pay attention to the way the NT is using the OT. It's hard to see this bigger picture perspective of what is bearing fruit, but I hope in time these things will unfold and be revealed, and the connections will become more clear.
What happened to Matthias and Joseph
There wasn't a lot that I wanted to add here concerning Matthias and Joseph. What stood out to me in the Wright commentary was that we really have no idea and no clue what happened to these two after this event where we discover that Matthias is chosen. Their names are recorded, and then that's it. It's somewhat lost in history what they may have done and how their works may have affected others (whether positively or negatively).
Part of Christian obedience, right from the beginning, was the call to play (apparently) great parts without pride and (apparently) small parts without shame. There are, of course, no passengers in the kingdom of God, and actually no 'great' and 'small' parts either. The different tasks and roles to which God assigns us are his business, not ours.⁹When I think about how much we as humans want to be remembered and want to leave a lasting legacy, the unsettling thing is that most of us will be forgotten or our known mark on history will just be a record of a name. There's a part of this that I find significantly tragic, especially when I know so many who have died. I know those who have passed have affected me, and I know their affect on me will pass on as I affect others. But in time my dead loved ones will be forgotten, and I will be forgotten, and what is left of us on this earth are only the remnants of our affects. Perhaps what we do or who we influenced will have some exponential effect; perhaps not. It's hard to know.
These effects or affects seem so impersonal to me. I guess the seemingly impersonal nature of this will just have to be left as is, as a divine mystery. We can guess that Matthias did play a significant role in the history of the church, and that role he played must have had long-lasting effects in Christendom. We can hope that Joseph did to. I'll be an even more obscure name in the history books. What will become of my affects, I suppose, are God's business and not mine.
Walk on.
-----------
(1) Wright, NT. Acts for Everyone: Part I. Westminster John Knox Press (2008): 18.
(2) Buchanan GW. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. GW Buchanan, Ed. Eerdmans (1982): 1153.
(3) The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. Michael Coogan, ed. Oxford (2007): 186 New Testament.
(4) The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with Apocrypha. M. Jack Suggs, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, James R. Mueller, Eds. Oxford (1992): 1395.
(5) Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Hendrickson (1991): 2065.
(6) NIV Study Bible: 10th Anniversary Edition. Kenneth Barker, Gen Ed. Zondervan (1995): 1648.
(7) English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible. Compiled by the translation by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton 1851. Obtained online: http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Psalms/index.htm.(8) Wright 17.
(9) Wright, 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment