This is not the first such reward offer we (or others) have received, and in all likelihood it will not be the last. Financial gain aside, this particular question on the part of the skeptic provides an excellent teaching opportunity.
First, it is important to note that alleged Bible discrepancies fall into various categories of difficulty, so far as ease of response is concerned. Certain charges against Gods Word are explained effortlessly. For example, one infidel suggested that he had discovered a contradiction in the Bible. He noted that since Noahs ark (described in Genesis 6) was 300 cubits long (about 450 feet) and would have weighed several tons when fully loaded, it was preposterous to believe that the priests could have carried it across the Jordan River as described in Joshua 3! The critics inability to distinguish between the ark of Noah and the ark of the covenant made answering his argument a simple matter for even the most elementary Bible student. However, not all alleged discrepancies are answered as easily. Some require extensive research to explain. Entire books have been written to discuss these so-called discrepancies (see, for example: Archer, 1982; Arndt, 1932, 1955; Haley, 1951). It is a simple matter for the atheist, agnostic, freethinker, or skeptic to charge that Gods Word contains contradictions or discrepancies; it is not always a simple matter for the Bible believer to respond to such a claim.
Second, on occasion it is the case that the charge being made against the Bible is itself seriously flawed. In other words, we need to be admonished never to react to a charge leveled against a certain passage of Scripture based on what the passage is supposed to say according to the Bible critic, or on what the Bible critic thinks it says. Prior to making any response, we should open our Bibles, turn to the passage in question, and read it for ourselves. For example, in the letter we received, the skeptic quoted Matthew 2:23 as stating, He shall be called a Nazarene, and then challenged us to find an Old Testament prophecy that said exactly that. The skeptic no doubt intended for us to concludebased on the limited information he gave usthat Matthew erred, and that the Bible contains a blatant error on the part of an inspired writer, thereby negating its claim of inspiration.
Upon closer examination, however, it becomes evident that the passage does not say what the skeptic wants us to think it says. The quote actually was only the latter half of the verse. In the context (which begins earlier in verse 22), here is what the passage actually says:
But when he [JosephBT] heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, for he should be called a Nazarene.
An examination of the actual facts that come to bear on this passage reveals the following information. It is true, as various Bible commentators have noted, that nowhere in the Old Testament did any of the prophets say: He shall be called a Nazarene (see Lenski, 1943, p. 87). However, while at first glance the verse might be construed to suggest that some prophets (the plural in the Greek text is significant; see comments below) suggested that Christ should be called a Nazarene, further study shows that this is not the actual intent of the passage at all. In discussing the grammatical construction of the passage in the original Greek, R.C.W. Lenski (a highly respected Greek scholar in his own right) stated:
But the plural through the prophets is important. It cannot refer to one prophet speaking for all. This plural evidently refers either to the prophetic books in general or to the entire Old Testament. It also shows that no quotation is to follow which will introduce some word that was uttered by several prophets (p. 87, emp. in orig.).
With great care, Lenski then went on to show that the structure of the Greek involved in the passage under consideration is not...like our quotation marks, pointing to a direct quotation. Then, after remarking on the original words, the form in which they occur, and their careful use by Matthew within the passage under consideration, Lenski noted that such construction in the Greek shuts out not only a direct quotation but also an indirect prophetic utterance (p. 87).
What, then, is Matthews meaning? The text is saying simply this: Jesus lived in Nazareth not because the prophets had said that He would live in that specific city, but in order to fulfill additional specific things that the prophets had said about Him. Lenski has done an excellent job of explaining this point:
Jesus lived in Nazareth in order to fulfill the prophets; and the evidential reason by which we ourselves can see that his living in Nazareth fulfilled the prophets, is that afterward, due to his having lived there, he was called the Nazarene. We may add that even his followers were called Nazarenes. Matthew writes nothing occult or difficult. A Nazarene is one who hails from Nazareth. Matthew counts on the ordinary intelligence of his readers, who will certainly know that the enemies of Jesus branded him the Nazarene, that this was the name that marked his Jewish rejection and would continue to do so among the Jews. They put into it all the hate and odium possible, extending it, as stated, to his followers. And this is what was spoken through the prophets. One and all told how the Jews would despise the Messiah, Ps. 22:6; Isa. 49:7; 53:3; Dan. 9:26; every prophecy of the suffering Messiah, and every reference to those who would not hear him, like Deut. 18:18. The Talmud calls Jesus Yeshu Hannotzri (the Nazarene); Jerome reports the synagogue prayer in which the Christians are cursed as Nazarenes.... Compare Acts 24:5, sect of the Nazarene, and Pauls characterization. If Jesus had been reared in Jerusalem, he could not have been vilified as the Nazarene. It was God who let him grow up in Nazareth and thus furnished the title of reproach to the Jews in fulfillment of all the reproach God had prophesied for the Messiah through the prophets (pp. 88-89).
Albert Barnes made the same assessment of this passage in his commentary on Matthew when he wrote:
Some have supposed that he refers to some prophecy which was not recorded, but handed down by tradition. But these suppositions are not satisfactory. It is much more probable that Matthew refers not to any particular place, but to the leading characteristics of the prophecies respecting him.... When Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were fulfilled, his meaning is that the predictions of the prophets that he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected, were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth, and despised as such (1972, p. 21, emp. in orig.).
So in the end, the skeptics $1,000 reward remained safely in his own pocket. His offer turned out to be vacuous, due to the fact that it rested on a completely incorrect interpretation of the passage in the first place. With time and study, the unfounded charge which suggested that Matthew had erred and that the Bible contains contradictions evaporated like an early morning fog hit by the hot noon Sun.
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Arndt, William (1932), Bible Difficulties (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Arndt, William (1955), Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Barnes, Albert (1972 reprint), Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Haley, John W. (1951 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Lenski, R.C.W. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthews Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558