The death of Judas, Biblical Inerrancy and how to avoid being too "heavenly minded"? - Ask NT Wright Anything

Summary

Ask NT Wright Anything – Episode Summary Podcast: Ask NT Wright Anything
Host: Mike Bird
Guest: Tom Wright (NT Wright)
Episode: The death of Judas, Biblical Inerrancy and how to avoid being too "heavenly minded"?
Date: March 2, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode features NT Wright (Tom) and co-host Mike Bird addressing listener questions on three major topics: the seemingly contradictory accounts of Judas’s death in the New Testament, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and how Christians can maintain a "heavenly perspective" without neglecting earthly responsibility. The episode demonstrates how biblical interpretation, doctrine, and Christian living intersect, offering both academic insight and pastoral guidance.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Reconciling the Death of Judas (Matthew 27:5 vs. Acts 1:18)
- [01:02] Mike presents the question: How do you reconcile the accounts of Judas’s death in Matthew and Acts?
  - Matthew 27:5: Judas throws down the money in the temple and hangs himself.
  - Acts 1:18: Judas uses his ill-gotten gains to buy a field, falls headlong, and is disemboweled.
- [02:49] Tom responds:
  - This question has been discussed for centuries, with some tracing it back to St. Augustine.
  - Possible harmonization: If Judas hanged himself, decomposition could cause the body to disintegrate when cut down, matching Acts’ description.
  - Ancient texts often include differing details, as with the historical record about Gallio in Acts 18. New findings can sometimes resolve or reframe apparent contradictions.
  - Underlying issue: modern expectations about textual precision are foreign to ancient writing, where selection and arrangement always play a role.
  - "If our belief in the New Testament was dependent on our being able to have from the texts like a kind of video recording…then we certainly don't have that. But that's not how ancient writing works." (B/Tom, 06:36)
- [07:00] Mike adds:
  - The evangelists could be using different sources or traditions.
  - The texts are intended as theological commentary, not coroner’s reports.
  - "They're giving us a broad brushstroke on what happened… it's really a passing glance at something on the way of telling the story of Jesus and the early church." (A/Mike, 07:27)
- [08:02] Tom's further reflection:
  - More important than the grisly details is Matthew's focus on Judas’s remorse and the temple priesthood’s failure to offer forgiveness—highlighting the temple’s impending judgment.
  - "They have forfeited any right to be regarded as genuine priests… That is far more important than trying to square the circle of two different accounts." (B/Tom, 08:50)
The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy
- [09:24] Mike presents Owen's question about struggling with the idea of inerrancy and being misunderstood by others in Christian circles.
- [10:48] Tom’s Response:
  - The inerrancy debate is deeply entangled with American and European cultural issues and often becomes a litmus test in church politics.
  - Historically, inerrancy was a Protestant pushback against Roman Catholic authority (the “paper Pope”).
  - "There are many issues over the last 2, 300 years, over the whole course of church history, where people have wandered away from the truth and have gone off in their own direction. And one of the signs of that… has sometimes been when people say, ‘Oh, well, the Bible says X, but I believe Y.’" (B/Tom, 11:12)
  - However, treating the Bible as a rulebook to avoid thinking or prayerful wrestling with Scripture is a misstep:
    - "Part of the glory of the Bible is that it’s the kind of book that every generation does need to think through. The Bible is an incentive to grow up in understanding, in knowledge, in faith, as we wrestle with it." (B/Tom, 13:39)
  - Truth in the Bible is multidimensional—not just propositional or factual, but including narrative, poetry, and spiritual insight.
  - “I really believe we have the Bible God intended us to have.” (B/Tom, 15:59)
  - Once the richness of Scripture is grasped, the need for a doctrine of inerrancy tends to fall away as prescriptive or unnecessary.
- [19:36] Mike builds on this:
  - Many equate inerrancy with the inerrancy of their own interpretation and traditions, using it as a power play in church politics.
  - "Using inerrancy becomes a card you can play to keep your own tribe as hegemonic within certain networks or denominations." (A/Mike, 20:33)
- [20:49] Tom agrees:
  - It's not just an American problem; British circles do the same—confusing biblical authority with the authority of tradition.
  - Calls for recognizing even “Bible-believing” evangelical circles have their own traditions that can obscure deeper engagement with the biblical story itself.
- [22:18] Book Recommendations:
  - Tom: Scripture and the Authority of God (formerly The Last Word; 2nd edition recommended) – Focuses on the narrative-based authority of Scripture and cautions against simplistic categories like "inerrancy" or "infallibility".
    - "Jesus doesn't say... all authority in heaven and earth is given to the books you chaps are going to go off and write. Jesus says, 'all authority in heaven and earth is given to me.'" (B/Tom, 23:18)
  - Mike: Seven Things about the Bible I Wish All Christians Knew.
Being "Heavenly Minded" Without Neglecting Earth
- [26:59] Question from Susan Jeffries: How can we move away from a Platonic “heaven-good, earth-bad” mindset when reading passages like Colossians 3:1-2? How do we celebrate a heavenly perspective while remaining engaged on earth?
  - Quoted verses: "…think about the things that are above, not the things that belong to the earth." (Col 3:2)
- [29:12] Tom’s Response:
  - The New Testament insists our understanding of God and heaven is centered in Jesus—the one who is fully God and fully “earthly.”
  - Platonic escapism is incompatible with the biblical view. The Bible speaks of the goodness of creation (Genesis 1), and humanity as the intersection of heaven and earth.
  - “Whatever Paul means in Colossians 3:1,2, it can't mean that anything in the present creation is at best second rate and at worst thoroughly bad.” (B/Tom, 30:14)
  - Paul’s reference to “the earth” in Colossians 3 is shorthand for behaviors in rebellion against God (sexual immorality, greed, etc.), not the material world itself.
  - The biblical story is about heaven and earth being united, climaxing in Revelation 21—not an escape from earth but God coming to dwell here.
    - "It's not about saved souls leaving earth and going to heaven, it's the other way about. …The dwelling of God is now with humans." (B/Tom, 34:07)
  - Our calling: anticipate and model the "heaven-and-earth" reality here and now, avoiding both otherworldly withdrawal and earthly compromise.
- [36:08] Mike’s military analogy:
  - "We are the vanguard of the new heaven. I never pass up an attempt to militarize our conversations, Tom." (A/Mike, 36:08)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

"All writing is about selection and arrangement… If our belief in the New Testament was dependent on our being able to have from the texts like a kind of video recording… then we certainly don’t have that." – Tom Wright, [06:34]
"They have forfeited any right to be regarded as genuine priests and the temple that they serve is under God's judgment. I think that is far more important than trying to square the circle of two different accounts of the same event." – Tom Wright, [08:50]
"Part of the glory of the Bible is that it's the kind of book that every generation does need to think through. The Bible is an incentive to grow up in understanding, in knowledge, in faith, as we wrestle with it." – Tom Wright, [13:39]
"Using inerrancy becomes a card you can play to keep your own tribe as hegemonic within certain networks or denominations." – Mike Bird, [20:33]
"It's not about saved souls leaving earth and going to heaven, it's the other way about. ...The dwelling of God is now with humans." – Tom Wright, [34:07]
"We are the vanguard of the new heaven... I never pass up an attempt to militarize our conversations, Tom." – Mike Bird, [36:08]

Important Timestamps

[01:02] – Introduce debate on Judas’s death
[02:49] – Tom’s historical and textual analysis of Judas’s death
[08:02] – The theological significance of Judas’s remorse and the priesthood’s failure
[09:24] – Owen’s question on biblical inerrancy
[10:48] – Tom discusses the cultural and doctrinal roots (and pitfalls) of inerrancy
[15:59] – “We have the Bible God intended us to have.”
[19:36] – Mike on the misuse of inerrancy as a power tool
[20:49] – Tom: It's not just America—tradition vs. scripture
[22:18] – Book recommendations on Scripture
[26:59] – Susan’s question about being too “heavenly minded”
[29:12] – Tom: Avoiding Platonic dualism and affirming new creation
[34:07] – Emphasis on the union of heaven and earth (Revelation 21)
[36:08] – Mike: "We are the vanguard of the new heaven."

Summary Conclusion

This episode navigates the technical, pastoral, and theological layers of some classic Christian conundrums: the “contradictory” details in Gospel narratives, the complex legacy of biblical inerrancy, and how to have a heavenly mindset that energizes rather than abstracts faith. Tom Wright and Mike Bird offer listeners a compelling model for faithful, thoughtful engagement—a mix of ancient wisdom, scholarly humility, and a vision for vibrant Christian living rooted in God's redemptive purposes for both heaven and earth.

Transcript

A (0:02)

Well, hello and welcome to another episode of Ask NT Write Anything, the program where we try to answer your questions about Jesus, the Bible and the life of faith. I'm Mike Bird from Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia, and I'm here with my good friend and colleague Tom Wright from

B (0:19)

Wycliffe hall in Oxford.

A (0:22)

Yeah, Tom, the good thing about this show is we literally cannot do it without you because there's no, there's no, you know, ask nt right anything. If there's no nt right, you know, we can't simply go ask some guy called Bob I met on the train anything. I mean, that, that, that's a program that's not going to sell. So I, I think you've got the same ring.

B (0:45)

Well, as, as C.S. lewis said when he did his inaugural lecture in Cambridge, you better make the most of me while I'm still here, because I, I'm getting on. There will be a day when you won't be able to ask nt right anything at all. But. So we make the most of it while we're here.

A (1:02)

Yes. Well, since the bridegroom is still here, we can still rejoice, Tom. We can still rejoice for the moment. And we should do, because we've got some great questions, good questions about the death of Judas, you know, the inerrancy of the Bible. What does that mean? And is it, is it possible to be too heavenly minded that we're of no earthly good? So our first question this week is from Matt Uberoy White from Bristol, England, and he's got a question about the death of Judas. This is what he asked. This is from Matt. He says, hey, Tom, my question is about Judas and his death. How would you reconcile the two differing narratives about Judas's death in Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18? And then he adds, really love the podcast and thank you for everything you and Mike do. Thanks matter. Well, thank you there for the love. And I should say we have had a few questions about Judas in the past, including one from Richard Powell about whether Judas can be redeemed. So, Tom, let me first of all read out the two passages in questions and I'll use the New Testament for everyone translation. In Matthew 27:5 it says, and he threw down the money in the temple. That's Judas left and went and hanged himself. And then in Acts 118, it says, Judas, you see, had brought a field with the money his wickedness had bought him, where he fell headlong and burst open with all his innards gushing out. So I think the Question from Matt here, Tom, is, did Judas die by hanging or did he somehow get disemboweled? I mean, how do these two things work together?

B (2:49)

Yeah, it's a good question. And of course, every generation has faced this question. Excuse me, anyone? Sorry, let me just start that again. It's a good question. Every generation of Bible readers has faced this same question. And so the discussion of it goes back at least to St. Augustine and earlier. And many people have tried different ways of reconciling the two accounts. I mean, it gets very grisly to discuss it and very distasteful, of course. But if somebody is discovered to have been hanged, depending on how long they've been suspended in midair from a tree branch or whatever, then the body may have started to rot. And so then when they're cut down, then the body may just disintegrate. And so you may then find that there's a sequence from the Matthew 27 went and hanged himself to the Acts 1 where his innards all gushed out. I simply don't know any beyond that. No doubt there are other ways medically of putting them together. Or you could say, which many have, of course, that the early church weren't quite sure exactly how Judas had died. But something like the rather vague language of Acts 1 may just mean it was a terrible thing. And the. The place where it happened was obviously the field of blood, because that was. And so then the two accounts are standing there side by side. So, I mean, underneath that there is a question which is cognate with the one we're going to be dealing with next, I think, which is about the inerrancy of Scripture. And I think people have often pulled up these things and said, oh, here's a contradiction in Scripture. And I want to say, look, as an ancient historian, when you come to all sorts of documents, not that we have that many docum documents about the ancient world, you frequently have passages where this doesn't seem quite to fit with that, and this doesn't seem quite to fit with the other. And then just when historians are saying so, they're contradicting each other, then somebody comes along and says, we just dug up this scroll or this artifact, this archaeological bits and pieces. And it turns out that in fact this was as it was. I mean, a classic case would be when Gallio was proconsul of achaea in Acts 18. And people for generations used to say, well, we know that Gallio was never proconsulate Achaea. So obviously Luke's made This bit up, and then suddenly they find an inscription which has Gallio not only proconsul of Achaea, but with dates attached, so that instead of it being a major problem, it becomes the linchpin of New Testament chronology and so on. So when faced with apparent contradictions like this, I want to say, well, look and see if there might be a way of telling the story which would include both, and that would be the hanging for a few days and then the body rotting and et cetera, et cetera, or something like that. And then, even if not, then it's quite possible that there was a different sequence of thought and that if we had some other writing from the time, we might have a perspective which would reconcile them both. So I have never managed to get too worked up about these places where A and B seem not to square with one another. There are several like this in the New Testament. And, you know, if the New Testament. If our belief in the New Testament was dependent on our being able to have from the texts like a kind of video recording of what happened on every possible occasion, then if that's what you mean by inspiration, then we certainly don't have that. But that's not how ancient writing works. It's not actually how any. Any writing work, because all writing is about selection and arrangement. So that. That's, I think, as far as we can take it. Mike, you may have studied this more recently than me. Do you have other insights, other ways of putting that, squaring that circle?