This is one of the most bizarre and blatantly false arguments Muslims have presented in recent times a desperate attempt to manufacture a so-called “Christian dilemma” to mirror the well-known “Islamic Dilemma,” which remains unresolved by Muslim apologists to this day. What we’re seeing here is a textbook case of tu quoque a diversionary tactic meant to deflect criticism away from Islam by trying to accuse Christianity of the same problem. It’s a weak and embarrassing attempt by Muslim polemicists to undermine Christian belief. Let’s examine the argument.
Objection:
“Christians have their own dilemma in Matthew 23:1–3. Jesus says, ‘All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do…’ This means Christians must obey the Pharisees, because Jesus was speaking to His disciples, and Christians today are also His disciples. Therefore, Christians should follow the teachings of the Pharisees. But the Pharisees didn’t teach the Trinity, and Christians don’t follow the Law.”
Response:
This objection reflects a poor and surface-level reading of the passage. The first thing to consider is the context of Matthew 23 as a whole. Jesus is clearly not endorsing the Pharisees as trustworthy teachers. In fact, He repeatedly calls them hypocrites (vv. 13–15, 23, 25, 27–29) for failing to practice what they preach. Jesus’ instruction to “do what they say” must be understood within the framework of their role in preserving Moses’ teaching not as an endorsement of their hypocrisy or rejection of God’s greater revelation.
At that moment in redemptive history, the Pharisees sat in the “seat of Moses,” meaning they held a position of legal instruction under the Old Covenant. But Jesus is condemning their actions, not affirming their theology. The teaching He refers to is the Law of Moses, not the Pharisaic rejection of the Messiah or denial of the Trinity. Not once in Matthew 23 does Jesus confront the Pharisees’ theological framework. In fact, throughout the Gospels, Jesus’ primary concern with them was never their theology, but the condition of their hearts (Matt. 6:1–4; 7:3; 12:34; 15:7–9; 23:23, 25, 27–29). He consistently addressed their hypocrisy, pride, and moral failures not doctrinal disagreements. So to claim that Jesus was giving a blanket endorsement of everything the Pharisees taught is a clear stretch. The rest of Matthew 23 qualifies and limits His statement, making it obvious that such a conclusion reads something into the text that simply isn’t there. Matthew 23:23 further emphasizes the moral weight of the Law, highlighting “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” This reinforces the overall context of the chapter and makes clear that Jesus’ primary concern with the Pharisees was their neglect of these deeper ethical matters, not theological disagreement.
It should also be noted that not all Jews in that period were Pharisees; there were Sadducees, Essenes, and other groups so conflating “Pharisees” with all Jewish teaching is historically inaccurate. But let’s digress.
Does Matthew 23:2-3 Applied to Christians Today
This is yet another claim Muslims have read into the text. The flaw in this objection is that it overlooks the fact that Jesus’ statement in Matthew 23 occurs before the resurrection, not after prior to the establishment of the New Covenant order. After the resurrection, the criteria for spiritual authority shifted. Jesus Himself declares that He will build His church (Matt. 16:18; 18:17; Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:22–23; 2:19–22; 5:25–27; Col. 1:18), clearly showing that the Church becomes the authoritative body through which matters are to be judged, beginning with the apostles. As Jesus promised in John 14:26–27, the Holy Spirit would guide the disciples and bring to their remembrance all that they needed to know.
Jesus even warns to beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. With this in mind, it makes sense that, in context, He is not affirming their interpretations, but rather emphasizing that what must be followed is everything related to the Law of Moses itself as taught by those who sit in the seat of Moses not their interpretations. This means that anyone who represents the Law but misrepresents it through their actions and traditions is a false teacher. (Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:6-13)
“6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.” 8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” – Matthew 16:6–12 (Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1)
“We know what we worship…”
“You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.” – John 4:22 (NKJV)
John 4:22 is often quoted alongside Matthew 23:2–3 to argue that Jesus affirmed the Pharisees’ theology proper as consistent with his own. However, this interpretation is problematic. In John 4:22, Jesus is not specifically referring to the Pharisees, but rather to the Jews (a broad term that encompassed Israelites in general cf. John 4:24). “Of the Jews” refers to the origin of salvation not to universal agreement with their doctrine. Jesus himself was Jewish, and so were the prophets and apostles, but many Jews rejected the truth revealed in Christ (John 1:11). He wasn’t addressing a particular sect but was speaking more broadly about a coming time when true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and truth. In the context of John’s Gospel, this worship points to both the Spirit and Jesus himself: the “living water” refers to the Holy Spirit (John 7:37–39), and Jesus identifies himself as “the truth” (John 14:6).
- “23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
It can simply be said that a time was coming when true worshipers would worship in truth, truth that is ultimately identified with Jesus Christ himself. This, by implication, would exclude the disbelieving and disapproving Pharisees.
Moreover, Judaism in the Second Temple period was not monolithic. Various sects such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others held differing beliefs regarding theology and religious practice. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others held differing beliefs regarding theology and religious practice. Scholars like Peter Schäfer, Benjamin Sommer, Alan Segal, Daniel Boyarin, and Michael Heiser have all documented evidence of complex, multi-personal conceptions of God within early Jewish thought. These ideas existed well before the rise of Christianity and were only explicitly rejected by rabbinic Judaism in later centuries.
Additionally, Muslims cannot definitively prove what the Pharisees’ theology proper was at the time of Jesus. There are no surviving primary sources outlining their exact doctrinal beliefs only secondary and tertiary references.
Jesus Is God According To Islamic Standards
Muslim argument is an ill-informed deflection that collapses under honest exegetical scrutiny. What Muslims must demonstrate is that Jesus is referring to theological authority specifically theology proper when speaking about the Pharisees in Matthew 23, despite the context clearly indicating otherwise. Typically, this objection is raised in an attempt to discredit the doctrine of the Trinity or to deny Jesus’ divinity. But why appeal to Matthew 23 to reject the Trinity or the deity of Christ when the passage is about moral hypocrisy, not metaphysical doctrine?
In fact, according to Islamic theology, only God has the authority to send prophets to entire communities. Yet in Matthew 23:34, Jesus says, “Therefore I send you prophets…” a direct act that, even by Islamic standards, belongs to God alone. Ironically, the very passage Muslims misuse to deny Jesus’ divinity actually affirms it.
- “34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” – Matthew 23:34-39 (KJV)
Commentaries
the Pharisees expound the Mosaic TORAH, one is to follow their teaching. This is put absolutely and quite emphatically by the combination of πάντα and ὅσα, lit. “everything whatsoever,” and the use of two nearly synonymous verbs,ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε, “do and keep.” That their strong assertion is an approval in principle rather than fact, despite its emphasis, becomes clear from vv 13–33, and especially vv 16–22, where Jesus explicitly rejects what the Pharisees say (cf. v. 4). This interpretation is more consonant with Matthew’s concern to affirm Jesus’ loyalty to the righteousness of TORAH than is the conclusion that the statement is ironic or sarcastic (pace Carson). Furthermore, Jesus has on several occasions earlier in Matthew distanced himself markedly from the teaching of the Pharisees (cf. 9:10–11, 14; 12:1–2, 10–14; 15:1–20; 19:3–9) and at one point actually warned his disciples to “beware of the leaven [i.e., the teaching] of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (16:6, 11–12).
Hagner, Donald Alfred . Matthew 14-28, Volume 33B (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 659). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition. (Bold emphasis are mine)
1–2 Teachers normally sat to teach (see on 5:1; and cf. 13:1–2; 24:3), and 26:55 will tell us that Jesus followed this custom during this period in the temple courtyard. Given that cultural norm it is likely that to “sit on Moses’ chair” is simply a figurative expression (cf. our professorial “chair”) for teaching [19] with an authority derived from Moses. [20] Moses himself gave Israel the basic law, but ever since then it had been necessary for other teachers to expound and apply it, and those who did so with due authority “sat on Moses’ chair.” There is evidence of special front seats for synagogue leaders at the time of Jesus (see v. 6), but the suggestion that such a chair was literally described as the “chair of Moses” lacks clear evidence.21 Not all Pharisees occupied a formal teaching role, but they no less than the scribes saw themselves as the true successors to the Mosaic tradition. On the face of it this statement acknowledges the legitimate teaching authority of the scribes, but in what follows Jesus will dispute their right to that authoritative role, so that it is probably right to read this verse, like the exhortation which follows in v. 3a, as ironical.22 3 Jesus’ injunction to the crowds to follow the scribes’ teaching [23] is often cited along with v. 23 of this chapter (“not neglecting the others”) as evidence both that Jesus himself conformed to the scribal tradition and also that Matthew’s church still operated within the confines of rabbinic law, and was not yet in conflict with the Jewish establishment. [24] But the words must be read in their context. In the first place, the whole thrust of this passage is against such a view: the scribes and Pharisees will be declared quite unfit to guide God’s people. Secondly, this (like “while not neglecting the others” in v. 23) is one clause of a two-part sentence, which must be interpreted as a whole. In each case the positive instruction acts as foil to a following negative instruction, in this case not to copy the scribes’ example and in v. 23 not to neglect the things that really matter. The rhetorical effect might be paraphrased: “Follow their teaching if you must, but be sure not to follow their example.” In view of the rest of the chapter, even that is probably too generous a reading of the first clause, which is better seen as heavily ironical. [25] Their behavior in effect annuls their “Mosaic” authority. [26] The clause can hardly be meant to be taken at face-value, since Jesus has in fact already clashed with scribal/Pharisaic teaching on the sabbath (12:1–14), purity (15:1–20) and divorce (19:3–9) and in more general terms in 16:6–12. The very next verse further underlines his disagreement with their whole approach to law-keeping. [27]
France, R. T.. The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT)) (pp. 859-860). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
Matthew 23:3 Commentaries from Bible Hub
“All that they teach that is consistent with the Law of Moses… The word ‘all’ could not be taken without such a restriction, for Christ himself accuses them of teaching many things contrary to that law… It is not the duty of people to imitate their teachers unless their lives are pure; they are to obey the law of God, and not to frame their lives by the example of evil people” – Barnes. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible. Matthew 23:3.
“The term all is to be understood restrainedly… Our Saviour’s cautioning his disciples so often against the leaven of these men, and their traditions, plainly showeth us that must be here the sense of it… He that says and does not, may be heard, but not imitated” – Poole, Matthew. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible. Matthew 23:1-3.
“They are charged with hypocrisy in religion… Pride was the darling, reigning sin of the Pharisees… The consistent disciple of Christ is pained by being put into chief places” – Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary. Matthew 23:1–12.
“The word ‘therefore’… is of great importance, as limiting those injunctions… to what they fetched from the law itself… He who denounced the traditions of such teachers… cannot have meant here to throw His shield over these” – Jamieson, Robert, et al. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary. Matthew 23:3.
“This must be restrained to things that were agreeable to the chair of Moses… Good doctrine is not the worse for being taught by bad men; nor are good works to be slighted and neglected, because they are not done by all that teach them” – Gill, John. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible. Matthew 23:3.
“It was only their official injunctions, derived immediately from Scripture… not their glosses, evasions, and interpretations, that were to be regarded with respect” – Pulpit Commentary. Matthew 23:3.
Church Father commentaries can be viewed here on Catena Bible
