Answering Objections In Matthew

“I will keep adding to this article over time.” – AC

Matthew 1

Verse 1:11

35. Jesus would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David’s throne?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer follows on directly from that to #26. Having shown that Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph, it is obvious from Jeremiah 36:30 that none of Joseph’s physical descendants were qualified to sit on David’s throne as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes clear, Jesus was not a physical descendant of Joseph. After having listed Joseph’s genealogy with the problem of his descendance from Jeconiah, Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he proves how Jesus avoids the Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David’s throne. Luke, on the other hand, shows that Jesus’ true physical descendance was from David apart from Jeconiah, thus fully qualifying him to inherit the throne of his father David. The announcement of the angel in Luke 1:32 completes the picture: ‘the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David’. This divine appointment, together with his physical descendance, make him the only rightful heir to David’s throne.

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)

“One way to explain the genealogy issue is that Jesus is a blood descendant of David through Mary, whose lineage in Luke 3 traces through Nathan (Luke 3:31), David’s son. This route avoids the curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jer. 36:30, since Jeconiah descended from Solomon, not Nathan (1 Ch. 3:10–15). Notably, Solomon and Nathan were full brothers, both sons of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Ch. 3:5).

Some might object by arguing that Israelite tribal identity and inheritance come through the father (Num. 1:2–4; 36:2, 18; Lev. 24:10). However, the Bible makes an exception when a man has no sons his daughters may continue the family line and inheritance (Num. 27:8). A real-life example of this is seen in 1 Chr. 2:34-36, where a daughter of an Israelite man marries a foreigner, yet their son is counted in the genealogy of Judah. For more information on to refute certain arguments that come up related to this go to this article.

Eusebius Says:

“Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begot children who were uterine brothers… By Estha then… Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi… of Nathan… married her … and begat a son Eli. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother… [etc.]” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.7.7–10

Another way of putting it is: According to Eusebius quoting Julius Africanus, the reason Matthew and Luke list different fathers for Joseph is due to a levirate marriage: two men from different Davidic lines Matthan (from Solomon’s line, in Matthew) and Melchi (from Nathan’s line, in Luke) married the same woman in succession; Matthan fathered Jacob, and Melchi fathered Heli, making Jacob and Heli half-brothers; when Heli died childless, Jacob married Heli’s widow (per Deuteronomy 25), and fathered Joseph, who was therefore the biological son of Jacob (Matthew’s genealogy) but the legal son of Heli (Luke’s genealogy), meaning both genealogies are accurate one biological, the other legal.

While there are various explanations for the genealogical differences, none of them contradict each other and each offers a reasonable solution. The Church Fathers, though not individually infallible, collectively reflect the Church’s broader wisdom. Through the unified witness of the Church by the Holy Spirt, we can arrive at a sound and reasonable conclusion.”

Verse 1-17

Verse 6

27. Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This is directly linked to ‘contradiction’ 26. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph’s genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan.

Verse 8

30. Was Joram (Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the father of Uzziah?

Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer is of a similar nature to that in #24. Just as the Hebrew bat (daughter) can be used to denote a more distant descendant, so can the Hebrew ben (son). Jesus is referred to in Matthew 1:1 as the son of David, the son of Abraham. Both the genealogies trace Jesus’ ancestry through both these men, illustrating the usage of ‘son’. Although no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew’s gospel are extant today, it is clear that he was a Jew writing from a Hebrew perspective and therefore completely at home with the Hebrew concept of son ship.

With this in mind, it can easily be shown that Amaziah was the immediate father of Uzziah (also called Azariah). Joram/Jehoram, on the other hand, was Uzziah’s great-great-grandfather and a direct ascendant. The line goes Joram/Jehoram – Ahaziah – Joash – Amaziah – Azariah/Uzziah (2 Chronicles 21:4-26:1).

Matthew’s telescoping of Joseph’s genealogy is quite acceptable, as his purpose is simply to show the route of descent. He comments in 1:17 that there were three sets of fourteen generations. This reveals his fondness for numbers and links in directly with the designation of Jesus as the son of David. In the Hebrew language, each letter is given a value. The total value of the name David is fourteen and this is probably the reason why Matthew only records fourteen generations in each section, to underline Jesus’ position as the son of David.

Verse 11

31. Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16) the father of Jechoniah?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This question is essentially the same as #30. Jehoiakim was Jeconiah’s father and Josiah his grandfather. This is quite acceptable and results from Matthew’s aesthetic telescoping of the genealogy, not from any error.

“In the Bible, the phrase “son of” (Hebrew: בֵּן, ben) is often used in a broader sense than simply referring to a direct son. It can denote a descendant in a general sense, which includes a grandson, great-grandson, or even a more distant descendant. This usage is reflective of the Hebrew culture and language, where familial terms can be used to represent a wider range of relationships than in modern English. Here are some examples and explanations to help clarify this concept:

1. Genesis 29:5 – Laban, the “Son of Nahor”

In Genesis 29:5, Laban is called the “son of Nahor”:

• Text: “And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And they said, We know him.” (KJV)
• Explanation: Laban is actually the grandson of Nahor (Genesis 22:20-23; 24:15, 29). Nahor was the father of Bethuel, who was the father of Laban. Therefore, the term “son of Nahor” in this context means a descendant of Nahor. This demonstrates how “son of” can be used more generally to indicate a familial lineage rather than a direct father-son relationship.

2. 1 Chronicles 1:34 – Esau and Jacob as “Sons of Abraham”

In 1 Chronicles 1:34, Esau and Jacob are referred to as the “sons of Abraham”:

• Text: “And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and Israel (Jacob).” (KJV)
• Explanation: Here, Esau and Jacob are the grandsons of Abraham, not his direct sons. Isaac is the direct son of Abraham, while Esau and Jacob are his grandsons. The use of “sons” here includes grandchildren, indicating that “son” can be broadly interpreted as a descendant.
• Issac Born to Abrham: Genesis 21:1-3
• Jacob and Esau born: Genesis 25:19-26

3. Matthew 1:1 – Jesus Christ as the “Son of David, Son of Abraham”

In Matthew 1:1, Jesus is referred to as the “son of David, the son of Abraham”:

• Text: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (ESV)
• Explanation: Jesus is many generations removed from both David and Abraham, yet He is called their “son.” This usage signifies a descendant in the lineage of David and Abraham. This is particularly important in showing the fulfillment of prophecies about the Messiah being from the line of David and Abraham.

4. Genesis 21:23 – “My son and my son’s son”

In Genesis 21:23, the phrase “my son and my son’s son” appears:

• Text: “Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned.” (KJV)
• Explanation: This passage involves a covenant between Abraham and Abimelech. Here, Abimelech is not just asking for kindness towards his direct son but also toward his grandson (“my son’s son”), indicating that familial relationships extend to grandchildren. Also, that Son (ben) is used in the general sense to refer to one’s descendants.”

By: AC

Verse 12

28. Was Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the father of Shealtiel?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Once again, this problem disappears when it is understood that two different genealogies are given from David to Jesus, those of both Mary and Joseph (see #26). Two different genealogies mean two different men named Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Therefore, it is not surprising to recognize that they both had different fathers!

verse 12-16

32. Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As Matthew clearly states (1:17), there were fourteen. In the first section there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen and in the third, fourteen. Perhaps the simplest way of resolving the problem is to suggest that in the first and third sections, the first and last person is included as a generation, whereas not in the second. In any case, as Matthew has clearly telescoped his genealogy with good reason, a mistake on his part is by no means shown conclusively. If by some chance another name or two has been lost from the list in the originals, by scribal error, we cannot know. Whatever the real situation, a simple explanation can be afforded, as above.

“This objection is honestly a weak attempt, and it took me a moment to even understand what the supposed contradiction was. When you actually count the names listed, each section clearly includes fourteen generations, just as Matthew states. The confusion and often deliberate distortion comes from people who try to exclude either Jeconiah or Jesus from the count, depending on their agenda.

But Matthew’s structure is intentional. His aim is to highlight three distinct sets of fourteen generations, and that means he counts everyone included in each section. Jeconiah naturally appears at the end of the second group and again at the beginning of the third just like a student who transfers schools can rightfully appear on both rosters. He’s still the same individual, but his role spans two phases.

As for those who try to exclude Jesus from the genealogy entirely, there’s simply no justification for doing so. He is the culmination of the genealogy “Jesus who is called Christ” and omitting him undermines the entire purpose of the list. This is not a contradiction. It’s just an uncharitable and sloppy reading of the text.” – AC

Verse 13

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa (Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles 3:19-20)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As with #28, two different Shealtiels necessitates two different Zerubbabels, so it is no problem that their sons had different names.

It should not surprise us that there was a Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel in both Mary’s and Joseph’s ancestry. Matthew tells us that Joseph’s father was named Jacob. Of course, the Bible records another Joseph son of Jacob, who rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt (Genesis 37-47). We see no need to suggest that these two men are one and the same, so we should have no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.

The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no problem: there are several Marys mentioned in the Gospels, because it was a common name. The same may be true here. This Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in Matthew 1:12,13. A comparison of Matthew and 1 Chronicles gives the following possible family tree: Scroll to number 29 to see the family tree given in this article. For a btter understanding on how to understand the difference between the two Zerubbabel’s mentioned in Luke and Matthew in this article.

Verse 16

26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph’s perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary’s point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband’s name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. ‘the’ Heli, ‘the’ Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph’s wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

Verse 17

32. Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As Matthew clearly states (1:17), there were fourteen. In the first section there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen and in the third, fourteen. Perhaps the simplest way of resolving the problem is to suggest that in the first and third sections, the first and last person is included as a generation, whereas not in the second. In any case, as Matthew has clearly telescoped his genealogy with good reason, a mistake on his part is by no means shown conclusively. If by some chance another name or two has been lost from the list in the originals, by scribal error, we cannot know. Whatever the real situation, a simple explanation can be afforded, as above.

“I wanted to preserve the original insights from Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, and James Schaeffer, as they somewhat addressed the correct understanding of this question. However, for a more comprehensive explanation, I will quote Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe from their book The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, specifically on page 326.” – AC

MATTHEW 1:17 – How many generations were listed between the captivity and Christ, 14 or 13?

PROBLEM: Matthew says the generations “from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations” (1:17). However, he lists only 13 names after the captivity is counted. So, which is correct, 13 or 14?

SOLUTION: Both are correct. Jeconiah is counted in both lists, since he lived both before and after the captivity. So, there are literally 14 names listed “from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ,” just as Matthew says. There are also literally 14 names listed between David and the captivity, just as Matthew claims (Matt. 1:6-12). There is no error in the text at all. – Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, in their book The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, state on page 326

“The first list (era of time) is Before the Babylonian Captivity goes to Abraham to King David. Next is During the Babylonian Captivity. After the Babylonian Captivity: This era spans from the return of the exiles to Jerusalem to the birth of Jesus Christ.

To put this in perspective, consider an analogy: if a student is enrolled in two different classes, their name would appear on the roster for each class. Similarly, Jeconiah is listed in both the “before” and “after” captivity periods in Matthew’s genealogy. By including Jeconiah in both eras, Matthew ensures that each of the three sections has 14 generations, maintaining a consistent structure.” – AC

The video below offers an additional explanation for this supposed Bible contradiction. Rather than contradicting the answer above, it complements it well. Much like how others have pointed to the symbolic significance of David’s name in Hebrew, where the numerical values add up to 14.

Hebrew: דָּוִד (Dalet-Vav-Dalet)

• Dalet (ד) = 4
• Vav (ו) = 6
• Dalet (ד) = 4

4 + 6 + 4 = 14

(Please take a moment to watch the video.)

Matthew 2

Verse 13-23

100. Did Joseph flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-23), or did he calmly present him at the temple in Jerusalem and return to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

These accounts are complementary, not contradictory. Matthew describes Herod’s plan to kill all male infants in Bethlehem after the magi did not return to him, which occurred some time after Jesus’ birth (Matthew 2:16). Herod’s decree targeted boys two years old and under, based on the time he learned from the magi when the star first appeared (Matthew 2:16). In contrast, Luke recounts Jesus’ circumcision on the eighth day and presentation in the Temple in Jerusalem shortly after His birth (Luke 2:21-40). The requirement for circumcision on the eighth day comes from the Old Testament command given to Abraham (Genesis 17:12).

The key is understanding the timeline: The events in Luke likely occurred between Matthew 2:1 and 2:12. After Jesus’ birth, Joseph and Mary took Him to Jerusalem for the required rituals, including His circumcision and presentation at the Temple, as described in Luke. They then returned to Bethlehem. After this, the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-12). It was only after the magi left and did not report back to Herod that Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt, just before Herod’s decree to kill all male infants (Matthew 2:13-14).

By recognizing this sequence, we see that Matthew and Luke provide different parts of the story that fit together to give a fuller picture of Jesus’ early life. Matthew focuses on the threat from Herod and the flight to Egypt, while Luke highlights the fulfillment of Jewish customs shortly after Jesus’ birth. Both accounts align when considering the broader timeline.

Think of it like two witnesses reporting a car accident: One witness might describe the sequence of events leading up to the crash, while the other might focus on the aftermath. Both accounts are true but highlight different aspects of the same event. Similarly, Matthew and Luke provide different perspectives on Jesus’ early life, which together offer a more complete narrative. (Original Article, 100)

Verse 23

Matthew 3

Verse 13-14

42. John the Baptist did (Matthew 3:13-14) or did not (John 1:32-33) recognize Jesus before his baptism?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

John’s statement in John 1:33 that he “would not have known” Jesus except for seeing the Holy Spirit descend and remain on Him can be understood to mean that John would not have known for certain without this definite sign. The Greek word for “see/know” used here is “εἶδον” (eidon), which implies more than just physical sight; it carries the meaning of perceiving or recognizing a deeper truth or spiritual reality. John was not just observing a physical event but was spiritually perceiving Jesus’ divine identity when he saw the Spirit descending and remaining on Him.

Additionally, the phrase “would not have known” in John 1:33 uses the Greek verb “ᾔδειν” (ēdein), derived from oida, which means “to know,” “to perceive,” or “to appreciate.” This verb is in the pluperfect tense, indicating a state of knowing that was completed in the past but has lasting implications. This suggests that John’s recognition of Jesus was a deeper spiritual awareness rather than a mere physical recognition.

John was filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15), and we have a record of an amazing recognition of Jesus even while John was in his mother’s womb. Luke 1:41-44 relates that when Mary visited John’s mother, the sound of her greeting prompted John, then still in the womb, to leap in recognition of Mary’s presence as the mother of the Lord.

From this passage, we can also see that John’s mother had some knowledge about who Jesus would be. It is very likely that she told John something of this as he was growing up (even though it seems that she died while he was young).

In light of this prior knowledge and the witness of the Holy Spirit within John, the sign of the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus served as a divine confirmation of what John already perceived spiritually. The use of “εἶδον” and “ᾔδειν” underscores this deeper perception and recognition. God removed any doubt so that John could be certain it was not his imagination or someone else’s mistake.

Matthew 4

Verse 18-22

38. Jesus first met Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22), or on the banks of the river Jordan (John 1:42-43)?

(Category: misread the text)

The accusation is that one Gospel records Jesus meeting Simon Peter and Andrew by the sea of Galilee, while the other says he met them by the river Jordan. However this accusation falls flat on its face as the different writers pick up the story in different places. Both are true.

John 1:35 onwards says Jesus met them by the river Jordan and that they spent time with him there. Andrew (and probably Peter too) were disciples of John the Baptist. They left this area and went to Galilee, in which region was the village of Cana where Jesus then performed his first recorded miracle. “After this he went down to Capernaum with his mothers and brothers and disciples. There they stayed for a few days.” John 2:12.

Peter and Andrew were originally from a town named Bethsaida (John 1:44) but now lived in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:30-31, Luke 4:38-39), a few miles from Bethsaida. They were fishermen by trade, so it was perfectly normal for them to fish when they were home during these few days (for at this time Jesus was only just beginning public teaching or healing).This is where Matthew picks up the story. As Peter and Andrew fish in the Lake of Galilee, Jesus calls them to follow him – to leave all they have behind and become his permanent disciples. Before this took place, he had not asked them, but they had followed him because of John the Baptist’s testimony of him (John 1:35-39). Now, because of this testimony, plus the miracle in Cana, as well as the things Jesus said (John 1:47-51), as well as the time spent with the wisest and only perfect man who ever lived etc., it is perfectly understandable for them to leave everything and follow him. It would not be understandable for them to just drop their known lives and follow a stranger who appeared and asked them to, like children after the pied piper! Jesus did not enchant anyone – they followed as they realized who he was – the one all the prophets spoke of, the Messiah the son of God.

Verse 5-10

The below text is taken from The Big Book of Bible Difficulties pp.328-329

MATTHEW 4:5-10 (cf. LUKE 4:5-12) – Is there a mistake in recording the wilderness temptation of Christ by Matthew or Luke?

PROBLEM: In both Matthew and Luke, the first temptation was to turn stones into bread. Matthew lists the second as taking place at the temple’s pinnacle and the third involving all the world’s kingdoms. Luke mentions the same temptations but reverses the order of the last two. So, which order is correct?

SOLUTION: It may be that Matthew describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climactically, that is, topically. This may be to express the climax he desired to emphasize. Matthew 4:5 begins with the word “then” while verse 8 begins with the word “again.” In Greek, these words suggest a more sequential order of the events. In Luke’s account, however, verses 5 and 9 each begins with a simple “and” (see NASB). The Greek in the case of Luke’s account does not necessarily indicate a sequential order of events. Furthermore, there is no disagreement on the fact that these temptations actually happened.

Chapter 5

Verse 31-32

Jesus says you can’t divorce except in cases of adultery (Matt. 5:31-32). Does that mean you can’t divorce for any other reason like abuse?

Reclaiming God’s Ideal: Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce and the Heart of Kingdom Ethics

An Analysis of Matthew 5:31–32 and 19:1–10 in Light of Matthew 5:17–48

In Matthew 5:17–48, Jesus redefines the Law, not by abolishing it, but by revealing its true theological and ethical purpose. The series of “You have heard… but I say to you…” statements is a hallmark of his teaching, emphasizing internal righteousness over external compliance. This approach frames Jesus’ view on divorce in Matthew 5:31–32 and 19:1–10. Rather than offering new legalistic regulations, Jesus exposes the heart’s condition as the true source of sin, and he calls his followers to a kingdom ethic that transcends Mosaic concessions. Both R.T. France and Donald A. Hagner affirm this reading: Jesus’ teaching on divorce is not an exercise in legalism, but a return to God’s original creational design, establishing a standard that reflects the renewed life of the kingdom of heaven.

I. The Fulfillment of the Law and the Heart of the Matter

Matthew 5:17–20 sets the tone for the rest of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus announces that he has not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them bringing them to their intended goal. This fulfillment is shown in the radical ethical demands of verses 21–48, where the true meaning of commandments is revealed to lie not only in external obedience but in heart-level transformation. As France puts it, 

“The Sermon on the Mount does not discard the law but gets to the heart of it” (France 199). 

Jesus’ concern is with the internal source of sin anger, lust, falsehood, retaliation not just the visible effects. Likewise, his teaching on divorce is not merely a commentary on legal permission, but a theological reclaiming of marriage’s purpose.

II. Divorce in Matthew 5:31–32: Legal Loophole or Theological Crisis?

In Matthew 5:31–32, Jesus addresses the widely misused divorce provision from Deuteronomy 24:1–4. This passage was the foundation for Jewish divorce practices, interpreted liberally by the Hillel school and narrowly by the Shammai school. Jesus, however, does not align himself strictly with either. He critiques the abuse of this Mosaic concession, stating that anyone who divorces his wife except for porneia (sexual immorality) causes her to commit adultery. France explains that Jesus is not engaging in legal casuistry but 

“sweeps its trouble-shooting provisions aside with the assertion that the original divorce itself was not permissible” (France 210).

Hagner affirms this view, stating that

“divorce, therefore, is not in accord with God’s design and is to be prohibited since it breaks what is a unique and holy union” (Hagner 547).

In this way, Jesus frames divorce not as a technical issue, but as a reflection of a hardened heart just one of many manifestations of a spiritually broken people. The reference to hard-heartedness will become explicit in Matthew 19:8, but its spirit is present already here.

III. Matthew 19:1–10: Creation Restored and Hearts Exposed

The debate escalates in Matthew 19:1–10, where the Pharisees attempt to trap Jesus with a legal question (Deut. 24:1-4). Instead of debating their interpretation of Deuteronomy, Jesus returns to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, anchoring his response in creation theology. “What God has joined together, let no one separate,” he says (Matt. 19:6). Hagner comments that Jesus is not offering an abstract ethic but presenting 

“the restoration of the perfection of the pre-fall creation” (Hagner 548).

Jesus’ appeal to Genesis bypasses the Pharisees’ legalism and exposes the underlying spiritual issue: sin-hardened hearts.

In verse 8, Jesus states clearly, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” France notes that 

“hardness of heart” (σκληροκαρδία) is a moral failure to obey God’s purpose, not a justified reason for legislation (France 722)

Hagner adds that this concession was

“not normative but only secondary and temporary, an allowance dependent on the sinfulness of the people” (Hagner 547).

This reference to hardened hearts is consistent with Jesus’ repeated critiques throughout Matthew. In 13:15, he quotes Isaiah: “For this people’s heart has grown dull.” In 15:8–9, he rebukes the religious leaders: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” And in 15:19, he teaches that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality…” Divorce, in Jesus’ view, stems not from a failed law, but from a failed heart.

IV. The Exception Clause: Jesus’ Theology, Not Shammai’s

Matthew’s inclusion of the exception clause (“except for sexual immorality”) has been long debated. France argues that this is not a concession to the Shammaite legal school but a theological recognition that adultery has already severed the marital bond (France 724). Hagner agrees, stating that the exception 

“has the effect of making Jesus side with the Shammaites,” but ultimately it “softens the ethics of the kingdom” only in pastoral sensitivity to Matthew’s Jewish-Christian audience (Hagner 548)

Both scholars stress that this exception is not a rule to be exploited, but a recognition of covenantal breach already committed.

V. Celibacy and the Alternative of Kingdom Obedience

After Jesus’ radical teaching, the disciples exclaim, “It is better not to marry!” (Matt. 19:10). Jesus does not dismiss their concern but expands the vision of kingdom obedience to include voluntary celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (v. 12). Hagner sees this as the second ethical path:

“marriage without the option of divorce… or celibacy for the cause of the kingdom” (Hagner 549)

Jesus’ call to celibacy is consistent with his high view of marriage and reflects the broader ethic of discipleship a willingness to surrender even legitimate desires for the sake of God’s kingdom.

France similarly argues that Jesus’ call is not a rejection of marriage but a deeper call to faithfulness: 

“God’s people are not all the same, and are not all called to the same path of obedience” (France 725).

Conclusion

Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew 5:31–32 and 19:1–10 must be read in light of his broader kingdom ethic articulated in Matthew 5:17–48. It is not a legal pronouncement, but a theological and moral summons back to God’s creational intent. France and Hagner both affirm that Jesus’ rejection of easy divorce is rooted in a diagnosis of hard hearts, not a desire for legal control. The righteousness of the kingdom does not negotiate with sin but calls disciples to reflect God’s original vision for covenantal union. Whether in marriage or celibacy, obedience to the kingdom of heaven means the restoration of the heart and the pursuit of God’s perfect will.

Works Cited

France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament, Eerdmans, 2007. pp. 206–212, 711–725.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14–28. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33B, Thomas Nelson, 1995. pp. 546–550.

Richard M. Davidson on Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-10

As Richard M. Davidson explains in Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, Jesus in Matthew 5:31–32 and 19:1–10 does not abolish the Mosaic law but “acts as the Master Exegete, interpreting the Pentateuch not as a legalist but as one who seeks to uphold the divine intent of the law. He does not abrogate the Mosaic legislation, but reveals its true spirit.” Jesus affirms that the Deuteronomic law already hints at the moral failure of divorce, since it states that the divorced woman “has been caused to defile herself,” which Davidson argues already implies the “moral wrongness of the act.” In Jesus’ handling of the Pharisees’ challenge, he “places the Genesis creation story over against the Mosaic concession, asserting that the Torah itself points to a higher standard. The concession to divorce in Deuteronomy is not a reflection of the divine ideal but of the hardness of human hearts.” Davidson also addresses the controversial exception clause in Matthew 19:9, suggesting that “Jesus includes [it]—‘except for sexual immorality’—not to undercut his strong opposition to divorce, but likely to acknowledge the post-30 C.E. context in which the death penalty for adultery was no longer enforced.” Ultimately, Davidson argues, “Jesus’ appeal to Genesis signals a radical return to God’s original ideal for marriage, fitting the new-covenant ethic of the kingdom of heaven. The Mosaic legislation was a concession, but Jesus reaffirms the permanence of the marriage bond as God intended it.”

Davidson, Richard M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Hendrickson Publishers, 2007, pp. 393–395.

Matthew 8

Verse 5

76. Did the Capernaum centurion come personally to ask Jesus to heal his slave (Matthew 8:5), or did he send elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)?

(Category: the text is compatible with a little thought & misunderstood the author’s intent)

This is not a contradiction but rather a misunderstanding of sequence, as well as a misunderstanding of what the authors intended. The centurion initially delivered his message to Jesus via the elders of the Jews. It is also possible that he came personally to Jesus after he had sent the elders to Jesus. Matthew mentions the centurion because he was the one in need, while Luke mentions the efforts of the Jewish elders because they were the ones who made the initial contact.

We know of other instances where the deed which a person tells others to do is in actuality done through him. A good example is the baptism done by the disciples of Jesus, yet it was said that Jesus baptized (John 4:1-2).

We can also understand why each author chose to relate it differently by understanding the reason they wrote the event. Matthew’s main reason for relating this story is not the factual occurrence but to relate the fact of the importance of all nations to Christ. This is why Matthew speaks of the centurion rather than the messengers of the centurion. It is also the reason why Matthew spends less time relating the actual story and more on the parable of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew wants to show that Jesus relates to all people.

Luke in his telling of the story does not even relate the parable that Jesus told the people, but concentrates on telling the story in more detail, thereby concentrating more on the humanity of Jesus by listening to the messengers, the fact that he is impressed by the faith of the centurion and the reason why he is so impressed; because the centurion does not even consider himself ‘worthy’ to come before Jesus. Ultimately this leads to the compassion shown by Jesus in healing the centurion’s servant without actually going to the home of the centurion.

Matthew 9

Verse 9

68. Was the man whom Jesus called to be his disciple while sitting at the tax collector’s booth named Matthew (Matthew 9:9) or Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The answer to this question is exactly the same as the previous one (#67) in that both scriptures are correct. Matthew was also called Levi, as the scriptures here attest.

It is somewhat amusing to hear Mr Ally drawing so much attention to this legitimate custom. In the run-up to a debate in Birmingham, England in February 1998, he felt free to masquerade under an alternative name (Abdul Abu Saffiyah, meaning ‘Abdul, the father of Saffiyah’, his daughter’s name) in order to gain an unfair advantage over Mr Smith, his opponent. By disguising his identity he denied Mr Smith the preparation to which he was entitled. Now here he finds it a contradictory when persons in the 1st century Palestine either use one or the other of their names, a practice which is neither illegal nor duplicitous.

There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using an alternative name. However, in the light of Mr Ally’s unfair and deceitful practice outlined above, there is a ring of hypocrisy to these last two questions raised by him.

Here are more examples:

Matthew (also called Levi)

• Matthew 9:9: “Matthew sitting at the tax booth…”
• Mark 2:14: “Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth…”
• Luke 5:27: “tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth…”

These passages suggest that Matthew and Levi are the same person, though different Gospel writers use different names.

Simon (also called Peter)

• Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
• John 1:42: “…Cephas‘ (which means Peter).”

Here, Simon is also called Peter, with “Cephas” being the Aramaic form of Peter (meaning “rock”).

Thaddeus (also called Judas, son of James)

• Matthew 10:3: Thaddeus
• Luke 6:16: Judas

In Matthew, one of the twelve apostles is called Thaddeus, but in Luke, he is referred to as Judas the son of James, indicating that the same apostle was known by both names.

Nathanael (likely also called Bartholomew)

• John 1:45-46: Nathanael
• Matthew 10:3: Bartholomew

verse 18

39. When Jesus met Jairus, his daughter ‘had just died’ (Matthew 9:18), or was ‘at the point of death’ (Mark 5:23)?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

When Jairus left his home, his daughter was very sick, and at the point of death, or he wouldn’t have gone to look for Jesus. When he met Jesus he certainly was not sure whether his daughter had already succumbed. Therefore, he could have uttered both statements; Matthew mentioning her death, while Mark speaking about her sickness. However, it must be underlined that this is not a detail of any importance to the story, or to us. The crucial points are clear:

1. Jairus’s daughter had a fatal illness.
2. All that could have been done would already have been: she was as good as dead if not already dead.
3. Jairus knew that Jesus could both heal her and bring her back from the dead. As far as he was concerned, there was no difference.

Therefore it is really of no significance whether the girl was actually dead or at the point of death when Jairus reached Jesus.’

“Matthew summarizes the event, while Mark provides more detail. Mark’s account isn’t a step-by-step narration but rather a report that the event occurred. Notably, Matthew doesn’t even mention Jairus by name instead, he simply refers to him as ‘the ruler.'” – AC

Matthew 10

Verse 1-4

67. Was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19) or Judas, son of James (Luke 6:12-16)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)Both can be correct. It was not unusual for people of this time to use more than one name. Simon, or Cephas was also called Peter (Mark 3:16), and Saul was also called Paul (Acts 13:9). In neither case is there a suggestion that either was used exclusively before changing to the other. Their two names were interchangeable.

Verse 9(10)

40. Jesus allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3) his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage)

It is alleged that the Gospel writers contradict on their journey or not. The problem is one of the translations. 

In Matthew, we read the English translation of the Greek word “ktesthe,” which is rendered in the King James (Authorized) translation as “Provide neither gold, nor silver nor staves.” According to a Greek dictionary, this word means “to get for oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise” (Robinson, Lexicon of the New Testament). Therefore, in Matthew, Jesus is saying, “Do not procure anything in addition to what you already have. 

Just go as you are.” Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Jesus directed his disciples to take along no extra equipment. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the verb in Greek (“take“); but then, like Matthew, adds “no staff, no bag, no bread, no money.” But Matthew 10:10 includes what was apparently a further clarification: they were not to acquire a staff as part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not necessarily involve discarding any staff they already had as they traveled the country with Jesus. However, this is not a definitive answer, only a possible explanation. This trivial difference does not affect the substantial agreement of the Gospels. We would not be troubled if this were, or is, a contradiction, for we do not have the same view of these Gospels as a Muslim is taught about the Qur’an. And if this is the pinnacle of Biblical contradictions when the Bible is said to be “full of contradictions” and “totally corrupted,” then such people are obviously deluded. If indeed Christian scribes and translators had wished to alter the original Gospels, this “contradiction” would not have been here. It is a sign of the authenticity of the text as a human account of what took place, and is a clear sign that it has not been deliberately corrupted.

Analogy:
Imagine you’re preparing for a trip, and your leader says:

• On one occasion, “Don’t go out and buy or acquire a new water bottle; just take the one you already have.”
• On another occasion, “Don’t bring a water bottle.”

At first glance, these instructions might seem contradictory, but they make sense when you consider the context. The first instruction emphasizes not acquiring or procuring extra supplies—there’s no need to purchase anything new for the journey. The second instruction focuses on not bringing certain items altogether, even if you already own them.

This parallels the Gospel accounts. In Matthew, the Greek word “ktesthe” highlights Jesus’ instruction not to acquire additional items, like a staff, beyond what the disciples already had. In Mark and Luke, the emphasis is on not carrying certain items, including a staff, as part of their journey. These slight differences in wording clarify different aspects of Jesus’ guidance, showing no contradiction but a complementary message: the disciples were to travel simply and without relying on extra preparations.

Verse 23

The following is taken from this article since it has already been answered. Here is a video explaing this passage in debate when a muslim tried to use it against the Christian (Sam Shamoun).

The following response is taken and adapted from our rebuttal to Shabir Ally:Shabir on Matthew’s Prophecies

Shabir presumes that Matthew 10:23, 16:28 and 24:34 all speak about Christ returning within the lifetime of his disciples. This clearly has not happened.

There are no false predictions, but a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words. Not every usage of the term “coming” refers to Christ’s visible return to earth. To be sure, Christ will return visibly. Yet, the Holy Bible clearly demonstrates that the phrase “coming” can either mean a visible coming or it can refer to God invisibly manifesting his power, wrath or blessing in some form or another.

“What misery is mine! I am like one who gathers summer fruit at the gleaning of the vineyard; there is no cluster of grapes to eat, none of the early figs that I crave. The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains. All men lie in wait to shed blood; each hunts his brother with a net. Both hands are skilled in doing evil; the ruler demands gifts, the judge accepts bribes, the powerful dictate what they desire – they all conspire together. The best of them is like a brier, the most upright worse than a thorn hedge. The day of your watchmen has come, the day God VISITS you. Now is the time of their confusion.” Micah 7:1-4

“They were all filled with awe and praised God. ‘A great prophet has appeared among us,’ they said. ‘God has COME to help his people’. Luke 7:16

These passages illustrate that God’s coming was not something physical or visible, but something invisible. God manifested himself through human agents such as Christ and his preaching ministry, or through calamities that he brought upon Jerusalem as the consequence for their sins.

The term “coming” refers to Christ appearing to his disciples after his resurrection and to his coming to dwell with believers by the Holy Spirit:

“I will not leave you as orphans; I will COME to you.” John 14:18

This either refers to Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to his disciples or to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

“Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will COME to him and make our home with him.’” John 14:23

This was fulfilled when Christ sent forth his Spirit to dwell within believers:

“Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?” 1 Corinthians 3:16

To have God’s Spirit living in believers is the same as having Christ living in believers since God’s Spirit is the Spirit of Christ:

“You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if THE SPIRIT OF GOD LIVES IN YOU. And if anyone does not have THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he does not belong to Christ. But if CHRIST IS IN YOU, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if THE SPIRIT OF HIM who raised Jesus from the dead IS LIVING IN YOU, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through HIS SPIRIT, WHO LIVES IN YOU.” Romans 8:9-11

“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you – unless, of course, you fail the test?” 2 Corinthians 13:5

The term can also refer to Christ returning invisibly to bring judgment against the Churches that were either abandoning the faith or were compromising with the world:

“Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will COME to YOU and remove your lampstand from its place.” Revelation 2:5

“Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon COME to YOU and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.” Revelation 2:16

“Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will COME like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will COME to YOU.” Revelation 3:3

In light of these verses, we can now examine the passages Shabir and other Muslims use to prove that Christ made false predictions. In relation to Matthew 10:23 Jesus’ saying “before the Son of Man comes” is not necessarily a reference to his Second Coming. It may refer to his being reunited with his disciples after their evangelistic outreach. This becomes evident from Matthew 11:1 where it states that, “after Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.”

After departing to Galilee, Jesus then met up with the disciples where “they reported to him all they had done and taught.” (Mark 6:30)

---

Furthermore, the context of this passage is not referring to the Second Coming of Christ, but rather to Jesus returning to His disciples after they had been sent out to minister to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 10:5–6). This interpretation is supported by verses 17–18, where Jesus warns His disciples that they will be flogged and dragged before governors and kings for His sake events that did not occur until after His resurrection and ascension.

Jesus underscores this point when He says, “You will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matthew 10:23). The disciples did not visit all the towns during their mission in Matthew 10–11. The “coming of the Son of Man” in this context refers to Jesus Himself reconnecting with His disciples in chapter 11.

Matthew 11

Verse 2

43. John the Baptist did (John 1:32-33) or did not (Matthew 11:2) recognize Jesus after his baptism?

Introduction

The question as to whether John the Baptist recognized Jesus after His baptism arises from comparing John 1:32-33 with Matthew 11:2. In the first passage, John the Baptist emphatically identifies Jesus as the Messiah after seeing the Holy Spirit descend upon Him. In the second, from prison, John sends his disciples to ask Jesus if He is indeed the One to come. At first glance, this may appear contradictory. Yet, a fuller examination of the texts, context, and purpose of each Gospel reveals a cohesive and consistent message.

Below is a topical exploration that examines the passages themselves, places them within historical context, addresses the apparent question, and concludes in a harmonized understanding.

---

Relevant Passages

John 1:32-33

“Then John testified, ‘I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and resting on Him. And I myself did not know Him, but the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is He who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.”’”

Matthew 11:2

“Meanwhile John heard in prison about the works of the Christ, and he sent his disciples to ask Him, ‘Are You the One who was to come, or should we look for someone else?’”

---

Interpreting John 1:32-33

In John’s Gospel, the Baptist proclaims firsthand testimony. He states that he was given a divine sign: the Holy Spirit’s descent upon Jesus. This sign confirmed Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah who would not merely baptize with water but also baptize with the Holy Spirit.

John’s statement that “I myself did not know Him” (John 1:33) signifies not merely ignorance but that he awaited a specific divine confirmation. The moment the Spirit descended upon Jesus in visible form, John the Baptist had unequivocal proof of Christ’s identity. This is a one-time, climactic event highlighting Jesus as God’s chosen Servant (cf. Isaiah 42:1) and the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

---

Interpreting Matthew 11:2

In Matthew’s Gospel, the focus is on John’s experience while imprisoned by Herod Antipas. Hearing reports about Jesus’ ministry, John sends his disciples to query Jesus: “Are You the One who was to come, or should we look for someone else?” (Matthew 11:3).

Although this request seems to question earlier certainty, many biblical commentators suggest that John’s intention may have been to help his own followers transition their allegiance to Jesus. Others infer that John may have experienced human doubts while suffering in prison, needing to hear Jesus confirm His role and reassure him.

John’s question is answered by Jesus referring to Messianic prophecies from Isaiah, culminating in the evidence of miracles, healings, and the preaching of the good news (Matthew 11:4-6). Such works were consistent with Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah, especially Isaiah 61:1-2.

---

Harmonizing the Accounts

There is no genuine contradiction between John’s recognition of Jesus as Messiah in John 1:32-33 and his subsequent question in Matthew 11:2. Several plausible explanations resolve the tension:

1. Different Contexts: In John 1, the Baptist publicly identifies Jesus after witnessing the Spirit’s descent. In Matthew 11, the setting is a prison cell, where John is cut off from Jesus’ ministry and hears only secondhand reports.

2. For the Disciples’ Sake: John’s disciples might have been struggling with accepting Jesus as Messiah, especially as their teacher was imprisoned while Jesus carried on teaching and performing miracles. By sending them directly to Jesus, John ensures they hear His answers and witness more of His power, aiding their faith.

3. The Testing of Faith: Prolonged hardship can challenge even the most faithful individuals (cf. Elijah in 1 Kings 19:3-4). Imprisonment could lead John to seek reassurance, not out of denial but out of a profound desire for confirmation in dire circumstances. His question, directed at Jesus, again forces a public declaration of Jesus’ identity.

---

Historical and Archaeological Context

Archaeological and historical evidence supports John the Baptist’s role as a key religious figure. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus writes about John’s ministry near the Jordan River (Antiquities 18.5.2) and how many regarded him as a holy man. Excavations near the traditional site of the baptism at Bethany beyond the Jordan have revealed locations consistent with large groups gathering for spiritual rites, reflecting the biblical accounts of John’s public ministry (John 1:28).

The reliability of the New Testament manuscripts, supported by numerous extant copies and early papyri, affirms the consistency of these eyewitness testimonies. The references to John’s ministry in all four Gospels and in extra-biblical sources reinforce the coherence of his historical presence and highlight the continuity in presenting Jesus as the Messiah he proclaimed.

---

Confident Recognition Amid Uncertain Circumstances

John 1:32-33 displays John the Baptist’s recognition of Jesus through divine revelation. Matthew 11:2 shows a distinct scenario where, despite his previous certainty, John inquires again-yet this inquiry ultimately points back to Jesus confirming His Messianic credentials.

These passages collectively underscore the faith journey experienced even by the most ardent prophet. They teach that recognition of Christ can coexist with seasons of human weakness or confusion, especially in trials. Yet Scripture stands firm that John’s initial recognition of Jesus was authentic, and Jesus’ response to John’s final inquiry in prison confirms that authenticity.

---

Conclusion

When the texts of John 1 and Matthew 11 are placed side by side, they do not contradict but rather reveal different aspects of the same truth. John the Baptist did indeed recognize Jesus after His baptism, responding to the divine sign he had been promised. Later, from prison, John’s request for verification from Jesus was an act that invited public reaffirmation of Jesus’ identity and offered reassurance to John’s followers.

In this harmony of passages, Scripture maintains its consistency. From the vantage point of both historical confirmation-via eyewitness testimony, manuscripts, and archaeological findings-and a thorough reading of both contexts, we see that John’s knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah was certain and publicly declared, though tested by the rigors of imprisonment and concern for the faith of his disciples.

Source: Bible Hub

“It’s important to note that it was John’s disciples who posed the question, likely seeking confirmation that Jesus was the One they had heard about. While the inquiry is often attributed directly to John because he sent the messengers, this does not necessarily mean it stemmed from personal doubt. The fact that his disciples asked the question doesn’t automatically imply John himself was uncertain. Rather, it could reflect his intent to guide them toward faith in Jesus through direct encounter. Either way, the accounts are not contradictory.” – AC

Verse 27

Objection: This argument originates from modalism (or oneness theology), which asserts that Jesus Christ (the Son of God) and the Holy Spirit are simply different manifestations of the Father. In this view, the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity are not maintained. Modalist have cited Matthew 11:27 to challenge Trinitarian doctrine by asking, “Does the Holy Spirit not know the Father and vice versa, in the same way that Jesus and the Father share an exclusive relationship?” This question is intended to underscore the belief that only Jesus and the Father have a uniquely intimate and exclusive relationship, a claim that modalists use to critique traditional Trinitarian interpretations.

• “27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” – Matthew 11:27 (ESV)

Response: This objection quickly falls apart when we consider the full context of the passage. In this section, Jesus rebukes the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum showing their failure to repent. Jesus’ prayer speaks to the intimate and unique relationship He shares with the Father, a relationship that is central to His identity. The fact that He does not mention the Holy Spirit in this prayer should not be used to undermine Trinitarian theology or misinterpret their relationship. The absence of the Holy Spirit’s mention does not negate the truth of the special knowledge Jesus has with the Father. Furthermore, the relationship between the Father and Son is described as “Monogene” (Begotten), while the Holy Spirit’s relationship is described as “ekporeuetai” (proceeding or going forth), highlighting the distinct ways the persons of the Trinity relate to each other. Therefore, it is entirely consistent for Jesus to say, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son.”

This does not imply that one cannot be a son of God or fail to know Him entirely. Jesus’ relationship with the Father is simply unique and distinct from ours. Christ also stated in:

• “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” – Matthew 5:9 (ESV)
• “so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” – Matthew 5:45 (ESV)

Modalists, like Trinitarians, view Scripture as equally authoritative. Therefore, the very Matthew 11:27 passage that modalists sometimes quote out of context is found in the same Bible as 1 Corinthians 2:10-11, which clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit, too, possesses an exclusive and intimate knowledge of the Father.

• “10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” – 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 (ESV)

It is clear that no one comprehends God as fully as the Spirit of God, just as Jesus perfectly understands the Father. There is no lack in knowledge or intimacy within the divine relationship of the Trinity.

Verse 14

34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Matthew records Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John seems to record John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of contextualization by readers.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi that He will send Elijah to the people of Israel before a certain time. Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, the question is quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously “No, I am not Elijah.”

Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.

So what did Jesus mean when he says of John “he is the Elijah who was to come”? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying “he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous – to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers”.Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the “Elijah” whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, “Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as ‘Elijah’?” John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this “Elijah” suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; “the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist“. Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”, John 1:29.

Analogy:

Imagine a kingdom that once had a legendary warrior, long gone, with a prophecy that another would come in his place to protect the people. Centuries later, a new warrior arises, embodying the same mission and spirit. When asked if he’s the ancient hero returned, he denies it, yet he fulfills the role foretold for him.

John the Baptist was not Elijah reborn, but he came in the spirit of Elijah, fulfilling the prophecy to prepare the way for the Messiah.

Matthew 12

Verse 38

Jesus says that Jonah is the sign (Matthew 12:38-42) or Jesus says no sign will be given (Mark 8:11-13)?

(Category: misread the text)

In the previous context Jesus performed the feeding of 5,000 men with a little boy’s lunch and the feeding of 4,000 men later on in both Matthew and Mark, which was a sign in itself.

1. Feeding of the 5,000

• Matthew 14:13-21
• Mark 6:30-44
• Luke 9:10-17
• John 6:1-15

2. Feeding of the 4,000

• Matthew 15:32-39
• Mark 8:1-10

John and Luke do not mention the second feeding of the multitude, but this omission does not imply that it didn’t occur or that these authors were denying its reality. Each Gospel writer highlights different aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry, resulting in a unique perspective. The overlaps and similarities among the Gospels provide a richer, multifaceted view of His life. As with any collection of eyewitness accounts, slight variations and differences in emphasis are expected. While Matthew and Mark often cover similar ground, Matthew includes additional details that Mark, with his more concise style, chooses not to elaborate on. For example, Matthew 12:38-41 provides specific information about a particular sign that Mark does not include. This difference in emphasis reflects the distinct purposes and audiences of each Gospel, rather than any contradiction or denial of events.

Jesus Didn’t Appear To The Pharisees After His Resurrection

The sign of Jonah refers specifically to Jesus’ death and resurrection, yet He never offers it as a sign to the broader public. Instead, Jesus appears only to His disciples and close followers after His resurrection.

Matthew 28:9-10, 16-20; Mark 16:9-14; Luke 24:13-35; John 20:19-29; Acts 1:3-8; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Commentary of Matthew 12:39

39 In view of the OT precedent the request for a sign is not in itself objectionable, and indeed Jesus has already drawn attention to the evidential value of his miracles in 9:6; 11:4–6, 21, 23. But Jesus dismisses the present request because of the attitude of those who have made it. “A wicked and adulterous generation” is perhaps an echo of Moses’ description of rebellious Israel in Deut 32:5 (cf. Deut 1:35); see17:17 for a more direct echo of the same passage. Israel’s “adultery” in going after other gods is a frequent theme of the prophets. Here the leaders’ challenge is taken to represent the sceptical attitude of the people in general. Their demand [6] for a sign after so much clear evidence (note especially v. 28) betrays their fundamental opposition to God’s purpose as it is now focused in the ministry of Jesus. If they have not been convinced by what has already happened, what sort of sign can hope to persuade them? The refusal of a sign is absolute in Mark’s parallel passage (8:11–12), but Matthew and Luke (11:29–30) both qualify it by an enigmatic reference to the “sign of Jonah,” which they then develop differently, Matthew by an explicit typological parallel (v. 40), Luke by stating more cryptically simply that as Jonah was a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT), p. 489. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Kindle Edition.

The Big Book of Bible Difficulties Answer

This explanation explores the theological significance of the passage and provides logical reasoning for Jesus’ response.

“First, the main point here is that Christ was not willing to grant their immediate request for a sign. Jesus does not say in Matthew that the sign of the Prophet Jonah will be immediately given. This sign (of His death and resurrection) occurred later. So, even in Matthew He did not grant the requests of the Pharisees. Jesus refused to do miracles just to entertain (Luke 23:8). He did not “cast pearls before swine.” However, He did perform miracles to confirm His messiahship (John 20:31), and the Resurrection was the crowning miracle of that nature (cf. Acts 2:22-32).Second, it is evident that on more than one occasion Jesus was asked to give a sign. Luke 11:16, 29-30 states that others sought for a sign. Here in Luke, Jesus responds very similarly to the way He does in Matthew 12. Also, again in Matthew 16:1-4 the Pharisees ask for a sign from Jesus to which He responds that none will be given except the sign of Jonah, just as He had in chapter 12. So, it is clear that on other occasions Jesus was asked to give a sign, and each time, Jesus refused to agree to their immediate demands. Miracles are performed according to God’s will, not according to human want (cf. Heb. 2:4; 1 Cor. 12:11).” –  Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe’s insights in The Big Book of Bible Difficulties (pp. 371-372).

In conclusion, there are two important points to note:

1. Silence in one account does not mean the event didn’t happen. Just because one writer leaves out a detail doesn’t mean it didn’t occur. For example, imagine a robbery with two eyewitnesses. One says the suspect wore a black hoodie and ran out the back door. The other says the same, but also mentions the suspect dropped a red glove. The second witness adds more information, but that doesn’t mean their account contradicts the first it simply includes additional detail.
2. No sign was given to the Pharisees after Jesus’ resurrection. It’s evident that Jesus addressed the Pharisees on multiple occasions regarding their demand for a sign. As a result, His response wasn’t limited to just one moment in Mark 8:11-13 He also spoke to them in Matthew 12:38-42, Matthew 16:1-4, and Luke 11:29-32, each time clarifying or reinforcing His position.

Therefore, the challenge to those claiming a contradiction is this:

Two accounts describing the same event with different details is not a contradiction. It’s a common feature of genuine eyewitness testimony.

Matthew 14

Verse 2

41. Herod did (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16) or did not (Luke 9:9) think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

(Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction here. In Luke 9:9, Herod asks who this incredible person could be, as John was now dead. In Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 he gives his answer: after considering who Jesus could be, he concluded that he must be John the Baptist, raised from the dead. By the time Herod actually met Jesus, at his trial, he may not have still thought that it was John (Luke 23:8-11). If that were the case, he had most probably heard more about him and understood John’s claims about preparing for one who was to come (John 1:15-34). He may well have heard that Jesus had been baptized by John, obviously ruling out the possibility that they were the same person.

Verse 5

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist (Matthew 14:5), or was it his wife Herodias (Mark 6:20)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The supposed contradiction pointed out by Shabbir is, ‘Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?’ The passages used by Shabbir to promote his conjecture are Matthew 14:5 where it appears to say that Herod did and Mark 6:20 where Shabbir suggests that Herod did not want to kill him. However the passages in question are complimentary passages.

When we look at the whole story we see that Matthew 14:1-11 and Mark 6:14-29, as far as I have been able to see, nowhere does it contradict each other. This seems to be a similarly weak attempt to find a contradiction within the Bible to that of contradiction 50 (Matthew 27:50-51). In both passages Herod has John imprisoned because of his wife Herodias. Therefore it is the underlying influence of Herodias and Herod that is the important factor in John’s beheading. Mark’s account is more detailed than Matthew’s, whose Gospel is thought to have been written later, because Matthew does not want to waste time trampling old ground when it is already contained within Mark’s Gospel. Notice also that Mark does not anywhere state that Herod did not want to kill John, but does say that Herod was afraid of him, because of John’s righteousness and holiness, and, as Matthew adds, the factor of John’s influence over the people.

Analogy:

Imagine a boss who doesn’t like a certain employee but hesitates to fire him because the employee is well-liked and respected. However, the boss’s spouse constantly pressures him to get rid of the employee. In the end, it’s the spouse’s influence that leads to the decision, even though the boss had mixed feelings.

In the same way, in Matthew, Herod is shown as wanting to kill John the Baptist, but he hesitates because he fears the people. In Mark, the focus is on Herodias’ desire to have John killed, with Herod fearing John’s righteousness. Both accounts tell the same story from different angles—Herod was influenced by Herodias but was conflicted due to John’s holiness and the people’s respect for him.

Verse 33

101. When Jesus walked on the water, did his disciples worship him (Matthew 14:33), or were they utterly astounded due to their hardened hearts (Mark 6:51-52)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text)

This seeming contradiction asks: ‘When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?’ Matthew 14:33 says they worshiped him. Mark 6:51-52 says that they were astounded and hadn’t understood from the previous miracle he had done when he fed the 5000.

This again is not a contradiction but two complementary passages. If Shabbir had read the entire passage in Matthew he would have seen that both the Matthew account (verses 26-28) and the Mark account mention that the disciples had initially been astounded, thinking he was a ghost. This was because they had not understood from the previous miracle who he was. But after the initial shock had warned off the Matthew account then explained that they worshiped him.

Matthew 16

Verse 2

86. In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-5; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus’ body, while in (John 20:2) Mary was not told.

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The angels told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead. Matthew, Mark and Luke are all clear on this. The apparent discrepancy regarding the number of angels is cleared up when we realize that there were two groups of women. Mary Magdalene and her group probably set out from the house of John Mark, where the Last Supper had been held. Joanna and some other unnamed women, on the other hand, probably set out from Herod’s residence, in a different part of the city. Joanna was the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household (Luke 8:3) and it is therefore highly probable that she and her companions set out from the royal residence.

With this in mind, it is clear that the first angel (who rolled away the stone and told Mary and Salome where Jesus was) had disappeared by the time Joanna and her companions arrived. When they got there (Luke 24:3-8), two angels appeared and told them the good news, after which they hurried off to tell the apostles. In Luke 24:10, all the women are mentioned together, as they all went to the apostles in the end.

We are now in a position to see why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels. John 20:1 tells us that Mary came to the tomb and we know from the other accounts that Salome and another Mary were with her. As soon as she saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell the apostles, assuming that Jesus had been taken away. The other Mary and Salome, on the other hand, satisfied their curiosity by looking inside the tomb, where they found the angel who told them what had happened. So we see that the angels did inform the women, but that Mary Magdalene ran back before she had a chance to meet them.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

1. Two Groups of Women Set Out:
   • Mary Magdalene’s Group: Mary Magdalene, Salome, and another Mary likely left from the house of John Mark. (Mark 16:1-2)
   • Joanna’s Group: Joanna and other unnamed women set out from Herod’s residence. (Luke 24:10, Joanna was the wife of Cuza, mentioned in Luke 8:3).
2. Mary Magdalene’s Group Arrives First:
   • The stone is rolled away. (Matthew 28:1-2, Mark 16:3-4, John 20:1)
   • An angel appears and tells Mary Magdalene and Salome where Jesus is. (Matthew 28:5-6, Mark 16:5-6)
   • Mary Magdalene sees the stone moved and immediately runs to tell the apostles, assuming Jesus’ body was taken. (John 20:2)
   • The other Mary and Salome stay and look inside the tomb, where they find the angel who informs them that Jesus has risen. (Mark 16:5-6, Matthew 28:5-7)
3. Joanna’s Group Arrives Later:
   • By the time Joanna and her companions arrive, the first angel had disappeared.
   • Two angels appear to Joanna and her companions, telling them the good news of Jesus’ resurrection. (Luke 24:3-8)
4. All Women Go to the Apostles:
   • In Luke 24:10, all the women (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary, Salome, and others) are mentioned together as they go to inform the apostles about the resurrection.
5. John’s Account:
   • John 20:1 highlights that Mary Magdalene did not encounter the angels because she had run back to tell the apostles before seeing them.

Thus, while Mary Magdalene ran off before encountering the angels, the other women stayed, saw the angels, and were informed that Jesus had risen.

Analogy:

Imagine two groups of friends going to an art museum from different parts of the city. The first group, led by Mary, gets there early. Mary sees the doors open unexpectedly and runs off to tell others, thinking something is wrong. The rest of her group stays, goes inside, and hears from a guide that the exhibit is already open.

Later, the second group, led by Joanna, arrives. By that time, the first guide is gone, but two new guides tell them the same information about the exhibit. In the end, all the friends meet up and share the news.

This is like what happened with Mary Magdalene and the other women at the tomb. Mary left early and didn’t see the angels (John 20:1-2), while the others stayed and heard the message from one angel (Matthew 28:5-7). Joanna’s group arrived later and saw two angels (Luke 24:3-8), all getting the same message in the end.

Verse 17

37. Simon Peter finds out that Jesus was the Christ by a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17), or by His brother Andrew (John 1:41)?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

The emphasis of Matthew 16:17 is that Simon did not just hear it from someone else: God had made it clear to him. That does not preclude him being told by other people. Jesus’ point is that he was not simply repeating what someone else had said. He had lived and worked with Jesus and he was now clear in his mind that Jesus was none other than the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Living God.

Jesus did not ask, “Who have you heard that I am?” but, “Who do you say I am?” There is all the difference in the world between these two questions, and Peter was no longer in any doubt.

Another way of putting it: 

In Matthew 16:17, Jesus emphasizes that Peter’s understanding of Him as the Christ came as a personal revelation from God: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” This doesn’t mean Peter hadn’t heard it from others, like his brother Andrew in John 1:41, where Andrew tells Peter, “We have found the Messiah.” Instead, it shows that while Peter may have first heard from Andrew, his belief was now confirmed by God Himself.When Jesus asks, “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15), He’s not asking what Peter had heard from others, but what he personally believed. The preceding question—”Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13)—highlights the difference between what others were saying and Peter’s own conviction. By this point, Peter wasn’t just repeating what others said; through experience and God’s revelation, he truly knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16). This shows that true belief comes through personal understanding, not just secondhand information.

Matthew 21

Verse 7

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35), or a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7)?

(Category: misread the text & misunderstood the historical context)

The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many donkeys Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. This accusation is based on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his full point about this event.

It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this event, the missing reference above being John 12:14-15. Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Jesus sat on the colt. Logic shows that there is no “contradiction” as Jesus cannot ride on two animals at once! So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.

“John indeed mentions a young donkey, but he uses the Greek word ὀνάριον (onárion), which refers to a young donkey or foal. This term is consistent with the “colt” (πῶλος, pōlos) used in the other Gospels, as it similarly means a young, immature animal.

Although John uses a slightly different Greek word than the others, the meaning is essentially the same. Both terms describe a young donkey, also referred to as a “colt.” The point of focus is that Jesus was riding a young, UNRIDDEN animal, in accordance with Zechariah 9:9.” – AC

Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text that Jesus did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says:

“Say to the Daughter of Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey’.”

Matthew 21:5

By saying “a donkey” and then “on a colt, the foal of a donkey” Zechariah is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known as “parallelism”, simply repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. This is very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,” yet says the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Jesus rode only on a colt, in agreement with the other three Gospel writers.

SHORT ANSWER

So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness (where as Mark and Luke were quite possibly not) emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway.

“The key point to address is the common misconception arising from Matthew 21:7, which states, ‘and he sat on them.’ Some readers, eager to find a contradiction, assume that ‘them’ refers to the donkeys, implying that Jesus somehow rode both animals at once. However, it is far more reasonable to understand ‘them’ as referring to the cloaks that were placed on the animals for Jesus to sit on. While both donkeys may have been draped with cloaks for presentation before the crowd, this does not mean that Jesus was seated on both animals simultaneously.” – AC

REBUTTAL

Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.

This is just one of many of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two.

Some Muslims believe that in the Taurat there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur’an speaks of in Surah 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. However, these Muslims yet have to come up with one, while Jesus is predicted time and time again.

verse 12

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he cleansed (Matthew 21:12) or did not cleanse (Mark 11:1-17) the temple that same day, but the next day?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The key to understanding may be found in Matthew’s use of narrative. At times he can be seen to arrange his material in topical order rather than strict chronological sequence. See the next question (#46) for more details.

With this in mind, it is probable that Matthew relates the cleansing of the temple along with the triumphal entry, even though the cleansing occurred the next day. Verse 12 states that ‘Jesus entered the temple’ but does not say clearly that it was immediately following the entry into Jerusalem.. Verse 17 informs us that he left Jerusalem and went to Bethany, where he spent the night. Mark 11:11 also has him going out to Bethany for the night, but this is something that he did each night of that week in Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:23 states: “Jesus entered the temple courts” in a similar fashion to verse 12, yet Luke 20:1 says that the following incident occurred “one day”, indicating that it may not have been immediately after the fig tree incident.

According to this possible interpretation, Jesus entered the temple on the day of his triumphal entry, looked around and retired to Bethany. The next morning he cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem (at which time it started to wither) and cleansed the temple when he got there. Returning to Bethany that evening, probably as it was getting dark, the withered fig tree may not have been noticed by the disciples. It was only the following morning in the full light of day that they saw what had happened to it.

(Archer 1994:334.335)

verse 19

46. Matthew 21:19 says that the tree which Jesus cursed withered at once, whereas Mark 11:20 maintains that it withered overnight.

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

The differences found between the accounts of Matthew and Mark concerning the fig tree have much to do with the order both Matthew and Mark used in arranging their material. When we study the narrative technique of Matthew in general, we find (as was noted in #45 above) that he sometimes arranges his material in a topical order rather than in the strictly chronological order that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke.

For instance, if we look at chapters 5-7 of Matthew which deal with the sermon on the Mount, it is quite conceivable that portions of the sermon on the Mount teachings are found some times in other settings, such as in the sermon on the plain in Luke (6:20-49). Matthew’s tendency was to group his material in themes according to a logical sequence. We find another example of this exhibited in a series of parables of the kingdom of heaven that make up chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached, Matthew prefers to carry it through to its completion, as a general rule.

When we see it from this perspective it is to Mark that we look to when trying to ascertain the chronology of an event. In Mark’s account we find that Jesus went to the temple on both Palm Sunday and the following Monday. But in Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Jesus did not expel the tradesmen from the temple until Monday, after he had cursed the barren fig tree (verses 12 to 14).

To conclude then, Matthew felt it suited his topical approach more effectively to include the Monday afternoon action with the Sunday afternoon initial observation, whereas Mark preferred to follow a strict chronological sequence. These differences are not contradictory, but show merely a different style in arrangement by each author.

(Archer 1982:334-335 and Light of Life III 1992:96-97)

Matthew 26

Verse 17-20

Jesus was crucified on the day after Passover (Mark 14:12; Mark 15:25; Matthew 26:17–20; Luke 22:7–15) or on the day before it (John 18:28; John 19:14–16)?

Answer: Neither. Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover according to Jewish reckoning, not before or after it.

As noted earlier, Jewish days run from sunset to sunset (6PM – 6PM). Furthermore, the Feast of Passover is not merely one day it marks the beginning of a seven-day festival (see Leviticus 23:5–8). The Passover lamb was sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan, which began Thursday evening and ended Friday at sunset (Mark 14:12–18). Within this window, Jesus both ate the Passover meal and was crucified (Mark 15:25).

When John 19:14–16 says that Jesus was crucified on the “day of Preparation of the Passover,” some assume this means the day before Passover. However, this misreads both Jewish terminology and the flow of the text. In all four Gospels, the term “Day of Preparation” (Greek: paraskeuē) refers to Friday, the day before the weekly Sabbath (e.g., Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31). John is using the same term this way.

Therefore, there is no contradiction. John and the Synoptics are describing the same timeframe: Jesus was crucified on the 14th of Nisan, during the day portion of Passover, which also happened to be Friday the Day of Preparation. The confusion arises only if one assumes Passover is a single evening and not part of a week-long festival.

Craig L. Bloomberg says:

John 19:14 does not contradict this by the day of Jesus’ death being labelled “the day of Preparation of the Passover,” since the Greek word paraskeuē, translated “day of Preparation,” was (and still is) the standard name for Friday in Greek; since Friday was always Preparation Day for the Sabbath (Saturday), it came to be called by that name (cf. Didache 8.1; Martyrdom of Polycarp 7.1), and John’s language is thus a natural shorthand for saying “the day of preparation for the Sabbath during Passover week” or simply “Friday in Passover week. And 42 virtually require this interpretation, because in the former John explicitly states that the next day was to be a (special) Sabbath, while in the latter the hurry to bury Jesus’ body before sundown makes sense only if the next day was one of rest from work; and this is precisely how the Synoptics understand the term as well (see Mark 15:42; cf. Matt. 27:62; Luke 23:54). Mark 15:42 proves particularly clear, calling the day of Jesus’ death “the day of Preparation” but then immediately explaining, “that is, the day before the Sabbath.” – Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2nd ed., InterVarsity Press, 2007, pp. 224–225.

Verse 36-46

71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are complementary.

Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke’s Gospel is thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically, therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in the other two gospels.

Verse 39

70. Did Jesus both pray (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) or not pray (John 12:27) to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks: ‘Did Jesus pray to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?’ Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42 are supposed to imply that he does. John 12:27, however, seems to say that he doesn’t.

This is a rather weak attempt at a contradiction and again wholly relies upon the ignorance of the reader for it’s strength. Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42 are parallel passages which take place in the Garden of Gethsemane just before the arrest of Jesus. In all of these passages Jesus never asks for the Crucifixion to be prevented but does express his fears of the difficulties, pain and suffering that he is going to encounter over the next few hours, in the form of his trials, beatings, whippings, loneliness and alienation from people and God on the Cross, the ordeal of crucifixion itself and the upcoming triumph over Satan. He does, however, more importantly ask for God’s will to be carried out over the next few hours knowing that this is the means by which he will die and rise again, and by doing so atone for all the sins of the world.

John 12:27 is from a totally different situation, one which takes place before the circumstances described above. It is said while Jesus is speaking to a crowd of people during the Passover Festival at the Temple in Jerusalem (in fact even before the gathering of the Twelve with Jesus at the Upper Room). On this occasion Jesus again says something very similar to the other passages above;

“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father save me from this hour’? No it was for this very reason that I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

Again we are reminded that he is feeling troubled. He knows events are fast unfolding around him. Yet, this statement is said in reply to some Greeks who have just asked something of Jesus through his disciples. Were they there to offer him a way out of his upcoming troubles? Perhaps, but Jesus does not go to meet them and indeed replies to their request to meet him in this way. Is it really conceivable that this man wants to prevent the crucifixion from taking place! I think not!

Verse 42

72. When Jesus went away to pray, were the words in his two prayers the same (Mark 14:39) or different (Matthew 26:42)?

(Category: imposes his own agenda)

This apparent contradiction comparing Matthew 26:36-46 with Mark 14:32-42, and in particular verses 42 (Mt.) and 39 (Mk.) respectively, is not a contradiction at all. Shabbir asks the question: ‘What were the words of the second prayer?’ at the Garden of Gethsemane. It relies heavily once again upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the texts mentioned, and his wording of the supposed contradiction as contrived and misleading.

Shabbir maintains that in the passage in Mark, “that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39).” Let’s see what Mark does say of the second prayer in 14:39;

“Once more he went away and prayed the same thing.”

Nowhere in this verse does Mark say that Jesus prayed the same words as the previous prayer, but what he does imply by the words used in the sentence is that the gist of the prayer is the same as before, as the passage in Matthew shows. When we compare the first two prayers in Matthew (vss. 39 and 42) we see that they are essentially the same prayer, though not exactly the same wording. Then in verse 44 Matthew says that Christ prayed yet again “saying the same thing!” Yet according to Shabbir’s thinking the two prayers were different; so how could Jesus then be saying the same thing the third time?

It seems that Shabbir is simply imposing a Muslim formula of prayer on the passages above which he simply cannot do. You would expect this to be the case if this was a rigidly formulated prayer that had to be repeated daily, as we find in Islam. But these prayers were prayers of the heart that were spoken by Jesus because of the enormity of the situation before him. Ultimately that situation was secondary to the gravity, power, and loving bond that Jesus had with the Father.

Verse 48-50

47. In Matthew 26:48-50 Judas came up and kissed Jesus, whereas in John 18:3-12 Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him.

(Category: misquoted the text)

This is rather an odd seeming discrepancy by Shabbir, for nowhere in the John account does it say (as Shabbir forthrightly maintains) that Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him. Not being able to get close to him had nothing, therefore, to do with whether he kissed him or not. It seems that Shabbir imagines this to be the problem and so imposes it onto the text. The fact that John does not mention a kiss does not mean Judas did not use a kiss. Many times we have seen where one of the gospel writers includes a piece of information which another leaves out. That does not imply that either one is wrong, only that, as witnesses, they view an event by different means, and so include into their testimony only that which they deem to be important.

“The phrase ‘Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him’ is neither mentioned nor suggested anywhere in the text. In John’s account, the detail of Judas kissing Jesus is simply omitted. This is an example of someone reading into the text to create a contradiction that doesn’t exist.” – AC

Matthew 27

Verse 3-5

98. Did Jesus appear to twelve disciples after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), or was it to eleven (Matthew 27:3-5; 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9,33; Acts 1:9-26)?

(Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction once you notice how the words are being used. In all the references given for eleven disciples, the point of the narrative account is to be accurate at that particular moment of time being spoken of. After the death of Judas there were only eleven disciples, and this remained so until Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place.In 1 Corinthians 15:5 the generic term ‘the Twelve’ is therefore used for the disciples because Matthias is also counted within the Twelve, since he also witnessed the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the passage pointed out by Shabbir records in Acts 1:21-22.

Verse 5a

60. Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with his blood-money for betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)

This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?’ In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.

In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this”. Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke’s writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas’ death.

“Additionally, the chief priests refused to accept the blood money from Judas by placing it in the temple treasury, since the money was considered tainted and could not be accepted. Instead, they used it to buy a field, which is why the text attributes the purchase of the field to Judas rather than to the chief priests. Although the priests technically bought the field, it was still tied to Judas, as the funds originated from him and were deemed unlawful for temple use. Consequently, even after Judas’s death, the field remained associated with him as the source of the money, marking it as his purchase.” – AC

Verse 5b

98. Did Jesus appear to twelve disciples after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), or was it to eleven (Matthew 27:3-5; 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9,33; Acts 1:9-26)?

(Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction once you notice how the words are being used. In all the references given for eleven disciples, the point of the narrative account is to be accurate at that particular moment of time being spoken of. After the death of Judas there were only eleven disciples, and this remained so until Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place.

In 1 Corinthians 15:5 the generic term ‘the Twelve’ is therefore used for the disciples because Matthias is also counted within the Twelve, since he also witnessed the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the passage pointed out by Shabbir records in Acts 1:21-22.

61. Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.

Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts 1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.

“This explanation is logical, as a simple fall would not cause a person’s insides to spill out. For this to happen, Judas would have had to be dead for some time, allowing his body to decompose. Given that he was hanging from a height, as noted earlier, he must have fallen eventually, and by then, his decayed body would more easily rupture upon impact with the ground.” – AC

Verse 8

62. Is the field called the ‘field of blood’ because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas’s bloody death (Acts 1:19)?

(Category: misunderstood the wording)

Once again, looking at the same two passages as the last two apparent contradictions Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of the bloody death of Judas.

However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field”. So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.

verse 31-32

49. Jesus did (John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31-32) bear his own cross?

(Category: misread the text or the texts are compatible with a little thought)

John 19:17 states that he went out carrying his own cross to the place of the skull. Matthew 27:31, 32 tells us that he was led out to be crucified and that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha that Simon was forced to carry the cross.

Mark 15:20, 21 agrees with Matthew and gives us the additional information that Jesus started out from inside the palace (Praetorium). As Simon was on his way in from the country, it is clear that he was passing by in the street. This implies that Jesus carried his cross for some distance, from the palace into the street. Weak from his floggings and torture, it is likely that he either collapsed under the weight of the cross or was going very slowly. In any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the cross for him. Luke 23:26 is in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as they led Jesus away.

Thus the contradiction vanishes. Jesus started out carrying the cross and Simon took over at some point during the journey.

Verse 37

65. Was the exact wording on the cross, as (Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19) all seem to have different wordings?

(Category: misread the text)

This seeming contradiction takes on the question, ‘What was the exact wording on the cross?’ It is argued that Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19 all use different words posted above Jesus’s head while hanging on the cross. This can be better understood by looking at John 19:20 which says;

“Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.”

It is interesting that Pilate is said to have written the sign and may have written different things in each of the languages according to Pilate’s proficiency in each of the languages. The key charge brought against Jesus in all of the Gospels is that he claimed to be ‘King of the Jews’. If this had been missing from any of the accounts then there may have been a possible concern for a contradiction here; but this is not the case. For a further explanation of this see Archer’s explanation.

(Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Zondervan, 1982).

Verse 46

74. Did Jesus say “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” in Hebrew (Matthew 27:46) or in Aramaic (Mark 15:34)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The question of whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic on the cross is answerable. However, the reason for Matthew and Mark recording it differently is probably due to the way the event was spoken of in Aramaic after it happened, and due to the recipients of the Gospel. However, the whole issue is not a valid criticism of the Bible.

Mark 15:34 is probably the most quoted Aramaism in the New Testament, being “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.” However, it is doubtful that Jesus spoke in the language that Mark records them in. The reason is simple; the people hearing Jesus’ words thought he was calling Elijah (Matthew 27:47 and Mark 15:35-36). In order for the onlookers to have made this mistake, Jesus would have to have cried “Eli, Eli,” not “Eloi, Eloi.” Why? Because in Hebrew Eli can be either “My God” or the shortened form of Eliyahu which is Hebrew for Elijah. However, in Aramaic Eloi can be only “My God.”

It is also worth noting that lama (“why”) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in Mishnaic Hebrew.

Therefore Jesus probably spoke it in Hebrew. Why therefore is it recorded in Aramaic as well? Jesus was part of a multilingual society. He most probably spoke Greek (the common language of Greece and Rome), Aramaic (the common language of the Ancient Near East) and Hebrew, the sacred tongue of Judaism, which had been revived in the form of Mishnaic Hebrew in Second Temple times. Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related Semitic languages. That Hebrew and Aramaic terms show up in the Gospels is, therefore, not at all surprising.

That one Gospel writer records it in Hebrew and another in extremely similar Aramaic is no problem to Christians, nor is it a criticism of the Bible. The simple reason for the difference is probably that when one of them remembered and discussed the happening of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, this phrase may well have been repeated in their conversation as Aramaic, which would be perfectly normal. So he wrote it down as such. Secondly, Mark may have written it in Aramaic due to the fact that he was the original recipients of the Gospel.

However, both these reasons are simply speculation. If Mark recorded his words in Arabic, then we would worry!

(Bivin, David, and Roy B. Blizzard. Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights from a Hebraic Perspective. Destiny Image, 1994, p. 10).

Verse 60

Supposed Biblical Error: The stone of Jesus’ Tomb (Matthew 27:60; Mark 15:46; Luke 24:2)

The Gospels record that a large stone was rolled in front of the tomb where Jesus’ body was laid; notably, archaeologist Amos Kloner.

“Of the more than 900 burial caves from the Second Temple period found in and around Jerusalem, only four are known to have used round (disk-shaped) blocking stones.” – See Kloner, Amos. “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” The BAS Library, 5 Nov. 2015, www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/25/5/1

In these tombs, the wealthiest royal families of the region possessed these tombs…

“Then he bought fine linen, took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen. And he laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.” – Mark 15:46 (NKJV)

The gospels say Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and it is unlikely he would’ve had one of the most expensive tombs in the area. Most tombs from that period were sealed with cork-shaped square stones, not round ones. So, when the biblical authors say the stone was “rolled away,” are they inaccurately describing the tomb, or does this suggest the account of Jesus’ tomb was a later legendary development?

And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.

I think this is an example of skeptics being overly nitpicky; large stones in general can reasonably be described as needing to be rolled.

“Kloner suggests that προσκυλίω and ἀποκυλίω could refer to rolling or moving an unrounded object. This seems plausible; cf. Josh 10:18 LXX; 2 Kgs 9:33 LXX; Diodorus Siculus 17.68.2.” – Allison, Dale C. Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters. T&T Clark, 2005, p. 363, n.641.

“So Joshua said, “Roll large stones against the mouth of the cave, and set men by it to guard them.” – Joshua 10:18 NKJV (LXX)

“Then he said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down, and some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses; and he trampled her underfoot.” –  2 Kings 9:33 NKJV (LXX)

The passage cited by Allison suggests that irregular or non-perfectly round objects can still be described as “rolling.” For example, in Mark 9:20, a demon-possessed boy is said to be “rolling” on the ground, clearly demonstrating that even a human body, which is not round, can be described with such language. This supports the idea that the biblical description of the stone being “rolled” does not require it to be perfectly circular.

“…from my own (back-breaking) experience in archaeological excavations with the opening of stone doors of tombs, it is clear to me that even a rectangular or square stone had to be ‘rolled’ in and out of position when a tomb was being closed or opened. There are hundreds of examples of tombs from this period in the Jerusalem area, with small entrances sealed with rectangular or square doors.” – Gibson, Shimon. The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence. HarperOne, 2009, p. 157.

Archaeological evidence from the area also describes square or rectangular stones as needing to be “rolled” into place. Additionally, certain details in the Gospel of Matthew suggest that the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb may not have been a precisely carved, round stone, but more likely a large boulder. This is implied by Matthew’s description of an angel sitting on the stone, which indicates a size and form substantial enough to support a seated figure.

“And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.” – Matthew 28:2 (NKJV)

“In Matthew 28, an angel sits on the stone after ‘rolling’ it back. If the stone had been rolled back between two walls, as was the case with Second Temple period round stones, it would have been impossible to sit on it. Indeed, it would be difficult to sit on the edge of a disk-shaped stone even if it had been pulled back from the tomb entrance. A square blocking stone would make a much better perch.” – Kloner, Amos. “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” The BAS Library, 5 Nov. 2015, www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/25/5/1.

So there’s no reason to assume that the Gospel is necessarily implying an expensive, circular-shaped stone simply because it says the stone was “rolled.” The average type of stone used to seal tombs at the time often square or irregular, can easily fit this description. This objection is a good example of being overly nitpicky and uncharitable in interpretation.

Matthew 28

verse 1

84. Did the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1), or to see the tomb (Matthew 28:1), or for no reason (John 20:1)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

This answer links in with number 81 above. We know that they went to the tomb in order to put further spices on Jesus’ body, as Luke and Mark tell us. The fact that Matthew and John do not give a specific reason does not mean that there was not one. They were going to put on spices, whether or not the gospel authors all mention it. We would not expect every detail to be included in all the accounts, otherwise there would be no need for four of them!

Verse 1-6

83. Did the women visit the tomb “toward the dawn” (Matthew 28:1), or “When the sun had risen” (Mark 16:2)?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

A brief look at the four passages concerned will clear up any misunderstanding.

1. Matthew 28:1: ‘At dawn…went to look at the tomb’.
2. Mark 16:2 ‘Very early…just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb’.
3. Luke 24:1: ‘Very early in the morning…went to the tomb’.
4. John 20:1: ‘Early…while it was still dark…went to the tomb’.

Thus we see that the four accounts are easily compatible in this respect. It is not even necessary for this point to remember that there were two groups of women, as the harmony is quite simple. From Luke we understand that it was very early when the women set off for the tomb. From Matthew we see that the sun was just dawning, yet John makes it clear that it had not yet done so fully: The darkness was on its way out but had not yet gone. Mark’s statement that the sun had risen comes later, when they were on their way. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sun had time to rise during their journey across Jerusalem.

“All accounts describe the events as occurring early in the morning, with each providing details that can be harmonized within that timeframe. The accounts highlight different aspects of the journey to the tomb, but these differences do not imply contradictions. The objection assumes that every detail should align precisely, down to the millisecond, even though the Gospels do not aim to record events with such exacting precision.” – AC

85. When the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone “rolled back” (Mark 16:4), “rolled away” (Luke 24:2), “taken away” (John 20:1), or did they see an angel do it (Matthew 28:1-6)?

(Category: misread the text)

Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel roll the stone back. This accusation is indeed trivial. After documenting the women setting off for the tomb, Matthew relates the earthquake, which happened while they were still on their way. Verse 2 begins by saying, ‘There was a violent earthquake’, the Greek of which carries the sense of, ‘now there had been a violent earthquake’. When the women speak to the angel in verse 5, we understand from Mark 16:5 that they had approached the tomb and gone inside, where he was sitting on the ledge where Jesus’ body had been. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the stone was rolled away when they arrived: there is no contradiction.

“The focus on the difference in wording is also a trivial detail when it is all referring to the same action. (rolled back, rolled away and taken away)” –  AC

86. In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:4-5; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus’ body, while in (John 20:2) Mary was not told.

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

The angels told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead. Matthew, Mark and Luke are all clear on this. The apparent discrepancy regarding the number of angels is cleared up when we realize that there were two groups of women. Mary Magdalene and her group probably set out from the house of John Mark, where the Last Supper had been held. Joanna and some other unnamed women, on the other hand, probably set out from Herod’s residence, in a different part of the city. Joanna was the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household (Luke 8:3) and it is therefore highly probable that she and her companions set out from the royal residence.

With this in mind, it is clear that the first angel (who rolled away the stone and told Mary and Salome where Jesus was) had disappeared by the time Joanna and her companions arrived. When they got there (Luke 24:3-8), two angels appeared and told them the good news, after which they hurried off to tell the apostles. In Luke 24:10, all the women are mentioned together, as they all went to the apostles in the end.

We are now in a position to see why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels. John 20:1 tells us that Mary came to the tomb and we know from the other accounts that Salome and another Mary were with her. As soon as she saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell the apostles, assuming that Jesus had been taken away. The other Mary and Salome, on the other hand, satisfied their curiosity by looking inside the tomb, where they found the angel who told them what had happened. So we see that the angels did inform the women, but that Mary Magdalene ran back before she had chance to meet them.

Veres 9

87. Did Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matthew 28:9) or on her second visit (John 20:11-17)? And how did she react?

(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)

We have established in the last answer that Mary Magdalene ran back to the apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. Therefore, when Matthew 28:9 records Jesus meeting them, she was not there. In fact, we understand from Mark 16:9 that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John 20:1-18). Here, we see that Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, she saw the two angels inside the tomb and then met Jesus himself.

As all this happened before Jesus appeared to the other women, it appears that there was some delay in them reaching the apostles. We may understand what happened by comparing the complementary accounts. Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women (Mary the mother of James and Salome) ran away ‘afraid yet filled with joy…to tell his disciples’. It appears that their fear initially got the better of them, for they ‘said nothing to anyone’ (Mark 16:8). It was at this time that Jesus suddenly met them (Matthew 28:9,10). Here, he calmed their fears and told them once more to go and tell the apostles.

There are several apparent problems in the harmonization of the resurrection accounts, a few of which have been touched on here. It has not been appropriate to attempt a full harmonization in this short paper, as we have been answering specific points. A complete harmonization has been commendably attempted by John Wenham in ‘Easter Enigma’ (most recent edition 1996, Paternoster Press). Anyone with further questions is invited to go this book.

It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving out different details. This is entirely to be expected from four authors writing independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.

Verse 10

88. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to his Father and God (John 20:17)?

(Category: misread the text)

This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What was Jesus’ instruction for his disciples?’ Shabbir uses Matthew 28:10 and John20:17 to demonstrate this apparent contradiction. However the two passages occur at different times on the same day and there is no reason to believe that Jesus would give his disciples only one instruction.

This is another contradiction which depends upon the reader of Shabbir’s book being ignorant of the biblical passages and the events surrounding that Sunday morning resurrection. (I say Sunday because it is the first day of the week) The two passages, in fact, are complementary not contradictory. This is because the two passages do not refer to the same point in time. Matthew 28:10 speaks of the group of women encountering the risen Jesus on their way back to tell the disciples of what they had found. An empty tomb!? And then receiving the first set of instructions from him to tell the disciples.

The second passage from John 20:17 occurs some time after the first passage, (to understand the time framework read from the beginning of this Chapter) and takes place when Mary is by herself at the tomb grieving out of bewilderment, due to the events unraveling around about her. She sees Jesus and he gives her another set of instructions to pass on to the disciples.

verse 50-51

50. Did Jesus die before (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38), or after (Luke 23:45-46) the curtain of the temple was torn?

(Category: misread the text)

After reading the three passages Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46, it is not clear where the apparent contradictions are that Shabbir has pointed out. All three passages point to the fact that at the time of Jesus’ death the curtain in the temple was torn. It does not stand to reason that because both Matthew and Mark mention the event of Christ’s death before mentioning the curtain tearing, while Luke mentions it in reverse order, that they are therefore in contradiction, as Matthew states that the two events happened, ‘At that moment’, and the other two passages nowhere deny this.

They all agree that these two events happened simultaneously for a very good reason; for the curtain was there as a barrier between God and man. Its destruction coincides with the death of the Messiah, thereby allowing man the opportunity for the first time since Adam’s expulsion from God’s presence at the garden of Eden, to once again be reunited with Him.

Matthew 28

Verse 17

89. Upon Jesus’ instructions, did the disciples return to Galilee immediately (Matthew 28:17), or after at least 40 days (Luke 24:33, 49; Acts 1:3-4)?

(Category: didn’t read the entire text and misquoted the text)

This supposed contradiction asks when the disciples returned to Galilee after the crucifixion. It is argued from Matthew 28:17 that they returned immediately, and from Luke 24:33 and 49, and Acts 1:4 that it was after at least 40 days. However both of these assumptions are wrong.

It would appear that Jesus appeared to them many times; sometimes individually, sometimes in groups, and as the whole group gathered together, and also at least to Paul and Stephen after the Ascension (see 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, and Acts 7:55-56). He appeared in Galilee and Jerusalem and other places. Matthew 28:16-20 is a summary of all the appearances of Christ, and it is for this reason that it is not advisable to overstress chronology in this account, as Shabbir seems to have done.

The second argument in this seeming contradiction is an even weaker argument than the one I have responded to above. This is because Shabbir has not fully quoted Acts 1:4 which says;

‘On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.”‘

Now the author of Acts, Luke in this passage does not specify when Jesus said this. However in his gospel he does the same thing as Matthew and groups together all the appearances so again it would be unwise to read too much chronologically into the passage of Luke 24:36-49. However it is apparent from the Gospels of Matthew and John that some of the disciples at least did go to Galilee and encounter Jesus there; presumably after the first encounter in Jerusalem and certainly before the end of the forty day period before Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.

SOURCE REFERENCE

101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible

101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible Pt. 2

101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible Pt. 3

101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible Pt. 4