Of the four canonized Gospels, it is my opinion that the Gospel of
Matthew is the most reliable and accurate, describing Jesus as a Prophet.
Although one item stands out when compared to the remainder of the Bible.
This is Matthew's "over attempt".
What is meant by "over attempt" is that the Gospel of Matthew tries to hard
to make Jesus appear to be the Prophet which is predicted in the Old Testament.
As a result, we see additions of events surrounding Jesus in the Gospel of
Matthew.
While these additions do make Jesus appear to be the "Prophet like Moses"
predicted in the Old Testament, (Deuteronomy 18:18) the negative result of these
additions is that it makes the other three canonized Gospels (Mark, Luke, and
John) appear as if they are missing something.
Here we will list examples of Matthew's attempts to match Jesus to prophecies
in the Bible.
The first example is the purchase of the potter's field with the thirty
pieces of silver that Judas cast back to the chief priests and elders which is
claimed to have fulfilled a prophecy made by Jeremiah:
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet,
saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was
priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for
the potter's field as the Lord appointed me" (Matthew 27:9-10).
The issue here is that Jeremiah never made such a statement. Some scholars
have suggested that Matthew was quoting "loosely" a statement that was actually
written by Zechariah (11:12-13) rather than Jeremiah.
Another example is in Matthew's second chapter, when Joseph took his family
to Nazareth upon their return from Egypt, Matthew said that he did so "that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be
called a Nazarene"(Matthew 2:23). No one has been able to find any statement
that any prophet ever made that this could be a reference to.
The Old Testament prophets never referred to Nazareth, the word Nazareth, as
well as Nazarene, was never even mentioned in the Old Testament.
The second chapter of Matthew is often looked upon as a prophecy fulfillment
in (Deuteronomy 18:18). As Pharaoh kills all the children while Moses escapes,
so does Matthew place Jesus in a identical scenario. King Herod (Jesus's
Pharaoh) killed all children under the age of two in attempt to stop Jesus,
while Jesus and his family (Joseph and Mary) escape to Egypt. (Matthew 2:16).
The only perplexity is that none of the other Gospel writers mentioned it.
There is support from both historians and the remaining Gospels that such a
event did not take place. The Jewish historian Josephus chronicled the reign of
Herod in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews. In doing so, he made no apparent
attempt to whitewash Herod's character.
He related, for example, Herod's execution of John the Baptist, an event
related by three of the gospel writers, but he said nothing about the massacre
of the children at Bethlehem, which would have undoubtedly been the most heinous
crime that Herod committed.
Furthermore, the Gospel of (Luke 2:22-40 ) says that following the birth of
Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in the area of Jerusalem for the Presentation
(about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt.
There is no slaughter of the infants.
The Gospel of Luke also says that Jesus was born during the Syrian
governorship of Quirinius, who was not even appointed to the position until 6 A.
D. (Luke 2:2). Matthew said that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, who died
in 4 B. C. (Matthew 2:1).
In his attempts for prophecy fulfillments, no event was too trivial for
Matthew. A sample of one of his smaller insertions is in the entry of Jesus into
Jerusalem shortly before his betrayal and crucifixion.
The story is recorded by three of the Gospel writers, but Matthew's account
differs significantly from Mark's and Luke's. Mark and Luke simply had Jesus
riding into Jerusalem on a colt to the cheers and hosannas of the multitudes
(Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-40). Matthew however, trys to build it into a
prophecy-fulfillment:
This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
"Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, mounted on
a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the
donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them (Matthew
21:1-7).
The major difference in Matthew's version of this event and Mark's and
Luke's: (1) Matthew had Jesus riding both a donkey and her colt; Mark and Luke
had Jesus riding only a colt, and (2) Matthew saw it as fulfillment of a
prophecy; Mark and Luke said nothing at all about prophecy fulfillment being
involved.
We also see Matthew's over attempt in (Matthew1:23) where it was claimed that
an angel's announcement to Joseph that his betrothed wife Mary would give birth
to a child conceived by the Holy Spirit was done to fulfill a prophecy spoken by
Isaiah:
"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call
his name Immanuel."
In the original context, however, Isaiah made this statement as a sign to
Ahaz, king of Judah, that an alliance recently formed against him by Rezin, the
king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, would not succeed in defeating
him.
Finally, Isaiah said to him, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing
for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore Yahweh Himself
will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and
shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:13-14).
Hence, the context clearly shows that this so-called prophecy was made not to
foretell the birth of Jesus some 700 years later but the birth of a child to
that time and that situation.
Luke, Mark and John, in fact, were completely silent about the birth. Doesn't
it seem strange, then, that this remarkable "prophecy fulfillment" would have
been treated with silence by three of the four "inspired" writers who recorded
the life of Jesus?
Secondly, no record exists of Jesus ever having been called Immanuel by his
contemporaries.
Besides trying to match the Old Testament prophecies, Matthew also makes some
of his own predictions which also demonstrate inconsistencies. When Matthew
wrote; "twelve apostles to be rewarded" he gave a prediction which was ignoring
the 12th apostle who betrayed Jesus (Judas).
When Peter asked Jesus what reward the apostles could expect for forsaking
all to follow him Jesus said, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration,
when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me
will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew
19:28).
Also the prediction of Jesus's second coming: Jesus prophesied that his
second coming would occur during the lifetime of his generation. Upon leaving
the temple in Jerusalem, he predicted in the Gospel of Matthew about the
temple's destruction to his disciples, saying that "not one stone shall be left
here upon another" (Matthew. 24:2).
When they reached the Mount of Olives, his disciples said to him, "Tell us,
when will these things be?
And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age (Matthew
24:3). In reply, Jesus describes some details of the day of Judgement and than
said; "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all
these things take place (Matthew 24:32-34).
This concludes that both the past and future prophecies utilized by Matthew
were a good effort but land short of being accurate.
Here is a further short critique of the Gospel of Matthew compared to the
other 3 Gospels;
Matthew wrote that the centurion went in person to ask Jesus to heal his
servant who was near death (8:5-13). Luke said that the centurion stayed at home
and sent elders of the Jews to ask Jesus to heal the servant (7:2-10).
Matthew said that Jairus reported his daughter dead when asking Jesus to go
heal her (9:18-25). Both Mark (5:23) and Luke (8:42) said that she was still
alive but dying.
We also see the Gospel of Matthew writing about Matthew, suggesting the
original Matthew did not write the Gospel; (9:9) "And Jesus passed forth from
thence, he saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom; and he
said unto him; Follow me. And he arose, and followed him." As confimed in the
(Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Bible Commentary)
Thus we end with a quote from the "Ecumenical Translation of the Bible" which says the Gospel of Matthew was written to show "Jesus fulfilled the history of Israel."