Criticism of the Gospel of Matthew

Introduction

I write these lines after aborting a detailed criticism of the Gospel of Matthew. The cause for giving up was my bitter disappointment and frustration bordering on anger at the lack of chronology, the lack of coherence, the dishevelled storyline, the shameless fabrications justified with trimmed or misapplied Old Testament verses, and finally the stench of antisemitism that pervades this gospel, evident where Matthew lambasts "the Pharisees" and "the teachers of the law" through the mouth of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-12) or Jesus (Matthew 23:13-36).

Should a Christian disregard the book entirely? I think not, there is some good in it. I remember hearing Mr. Getty, a Harbord C. I. chemistry teacher many years ago, use an expression apropos here, "Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater." Even if the Gospel of Matthew contained one solitary nugget of gold its extraction and retention would be worth it. Chapter 7 leaches out fourteen nuggets.

1.   The Pharisees

The unquestioning reader of Matthew's gospel is left with the nasty impression that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were on the whole a wicked lot bent on harassing and murdering Jesus (Matthew 12:14). Jesus brands them a "brood of vipers" (Matthew 12:34, 23:33) hypocrites, blind fools, blind guides, whitewashed tombs, men full of wickedness and snakes condemned to hell (Matthew 23:13-33). But the lack of coherence is tremendous. Jesus' furious litany of insults conflicts with his precept to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-48). It is inconsistent with his acceptance of at least three invitations to dine at Pharisees' homes (Luke 7:39, 11:37, 14:1). It is inconsistent with his admonition to crowds and disciples to do everything the teachers of the law and the Pharisees commanded (Matthew 23:1-3). It is inconsistent with his presence at synagogues or at the Temple because the offended Pharisees could certainly bar Jesus for having blasphemed them (Deuteronomy 17:9-13). Jewish historian Flavius Josephus states that the Pharisees had "so great a power over the multitude that when they say anything against the king or against the high priest, they are presently believed" (Antiquities of the Jews; Book XIII, Chapter 10, par. 5). So the Pharisees could surely have banned Jesus everywhere. It is inconsistent with his choosing Paul of Tarsus, a Pharisee, for the post of minister to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15, 13:46-48, Romans 11:13-14, Galatians 2:7-9). Finally it is at odds with his statement that he had not come to abolish the Law, a predisposition that would preclude having nasty quarrels with the teachers of the Law (Matthew 5:17-19), several of whom were Jesus' disciples (Matthew 13:47-52).

Flavius Josephus depicts the Pharisees thus,

The Pharisees live meanly, despise delicacies in diet, follow the conduct of reason and pay respect to their elders, nor are they so bold as to dispute their innovations. They ascribe all things to fate but do not supplant man's free will. They also believe that souls are immortal and that they will reap rewards or punishments after death according to how they have lived in this life; the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, the former shall have power to revive and live again. The common people perform their divine worship, prayers and sacrifices according to the Pharisees' guidelines, and the cities attest to the Pharisees' entirely virtuous conduct, both in their actions and in their discourses also.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVIII, Chapter 1, par. 3. Edited)

The enormous popularity of the Pharisees combined with the freedom-loving pluck of the Galileans triggered a zealot rebellion during Jesus' childhood.

In A.D. 6 a Pharisee named Sadduc and a Galilean named Judas incited the whole nation to revolt after Caesar Augustus introduced direct taxation and sent a procurator to replace Archelaus son of Herod the Great. Judas and Sadduc likened Roman taxation to slavery and vowed that God would be their sole Ruler and Lord,

The nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one war after another came upon us, and we lost our friends who used to console us; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for hopes of personal gain—whence arose seditions and murders, sometimes of fellow Jews (by the desire that no one of the adverse party might survive) and sometimes of Romans. A famine also came upon us and reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities. Nay, the sedition became so strong that at length the very temple of God was burnt down by the Romans.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVIII, Chapter 1, par. 1. Edited)

Some Pharisees did not hesitate to stake their life on that same vow.

Pollio and a disciple named Sameas defied the dictate of Herod the Great forcing everyone to swear an oath of life-long loyalty to the king (Antiquities of the Jews; Book XV, Chapter 10, par. 4).

Two Pharisees named Judas and Matthias were burned alive by an ailing Herod the Great for encouraging their students to act on a principle of the Law and smash the golden eagle the king had placed over the Temple gate,

Judas and Matthias persuaded their students to pull down the golden eagle, alleging that although their act might bring them death, the deed's virtue would trump the pleasures of life because they would perish for the sake of the law of their forefathers, because they would be commended by their own generation and attain to everlasting fame and because they would bequeathe a living example never to be forgotten. At noon the young men pulled down the eagle and tore it to pieces with axes while a big crowd watched. The king's captain and a great troop arrived and caught no fewer than forty young men who had the courage to stay put while the rest ran away; Judas and Matthias too did not retire upon the troop's approach. So Herod burned them all alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVII, Chapter 6, pars. 2-4. Edited)

The Pharisees also prescribed complete rest on Sabbath days (Exodus 20:8-11). Their standpoint was the main bone of contention between Jesus and them; he preached and practised a liberal slant, they insisted on draconian observance.

Their obstinacy persisted although Pompey the Great had taken advantage of it in 63 B.C. (The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem; Book I, Chapter 7, pars. 3-4). Agrippa the Second brought the matter up to argue against the popular revolt of A.D. 66,

Think how impossible it will be to preserve your zealous observation of your religious customs if you fight the Romans. How can you countenance God's help if your need to transgress his law will turn his face away? And if you do observe the Sabbath days strictly and do nothing thereon, you will be defeated as easily as your forefathers were by Pompey who during his siege worked hardest on those days when the besieged took their rest. And if once at war you transgress the law of your country I cannot fathom on whose account you will be fighting afterward, for your concern is to do nothing contrary to any of your forefathers. How therefore will you call upon God to help you when you must transgress his religion? All men heading to war rely either on Divine or human aid; but since you will cut both off, those who are now for war court evident destruction.

(The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem. Book II, Chapter 16, par. 4. Edited)

The strict Sabbath regulations in effect even today (year 2021) will strike the average Western man or woman as utterly absurd. According to the webpage, https://kabbalahcenter.net/shabbat-jewish-rules/, accessed on Saturday October 2, 2021, the rabbis set down in the Talmud-Mishnah (the code of Jewish law) thirty-nine categories of forbidden acts on a Sabbath. These include opening an umbrella, tearing toilet tissue off, jogging, clipping one's nails, squeezing orange juice, brushing one's teeth (this precept pertains to Ashkenazi Jews only), putting body lotion on or using electricity, i.e., turning some electrical device on or off, a prohibition that extends to the elevators of an Israeli hotel or apartment building! (Google user comments).

Flavius Josephus stated that the Pharisees were entirely virtuous, but of course not every one and not every teacher of the law was. Josephus himself blames four teachers of the law for Caesar's banishment of all Jews living in Rome,

A Jew accused of transgressing the Law left Judea in fear of due punishment. In all respects a wicked man he moved to Rome and professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He also procured three others like himself to be his partners. The four then persuaded a woman of great dignity named Fulvia—she had embraced Judaism—to send purple and gold to the Temple of Jerusalem, and promptly embezzled her donation. Saturninus the husband of Fulvia asked Caesar Tiberius to look into the matter. Tiberius did and banished all the Jews from Rome, sent four thousand to Sardinia Island and punished a greater number for refusing to join the army. Thus were the Jews expelled from Rome because of the wickedness of those four men.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVIII, Chapter 3, par. 5. Edited)

Nor was every High Priest upright. Early in the rule of Caesar Nero, in the final year of procurator Felix, serious strife broke out among the priests of Jerusalem,

About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael son of Fabi. And now there arose a sedition between the High Priests and the principal men of Jerusalem. Each managed a band of bold troublemakers who cast reproachful words and threw stones at one another when they clashed. Nobody reproved them, so the disorders were rife as though the city had no government. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the High Priests that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing floors to take away the tithes due priests, to the point that the poorest ones died for want.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XX, Chapter 8, par. 8. Edited)

Back To Index

2.   The Romans

The unquestioning reader of Matthew's gospel is left with the benign impression that the Romans were for the most part inconspicuous, prudent and polite. In his only reported encounter with a centurion, Jesus is so impressed with the Roman's faith that he turns and says to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith" (Matthew 8:10).

But the lack of historical endorsement is tremendous.

Rome styled Judaism a "superstition" and Roman commanders rifled the Temple treasury at will.

The first commander to do so was Crassus of the First Triumvirate,

Now, on his expedition against the Parthians, Crassus came into Judea and carried off the money that Pompey had forsworn and left intact in the Temple's treasury, a sum of two thousand talents. Crassus also took a beam of solid beaten gold which Eleazar the priest and guardian of the sacred treasures offered to him as ransom for the veils of admirable beauty and very costly workmanship that hung down from it, but not until the Roman had sworn to take nothing more. Now this beam of gold was concealed inside a hollow wooden one and the deception was known to Eleazar alone. Yet Crassus seized the beam, broke his oath and purloined all the gold of the Temple.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XIV, Chapter 7, par. 1. Edited)

Soldiers manifested a similar contempt on occasion.

A big riot caused the death of many Jews during the administration of Cumanus [the procurator sent by Caesar Claudius in A.D. 45]. A great crowd had gathered in Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover. Cumanus, like his predecessors, posted a regiment in the Temple's cloisters to discourage uprisings. But on the fourth day of the Feast a certain soldier let down his breeches and exposed his private parts to the crowd. The people were furious and shouted that God himself had been affronted. Nay, some said Cumanus had set the soldier up. The procurator urged restraint but the protest did not abate, so he ordered the whole army to wear their armor and go to Tower Antonia which overlooked the Temple. When the people saw the soldiers they panicked and fled, but the exits were so narrow that they trampled each other to death in the stampede. The number of casualties was not less than twenty thousand. Such affliction did the impudent obscenity of a single soldier trigger.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XX, Chapter 5, par. 3. Edited)

The Romans under commander Sosius and Herod's troops besieged the city of Jerusalem in 36 B.C.,

The besieged fought against Herod with great alacrity and zeal (for the whole nation was gathered together). Some prophesied an agreeable outcome for the Temple and for the people. Now Sosius moved his engines close to the city walls, but the besieged contrived engines to counter his or sallied out and burned his down, fought hand to hand, dug mines to interpose and fight the Romans, and they persisted to the very end against a mighty army despite being distressed by famine and want of necessaries since this happened to be a Sabbath year. The first wall was taken in forty days and the second in fifteen more. Herod granted the besieged a short truce and then took the city by storm. And now all parts were full of those slain by the rage of the Romans at the long duration of the siege and by the zeal of the Jews who had sided with Herod and did not wish to leave one of their adversaries alive. So they were murdered continually in the narrow streets or in the houses or as they were fleeing to the temple for shelter, and no pity was shown either to infants or the aged, nor did they spare the women, but like a company of madmen fell upon people of all ages without distinction.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XIV, Chapter 16, par. 2. Edited)

A Syrian procurator named Sabinus provoked Judea to rebellion in 4 B.C.

Archelaus had sailed away to Caesar seeking his confirmation as king of Judea. Sabinus rushed to Jerusalem at the head of a legion, ransacked the Temple's treasury, seized citadels and the palace in a frantic search for Herod's money. The tens of thousands who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost clashed with the Syrian legion and hemmed it in. Sabinus then sent a courier to Varus the prefect of Syria asking for his help,

As soon as Varus was informed of the state of Judea he took the two other legions stationed in Syria and several auxiliary forces to assist the besieged. He sent part of his army into Galilee; this army took Sepphoris, enslaved its inhabitants and burnt the city. Varus himself marched to Samaria and camped at a certain village named Arus. The Arabian auxiliaries burnt it, out of their hatred to Herod. Next he marched to another village named Sampho, which the Arabians plundered and burnt. All places along the prefect's route were full of fire and slaughter. He also ordered Emmaus burnt. From there he marched to Jerusalem. The Jebusites alleged that the mobs who had come to the Feast had caused the war and that they too had been besieged like the Roman legion. Sabinus avoided Varus and slipped out of the city privately. Varus then sent part of his army to apprehend the authors of the revolt: some he dismissed and the most guilty he punished. Now the number of those crucified on this account was two thousand.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVII, Chapter 10, pars. 9-10. Edited)

Pontius Pilate started his term as procurator offending the citizens of Jerusalem deliberately. He billeted his army there with ensigns bearing Caesar's effigy. A multitude protested the affront for many days and Pilate almost staged a massacre but restrained himself and at length removed the army's ensigns from the city.

Next he confiscated the sanctuary money to build an aqueduct. Many thousands of people protested his diversion of the water and this time the procurator reacted ruthlessly,

Pontius Pilate disguised a great number of his soldiers as protesters, daggers concealed under their garments, and sent them to a place where they could surround the multitude. So he bid the Jews depart, but they refused and cast reproaches upon him. He then gave a contrived signal to the disguised soldiers and these laid upon the Jews much greater blows than Pilate had ordered and equally punished the orderly and the disorderly, nor did they spare them in the least, and since the people were unarmed and assaulted by trained men, a great number was slain while others ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVIII, Chapter 3, par. 2. Edited)

Gessius Florus was the last procurator.

Caesar Nero sent Gessius Florus to succeed Albinus. This Florus was so wicked and so violent in the use of his authority that Albinus seemed a benefactor by comparison, for Albinus concealed his wickedness but Florus made pompous ostentation of it, never omitting any violence or unjust punishment. He was unmoved by pity and never satisfied with however much wealth he procured. He partnered with a great many robbers who now acted fearlessly, having him for security. Hence there were no bounds to the nation's miseries and those unhappy Jews who could not bear the robberies emigrated to other countries. This Florus caused us to take up arms against the Romans since we thought it better to be destroyed at once than little by little. Now this war began in the second year of Florus' term and in the twelfth of Nero's.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book XX, Chapter 11, par. 1. Edited)

There was no guarantee of security for Jews in the Roman diaspora.

Caesar Tiberius appointed Flaccus Avillius procurator of Alexandria and environs in A.D. 32. Upon the death of Tiberius in A.D. 37, the principal men of Alexandria, "full of envy and ill-will and being at the same time filled with an ancient and innate enmity towards the Jews," persuaded the procurator to forsake and denounce the Jews. By so doing, they argued, Flaccus would gratify his political enemy, Caesar Caligula, who "cherished an indescribable hatred against the Jews" and held a grudge against the procurator himself. When the Egyptians sensed Flaccus' leaning to their side they ventured to install images honouring Caesar inside the synagogues. A few days later Flaccus publicly branded all Jews "foreigners" and "aliens" and decreed their status to be thenceforth prisoners of war.

So when the people had received this license, what did they do? The city has five districts named after the first five letters of the written alphabet. Two districts are called "the quarters of the Jews" because the majority of Jews lives there although some dwell scattered elsewhere. What then did they do? They drove the Jews entirely out of four quarters and crammed everyone into a very small space. The Jews lost all their property; the people plundered their houses and divided the spoils as in wartime; they looted their workshops and hauled the goods off to the marketplace.

(Philo of Alexandria. Flaccus. VIII, 55-56. Edited)

The graphic horror subsequently borne by the Jews of Alexandria matches the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition or of the Russian pogroms.

Some of our people, everyone oppressed by terrible want, upon seeing their wives and children perish of unnatural famine—everywhere else enjoyed prosperity and abundance for the Nile River had irrigated the cornfields liberally—went to the houses of friends and relatives begging food; others went to buy it in the marketplace; they were immediately seized, killed, dragged and trampled by the whole city. Thus the enemies of the Jews became wild beasts and slew them by the thousands with all manner of torture. They stoned or beat a captured Jew with sticks and prolonged his suffering deliberately. They burned entire families in the city centre, husbands, wives and children together. They dragged men by one foot while others leapt on the victim, the perpetrators mimicking the victims as actors do in the theatrical farces. Relatives and friends who sympathized with the Jews were jailed, scourged, tortured and eventually crucified.

(Ibid., 62-72. Edited)

He who said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel," (Matthew 15:24) could hardly defer to the petition of a Roman. Twaddler Matthew 8:10 fits within a broader campaign by the early Church Fathers to demote and eventually oust insubordinate Jewish believers.

Matthew's story claws the surreal asymptote when the Roman centurion addresses Jesus as "Lord" (Matthew 8:6, 8:8).

The story of the centurion is a Gentile canard. These verses reveal the motive,

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

(Matthew 8:10-12)

It is well known that the Early Church disowned its Jewish roots speedily and branded "Judaizer" anyone who refused to conform. The put-down became persecution when the Church gained political clout. Matthew 8:10-12 conveniently foreshadow and bless the turnabout.

Aside for the thoughtful reader

Back To Index

3.   Beelzebub

There is a particularly disgusting effort on the part of Matthew to slander the Pharisees with having committed the unpardonable sin. His libel deserves a thorough investigation.

The first instance is rather brief,

While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel." But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."

(Matthew 9:32-34)

Matthew's gospel is obsessed with demons and demon-possession, but the Jewish world was not.

Flavius Josephus mentions demons thrice in all his volumes: (1) Playing the harp exorcized the "evil spirit" that beset Saul (1 Samuel 6:14-17), (2) The souls of those killed in battle become "good demons" and "propitious heroes" (The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem; Book VI, Chapter 1, par. 5) and (3) King Solomon had the ability to expel demons,

Solomon bequeathed exorcisms that guarantee demons never return which retain a great authority unto this day, for I have seen a Jew named Eleazar releasing demon-possessed people in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, captains and a multitude of soldiers. The manner of the exorcism was this: Eleazar put a ring with a Foot of the type described by Solomon to the nostrils of a demon-possessed man and then drew the demon out through his nose. The man fell down immediately and Eleazar abjured the demon in the name of Solomon and with his ancient incantations to never return. And Eleazar showed his power by ordering the departing demon to overturn a receptacle full of water placed a short distance away. This he did, whereupon Solomon's skill and wisdom was displayed very manifestly.

(Antiquities of the Jews. Book VIII, Chapter 2, par. 5. Edited)

Vespasian may have kept a straight face in public but surely had a good laugh after the show.

Philo of Alexandria remarks that Moses usually dubs "angels" beings whom other philosophers call "demons" (On the Giants, II, 6) and that the "evil angels" of Psalm 77:49 ("destroying angels," some Bibles) really tab those wicked men who, unfamiliar with the sciences and with the virtues, pursue the pleasures available to the eye, ear, taste, belly or genitalia (Ibid., IV, 16-18).

In other words, the construction of a demonic realm was the product of manic Gentile Christian madness.

The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a painstaking analysis of the second libel (Matthew 12:22-37).

²² Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. ²³ All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" ²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons." ²⁵ Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. ²⁶ If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? ²⁷ And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. ²⁹ Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house. ³⁰ Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. ³¹ And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. ³³ Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. ³⁴ You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. ³⁵ A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. ³⁶ But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. ³⁷ For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

On verse 22 Matthew again links a man's physical disability (blind and mute) to the work of a demon. Generalizing his retrogressive premise implies that every illness or physical disability is the work of a demon, and consequently a near-sighted individual "should" see an exorcist instead of an optometrist.

It is comical to have the Pharisees (who adhered to "the conduct of reason") dub Beelzebub the "prince of demons" on verse 24, firstly because Beelzebub was not a contemporary—the Philistines dissolved five hundred years earlier (Wikipedia)—and secondly because he had been the piffling god of a puny city, hardly princely mettle.

Jesus speaks about a kingdom of Satan on verses 25-26. Unlike the Old Testament where Satan is merely a wanderer "roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it" (Job 1:7, 2:2) whose capacity to harm is controlled by God (Job 1:12, 2:6). In Gentile Christianity Satan is a king, but in Judaism he is God's curmudgeon. Since Jesus was a religious Jew—not a Christian—Mathew's antisemitic rant gets progressively more preposterous.

Matthew has Jesus say that his exorcisms implied the arrival of the kingdom of God (v 28) but, again, his statement is not Jewish because King David depicted the kingdom of God as the static greatness, power, glory, majesty and splendor of heaven and earth (1 Chronicles 29:11-12). In other words the kingdom of God does not arrive but abides from everlasting to everlasting.

Finally the unpardonable sin is not a matter of words spoken against the Holy Spirit (vs 31-32) but of defining good and evil. The Old Testament puts it this way, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20).

Aside for the thoughtful reader

Back To Index

4.   The Virgin Birth

According to Matthew, Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary,

¹⁸ This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. ¹⁹ Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. ²⁰ But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ²¹ She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." ²² All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ²³ "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."

(Matthew 1:18-23)

The story of the virgin birth forgets that an unmarried woman necessarily lived in her father's house under his full authority (Numbers 30:3-5). If Mary were pregnant by someone other than Joseph (v 18) her father would naturally conclude that she had been promiscuous and the Law sentenced her to death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

Since Mary's pregnancy could not be hidden from prying eyes, far less in a small town where everybody knows everybody else, either her father vouched for the virgin birth, exposing himself to public ridicule for the rest of his life—or the village miraculously acknowledged the miracle, raising Mary to divine status and making her instantly famous throughout Israel—or she would get stoned to death.

The Holy Spirit does not make a woman pregnant (v 20) but a prophetess (2 Kings 22:11-20, Isaiah 11:2).

Jesus did not save his people from their sins (v 21). The Lord forgives all the sins of anybody who fears him and obeys his precepts (Psalm 103) or in whose spirit there is no deceit (Psalm 32:1-2) or who humbles himself, prays and turns from his wicked ways (2 Chronicles 7:14, Jeremiah 36:3). They who fail to comply with these terms are not saved from their sins.

Matthew attempts to justify his yarn on vs 22-23 by resorting to Isaiah 7:14. The context leading up to Isaiah 7:14 is that the kings of Aram and Israel made a pact of aggression against Jerusalem, and when Ahaz king of Judah first learned of it he and the nation trembled with fear.

Isaiah conveyed the first word of the Lord to Ahaz: "Keep calm, do not fear and stand firm in your faith" (Isaiah 7:1-9); but fear persisted and so the Lord sent Isaiah to the king a second time,

¹⁰ Again Isaiah spoke to Ahaz, ¹¹ "Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights." ¹² But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test." ¹³ Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? ¹⁴ Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. ¹⁵ He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. ¹⁶ But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."

(Isaiah 7:10-16. Underlined word mine)

Isaiah 7:13-14 tab who would witness the sign: the house of Israel synchronous with the monarchy of Ahaz.

Isaiah 7:15-16 provide a timeframe: the child born of the "virgin" would still be a minor when Aram and Israel were laid waste. This occurred about the year 730 B.C. (see also Isaiah 8:1-4).

These separate verses seal the identity of Immanuel,

The Lord spoke to me again: "Because this people has rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah and rejoices over Rezin and the son of Remaliah, therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River—the king of Assyria with all his pomp. It will overflow all its channels, run over all its banks and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it, passing through it and reaching up to the neck. Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land, O Immanuel!"

(Isaiah 8:5-8)

Immanuel was the child who grew up to be King Hezekiah because the king of Assyria invaded the land of Judah during his reign.

The "virgin" turned out to be not a woman but the "Virgin Daughter of Zion," an expression coined by Isaiah himself (2 Kings 19:20-21, Isaiah 37:21-22) to tag that portion of the house of Israel which remained faithful to the Lord and did not apostasize after King Ahaz did.

The byword Immanuel (lit. "God with us") took effect when the angel of the Lord eradicated Sennacherib's army (2 Kings 19:35-36, Isaiah 37:36-37) for after that event many Jebusites must have greeted one another and saluted King Hezekiah with the cheery word, "Immanuel!"

Golden Rule: If the intended Old Testament justification is fraudulent, the New Testament anecdote is a fabrication.

Back To Index

5.   The Flight To Egypt

According to Matthew, Joseph emigrated briefly to Egypt,

When they [i.e., the Magi] had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

(Matthew 2:13-15)

Matthew attempts to justify his fabrication with the following unwarranted trim of Hosea 11:1-2,

¹ When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. ² But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.

(Hosea 11:1-2)

Golden Rule: If the intended Old Testament justification is fraudulent, the New Testament anecdote is a fabrication.

Aside for the thoughtful reader

Back To Index

6.   The Slaughter of the Innocents

According to Matthew, Herod the Great ordered the slaughter of all the boys two years old or less in Bethlehem and its surroundings,

¹⁶ When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. ¹⁷ Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: ¹⁸ "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."

(Matthew 2:16-18)

Matthew justifies his story with another shameless trim, this time of Jeremiah 31:15-17,

¹⁵ This is what the Lord says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more." ¹⁶ This is what the Lord says: "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded," declares the Lord. "They will return from the land of the enemy. ¹⁷ So there is hope for your future," declares the Lord. "Your children will return to their own land."

(Jeremiah 31:15-17)

Jeremiah 31:15-17 bears no relationship whatever to a dubious mass infanticide perpetrated by Herod the Great because Rachel is weeping over the demise of her own two children, Joseph and Benjamin (Genesis 35:24). Jeremiah uses "Joseph" as a synonym for Ephraim, i.e., the northern kingdom of Israel, and "Benjamin" as a synonym for the southern kingdom of Judah. Ephraim was eradicated by Assyria, and Judah was eradicated by Babylon.

Matthew omits Jeremiah 31:16-17 because these two verses expose his misuse of Jeremiah 31:15 since they prophesy the ultimate return of Ephraim and Judah to their land.

Golden Rule: If the intended Old Testament justification is fraudulent, the New Testament anecdote is a fabrication.

Aside for the thoughtful reader

Back To Index

7.   Gold Nuggets

The gospel of Matthew is not an honest biography of Jesus, but it does contain some "gold nuggets" which can be assumed to reflect Jesus' warnings, views on the afterlife and the ethical code observed in the kingdom of heaven.

The following selection may not be exhaustive.

• Anyone who says to his brother, "Raca," is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of hell (Matthew 5:22).


• So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12).


• Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it (Matthew 7:13-14).


• Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but they are ferocious wolves inwardly. You will recognize them by their fruit (Matthew 7:15-16).


• Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?" Then I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matthew 7:21-23).


• The Parable of The Sower (Matthew 13:3-9, 18-23).


• The Parable of The Tares (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43).


• Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him "unclean," but what comes out of his mouth is what makes him "unclean" (Matthew 15:10-11).
  Note: Jesus' derogation of kosher diet regulations accords with his equally liberal attitude toward the Sabbath rest.


• If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea (Matthew 18:6).


• The Parable of The Wicked Servant (Matthew 18:23-35).


• The Parable of "The Last Will Be First, And The First Will Be Last" (Matthew 20:1-16).


• The Parable of The Sheep And The Goats (Matthew 25:31-46).


• The spirit is willing, but the body is weak (Matthew 26:41).

Back To Index