“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Matt 2:23)”
Problem: Matthew 2:23 reads, “[He] came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” Critics contend that this is a case of Matthew twisting the Scriptures.
“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matt 2:23)”
Problem: Matthew claims that Jesus moved to Nazareth to live, in order “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matt. 2:23). However, no such prophecy is found in any OT prophet. Did Matthew make a mistake?
“In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. (Matt 2:18)”
Problem: Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15 to refer to the death of the babies in Bethlehem. But Jeremiah was writing (in context) about the children killed during the Babylonian exile 600 years earlier. Was Matthew quoting this out of context?
“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. (Matt 2:16″
Problem: Matthew records that Herod killed all of the male babies under the age of two years old (Mt. 2:16). No other extrabiblical source mentions this. Josephus—a first century historian—follows the life of Herod, but he fails to mention this. How could such a major genocide not be mentioned by Josephus or anyone else?
“When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. (Matt 2:14-15)
Problem: Hosea 11:1 reads: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” However, Matthew quotes this passage as though Jesus was the fulfillment. Critics argue that Matthew was pulling this passage out of its context. Had Matthew bothered to read the beginning of the verse, he would have seen that this was about the nation of Israel—not the Messiah. Thus in his article “Matthew Twists the Scriptures,” critical scholar S.V. McCasland writes, “The interpretation of Hosea 11:1 not only illustrates how early Christians found a meaning entirely foreign to the original; it may also show how incidents in the story of Jesus have been inferred from the OT… [This] indicates how desperately early Christians searched the Scriptures to find proof for the things happening among them.”[1] Is this the case?
“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. (Matt 2:6)”
Problem: Matthew seems to misquote Micah 5:2. Compare the two below: Continue reading →
“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. (Matt 2:6)”
Problem: Matthew 2:6 quotes Micah 5:2. However, the words Matthew uses are different than those used by Micah.
“Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (Matt 2:2)
Problem: The Bible condemns the use of astrology (see Lev. 19:26; Deut. 18:10; Isa. 8:19), yet God blessed the wise men (Magi) for using a star to indicate the birth of Christ.
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matt 1:23)
The way the critics flock to this passage, we might think that it was a central prophecy of the NT! In reality, it is cited only once—here in Matthew (Mt. 1:23). And yet, Matthew had good reason for citing it. Let’s consider a number of criticisms hurled against this passage.
Problem: Mary was betrothed to Joseph, and yet, God impregnated Mary. God tells us that we should not commit adultery (Ex. 20:14), but God also takes Joseph’s wife in order to impregnate her. Isn’t this a moral failing?: While God did impregnate Mary, there are a number of problems with calling this adultery:
“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:17)”
Problem: Matthew and Luke both write a genealogy for Jesus, but these are different from one another. Once Matthew and Luke reach David, they diverge from one another rapidly. Matthew has 26 names and Luke has 41 names (between David and Jesus).
“So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (Matt 1:17)
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 ?
“And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; (Matt 1:12)”
Matthew: Jeconiah, Shealtiel, then Zerubbabel (Mt. 1:12).
Luke: Neri, Shealtiel, then Zerubbabel (Lk. 3:27).
Is this a contradiction?
Solution: There are two ways to solve this difficulty:
OPTION #1: These are different Shealtiel’s
Advocates of this view note that this was a common name at the time, and there are multiple repetitions of names in these genealogies (e.g. Joseph, Mattathias, Judah).
OPTION #2: This is the case of a Levirate marriage
1 Chronicles 3:17-19 states that Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel and Pedaiah. But then the text says that Pedaiah’s son was also called Zerubbabel! But other passages state that Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1). This shows that this could have been a case of levirate marriage (see Gen. 38:8-9; Deut. 25:5-10). A widow of a childless man could marry his brother. When the woman gave birth, he would carry on his deceased father’s name. This was the case so a man’s name could go on—even if he died prematurely. Michael Brown writes, “In the case of Zerubabbel, it would appear that his biological father was Pedaiah, the younger brother of Shealtiel who died childless. Pedaiah then married the widow of Shealtiel, in accordance with the laws of levirate marriage, and his firstborn son, Zerubabbel, was counted as the son of his deceased brother, Shealtiel, to ‘build up his brother’s family line’ (Deut. 25:9).”[1]
[1] Brown, Michael L. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: New Testament Objections. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006. 79.
“And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; (Matt 1:12)”
Problem: God cursed the descendants of King Jehoiachin (or Jeconiah) saying, “Write this man down childless, a man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah” (Jer. 22:30). Yet, Matthew writes that Jesus was a descendant of Jehoiachin. Critics argue that this disqualifies Jesus from the Messianic lS: A number of responses can be made.