Feel free send me your questions and I will try and respond as quickly as possible. Please note that this is not a debate page or site. You can send your questions to me by clicking here.
January, 2025
Matthew asks:
Why does the Gospel of Matthew mention guards at the tomb of Christ, but this is not found in other accounts? Does this undermine the other Gospels?
Hi Matthew,
The claim that the guards mentioned in Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 27:62-66) undermine the resurrection narrative because they aren’t mentioned in the other Gospels reflects a misunderstanding of how ancient biographies were written. Scholars like Michael Licona and Richard Bauckham have highlighted that the Gospel writers each had unique audiences and purposes, which shaped their focus. This doesn’t mean their accounts are contradictory—rather, they offer complementary perspectives. Matthew’s Gospel was written with a Jewish audience in mind, and he often addresses objections they would have raised about Jesus’ resurrection. As Daniel Wallace explains, the inclusion of the guards in Matthew’s account served to preempt claims that Jesus’ body was stolen, a rumor Matthew directly addresses (Matthew 28:11-15). The absence of guards in the other Gospels doesn’t imply they weren’t present; the other writers focused on different aspects of the resurrection narrative that aligned with their themes and audiences.
Daniel Wallace uses an illustration to explain the Gospel accounts’ differences: Imagine the Empire State Building being constructed and four witnesses, each at different vantage points. One is at the corner of Fifth Avenue, another at a nearby park, a third inside the building, and a fourth on top of a nearby skyscraper. Each will describe the event from their perspective, emphasizing different details while referring to the same event. Likewise, the Gospels were written by independent authors with distinct vantage points, resulting in narratives that complement each other rather than conflict. Michael Licona, a leading scholar on the resurrection, notes that differences in secondary details are expected in eyewitness testimony. In fact, they lend credibility to the accounts. If all the Gospels mentioned guards with identical details, critics would accuse the authors of collusion. Licona argues that these differences, far from undermining the resurrection, demonstrate the independence of the Gospel writers and the authenticity of their testimony.
Richard Bauckham’s work, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, reinforces this view. He explains that the Gospels are rooted in eyewitness testimony and shaped by the perspectives of those who lived through the events. Matthew, likely drawing from unique sources, includes the guards to emphasize the Jewish leaders’ futile attempts to suppress Jesus’ resurrection—a detail highly relevant to his Jewish audience. The differences in the Gospel accounts, including the mention of guards, reflect the authors’ varied perspectives and purposes rather than contradictions. Matthew’s inclusion of this detail strengthens the historical credibility of the resurrection by addressing specific Jewish objections. Just as eyewitnesses to the same event may emphasize different aspects, so too do the Gospel writers, each providing a unique angle on the same truth: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
January, 2025
Anonymous writes:
How would you respond to this? “Why I don’t believe in God! Because God sending himself to impregnate a woman with himself so that he could be born and pray to himself and then kill himself in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that he can forgive sins that he created himself in order to save us from hell which he created himself as to save us from himself Sounds like something he himself would not believe himself.
Dear Anonymous,
This argument is a classic example of a strawman fallacy, where Christian theology is misrepresented or oversimplified to make it easier to attack. The caricature presented distorts key doctrines, such as the Trinity, the incarnation, and the atonement.
The Christian understanding of God is rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity: one divine essence existing as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The claim that God “sent himself to impregnate a woman with himself” misrepresents the relationship within the Trinity, as scripture clearly states the Father sent the Son, and the incarnation occurred through the Holy Spirit (John 3:16; Luke 1:35). Similarly, the idea of Jesus “praying to himself” misunderstands the nature of his dual natures as fully God and fully man. As a man, Jesus modeled dependence on the Father, praying not to himself but in relational obedience (Philippians 2:6-8).
The claim that Jesus’ death was “a sacrifice to himself” also misrepresents Christian theology. Jesus’ sacrifice was to satisfy divine justice as a substitute for sinners (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21), not to “save us from himself” but to save us from the consequences of sin, which separate humanity from God (Isaiah 59:2).
Beyond these theological misrepresentations, the argument fails to address the core question of whether God exists. It presents no evidence for God’s non-existence, relying instead on rhetorical ridicule, which does nothing to disprove God’s existence.
Even if the caricature were accurate—which it is not—it would simply show that the individual misunderstands Christian doctrine, not that God does not exist. This introduces another fallacy: a false dichotomy. It assumes that if this specific portrayal of God is flawed, then God must not exist. This reasoning is a non-sequitur, as it does not follow logically. The argument ultimately dodges the main question, offering no substantive evidence or logical reasoning, and instead highlights the speaker’s misunderstanding of Christian theology and unwillingness to engage with the actual arguments for God’s existence.
November, 2023
Titus writes:
Tom, what do you make of the term “sons of God” that appears in the OT? It appears in Genesis (in both the LXX and the MT) and in Job (only in the MT). It seems that the MT’s substitution of “sons of God” for the term “angels” in Job chapters 1 and 2 has led to a LOT of confusion among Bible readers throughout the ages. For many, this has caused many to believe that sons of God literally means angels. But I do not think so. I believe “sons of God” simply identifies believers (vs “sons/daughters of men” which identifies the lost). Hebrews 1:5 indicates the true intention of the term in the OT was not to refer to angels.
If the MT—unlike the LXX—had not edited Job 1 and 2 to use “sons of God,” then we would see its true meaning in Genesis 6 more clearly.
Follow up question, what do you think about the Septuagint (LXX) and its proper place in our own reading and understanding of the Bible?
Thank you Titus for your question – sorry for the delay in responding.
I believe the term “sons of God” as used in the Hebrew Scriptures refer to spiritual beings (elohim) who took physical form in Genesis 6 and mated with human woman. The views that Genesis 6 deal with the godly line of Seth, as some hold, or godly kings to me fail in light of how the Hebrew בְנֵי־ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (ḇə-nê-hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm = sons of God) and how it is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. This, in my opinion, agrees with Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. All one need do is compare the passages. To this I would add Psalm 82:6-7. All of the verses below are from the Legacy Standard Bible (which I highly recommend for its accuracy to the original languages).
| Gen 6:2 | Job 1:6 | Job 2:1 | Job 38:7 | Psalm 82:6-7 |
| that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were good in appearance; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. | Now it was the day that the sons of God came to stand before Yahweh, and Satan also came among them. | gain it was the day that the sons of God came to stand before Yahweh, and Satan also came among them to stand himself before Yahweh. | When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? | I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you will die like men And you will fall like any one of the princes.” |
The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) is the traditional Hebrew text. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) came after the Hebrew but does allow us to know how Jews understood the Hebrew phrase during Second Temple Judaism. They translated the Hebrew as “angels”. Here is an English translation of Job 1:6 from the LXX: “And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.”
It should come as no surprise that angels or sons of God were spiritual beings who could take human form. We find this very thing in Genesis 18 and 19 where they eat and drink physical food, something a spiritual being would not need to do.
Psalm 82 notes that the elohim (spiritual beings) were “gods” of the nations who appear before God within His congregation (or Divine Council). So the theology is that in Genesis 6 they were fallen angels who had physical relationships with human woman and from their union the הַנְּפִלִ֞ים (Nephilim – Giants) came. To me, this is the best explanation of the passage and is consistent with corresponding passages
As to the LXX itself I think it is a very good translation of the Hebrew into Greek. It was the Bible used during the time of Christ and is the one quoted from by Paul and the other Apostles and New Testament writers.
September, 2023
Joseph writes and asks:
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this Tom:
If “Christ is sufficient“, which I believe you and I believe is true, then what do you think of Hebrew Roots folks and others who try to live like Messianic Jews? That is, why do you believe so many Gentiles think that “grafted into Israel” means that they must adhere to Jewish dietary restrictions, Sabbath, the feasts, etc.? The answer I’ve heard most give is, that it shows their obedience to God. By attempting to keep all of the commandments and covenants, (that their fathers could not) they are showing the fruit of their salvation.
I appreciate the question, and it is a very old one. The Apostle Paul tells us of certain Jews who were associated with James and Peter who, after they became Christians, were imposing Jewish laws on the Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-21). Salvation is only by God’s grace (Ephesians 2:8-9). We cannot add to it. We cannot take from it. We cannot improve it. We cannot change it. All we can do is receive it through Jesus Christ. Scripture says that for those in Christ that, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29 LSB).
However, it may simply be that your Messianic Jewish friends are really talking about identity and not salvation. Unlike our American culture, which is a great melting pot, the Jewish community are very close-knit (as are most cultures). My heritage, for example, is Greek and I know that the Greek community is likewise very close. It may be that they are keeping ceremonies and Jewish rituals as an identity to their Jewish heritage. Therefore, they are not doing it as an attempt to earn salvation (which we cannot do), but simply because of their Jewish identity.
Many Messianic Jews keep Jewish holidays, feasts, customs, and culture because they are Jewish as a people. It reminds them of from where they came as well as their faith. Jesus, as all the Apostles, was Jewish. It helps us to remember this when reading the New Testament to see Christ in the culture to which He came.
While there are many sources that discuss Messianic Jews, here are two on YouTube that I often listen to. Dr. Michael Brown is a born-again Jew and his channel, Ask Dr. Brown, is a great source. Likewise, One For Israel, is another fantastic source for Jewish Christianity without the legalism.
I hope this answers your question and again thank you for writing,
Tom's Theology Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.