1:1 The gospel author traces the "genealogy of Jesus Christ" beginning with Abraham. However, this genealogy ends with Joseph, "the husband of Mary," and not with Jesus himself, since his mother Mary, according to Matthew's gospel, was still a virgin when Jesus was born. (v. 25). Thus, according to Matthew, Joseph was not Jesus's natural father, and the genealogy does not connect with Jesus himself.
The purpose of the genealogy may be to support claims that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, who was expected to be a direct descendant of King David. See, for example, 2 Samuel 7:12-13, where the messianic leader will "come forth from your [David's] body." However this requirement is not met if Jesus was instead a child of the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus himself rejects Davidic ancestry for the Messiah in Matthew 22:23-25 and in Mark 12:35-37.
In 1 Timothy 1:4 we are warned against occupying ourselves with "endless genealogies which promote speculations." Similar advice is given in Titus 3:9.
1:6 Matthew traces the genealogy from David's son Solomon down to Joseph in 27 generations, counting from David to Joseph. This is a major contradiction when compared with Luke's version of the genealogy, which has Joseph descending from David's son Nathan in 42 generations (Luke 3:23-38). The claim by some Christian apologists that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary cannot supported. Not only does Luke explicitly connect his genealogical list with Joseph (Luke 3:23), but his information about Mary's background is not consistent with a Davidic ancestry for her. Luke 1:36 describes Mary as a relative of Elizabeth, who was descended from Aaron (Luke 1:5), which suggests they are members of the priestly tribe of Levi, not the tribe of Judah, which would be required if Luke's genealogy were really that of Mary.
1:8-9 Matthew omits some of the names listed in 1 Chronicles 3:11-12. Matthew has Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, while Chronicles has Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham. "Ahaziah" may be an alternate spelling of "Uzziah."
1:11 Another variance with Chronicles. Matthew has Josiah as the father of Jeconiah, but 1 Chronicles 3:15-16 inserts Jehoikim between them as the father of Jeconiah. Christian apologists have invented the notion of "structured genealogy" to explain Matthew's omissions, but this is just an erudite way of saying that Matthew's list has gaps in it. King Jehoiakim was cursed in Jeremiah 22:28-30, and the LORD decreed that “none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah.” Perhaps Jehoiakim was omitted from Matthew’s genealogy in order to avoid the contradiction (not to mention the embarrassment) of having Jesus descend from a man whose offspring could never inherit the Davidic crown. See also Jeremiah 36:30, where we read that Jehoiakim “shall have none to sit upon the throne of David.”
1:17 Matthew counts fourteen generations for each of these three periods, but in order to get fourteen generations from the deportation [Jeconiah] to Jesus he has to count Jeconiah twice. Otherwise from Shealtiel to Jesus is only thirteen generations.
1:20 Joseph does not learn that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit until after she is already pregnant. But in Luke we are told that Mary found out before she was pregnant that the Holy Spirit would "come upon" her (Luke 1:35). If both stories are taken at face value, then it must be the case that Mary kept the news about the Holy Spirit's role secret from Joseph until after she became pregnant. Otherwise, Joseph would surely not have been planning to "divorce her quietly."
1:21 This is a pun on the Hebrew version of the name Jesus (Yeshua) and the word for "save." It works in Hebrew, but not in Aramaic, which was probably the language spoken by Jesus and his family members. (Source: The Interpreter's Bible, 1951, vol. 7, p. 255)
1:22-23 The reference is to Isaiah 7:14. The "prophecy" is a false one on several grounds. Obviously, Jesus was not called Emmanuel. Also, by examining the context of Isaiah 7:14, it is clear that it cannot refer to Jesus. In the Isaiah passage, king Ahaz fears an imminent attack by two enemies. The birth of the child in verse 7:14 is part of a promise from Yahweh that the lands of the two enemies feared by Ahaz will be deserted "before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:15) So obviously the child was to be born during the time of this conflict, which was centuries before the birth of Jesus. And surely Jesus, if he truly was god, would have already known "how to refuse the evil and choose the good," so the Isaiah child, who has to learn these things, cannot possibly be identified with Jesus. Finally, the debate over whether Isaiah 7:14 should best be translated as "a virgin shall conceive" or "a young woman shall conceive" is of no consequence. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the translation question. But even if "virgin" is correct, it carries no persuasive weight, because it would be very easy for the gospel writer to "fulfill" this prophecy by simply writing into his story a claim that Jesus was born of a virgin.
1:25 Paul knows nothing of this virgin birth, saying instead that Jesus was a descendant of King David "according to the flesh." (Romans 1:3; see also Romans 9:5.)
2:1 The Herod referred to is Herod the Great, who died in 4 or 5 BC. We know that this is the Herod that Matthew means, because in v. 22 his son is identified as Archelaus. Herod the Great actually had three sons who would divide his kingdom after his death, and some confusion can result because these three sons were also often referred to as "Herod." See for example Luke 3:1, where Luke's reference to "Herod, tetrarch of Galilee" is actually Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great.
Matthew's narrative would require Jesus to have been born in or before 4 BC, i.e., before the death of Herod the Great. However, Luke's gospel puts the birth of Jesus during the Roman census which was conducted when Quirinius, governor of Syria, took over responsibility for governing Judea (Luke 2:2). This census occurred in 6 AD, so there is at least a ten year discrepancy between Matthew and Luke as to the year in which Jesus was born. Christian apologists try to answer this by speculating that Quirinius perhaps served as governor on a previous occasion, during the reign of Herod the Great, but there is no historical evidence to support this, and much evidence against it. The Roman governors of Syria during this period are known through Roman historical records, and there is no place where an earlier governorship of Quirinius could fit. Also, there would have been no need for the Romans to conduct a census, which was for purposes of taxation, until they took over administrative responsibility of Judea from the Jewish kings, and this did not occur until Herod's son Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD.
For a more detailed treatment of this discrepancy in the year of Jesus’s birth, see Richard Carrier’s article, “The Date of the Nativity in Luke.”
2:6 This reference is to Micah 5:2, but in Matthew it is not quoted exactly. The Christian interpretation is that the verse from Micah predicts that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem. This explains why both Mathew and Luke are keen to tell us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but see John 7:41-43, where the Bethlehem prediction is used against Jesus, who everyone knew came from Galilee. Note also that the phrase "a ruler who will govern my people Israel" cannot apply to Jesus, because he never ruled over the people of Israel.
2:11 Matthew's "wise men" visit the baby Jesus in a house, in contrast to Luke 2:7,12,16, where the family finds no room in the inn and the baby Jesus is placed in a manger. Merriam-Webster defines "manger" as "a trough or open box in a stable designed to hold feed or fodder for livestock."
2:14 This flight to Egypt is absent in Luke, and indeed Luke's timeline leaves no room for it. Luke has the family going to Jerusalem shortly after Jesus's birth, whereas the whole point of the flight to Egypt in Matthew's gospel was to avoid going to Jerusalem, or any part of Judea, as long as it was ruled by the son of Herod the Great.
2:15 The "prophetic" reference is to Hosea 11:1, which reads in full, "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." Thus, the "son" referred to is the nation of Israel, not Jesus. The passage from Hosea continues, "The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Baals [pagan gods], and burning incense to idols." (Hosea 11:2) The continuation calls attention to the sin and wickedness of the Hebrews as they strayed from Yahweh's commandments. So are we to understand that this sin and wickedness apply to Jesus? We also read in Hosea that "They shall return to the land of Egypt." (Hosea 11:5) But the gospels do not record any return to Egypt by Jesus after the birth story told in Matthew. In Hosea 11:6 we read that “the sword shall abide on his cities, and shall consume his branches, and devour them.” Is this also a prophecy of Jesus's fate? If Hosea 11:1 applies to Jesus, then the whole story must apply to him as well. Based on context, it is clear that Hosea 11:1 is not a prophetic reference to Jesus of Nazareth.
Matthew states here that Joseph and his family remained in Egypt “until the death of Herod.” Recalling that Herod the Great died in 4-5 BC, then we have the same 10-year discrepancy between Matthew and Luke that we saw with the birth year of Jesus, because Luke does not have Jesus even being born until 6 AD. (See comment to 2:1.)
2:18 Another "prophetic" reference which ignores the context of the Old Testament verse. This verse is quoted from Jeremiah 31:15. However, the full context of the Jeremiah story does not fit with Matthew's use of it. In Jeremiah, the passage goes on to have God say, "There is hope for your future . . . and your children shall come back to their own country" (v.17). Matthew, on the other hand, uses the verse to portray a sense of despair and permanent loss. Furthermore, the Jeremiah passage has in mind not the death of Rachel's children, but their exile in Babylon.
2:23 The alleged prophecy, "He shall be called a Nazarene," does not appear anywhere in the Old Testament. The suggestion that Matthew has Judges 13:5 in mind ("the boy shall be a Nazirite to God") cannot be supported. "Nazirite" does not mean a person from the village of Nazareth, but "one consecrated to God by the taking of these special vows." (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 1973 edition, p.312) The passage in Judges is from the story of Samson's birth, and has nothing to do with Jesus. Note, however, that the purpose of going to Nazareth was, according to Matthew, to fulfill a prophecy. This implies that Jesus’s family had no previous connection with Nazareth, in contrast to Luke’s many references indicating that Nazareth was the hometown of Joseph and Mary before they travelled to Bethlehem. See, for example, Luke 1:26; 2:4; 2:39.
3:2 John the Baptist's message of "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," was taken up by Jesus (4:17) after John was arrested.
3:3 John's mission was to "prepare the way" and "make his paths straight." Yet he must not have done a good job, because Jesus faced a great deal of indifference, hostility, and misunderstanding throughout his ministry until the very end. There are many instances where even his own disciples do not understand who he is. See for example, Luke 8:25, where the disciples ask, "Who then is this, that he commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him?"
3:11 John the Baptist predicts that someone mightier than himself is coming. See also John 1:30. He evidently means Jesus, yet Jesus himself said (Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28) that no one born of woman is greater than John the Baptist. And in Galatians 4:4 we are reminded that Jesus himself was born of a woman. Therefore, by Jesus's own words, he himself could not have been greater than John the Baptist, and thus could not have been God. But contrast this view of the Baptist with John 10:8, where Jesus says that all who came before him were thieves and robbers. This implies that John the Baptist himself was a thief and a robber, because he came before Jesus.
3:13 Jesus came to be baptized by John, yet we are told in Mark 1:4 that it was "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." What sins had Jesus committed that he needed to be baptized for? For some of the sins of Jesus (committed after his baptism), see the comments to Matthew 12:46-50; 21:12; 27:12-14. Matthew’s attempt to explain away this awkwardness is not convincing. He simply has Jesus tell John to let it be for now, as it is appropriate to “fulfill all righteousness.” (3:15) But what could possibly be righteous about a sinless man being baptized for sins? And what would the meaning of baptism even be for a man who had not sinned?
3:17 This voice from the sky seems to be addressed to everyone within earshot. By contrast, the same voice in Mark 1:11 is addressed directly to Jesus himself. ("Thou art my beloved son.")
4:8 It is well-known to modern readers that you cannot see “all the kingdoms of the world” from any high mountain. The earth being a sphere, it would be impossible to see kingdoms on the other side, no matter how high the mountain is.
4:17 Jesus begins to preach after John the Baptist is arrested. This is consistent with Mark 1:14, but is contradicted by John 3:23 where John is still baptizing after Jesus had already begun his ministry.
4:18-20 The calling of Simon and Andrew as disciples. Matthew's story is consistent with Mark 1:16-17, but is contradicted by John 1:35-41, where Simon and Andrew become followers of Jesus on their own initiative.
5:3 The Sermon on the Mount. Luke has many of the same or similar sayings, beginning at Luke 6:17, but his sermon is on a plain instead of a mountain.
5:5 Jesus promises that the meek shall inherit the earth, but later Christian writers scorned the earth as corrupt, and instead postulated a heavenly inheritance for the faithful. See, for example, Hebrews 13:14.
5:9 The peacemakers may indeed be blessed, but Jesus is not among them. Jesus came not to bring peace, but a sword, and to sow discord between family members. (Matthew 10:34-35)
5:16 Here Jesus advises his followers to let their good works be known, but in this same Sermon on the Mount, Jesus advises against practicing one’s righteousness before men, and when giving alms to the poor, to do so in secret. (Matthew 6:1-4)
5:17-19 Jesus tells his followers that the Jewish law, contained in the first five books of the Old Testament, will not pass away, and that he has not come to abolish even the smallest part of the law. This conflicts with Paul (Romans 7:6) who wrote that Christians are "discharged from the law." Also see Galatians 2:19; 3:13; 5:18; Ephesians 2:14-16 for additional claims that the law no longer applies to Christians. And in 1 Timothy 1:9, we read that the law is not made for righteous people, but only for sinners. Verse 19 may be directed specifically at Paul, whose letters had already been written and circulated by the time Matthew's gospel was composed.
Some apologists claim that the phrase "until all is accomplished" in verse 18 puts a time limit on the validity of the Jewish law, and that all was indeed accomplished with Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection. Thus, the crucifixion marks the point at which Jewish law no longer applies, and Jesus's position is apparently made consistent with Paul's. However, there are two refutations of this point of view. 1) Matthew's gospel was actually written after Jesus's death, so if the law was already invalidated because all had been accomplished, there would be no point in Matthew's quoting Jesus in support of the law. 2) There is a second limiting phrase, "till heaven and earth pass away," in verse 18, which must be read in conjunction with "until all is accomplished." Heaven and earth did not pass away at the time of Jesus's crucifixion, nor have they done so since, so the condition is not met. Therefore, Jesus is properly understood here as saying that the law will never pass away, at least not until the very end of time, and he remains in conflict with the position of Paul.
Despite his declaration that "not a dot" would pass away from the entire corpus of Jewish law, Jesus himself reduced the law down to just two commandments in Matthew 22:37-40.
5:22 "Whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." Yet Jesus himself calls the scribes and Pharisees fools in Matthew 23:17. It is the same Greek word in both cases.
5:27 Here, and in the following verses, Jesus goes beyond the Old Testament law and commands that his listeners follow an even stricter standard of behavior. But in Deuteronomy 4:2 God resolutely prohibits anyone from either adding to or subtracting from the law he has given.
5:32 Note the exception "on the ground of unchastity." Luke's version lacks this exception, and instead proclaims an absolute prohibition against divorce. (Luke 16:18)
5:34-35 Jesus teaches not to swear, directly contradicting God's commandment in Deuteronomy 6:13. But in Matthew 23:20-22 Jesus seems to condone swearing by the altar, the temple, and heaven itself.
5:38 The Old Testament sources of the "eye for an eye" rule are Exodus 21:23-24; Leviticus 24:19-20; Deuteronomy 19:21
5:39 One of the many Jesus maxims that practicing Christians do not follow.
5:43 "You shall love your neighbor" was indeed something that Jews would have read in their scriptures. It is found in Leviticus 19:18. However, "hate your enemy" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament.
5:44 Here Jesus preaches that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. But how did Jesus himself treat his enemies? He ignores his own advice by calling the scribes and Pharisees “fools and blind” in Matthew 23:17, and a “brood of vipers” in Matthew 12:34. And in John 8:44 he reviles those who refuse to acknowledge his divine status by calling them children of the devil. When it comes to loving one’s enemies, Jesus certainly did not practice what he preached.
5:48 God expects perfection from his people. In Matthew 19:21 we learn that perfection means selling what you have and giving it to the poor. How many modern day Christians follow this advice?
6:6 Jesus tells his followers to pray in secret. But in 1 Timothy 2:8 we are told that men (not women) should pray "in every place."
6:7-13 Even though Jesus teaches that the Lord's prayer is the way to pray, Paul knows nothing of this advice, and says in Romans 8:26 that "we do not know how to pray as we ought." However, it may not matter, because all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and God does not listen to sinners. (John 9:31)
6:14 This verse seems to imply that belief in Jesus is not enough to ensure salvation. If you don't forgive others, then you yourself will not be forgiven.
6:19 One of the few consistent points in Jesus's teaching is his disdain for material wealth.
6:24 The pursuit of riches is incompatible with devotion to God. The same point is made in Luke 16:13. "Mammon is a Semitic word for money or riches." (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 1973 edition, p. 1178)
6:26-34 Jesus repeatedly advises his listeners against making plans or preparations for the future. This may be good advice if the kingdom of God is about to arrive any day, as Jesus thought it would. But it is disastrous for anyone who expects to live a normal lifespan in the real world. Of course, Jesus was wrong about the kingdom of God being just around the corner.
7:1 Jesus commands, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” But Paul, who had no copy of Matthew to guide him, taught that “the saints shall judge the world.” (1 Corinthians 6:2) By “saints” he means ordinary Christians, as he indicates in the same verse, confirming that “the world shall be judged by you,” i.e., his readers.
7:6 Despite its contradictions, there are many nuggets of wisdom in the Bible, and the admonition against casting your pearls before the swine is one of them. This is basically saying don't waste good stuff on people who don't appreciate it.
7:12 The Golden Rule. Note that this is phrased positively, i.e., it tells what to do, rather than what to avoid. In other religious sources, it is usually phrased negatively, as in the Jewish book of Tobit 4:15: "And what you hate, do not do to anyone." There is a big difference. If a stalker or sexual pervert does to others what he would like done to himself, he is going to bring about a good deal of unpleasantness. The negative principle of "do no harm" is safer and less intrusive.
The Golden Rule has a long history, and does not originate with Jesus or the writings of the Old Testament. In the Republic (1:4), for example, Socrates argues against doing harm to anyone, even if they have wronged us first. The negative version of the rule is found in Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and others that predate Christianity.
7:28 The end of the Sermon on the Mount.
8:4 After healing the leper, Jesus admonishes him to "say nothing to anyone." Yet the healing was performed in the presence of "great crowds" (8:1), so it is not clear who Jesus is trying to conceal the story from.
8:5 Here the centurion approaches Jesus to ask that he heal the centurion’s slave who is at his house and in great distress. In Luke’s parallel version, the centurion himself does not approach Jesus. Instead, Luke has him convey his request to Jesus through a delegation of Jewish elders. (Luke 7:2-3) We know this is intended to be the same incident, because it occurs as Jesus is entering Capernaum right after giving his sermon on the mount (which in Luke, occurs on the plain).
8:14 The reference to Peter's mother-in-law tells us that Peter had a wife, and this is confirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5. According to tradition then, the Catholic Church, which requires its priests to be celibate, was founded on the "rock" of a married man, Peter. In the Corinthians passage, Paul also reports that not only Peter ("Cephas") but "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord" have wives. We are not told whether Jesus himself had a wife.
8:16-17 This is another of Matthew's many claims that Jesus's actions constituted fulfillment of "prophecies" made in the Old Testament. This reference is to Isaiah 53:4. As with most alleged Old Testament prophecies of Jesus, this one falls apart if we simply read the surrounding context. When we do so, we find that the reference in Isaiah is not to Jesus, but to the nation of Israel as God's servant. Isaiah chapters 40 through 56 anticipate the liberation of the Jews from the Babylonian exile and their return to Palestine, thanks to the conquest of Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus. This all occurred during the 6th century BC. Cyrus is even identified by name as God’s messiah (i.e., the anointed one, the christos) in Isaiah 45:1, giving him a much stronger claim than Jesus, if the prophecies of Isaiah are to be given any credence. Throughout these chapters, there is a reference to the "servant" of God, and this servant is identified with Israel. Yahweh assures Israel that its time of suffering is now over and that it will soon bask in the great honor and admiration of all the nations who previously had oppressed it. It is a poetic rendering, and is broken into four "Servant songs" spoken variously by Yahweh, the personified nation of Israel, or the author/prophet himself. Christians try to identify the servant with Jesus, and to connect with him the passages relating to Israel's salvation and the bearing of its sins. That the servant is the nation of Israel, and not Jesus or any individual, is stated explicitly in the following verses: Isaiah 41:8-10; 44:1,21; 49:3. Also, the doctrine of the Trinity holds Jesus and God the father to be co-equal branches of the "Godhead" and thus it would be incongruous to identify Jesus with God's "servant" which is clearly a relationship of inferiority.
8:20 Jesus obviously is referring to himself when he says that “the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” But not only did Jesus have a place to lay his head, he had his own house, according to Mark 2:15. And the house was in the same town (Capernaum) where this incident in Matthew takes place. So why couldn’t he go lay his head at his own house?
8:21 This is one of many occasions where Jesus puts himself and his ministry above the obligations of family ties. These incidents are hard to reconcile with the idea that Jesus and Christianity promote "family values."
8:25 Note the difference in tone between the disciples' expression of concern here and in Mark 4:38. Matthew displays a consistent pattern of smoothing out the rough edges of Mark's dialogue. Here the disciples address Jesus as "Lord" and beseech him to save them. However, in Mark their question has a tone of sarcasm and rebuke: "Teacher, do you not care if we perish?" Luke's version of the story is in Luke 8:22-24.
8:27 Even his disciples do not understand who Jesus is. If those who lived and worked with Jesus did not know him, how can anyone 2000 years removed be expected to do so on the basis of ancient documents full of inconsistencies?
8:28 Although Matthew speaks of two demon-possessed men, Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 mention only one.
8:29 The cry of the demon, "What have you to do with us?" is the same Greek expression that Jesus himself uses in John 2:3-4 when speaking to his mother Mary, the only difference being that in John the singular pronoun is used in place of the plural.
8:32 Animal lovers will find much to criticize in Jesus's manner of dispatching the demons. He could have just made the demons go away, but instead he allowed them to destroy a whole herd of pigs. Keep in mind that these were not wild pigs (they had herdsmen), and thus they belonged to someone, although certainly not to any of Jesus's followers, for Jews did not raise pigs. Matthew does not tell us whether Jesus compensated the owner for the destruction of his livelihood, but based on the fact that Jesus was asked to leave the area (8:34) we can suppose that he did not.
9:9 The calling of Matthew (finally!). The supposed eyewitness author of the gospel does not join Jesus's group until one-third of the way through the book. This Matthew is traditionally identified with Levi, as he is called in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, although there is no good reason why the same person would have two Jewish names. Jews of the time often had a Jewish name and a Greek name (e.g., "Simon" and "Peter") but not two Jewish names. See The Interpreter's Bible, 1951, vol. 7, p.234 for a further discussion of the Matthew/Levi issue.
9:13 The OT quote is from Hosea 6:6. But if God does not want sacrifice, then what is the whole point of Jesus's crucifixion?
9:14 This is one of several passages indicating that Jesus and his followers were not into self-denial. See also Matthew 11:18-19 where Jesus defends himself against accusations that he is "a glutton and a drunkard." Also Luke 7:34. Despite his assertions that discipleship required self-deprivation (e.g., Matthew 16:24) one gets the impression that life on the road with Jesus was pretty good - plenty to eat and drink, lots of women, and enough money to require a box to carry it in (John 12:6; 13:29).
9:18 This "ruler" is a local synagogue leader. See Mark 5:22, where we also learn that his name is Jairus. Here in Matthew, the daughter "has just died," but in Mark she is "at the point of death."
9:20 The bleeding woman is healed after Jesus turns and speaks to her. But this contradicts Mark 5:29 where the woman is healed immediately upon touching Jesus's garment, and before Jesus knows who touched him.
Notice again that Matthew, who used Mark's gospel as a source, removes a detail that makes Jesus seem less than divine. In Mark's account, Jesus does not know who touched him from the crowd, and asks "Who touched my garments?" (Mark 5:30) - thus revealing that he is not omniscient. But Matthew has Jesus turn and immediately recognize the woman as the one who touched him (9:22).
9:24 If the girl was not dead, but "sleeping," then this was not a miracle. If she was indeed dead and Jesus raised her, then the story contradicts Acts 26:23 where Jesus is called the first to rise from the dead.
9:37-38 The implication is that there are too many sick and needy people for Jesus to handle himself, so he commissions the disciples as his deputies. However, if Jesus were truly divine, he would have no need of such assistance.
This phrase appears also in Luke 10:2, but in that case it is an additional seventy disciples who are being sent out to help with Jesus's work, not the original twelve.
10:2-4 The twelve disciples are named. Thaddaeus is named also in Mark 3:16-19, but Luke 6:14-16 replaces him with Judas son of James. Those seeking to resolve the contradiction postulate that Thaddaeus and Judas son of James are the same person, but there is no evidence for this, and the issue is further compliated by the fact that some Greek manuscripts have Lebbaeus in place of both Thaddaeus and Judas son of James, which leads the KJV to list this disciple as "Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus." Compare also John 21:2 where a certain Nathanael is identified as a disciple, but does not appear in the lists given in the other three gospels.
In verse 2, Matthew also refers to the twelve disciples as "apostles," but there is a distinction between the two words. An apostle is someone who is sent out on a mission, while a disciple is someone who learns from a teacher or other learned authority.
10:5-6 This is one of several passages where Jesus makes it clear that his message and ministry are for the Jews only. The point is reiterated in 15:24. Paul directly contradicts Jesus on this point by proclaiming that Christ is for everyone. See, for example, Romans 1:16; 10:12-13; Galatians 3:28. Keep in mind that Paul did not know Jesus from personal experience, and none of the gospels had been written at the time Paul was active.
10:10 Jesus advises his disciples to take no sandals, nor a staff, contradicting Mark 6:8-9 where Jesus explicitly includes these in the list of items the disciples should take with them. Oddly, having received this commission to go out into the world, the disciples continue to show up with Jesus throughout the remainder of Matthew's gospel, rather than going off on their own as he instructed.
10:21 Jesus predicts that his message will bring strife and discord to families, as once again family values are subordinated to Jesus's mission. Jesus's vow to set son against father, and daughter against mother (10:34) is directly opposed to the prediction that Elijah "will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers" when he returns before the day of the LORD. (Malachi 4:6)
10:23 "You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of man comes." This is often viewed as one of several failed predictions that Jesus made about the end times. It is not as explicit as some of the other failed predictions such as Matthew 24:34 or Mark 13:30, but nevertheless it illustrates Jesus's characteristic sense of urgency and his belief that the kingdom of God would soon arrive. Of course, it didn't, and this is a major reason for rejecting the teachings of Christianity.
"Gone through" is a phrase that has been added by the translators. The Greek text simply has "you will by no means complete [or finish] the cities of Israel until the son of man comes." Apologists have seized on this to suggest various interpretations of what exactly is to be "completed" or "finished." Some have interpreted it to mean finished converting all the people, which of course, has never been completed, so under this interpretation the passage is literally true. However, this meaning would have had no relevance to the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking, as it would be equivalent to saying "You will die before you complete this task."
Another view is that Jesus is not speaking apocalyptically at all in this verse, but is simply telling his disciples to go on before him, and that he will catch up with them later. They argue that Luke 10:1 supports this view. However, the full context of Jesus's instructions shows that he is indeed speaking apocalyptically here. In verse 7 he tells them to preach that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." In verse 15 he speaks of the day of judgments, and in verse 22 we are told that "he who endures to the end will be saved." Based on context, it is clear that Jesus is indeed referring to the end times in verse 23.
10:24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master." This illustrates a difference between east and west in the approach to knowledge and learning. The notion that wisdom consists in mastering a finite body of knowledge possessed by a learned or priestly class is quintessentially oriental. By contrast the western approach, beginning with the ancient Greeks and resuming with the Renaissance, has adopted the assumption that students can expand the boundaries of knowledge by going beyond their teachers through the application of reason and observation. Compare this saying of Jesus with one from Nietzsche: "One repays a teacher poorly if one always remains a mere student." (from Thus Spoke Zarathustra.)
10:33 Whoever denies Jesus before men will be denied by his heavenly Father. But Peter denied Jesus three times. (Matthew 26:69-75) Therefore, anyone expecting St. Peter to greet them at the pearly gates will be sorely disappointed. For another contradiction connected with this verse, see the comment to 12:31-32.
10:34 Considering passages such as this, it is amazing that one of Jesus's popular titles is "Prince of Peace." Also see Matthew 10:21; Luke 12:51.
10:35 More domestic strife, as Jesus divides families against themselves. Jesus expects us to love him more than we love our own families. Jesus "never regarded the family or the social order as an end in itself." (The Interpreter's Bible, 1951, vol. 7, p.373)
11:3 John the Baptist doesn't know who Jesus is, which is odd given that his role was to "prepare the way" (Matthew 3:3). Also, the voice from heaven identified Jesus as the son of God in 3:17 when Jesus was baptized, but apparently John has forgotten. In the gospel of John, John the Baptist is much better informed, and immediately recognizes Jesus as the "Lamb of God." (John 1:29)
11:10 This Old Testament reference is from Malachi 3:1, which should be read in conjunction with Malachi 4:5 - "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes." Thus, the messenger was to have been Elijah, but in verse 14, Jesus conveniently identifies John the Baptist with Elijah. However, not everyone saw it that way, for we read in Matthew 16:14 that some people viewed Jesus as John the Baptist, while others viewed him as Elijah, indicating that in the popular imagination, John and Elijah were not identical.
A common tactic of the apologists is to equate two individuals who are not identical, solely for the purpose of "fulfilling" a prophecy. Thus, John the Baptist is Elijah, Jesus is the Emmanual of Isaiah 7:14, and the disciple Thaddaeus is equated with Judas son of James, as ways of escaping all of these contradictions.
11:11 Jesus declares that "among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist." But Jesus himself was born of a woman, as Paul himself reminds us in Galatians 4:4. Thus, Jesus is saying that John the Baptist is greater than Jesus himself. Consequently, Jesus cannot be divine. See also the comment to Matthew 3:11.
11:13-14 Jesus reveals that John the Baptist was Elijah. However, in John 1:21, the Baptist denied that he was Elijah.
11:16 Note the use of "this generation," which we will encounter again in Matthew 24:34, where Jesus predicts that he will return in clouds of glory before "this generation" passes away. In interpreting 24:34, Christian apologists have pretended that "this generation" means some generation in the far off future, or the "generation" of mankind as a whole, in order to escape from the obvious fact that Jesus's prediction was wrong. Here, however, in 11:16, it is quite clear that Jesus uses the phrase to refer to those living at the time he was speaking.
11:19 "A glutton and a drunkard." See comment to 9:14.
11:20 Even Jesus's tricks were not sufficient to persuade these cities to repent. Again it appears that John the Baptist did not adequately "prepare the way."
11:21-24 The meek and gentle version of Jesus is certainly not on display here, as Jesus vents his anger at those cities who declined to accept his teaching. This behavior of Jesus is totally inconsistent with the teaching of Paul in Romans 12:14 - "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them." This episode reveals Jesus as temperamental and vindictive, in contrast to the popular image of him. It also reveals him as a liar when he says in verse 29: "I am gentle and lowly in heart."
11:25 Jesus is glad that God has hidden the truth from those who reject his teaching. But then why did he try to win them over in the first place? And if God has hidden the truth from nonbelievers, how can they be held responsible for not believing?
11:27 Jesus appoints himself the gatekeeper to God. No one can come to God except through Jesus.
11:30 "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." In this statement Jesus conveys a completely different message from that expressed in Matthew 10:16; 16:24; Mark 8:34; and Luke 9:23, where he emphasizes the sacrifices and self-denial that await his followers.
12:2 Picking grain on the sabbath. Jesus's disciples are accused of violating the commandment against working on the sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11) by picking and eating grain from the fields (i.e., harvesting and threshing - See Luke 6:1). It is not clear from this account whether Jesus himself also picked grain or not. There is no implication here that the disciples were in danger of starving to death, but simply that they were hungry. In verse 8, Jesus arrogates to himself the right to determine when the sabbath can be violated. Working on the sabbath day was considered a serious violation of God's commandment under Jewish law, and was punishable by death (Exodus 31:15; 35:2).
12:7 See the note to 9:13 above.
12:9-13 Healing on the sabbath. The same principle is involved here as in the picking of grain. This is not an instance of a life-threatening illness that needed to be cured immediately in order to save the man's life. Thus, the Pharisees would have counseled Jesus to wait until the next day to perform the healing, in order to preserve the prohibition against working on the sabbath.
12:16 Jesus orders those who are healed "not to make him known." But again there are crowds of people following him, so it's unlikely that his actions can be kept secret. Also Jesus's desire for secrecy conflicts with the stated purpose of John the Baptist, which was to prepare the way by announcing his coming.
12:18-21 The quoted "prophecy" is from Isaiah 42:1-4. This is an excerpt from the "suffering servant" section of Isaiah. As was noted in the comment to 8:16-17 above, the "servant" in Isaiah refers to the nation of Israel, and not to any particular individual. Another problem with this alleged prophecy is that even taken at face value it cannot refer to Jesus. In contrast to verse 19, many people heard Jesus's voice in many places where he preached, and Jesus did "cry aloud" on the cross (Matthew 27:46). Also, the passage from Isaiah declares that the servant will "proclaim justice to the Gentiles," but Jesus expressly said that he was "only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24) And we have already seen that Jesus ordered his disciples to "go nowhere among the Gentiles." (10:5) Thus, the "prophecy quoted here by Matthew cannot be interpreted as truly referring to Jesus.
12:23 "Son of David" here is used to designate the Messiah. According to the Hebrew scriptures, the Messiah would above all be a human figure, not a god or son of a god. He would be a great military leader who would unite all Jews, rebuild the Temple, and establish peace throughout the world. Jesus, who was captured and killed by the Romans, did not really fit any of these expectations, and was in fact "a most un-messianic Messiah." (Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 841.) For a brief introduction to the Messianic idea in Judaism, see http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm.
12:30 "He who is not with me is against me." But Jesus says just the opposite in Mark 9:40 - "He that is not against us is for us."
12:31-32 Speaking against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. See also Mark 3:29. This gives rise to at least two contradictions. First, we are told elsewhere that everyone who believes in Jesus will have their sins forgiven, and there is no exception listed for speaking against the Holy Spirit: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9) A similar message is given in Acts 10:43. Secondly, the first part of verse 32, which is often overlooked, declares that "whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven," which directly contradicts Jesus's words from Matthew 10:33 - "Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
12:39 Here Jesus denies that any sign will be given to the present generation, except for the sign of Jonah. But in John’s gospel, Jesus gives the people many signs to convince them that he is who he says he is. For examples, see John 4:46-50; 12:37; 20:30.
Once again, the word generation is used in obvious reference to the generation living at the time Jesus was speaking. The Christian apologists try to invent new definitions for it when Jesus uses the word in predicting his arrival on clouds of glory, which of course never happened. (See the comment to 24:34.)
12:40 Jesus predicts that he will be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." But all the crucifixion stories have him crucified on Friday and already out of the tomb early on Sunday morning, so he was "in the heart of the earth" no more than two nights (Friday and Saturday) and one full day (Saturday) - if indeed lying in a stone tomb can be considered "in the heart of the earth."
12:42 "The queen of the South" is the Queen of Sheba, whose visit to Solomon is described in 1 Kings 10:1-7.
12:46-50 Jesus publicly denies his own mother and brothers, preferring instead to call his followers his mother and brothers. In doing so, Jesus directly violates the fifth commandment to honor one's father and mother. (Exodus 20:12) One can well imagine how his mother must have felt in hearing Jesus speak these words. Parallel versions of this episode are found in Mark 3:31-35 and in Luke 8:20-21. John 7:5 adds that "even his brothers did not believe in him." In relating this episode, Matthew omits Mark's suggestion that Jesus's relatives thought he was "beside himself." (Mark 3:21)
13:10-15 Jesus often delivered his teachings in parables, rather than saying directly what he meant. Verse 11 indicates that he speaks in parables deliberately to prevent understanding by those who are not among the ones chosen to receive the truth, and this is consistent with Mark 4:11-12. Later (verse 34) we are told that Jesus "said nothing to them without a parable."
13:33 Jesus likens the kingdom of heaven to leaven, which causes bread to rise. But Paul urged his readers to reject the old leaven and celebrate instead with the “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Corinthians 5:8).
13:35 This reference to speaking in parables is from Psalm 78:2. But in contrast to Jesus's desire to hide the meaning from his listeners (see verses 11-13), the continuation of Psalm 78 states that the purpose of the parables is to reveal knowledge, not to hide it: "We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders which he has wrought." (Psalm 78:4)
13:54-56 The inhabitants of Jesus's own country are amazed at the wisdom of his teaching. They apparently are oblivious to the great predictions that were made by the angel of the Lord (1:20-21) and by the magi (2:2) around the time of Jesus's birth. Also see Luke 1:30-33 and 2:10-11. Jesus's fellow townspeople do not consider him to have any divine qualities at all, but merely view him as "the carpenter's son," not the son of God.
The "brothers" and "sisters" referred to are viewed differently by Protestants and Catholics. Protestants consider these to be children of Mary, i.e., Jesus's younger siblings. Catholics, on the other hand, eager to preserve the perpetual virginity of Mary, treat them as relatives, perhaps cousins, but not as brothers or sisters in the sense of sharing the same parents. (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 1971, p. 1189.)
13:58 Matthew has once again retooled Mark's desription of events. Whereas Mark 6:5 reveals that "Jesus could do no mighty work there," Matthew merely states that "he did not do many mighty works there." There are many passages like this, where Mark's Jesus displays more human qualities than Matthew's. The Greek word translated here as "mighty works" is also translated as "miracles" in some translations.
14:3-12 The death of John the Baptist. Verse 5 tells us that Herod (Antipas) wanted to put John to death but dared not, because he feared the reaction of the people. But the Jewish historian Josephus tells us just the opposite, that Antipas executed John precisely because he feared that John's influence over the common people could enable him to incite a rebellion. (Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, 5:2)
14:26 When the disciples see Jesus walking on the water they think they are seeing a ghost. Even after all the healing miracles and the feeding of the five thousand, the disciples still do not seem to be on board with the concept of Jesus as a divine figure.
14:31 Jesus berates Peter as a “man of little faith.” But Jesus himself prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. (Luke 22:32) Obviously God did not grant Jesus this request because Peter continued to disappoint. In Matthew 16:23 Jesus calls him “Satan” for rejecting the notion of the crucifixion and resurrection, and the story of Peter’s triple denial of Jesus is well known. (Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:72) Since Jesus’s prayer for Peter’s faith was not granted, this incident, as well as the other examples of Peter’s unfaithfulness, stand in direct contradiction to the promise that everyone who asks will receive. (Matthew 7:8; Luke 11:10)
14:33 Finally the disciples seem to "get it" and tell Jesus, "Truly you are the Son of God." Contrast this with Mark 6:51-52, where the disciples show no such recognition even after Jesus walks on the water, as "they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened."
15:4 See comment to 12:46-50 with regard to Jesus's violation of this commandment to honor father and mother.
15:11 Jesus rejects the laws regarding clean and unclean foods, on the grounds that what comes out of a person's mouth is more indicative of moral character than what goes in as food. However, the food laws are based not on relative degrees of defilement, but on God's expressed commands - as for example in Deuteronomy 14:4-20 - and this is why the Pharisees were opposed to Jesus's teaching on the matter. The food laws were not invented by the Pharisees, but were direct commands from Yahweh.
15:16 Jesus shows his impatience with the disciples' lack of understanding. The Greek pronoun for "you" in this passage is plural, indicating that Jesus is referring to the disciples as a group, not just Peter, who asked the question.
15:22-28 The woman who asks Jesus for help is a Gentile, i.e., a non-Jew. Jesus responds by saying that he "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." This statement is impossible to reconcile with the notion of Jesus as the universal savior of mankind. In verse 26, the "children" are the children of Israel, and the "dogs" are non-Jews. By refrring to non-Jews as dogs, Jesus reveals the narrowness of his theological perspective. In verse 28, Jesus makes an exception and heals her daughter anyway. See also the comment to 10:5-6. Mark's parallel version is in Mark 7:24-30.
But even though Jesus here says he was sent only to Israel, he reverses himself in Matthew 28:19, telling his disciples to convert all the nations.
15:33 Apparently the disciples do not recall the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, for they are at a loss as to how they are going to feed the large crowd in the middle of the desert.
15:38 The four thousand do not include women and children. Mark 8:9 simply says there were "four thousand" without specifying gender or age.
16:4 "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign." Once again, generation refers to those living while Jesus is speaking, as is shown by his previous sentence, "you cannot interpret the signs of the times." Remember this when we get to Matthew 24:34.
The exception allowed in this verse – that the sign of Jonah will be given – contradicts Mark 8:12 where Jesus says that no sign, without exception, will be given to the present generation.
16:12 Jesus warns the disciples to beware of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but reverses himself in 23:2-3.
16:13-14 More evidence that John the Baptist did not do a good job of “preparing the way.” As the disciples report, many people think Jesus and John are one and the same, while others mistake Jesus for one of the Old Testament prophets.
16:16 Peter identifies Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” “Christ” is from the Greek Christos, which is a translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah. It originally meant “anointed one of God” and was applied to the ancient Hebrew kings, eventually becoming identified with a future hero from David’s line who would lead the Hebrew nation to glory in a world of peace and prosperity under God’s direct rule. In the Gospels, the term “Christ” is used to refer to Jesus, but it is not clearly defined or elaborated on as a title, and no direct connection with the Old Testament meaning is made. Note that the author of Matthew has added “Son of the living God” to the version found in Mark 8:29, where Peter simply says, “You are the Christ,” indicating that Matthew has something more in mind than the traditional Jewish concept of messiahship. “Christos” does not mean “savior” in the sense of one who saves people from their sins, and does not mean “son of God.” Some authors have observed that in the New Testament, “Christ” simply functions as a surname for Jesus.
16:18 Peter is the “rock” on which Jesus proposes to build his church. There is a pun on the name Petros and the Greek word for rock, petra. Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek, but the pun works there too, with Kepha being the word for both. Thus, we will see Peter referred to as Cephas in Paul’s letters, where he is rarely referred to as Peter. The foundation may not be as firm as the metaphor suggests, because Peter later denied even knowing Jesus. See Matthew 26:74, as well as comparable passages in Mark 14:71 and Luke 22:57.
Despite what Jesus says about Peter being the rock of the church, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 3:11 that Jesus Christ is the only foundation.
16:20 Jesus orders the disciples to “tell no one that he was the Christ.” But this contradicts his words in the gospel of John, where Jesus is quoted as saying, “I have spoken openly to the world . . . I have said nothing secretly.” (John 18:20)
16:21 Jesus here tells his disciples what is to happen to him in Jerusalem, including that he must “suffer many things,” and “be killed, and on the third day be raised.” Yet John 20:9 tells us that the disciples “did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.”
16:23 It was only five verses ago that Jesus was founding his church on Peter the rock and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven--and now he’s calling Peter Satan because “you are not on the side of God.” Obviously, Peter is still not with the program.
Jesus’s rebuke to Peter is also found in Mark 8:33, but Mark’s gospel does not have the reference to Peter being the rock on which the church is to be founded.
16:27 According to Jesus, when he returns with his angels, everyone will be rewarded according to his actions – not according to his degree of faith, as Paul taught. (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28)
16:28 One of several verses where Jesus announces that the kingdom of God will soon arrive. Jesus clearly tells his listeners that some of them “will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” But what exactly is meant by the coming of the kingdom? Certain other verses are more explicit than this passage. See for example Mark 13:24-30 and Matthew 24:29-31. Still, we are told here that “the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.” (v. 27) We are certainly safe in assuming that all those to whom Jesus spoke have by now “tasted death.” So what happened to the kingdom? Did it arrive and perhaps we missed it? That would imply that Jesus came with angels in the glory of God and repaid every man for his deeds, while most of the human race remained oblivious to the event. Such a divine arrival and widespread payback to all mankind could hardly have escaped unnoticed. Jesus’s words in verse 16:28 are a failed prediction.
17:1-8 The transfiguration. Jesus takes Peter, James and John up on a mountain, where Jesus is “transfigured,” but in fact he does not undergo any true metamorphosis (which is the word used in the Greek text), but only becomes very bright. Readers familiar with the Kafka story will find Jesus’s “metamorphosis” rather tame. While Jesus is emitting this bright glow, Moses and the Old Testament prophet Elijah suddenly appear. Although they are described as talking with Jesus, there is no mention of what they said. Then, a voice from a cloud says, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Then, just as suddenly, the event is over. Recall that Elijah was expected to appear on earth before the coming of the kingdom of God (Malachi 4:5-6). This transfiguration episode also appears in Mark 9:1-8 and Luke 9:28-36.
The theological significance of the transfiguration is not widely agreed upon. The event is open to multiple interpretations, even within the writings of a single author. One commentator manages to combine contradictory interpretations into a single sentence: “Moses and Elijah were a part of the picture to show both continuity with the OT in the ministry of Jesus and his own uniqueness and absolute authority.” (Daniel B. Wallace, “The Transfiguration of Jesus: Some Biblico-Theological Reflections.” It is not possible for Jesus to be at the same time continuous with Old Testament theology as well as a unique and absolute authority, because the latter forms no part of the former. But such logical nuisances are often dispensed with in the formulation of theological positions.
17:9 Again, Jesus calls for secrecy, in contradiction to his words in John 18:20.
17:13 Jesus conveniently identifies John the Baptist with Elijah, thus removing a prerequisite for his own claim to be the Messiah. Contradicting Jesus’s claim, John the Baptist himself denied being Elijah (John 1:21).
17:20 Here the disciples cannot cast out the demon because they had "too little faith." But in the same episode related by Mark, Jesus tells them they couldn’t cast out the demon because “this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.” (Mark 9:29) Also, after blaming their little faith, Jesus tells the disciples that even faith as little as a mustard seed can move mountains. So if they were unable to cast out the demon, their faith must have been even smaller than a mustard seed.
17:22-23 See the comment to Matthew 16:21.
18:17 Another indication that Jesus’s message is only for the Jews. Those who refuse to listen to the advice of the church are to be treated as “Gentiles and tax collectors.” Gentiles, i.e., non-Jews, are thus used as a symbol for those who are outside the church.
The word translated here as “church” gives the impression that there were churches in the modern sense at the time Jesus was preaching. There were not. The Greek word means “congregation” and a congregation could assemble pretty much anywhere. Early Christian congregations often assembled at the home of one of the members, but even this level of organization did not take place until after Jesus’s death.
Although in this passage Jesus refers to tax collectors as outsiders, he himself was known to associate with them. See, for example, Matthew 9:11; 11:19. And of course, the disciple Matthew was himself a tax collector. (Matthew 10:3)
18:19 Jesus seems to be saying that God will grant any prayer agreed on by any two individuals. Experience shows that this does not happen. And what happens if two groups of people pray for contradictory results? See also the comment to Matthew 6:7-13.
18:22 No one would suggest that Jesus should be taken literally when he says we should forgive “seventy times seven,” which would mean that sin number 491 opens the floodgates of revenge. But if this passage should be taken as a figure of speech, where do we draw the line on doing the same with the rest of the New Testament? Are the images of hellfire and eternal punishment also meant to be taken symbolically? Those who argue for an absolutely literal understanding of the Bible must then take Jesus at his word here and only forgive 490 times, but no more.
19:9 See the comment to Matthew 5:32. Note also that the rules on divorce are directed solely at the husband. Apparently, the possibility of a woman divorcing her husband was so unheard of as to require no guidance.
19:12 One hopes that this is another passage that is intended to be taken metaphorically, and many commentators take this verse as an expression of support for celibacy, not a call for physical castration. However, cases are known where the advice was taken literally. See Philip Culbertson’s review of Gary Taylor’s Castration: An Abbreviated History of Western Manhood in the Anglican Theological Review (Spring 2002).
19:17 On the question of who is good, note the contrast here with the same story in Mark 10:17-18. In Mark’s version, the rich young man addresses Jesus as “Good teacher,” but in Matthew he is simply called “teacher,” and the question is about good deeds. Matthew, who used Mark’s gospel as a source, was clearly uncomfortable with Jesus’s implication that he himself is not good, and that he is distinct from God. So, as he frequently does, Matthew modifies the exchange to expunge the theological difficulties. Luke’s gospel, on the other hand, preserves the wording of Mark’s original in Luke 18:18-19.
19:21 Perfection requires us to sell what we have and give to the poor. Might perfection be an unrealistic goal? Not according to Jesus’s words in Matthew 5:48.
19:23-24 Once again Jesus emphasizes that pursuit of material wealth is an obstacle to entering the kingdom of God. Recall also Matthew 6:19.
19:26 “With God all things are possible,” contradicting Judges 1:19 where we are told that God could not defeat the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots. “With men this is impossible” also runs into a contradiction in Mark 9:23, where Jesus declared that “all things are possible to him who believes.”
19:29 Once again, family ties are unimportant to Jesus. Those who desert their families to follow Jesus will have reward in heaven. Luke 18:29 adds “wife” to the list of family members that can be abandoned in order to follow Jesus. The KJV also has “wife” here in Matthew’s list, but the RSV does not. This is because the KJV translators used a later Greek manuscript, to which “wife” had been added, but the word does not appear in the more ancient manuscripts which were available to the RSV translators.
20:18-19 This is the third time that Jesus tells the disciples that he is going to be killed and rise on the third day. See the comment to 16:21.
20:20 Here the mother of James and John requests that her sons receive preferred status in Jesus’s kingdom. However, in Mark’s gospel (10:37), James and John request this for themselves. Once again, there is theological purpose behind Matthew’s modification of the Markan source. Mark portrays James and John as petty and self-centered, concerned only with their own advancement, and uncomprehending of the true nature of the kingdom which Jesus proclaimed. Matthew removes this awkwardness by putting the request in the mouth of the disciples’ mother. However, in answer to Jesus's question about drinking from the same cup, Matthew writes that "They said to him, We are able." (v.22) In changing the questioner, Matthew has apparently forgotten to modify the response to read "she" instead of "they."
20:23 Jesus himself is subject to the authority of God the father, who alone can grant favored positions in the kingdom of heaven. This is one of many verses that argue against the Trinitarian position which views Jesus as co-equal with God the Father and with the Holy Spirit. Other examples include Mark 10:18; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 3:23.
And if seating positions in heave are not for Jesus to give, this verse directly contradicts John 3:35, where we are told that “the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.” See also the comment to Matthew 28:18.
20:28 This is the first hint of the orthodox salvation scheme, where Jesus’s sacrifice is viewed as a “ransom for many.” However, the word “salvation” does not appear anywhere in Matthew’s gospel, nor does the word “savior.” Furthermore, the Greek word translated as “for,” “does not necessarily mean ‘in place of’; the word can hardly bear the weight of substitutionary theories of the Atonement.” (The Interpreter's Bible, 1951, vol. 7, p. 497)
Although Jesus says here that he did not come to be served (or “ministered unto”), he allows himself to be pampered with expensive ointment in Matthew 26:6-10; Mark 14:3-8;and John 12:3-8). He also had women “ministering unto him” on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem. (Mark 15:41)
20:30 “Two blind men sitting by the roadside.” This contradicts Mark’s version of the same story, where there is only one blind man, by the name of Bartimaeus. (Mark 10:46-47) It cannot be claimed that two separate incidents are being described by Matthew and Mark, for the details are identical except for the number of blind men. In both passages, the healing occurs just as Jesus was leaving Jericho; the blind men use the same phrase to ask for help, referring to Jesus in both cases as the son of David; in both instances the crowd rebukes the blind man/men for bothering Jesus; and in both cases Jesus asks “What do you want me to do for you?” So it is not credible that two separate incidents would have all these details in common.
Another apologetic defense is to claim that Bartimaeus of Mark’s account is one of the two blind men in Matthew’s story. But if this is the case, then Jesus’s quoted words contradict themselves, because Matthew has Jesus speaking to two men, as we can tell by the fact that he uses a plural Greek verb as well as a plural pronoun in Matthew 20:32. Mark, however, quotes Jesus as speaking to Bartimaeus using a singular verb and a singular pronoun. So if the two accounts are supposed to be the same incident, then Jesus’s words are misquoted in one of them, because Jesus would not have addressed the two men in Matthew in the plural, then turn around and address one of them again in the singular.
Luke once again is consistent with Mark, at least on the number of blind men (Luke 18:35). But in contrast with Matthew and Mark, Luke’s gospel has this event occurring as Jesus is approaching Jericho, not as he is leaving it.
21:2 Jesus covets another person’s donkey, in violation of the tenth commandment (Exodus 20:17). It is unclear whether the donkey’s owner gave permission for the donkey to be taken, but if he did not, then Jesus also violated the eighth commandment against stealing (Exodus 20:15). Luke’s version does have the animal’s owner asking, “Why are you untying the colt?” (Luke 19:33) But there is no indication that he then gave permission for the disciples to take it. In Mark’s version, the bystanders ask, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” (Mark 11:5) but we are not told that they are the animal’s owners. In any case, Mark’s statement that “they let them go” does not give enough information to tell whether permission was given or not.
21:5 Another Old Testament “prophecy,” from Zechariah 9:9. However, there were surely many individuals who fulfilled this prediction, as donkeys were a common mode of transportation in the middle east at the time, and there would have been nothing special or unusual about riding into the city on a donkey. In Matthew’s version, the text is slightly misquoted, resulting in the absurd picture of Jesus riding on a donkey and a colt at the same time. The Septuagint, which Matthew may have used as his source for Zechariah, also has “and.”
21:7 The RSV's “And he sat thereon” is a modification of the literal “and he sat on them.” This may be an attempt to avoid the absurdity of Jesus sitting on both the donkey and the colt at the same time. But in this verse “on them” could also refer to the garments that the crowd placed on the animals, rather than to the animals themselves. The NASB translation adopts this interpretation explicitly by rendering it as "and He sat on the coats." The NIV leaves it ambiguous by retaining the literal, "and Jesus sat on them."
21:10 Jesus enters Jerusalem. Note that this is his first trip to Jerusalem, according to Matthew’s gospel, as we can tell by the fact that the city’s inhabitants were asking “Who is this?” This contradicts John’s gospel, which has Jesus making a total of four trips to Jerusalem during his ministry (John 2:13; 5:1; 7:14; 12:12) Also, if John the Baptist was supposed to “prepare the way” (Matthew 3:3), we can certainly wonder why the inhabitants of Jerusalem did not know who Jesus was when he arrived.
21:11 Note that Jesus is introduced as “the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee.” He is not introduced as the son of God, or as the Messiah, or as the savior of mankind. Nor is he described as being from Bethlehem.
21:12 Jesus drives away the moneychangers from the Temple on the day of his arrival in Jerusalem. This story is told in all four gospels. Parallel versions are in Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45; John 2:15. But in John’s gospel the incident occurs early in Jesus’s career, at a time when John the Baptist was still active. (See John 3:23.) And in Mark’s version, Jesus waits until the second day to disrupt the temple activities. On the day they entered the city, Mark has Jesus and the disciples merely looking around and then leaving for the night. (Mark 11:11)
This episode is often referred to as the “cleansing” of the Temple, as though there were something sacrilegious about the moneychangers and the pigeon sellers. However, there was a religious purpose behind these activities. Animals were sold so that the Jewish sacrificial rituals could be performed - as commanded by God in Deuteronomy 14:24-25 - and the moneychangers exchanged Roman coins for Jewish ones, with which to pay the Temple tax. (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 1973, p. 1199) In fact, the “cleansing” was a violent interference with the normal religious practices of the Temple.
21:19 Jesus curses the fig tree, and it withers at once. No reason is given for the cursing, except that Jesus is angry because the tree had no fruit. Mark tells us (11:13) that it wasn’t even the season for figs. Again, the meek and mild caricature of Jesus is shown to be false. See the comment to Matthew 11:24.
Note that the sequence of events related here in Matthew’s gospel contradicts that of Mark. Matthew has the following order. Day 1: entry into the city, disruption of the temple, departure for Bethany to spend the night. Day 2: the cursing of the fig tree, which withers at once, and then back to the temple. But in Mark, we have Day 1: entry into the city and a brief tour of the sights before leaving to spend the night at Bethany. Day 2: the cursing of the fig tree (which does not wither immediately), disruption of the temple, departure from the city that evening. Day 3: they notice that the fig tree has withered and then proceed again to the temple.
Luke does not have this same story about the cursing of the fig tree, but has Jesus tell a parable about a fig tree which does not give fruit (Luke 13:6-9). In this parable, the tree gets a second chance: extra manure and one more year to produce fruit.
21:22 Jesus again promises that those who pray will receive what they ask for. Note that he doesn’t say that prayers will merely be answered, but that they will be granted. Christian apologists often say that God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is “No.” This verse makes it clear that the Bible promises the answer will always be “Yes,” as long as we “have faith and never doubt.” See the comment to Matthew 18:19.
21:43 This verse has been variously interpreted. Some see it as directed at the Jewish people on account of their supposed rejection of Jesus (never mind that all of his followers were also Jews). Others see it as referring only to the Jewish leaders, and not to the people as a whole. Note that at the beginning of this discourse, Jesus’s remarks are directed to the “chief priests and elders” (v.23) while at the end there is a reference to “chief priests and the Pharisees,” (v.45) and these groups of religious leaders are the most reasonable antecedent of the pronoun “you” in verse 43, given the context. Also note that in verse 45, the chief priests and Pharisees perceive that Jesus was “speaking about them.”
The “nation producing the fruits of it” is sometimes viewed as the church, although there was no such organization at the time Jesus spoke, and the Greek word ethnos, which Matthew uses here, is not the normal word for “church,” which would be ekklesia. Ethnos has the additional connotation of “non-Hebrew,” which at the time of Matthew’s writing typically meant Greeks.
22:11-13 It is not clear why a man pulled in off the street to attend a wedding would be expected to have a wedding garment, but apparently even a fashion faux pas is enough to get a person tied up and thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
22:15-22 Render unto Caesar. The plain meaning of Jesus’s teaching is that there are distinct realms for political or worldly concerns on the one hand, and religious concerns on the other. It is almost as though Jesus were espousing the separation of church and state. In verse 21 he is clearly saying that the things that belong to Caesar are not part of what belongs to God. Christian apologists, of course, do not accept this obvious reading of Jesus’s words and go to great lengths to argue that the things that belong to Caesar are subordinate to and a part of those that belong to God. This, however, is not what Jesus says here.
22:30 There will be no marriage in heaven, which implies that those expecting to be reunited with their loved ones in heaven will be sadly disappointed. Perhaps they’ll be “just friends.” The same point is made in Mark 12:25.
22:37 Here Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5. The “great commandment” to love God with “all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” is not even included as one of the Ten Commandments. (See Exodus 20:2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21.)
22:39 What Jesus calls the second commandment, to “love your neighbor as yourself,” is from Leviticus 19:18, and is also not mentioned as one of the Ten Commandments in Exodus or Deuteronomy.
22:40 It is not clear on what authority Jesus reduces the entire law to these two commandments. These statements appear to directly contradict his words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-18) where he emphasizes that not a dot of the law will pass away until heaven and earth pass away – and the five books of the law contain a great many dots, which seem to have disappeared in these verses. It is claimed by the apologists that Jesus here is merely “summarizing’ the law, and reducing it to its essentials. But a reading of the five books of the Torah does not support the idea that any such reduction is possible or would be approved of by Yahweh. The overriding theme of the Torah is not love, but obedience. Furthermore, there are many commandments that seem to bear no relationship at all to the two cited here. For example, the commandment of Leviticus 3:17 to “eat neither fat nor blood” can hardly be subsumed under these two directives cited by Jesus. Nor can the commandment of Leviticus 18:23 against having sex with animals.
22:42 Note that Jesus does not claim to be the Christ, but simply asks the Pharisees what they think of him. Recall that “Christ” is the Greek word for “the anointed” or the “Messiah.” It was expected that the Messiah would descend from David’s line, but here Jesus challenges that view, thereby calling into question the whole point of the genealogy with which Matthew begins his gospel, and conflicting with Paul’s assertion in Romans 1:3 that the son of God was “descended from David according to the flesh.”
22:44 Jesus bases his argument on this quotation from Psalm 110. In “The Lord said to my Lord,” the first “Lord” is taken to mean God, and the second “Lord” is interpreted as the Messiah. Then, assuming that the Psalm was written by David himself, as the early traditions maintained, David is seen to be referring to the Messiah as “my Lord” which would make no sense if the Messiah was indeed descended from him. “If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (v. 45)
The quotation in verse 44 is almost exactly word for word from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures. The Hebrew text of the Psalm is “unusually corrupt and the interpretation of many details extremely difficult.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 1973, p. 744) So at best, Jesus’s interpretation of the psalm is questionable. For our purposes, the main point is that Jesus rejects the notion of the Messiah being descended from David, thus contradicting Paul and other New Testament sources.
23:2-3 In an astounding reversal, Jesus now tells his followers to “practice and observe whatever they [the scribes and Pharisees] tell you.” It appears that his quarrel is not with their teaching but with their practice – they do not practice what they preach. This is in direct contradiction of Matthew 16:12, where Jesus had warned the disciples to beware of “the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” And despite his advice here, Jesus himself rejects the teaching of the Pharisees in Mark 2:23-28, where he overrules them on the issue of working on the Sabbath.
23:9 Jesus again undermines family ties, urging his followers to “call no man your father on earth.” Do Catholics violate this commandment by referring to their priests as “Father”?
23:13-36 Jesus attacks the scribes and Pharisees in a series of woes called down upon them. In doing so, he puts himself into conflict with the teaching of Paul, who wrote: “Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.” (Romans 12:14)
23:17 Jesus violates his own rule against calling people fools. By his own words in Matthew 5:22, Jesus is thus in danger of hell fire.
23:20-22 Here Jesus seems to condone swearing, in contrast to his instruction in 5:34.
23:35 Jesus refers to the wrong Zechariah. It was not Zechariah the son of Barachiah, but Zechariah the son of Jehoiada who was murdered. The incident is recounted in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. Zechariah the son of Barachiah was not murdered, but died a natural death, according to early traditions. (The Interpreter's Bible, 1951, vol. 7, p.540)
24:3 The disciples ask when the end will come and what will be the signs of Jesus’s second coming. In the time when Matthew was writing, the Jewish rebellion against the Romans had ended with the complete defeat of the Jews and the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Many followers of Jesus expected that Jesus would return during that war to lead the Jews to victory. When that didn’t happen, explanations had to be found. Matthew’s gospel uses this discourse of Jesus to point out that the war was only the beginning of the tribulations and not the end.
24:6 There are “wars and rumors of wars” in every age, but this has never stopped fundamentalists from believing that their own age is the one that fulfills these signs. Similarly for the famines and earthquakes mentioned in v.7.
24:14 For all practical purposes, the gospel has already been “preached throughout the whole world,” even though not everyone has been persuaded by it. One would be hard pressed to come up with the name of a nation that has not been subjected to Christian missionary efforts. Despite this fact, the promised end has not come.
24:24 Jesus warns that even false Christs and false prophets can perform great signs and wonders. Thus, performing miracles is no guarantee that an alleged prophet is really Christ. It follows then, that the miracles of Jesus himself do not prove him to be the genuine article. How can we know whether he was just another false prophet beguiling the gullible crowds with cheap tricks? See also 2 Thessalonians 2:9, which warns of “false wonders” to be performed by the lawless one working with Satan.
24:27 Jesus’s coming will not be subtle or hidden, but as obvious as the lightning that flashes from east to west.
24:29-31 In these verses we get specific predictions as to what will happen at the end. There is nothing vague about this. The sun and moon will be darkened, the stars will fall from heaven, and Jesus will arrive on clouds of glory. He will send out angels who will gather the elect from all over the world.
24:34 Another specific prediction – and a big one. All the things mentioned in verses 29-31 would occur before “this generation” passes away. “This generation” clearly refers to the generation that Jesus is speaking to, and we have seen that the word has been used in that sense throughout Matthew’s gospel. One would not use the modifier “this” to refer to an event in the far off future. “The normal meaning of this generation would be ‘men of our time,’ and the words would refer to a period of 20-30 years.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 1973, p.1204) Needless to say, the predicted events did not happen, showing that Jesus was not who the Christians think he was. He was simply a man, a hot-headed religious rebel, who was mistaken about his own importance, and about the reality of the Jewish God.
This verse makes the apologists squirm, and there is no convincing way out for them. They try to squeeze out alternate meanings for “generation,” but none are consistent with the way the word is normally used. It has been suggested that “this generation” refers not to the generation that Jesus was speaking to, but to the generation that will be living when all these signs take place. But that gets us into the absurd position of having Jesus say, “The generation living at the time all these signs take place, will be living when these signs take place.” The simplest explanation, and the only one consistent with the realities of the language and with later events, is just to admit that Jesus was wrong.
A different strategy for getting around the failed prediction of the second coming, is to claim that God has voluntarily delayed the end in order to give sinners more time in which to repent of their sins. However, in the two thousand or so years since Jesus’s prediction, many more sinners have been born, most of whom are not even Christians, and these billions of lost souls massively outnumber those who were living in Jesus’s time and for whom God’s mercy supposedly granted a delay. So the net result of postponing the end would have been for more sinners to be lost, rather than more saved. There is no way out. The second coming and the end of the age should have already occurred, according to Jesus’s prediction.
24:35 Jesus states that “heaven and earth will pass away,” but “the world stands firm, never to be moved” according to 1 Chronicles 16:30 (RSV). The firmness and durability of the world is also expressed in Psalm 93:1; 96:10.
24:36 Christian apologists use this verse to claim that Jesus never made any precise prediction as to when he would return. But here Jesus only tells his listeners that he knows not the day or the hour. This does not preclude knowing that the end will come sometime during the present generation, which indeed he did predict in verse 34. Also note that this verse undermines the doctrine of the Trinity, by admitting that God the Father knows more than Jesus the Son, and therefore they cannot be of equal stature in terms of divine characteristics.
24:39 The account of the flood in Genesis does not say that it suddenly “swept them all away,” but that it rose gradually during the course of the forty days, and eventually covered the entire earth. (See Genesis 7:17-20.) However, the analogy with the flood is immediately broken as Jesus goes on to say they will not all be swept away, that one man working in the field will be taken, and the other left (v. 40), and similarly with the women grinding at the mill (v. 41).
24:44 All those who took Jesus’s advice to “be ready” died while waiting. How can anyone be alert and watch if they are dead? Jesus’s advice makes no sense if his coming was going to be delayed for over 2000 years.
25:29 This verse contradicts the numerous verses which tell us that earthly fortunes will be reversed in the kingdom of God. This is the view expressed in Matthew 19:30, and 20;16, for example, where we are told that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. Others include Mark 9:35; 10:31; Luke 13:30.
25:40,45 Jesus’s radical politics are in evidence here, where he indicates that people will be judged on the basis of how they treat those of lowest station in society.
25:46 The penalty for those who do not help the hungry and the poor is eternal punishment. Although there are numerous references to eternal life throughout the New Testament, this is the only verse that explicitly mentions eternal punishment. Jude 1:7 refers to the “punishment of eternal fire” but in Jude it is the fire that is eternal, not the punishment, and similarly with Matthew 18:8. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 speaks of “eternal destruction” but not eternal punishment.
26:10-11 It appears that the disciples took seriously Jesus’s teaching about caring for the poor. But despite all his concern for the less fortunate, Jesus does not reject the opportunity to be pampered by having his body oiled with a very expensive ointment. One can hardly imagine John the Baptist allowing himself this royal treatment.
Although Jesus excuses this indulgence by telling his disciples, “You will not always have me,” he takes leave of the disciples in Matthew 28:20 by telling them “I am with you always.”
26:14 Judas seeks to betray Jesus for money. In what follows, it is not clear what exactly Judas did to betray Jesus. Jesus was not in hiding, and the chief priests and scribes had confronted him already in Matthew 21:15-16, so they knew who he was. It appears that Judas’s “betrayal” consisted of nothing more than identifying Jesus by kissing him (26:48). But Jesus was already well-known by this time, so surely he could have been arrested at any time without Judas’s help, as Jesus himself points out in v.55.
26:28 Only Matthew adds “for the forgiveness of sins” to Jesus’s comment about the blood of the covenant. The phrase does not appear in Mark 14:24 or Luke 22:20.
26:31 One would think that Jesus could have chosen more reliable followers.
26:34 Here, Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows, but in Mark 14:30, 72 the third denial is said to come before the cock crows twice. Luke 22:34,60 and John 13:38; 18:27 also have the cock crowing only once. It cannot be maintained that the cock really crowed twice in all four versions, but that Mark was the only one to mention the second crowing. The reason is that “immediately” after Peter’s third denial in Mark 14:72, the rooster crows for the second time, meaning that it must have crowed for the first time before the third denial, in order for the second crowing to follow immediately upon the third denial. However, Matthew, Luke, and John all are explicit that the cock will not crow at all before Peter denies Jesus for the third time. The King James Version omits “immediately” (Greek euthus) from its translation of Mark 14:72, but all the modern translations include it.
26:39 Jesus asks to be spared from his fate. In a startling admission, Jesus reveals that his will and God’s will are not the same: “Not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Matthew’s Jesus does not quite display the extreme distress shown by Mark’s Jesus in Mark 14:33-35, but he still reveals himself as an unwilling participant.
26:49 Judas identifies Jesus by giving him a kiss, but in John’s gospel, there is no kiss. Instead, Jesus steps forward and identifies himself. (John 18:4-6)
26:51 Because the crowd comes upon Jesus “while he was still speaking,” and at that moment he was still only with Peter and the sons of Zebedee (James and John), we know that the sword must have been wielded by one of these three. In John 18:10 we are told that it is indeed Peter who cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave. In Luke 22:36, Jesus orders his disciples to buy swords if they do not already have them. It is not clear whether he has in mind armed resistance to his captors, or whether he expects God to lead a great uprising against the Romans and he wants his disciples to be ready to take part.
26:52 If “all who take the sword will perish by the sword,” why was Peter carrying a sword in the first place, and why did Jesus order his disciples in Luke 22:36 to buy swords? See comment to 26:51 above. And how do Christians explain the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:34, where he says that he came “not to bring peace, but a sword” if all those who take up the sword are to perish by it?
26:55 As noted before, Jesus could have been seized at any time while preaching in the temple, so Judas’s betrayal was not necessary in order for Jesus to be captured and crucified.
26:56 It is not clear what scriptures Jesus has in mind when he says that “all this has taken place that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” But his disciples must not have been convinced, because they all “forsook him and fled.”
26:57 Jesus before the high priest. Matthew’s story of this “trial” is not consistent with what is known of Jewish legal procedure at the time. To take just one example, “the only blasphemy punishable by death was one in which the divine name was used blasphemously. The claim to be Messiah or to sit on the right hand of the power of God could scarcely be a capital offense.” (The Interpreter's Bible, 1951, vol. 7, p.585) In any event, Jesus was not executed for religious blasphemy, but for political rebellion against Roman authority. Crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, while stoning would have been the penalty if Jesus had been convicted for a capital offense under Jewish law.
This proceeding takes place during the night, as we can tell by the fact that morning does not come until verse 27:1. In Luke’s version, the assembly does not gather until morning, when the same general line of questioning is reported as that which took place during the night in Matthew and Mark.
26:63 Jewish tradition did not view the Messiah (i.e., “Christ”) as the son of God, so the question of whether Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God” is not one that rings true when put by the Jewish high priest.
26:64 Note that Jesus does not answer “Yes” to this question, but “You have said so.” Some scholars suggest that Jesus’s answer should be interpreted to mean “Yes,” and some English translations go so far as to substitute “Yes” for what the Greek text actually says. See, for example, the New International Version, where Jesus’s words are rendered as “Yes, it is as you say,” when the literal translation of the Greek is “You said.” An ambiguous or noncommittal response from Jesus would be perfectly in character for him, and in keeping with his preference for speaking in parables, rather than making direct statements.
27:2 Pilate, as Roman governor, would have had no interest in Jewish theological disputes, but would have had a keen interest in firmly suppressing any threat to Roman rule in the province.
27:3-5 There are two contradictory versions of what Judas did with the pieces of silver, and how he died. Here, he brings the money back and then hangs himself. But in Acts 1:18 he bought a field with the money, and died of a fall when all his bowels gushed out. Apologists sometimes assert that there is no contradiction, because both versions could be true! In order to substantiate this claim, they invent additional "facts," which do not occur in the biblical text, such as that Judas tried to hang himself, but was cut down before he died, so survived and later died in his field when he burst open and his bowels gushed out. Or that he hanged himself to a tree overlooking a cliff, and the branch broke, whereupon he fell into his field below and burst open,etc. Such inventions are pure fancy, and are so implausible we may well assume that the gospel authors would have included them in the narrative if this is indeed what they had in mind. No reasonable author would have omitted such remarkable details if they had actually occurred.
27:9 This is another false “prophecy” from the Old Testament. The quotation does not exist in any Old Testament book. Note that Matthew wrongly attributes this “prophecy” to Jeremiah. There is nothing in Jeremiah that mentions thirty pieces of silver. There is one reference in Jeremiah to the purchase of a field, but in that case the price was seventeen shekels of silver, not thirty (Jeremiah 32:9). The closest we can get to an Old Testament source for Matthew’s claim is Zechariah 11:12, but in Zechariah, the thirty shekels are the wages of a shepherd, who is doing the work of Yahweh. Even in the passage from Zechariah there’s nothing to connect the thirty shekels with any story of betrayal. Various sums of money are mentioned throughout the Old Testament and it is quite arbitrary to pick one of them and call it a prophecy of the Judas story. In Exodus 21:32, thirty shekels of silver is also the price to be paid as restitution if an ox gores another man’s slave.
Matthew’s incorrect quotation was noted in ancient and medieval times, and some scribes attempted to correct the problem by altering the text as they were copying the manuscript. “Since the quotation which Matthew (xxvii. 9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah (xi. 12 f.), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error, either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether.” (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 3rd ed., p.199.)
27:11 Jesus before Pilate. Note that Pilate’s question is different from that of the high priest. Pilate is not interested in charges of blasphemy, but in whether Jesus claims to be “King of the Jews.” Since Judea is under the direct rule of Rome, any claim to be King of the Jews would be a challenge to Rome’s authority – i.e., treason.
Again Jesus’s response is often mistranslated in the English versions of the Bible. The literal translation is “You say.” But the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible both have Jesus responding in the affirmative. Note also that Jesus answers Pilate’s question differently here than in John’s gospel. Instead of “You say so,” John’s gospel has Jesus counter Pilate’s inquiry with a question of his own: “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” (John 18:34, RSV)
27:12-14 Jesus makes no answer to the charges against him, in violation of the commandment in Leviticus 5:1, which requires a witness in a legal proceeding to give testimony. This violation, along with others, makes Jesus a sinner. See also the note to Matthew 12:46-50.
27:15 Matthew's version does not include the appearance before Herod (i.e., Herod Antipas) related in Luke’s gospel.
27:25 “His blood be on us.” This verse has long been viewed by Christians as an admission of guilt by the Jewish people for crucifying Jesus. Hence, the accusation by some Christians that the Jews are “Christ killers.”
Matthew’s account portrays Pilate as eager to release Jesus, having found no guilt in him, and unwilling to take responsibility for his execution. But this conflicts with Acts 4:27, which includes Pilate as one of the rulers who had conspired against Jesus.
27:28 The color of the robe is here referred to as “scarlet” while in Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 it is “purple.” This may not be a contradiction, however, as it is possible that purple dye could be used to create a scarlet color, or that the various shades denoted by these colors could overlap. The Greek words are different, however, with kokkinos (“scarlet”) used in Matthew’s gospel, and porfurous (“purple”) used in Mark and John. The main point of the passage is that the Roman soldiers are mocking Jesus’s claim to be the king of the Jews by clothing him in “royal” style.
27:32 Here, Simon of Cyrene is forced to carry Jesus’s cross to the place of execution, contradicting John’s claim that Jesus carried his own cross (John 19:17). Typically, a prisoner condemned to crucifixion did not carry the entire cross, but only the crossbeam – the post having been prepositioned at the site of execution. (The Interpreter's Bible, 1951, vol. 7, p.600)
27:33 There is no contradiction between this verse and Luke 23:33 in the KJV, which gives the location as “Calvary” instead of “Golgotha.” “Calvary” is from a Latin word meaning “skull” and this is also the meaning of the Hebrew “Golgotha” as well as the Greek “Kranion.” (See “Mount Calvary,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
27:34 For a discussion on whether Matthew and Mark agree as to what Jesus was given to drink on the cross, see the comment to Mark 15:23.
27:37 All four gospels report that an inscription of the charges was hung on the cross with Jesus, but they differ as to what the exact wording was. See Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19.
27:44 Matthew has both of the robbers insulting Jesus as they hang on the cross. This is consistent with Mark 15:32, but contradicts Luke’s version, where only one robber reviles him, and the other asks Jesus to remember him in his kingdom. (Luke 23:39-42)
27:45 The hour of Jesus's crucifixion. Matthew does not tell us what time Jesus was put on the cross, but we are told that he was already there by the sixth hour (about noon), and remained there until the ninth hour (about 3 p.m.), and similarly in Luke 23:44. But in John’s gospel Jesus is still with Pilate at about the sixth hour (John 19:14), while Mark 15:25 has Jesus already on the cross at the third hour. Mark can be reconciled with Matthew and Luke, since neither of the latter report on the time at which Jesus was put up on the cross. But John’s time cannot be reconciled and is a firm contradiction to Mark, as well as to Matthew and Luke. It is sometimes claimed that John’s gospel uses “Roman time” beginning at midnight, in contrast to the Jewish timekeeping system which starts counting at dawn. However, this is false, because the Romans also began counting the daylight hours at dawn, so “Roman time” is no different from Jewish time. (See J.P.V.D. Balsdon's book Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, pp.1-2. Also, Reckoning Time in Ancient Rome, by Joseph Francis Alward.
Some scribes who copied the text of John’s gospel understood the difficulty, and tried to cover it up by changing John’s “sixth hour” to agree with Mark’s “third hour.” (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 3rd ed., p.199.)
27:46 These last words of Jesus are also reported in Mark 15:34, but Luke 23:46 and John 19:30 are at variance with these and have very different versions of Jesus’s dying words. In each case, the quoted words are followed by language indicating that Jesus “breathed his last” or “gave up his spirit,” indicating that each of these quotations is indeed meant to represent Jesus’s final words on the cross. It is thus not credible to claim, as some apologists do, that Jesus uttered all these reported words, but that each evangelist recorded only a portion of what he said.
Jesus’s lament, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” undermines the notion that Jesus and God are one, as we were told in John 10:30. No one can forsake himself, not even a god.
27:52 Only Matthew includes this story about the saints rising out of their graves. This amazing event is not mentioned in the other three gospels, nor in any contemporary reports. Thomas Paine offers a humorous look at this incident in his book The Age of Reason: “The writer of the book of Matthew should have told us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the city, and what became of them afterwards . . . whether they came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints, or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses; whether they went to their former habitations and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their property . . . or whether they died again, or went back to their graves alive, and buried themselves.” (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason: Dover Publications, 2004, Part II, chapter 1, pp. 159-160)
27:54 The Greek text lacks the definite article, so the centurion is actually quoted as saying “Truly this was a son of God,” not "the son of God." Luke’s gospel ascribes different words altogether, quoting the centurion as saying “Certainly this man was innocent.” (Luke 23:47, RSV)
27:55 Matthew notes the “many women” who had traveled with Jesus, “ministering to him.” Mark 15:41 tells us the same. Again, it appears that Jesus’s life as a traveling preacher was considerably more comfortable than that of John the Baptist. See the comment to Matthew 9:14.
28:1 The gospels are not agreed on who came to Jesus’s grave on Sunday morning. Here, Matthew has Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” arriving at the tomb. But Mark 16:1 has Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome, while Luke 24:10 lists Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary mother of James, and “the other women.” John 20:1 mentions only Mary Magdalene as visiting the tomb early Sunday morning.
Nor is there agreement on the time of the visit. Matthew relates that the women came “toward dawn.” Mark 16:2 has “when the sun had risen” and John 20:1 has Mary Magdalene arrive “while it was still dark.”
28:2 In Matthew’s version of the story, an angel descends and rolls away the stone in the presence of the women. This is directly contradicted by Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2, and John 20:1 where the stone had already been rolled away by the time the women got there.
28:8 Here, the women “ran to tell his disciples” that Jesus had risen, but this directly contradicts Mark’s version where the women “said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (Mark 16:8)
28:9 Matthew relates that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary met the risen Jesus and “held him by the feet, and worshiped him.” But in John’s gospel, Jesus forbade Mary Magdalene to touch him. (John 20:17) There is no indication here that Mary mistook Jesus for the gardener, as is claimed in John 20:15.
28:10 The apparition of Jesus tells the women to have the disciples meet him in Galilee, which they do. Again, there is a direct contradiction in Luke, where Jesus meets the disciples in Jerusalem, and orders them to remain there “until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). See also Acts 1:4. This is not simply an omission on Luke’s part, for his timeline gives no opportunity for any meeting in Galilee.
28:15 The phrase “to this day” shows that the gospel was written long after the events it purports to describe.
28:16 Jesus’s first post-crucifixion appearance is to the eleven disciples, contradicting John’s gospel, where the first appearance is to only ten of the disciples, Thomas being absent (John 20:24).
28:17 Even after seeing the resurrected Jesus, some of the disciples doubted. Could the “risen” Jesus have been a double who resembled the real Jesus closely enough to convince most observers?
28:18 Jesus claims to have all authority in heaven and on earth, but in Matthew 20:23 he did not even have the authority to grant favored positions in heaven to his disciples. The apologists cannot get out of this one by claiming that in Matthew 20:23 he did not yet have the authority, because he would still have known that the authority was going to be given to him after his resurrection, and could have promised James and John to grant them an honored place after he received the authority. It’s no different from a political candidate promising a job to a supporter. Before the election, the candidate has no authority. But that doesn’t stop him from offering the job in the event he is elected.
28:19 It is very odd that this risen Jesus would tell his disciples to go and “teach all nations,” because he previously said that he was sent only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)
28:20 Contradicting 26:11, as noted in the comment to that verse. Note that Matthew’s gospel does not end with Jesus ascending into heaven, in contrast to Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9, and Mark 16:19.