bahmer

Of all the places in Israel where Jesus lived, preached and healed, the one place he really called home was the village of Nazareth. Given just how tiny this farm town was 2,000 years ago, it is truly shocking that throughout the Gospels, Christ is referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth.” Nazareth is never even mentioned once in the Hebrew Scriptures, so how can this be a fitting cradle for the Messiah? 
 
Jesus - A Nazorean?
When Jesus was still a baby, Mary and Joseph decided to move to the tiny Galilean farm town of Nazareth. Why? This village had no illustrious Biblical history, nor was it a rabbinic center of study. The Gospel of Matthew states that they “went to live in the town of Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: that he would be called a Nazorean” (Mt 2:23). What is a Nazorean?

Triumph from Destruction
The key to answering these questions is in the Book of Isaiah, the greatest of the Hebrew prophets. Seven hundred years before Christ, Isaiah described the house of Judah as a great tree that would be chopped down to a stump, “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit” (Isaiah 11:1). This refers to the Messiah.

Discover the Hebrew Roots of the Bible
In Biblical Hebrew, the word for “branch” is netzer נצר, which is also the root of Nazareth נצרת. When Matthew says that Jesus “would be called a Nazorean,” this does not refer to a Nazirite vow (Num 6), but to becoming the Messianic netzer. Only from Branch-town, could the Branch emerge. Enroll in our live online Biblical Hebrew courses and see the deep linguistic connections that forever tie together the Old and New Testaments. 

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Bible scholars say Nazareth doesn't appear on any maps until many years after Jesus was gone, gone, like 50 years gone.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Excellent fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, as the Jewish Messiah, bahmer!

"The Messiah would be called a Nazarene."

The phrase “Jesus of Nazareth” is first used in the Bible by Phillip who, after being called by Jesus to follow Him, told Nathanael, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (John 1:45).

It is curious that the first-century historicity of Jesus should now be the subject of such contention, since this matter was effectively laid to rest long centuries ago.

Reference: Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 53:3; Zechariah (various portions); Psalm 22
Fulfillment: Matthew 2:23

In addition to there being a wordplay on netzer, Hebrew for branch, the messianic reference in Isaiah 11:1. as "the branch", - Matthew’s Gospel cites many Old Testament prophets about the Messiah, but only in 2:23 does he use the plural “prophets” as opposed to a particular prophet: “And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the 'prophets' might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.” Moreover, whereas in other citations he uses the word “saying” (Greek, legontos), here he uses the word “that” (Greek, hoti), suggesting that it is not a direct quote. Rather, it represents a summary of what several prophets have said. So, what did they say?

The prophecies respecting the coming Messiah were that He was to be of humble origin and would be despised and rejected (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22) and that the phrase “he shall be called” means the same as “He shall be.” When Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were “fulfilled,” his meaning is that the predictions of the prophets that the Messiah would be of a low and despised condition and would be rejected, were fully accomplished in His being an inhabitant of Nazareth.

The words of Nathanael in John 1:46 shed light: “Nathanael said to him, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ Philip said to him, ‘Come and see.’” People from Nazareth were not held in high esteem; they were considered backward and, we might say, “trashy.” In fact, Galilee as a whole did not have a sterling reputation. When the Pharisee Nicodemus defended Jesus in front of his fellow Pharisees, they replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee” (John 7:52).

Various prophets and other Old Testament writers wrote that the Messiah would be despised and considered of low esteem. For example, Isaiah 53:3 says that, “He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

Zechariah is another likely one of the “plural-prophets” who spoke about the lowliness of the Messiah. Zechariah 9:9–10, in the midst of a section of “messianic portraits” (in the words of commentator R. T. France), depicts a savior who is riding a donkey, in lowly fashion.

Zechariah 11:4–14 speaks of a shepherd who is not recognized by his own sheep, who is pierced by the Jerusalemites in 12:10, and was even struck down by God’s sword (13:7). As France summarizes, the words of this verse in Matthew “represent the prophetic expectation that the Messiah would appear from nowhere and would as a result meet with incomprehension and rejection.”1

Similarly, Psalm 22 says in verse 6 (Hebrew, verse 7), “But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people.” David said this of himself as a righteous sufferer, but when Jesus quoted this Psalm on the cross, the implication was that he was the prophetic fulfillment and ultimate example of such a suffering individual.

In Acts 2:30–31, David is called a prophet, though he is not normally included in the writing prophets of the Old Testament: “Being therefore a prophet… he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Messiah.” Similarly, Acts 4:24 speaks of God “who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,” followed by a quotation from Psalm 2. So David also would be included among Matthew’s “prophets.”

Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus?

There are several reasons often given for doubting the first-century historicity of Nazareth, and these reasons are largely built around arguments from silence. For one thing, Nazareth is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings. Critics also contend that the biblical geography is in error, as there is no cliff near the synagogue to which Jesus was allegedly taken, as recounted in Luke 4:24–30.

However, the closest cliff to Nazareth is only 2.5 miles from the synagogue; a distance to which Jesus could have easily been taken.

Arguments from silence are utterly weak. Just how much would one expect the contemporary writers to mention the town of Nazareth? Nazareth was a small and insignificant village, and Josephus had no obvious reason to mention it. The town’s insignificance is made evident in the first chapter of John’s Gospel, when Nathaniel asks, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

The claim that there is no first-century evidence for Nazareth is not correct. In AD 70, at the end of the Jewish war with the Romans, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jewish priests and their families had to be redeployed. In 1962, an inscription was discovered in Caesarea Maritima documenting that the priests of the order of Elkalir came to live in Nazareth in AD 70.

This has been confirmed by later discoveries. In 2009, the first Nazarene home dating from Jesus’ era was excavated by archaeologists. The house was a simple structure, consisting of two small rooms and a courtyard.

Consequently, the claim that there is no historical evidence for the existence of the town of Nazareth in the first century stands refuted by the archaeological data, and even the more informed atheist critics, - among those who deny the historicity of Jesus, have advised caution in attempting to use this argument.

End Notes

1. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 95.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

What "Bible scholars," and what maps?

Is there archaeological discoveries, or other evidence of these maps?

Many people have claimed to be "Bible Scholars."

bahmer

Amen and Amen thank you Zemirah.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Not arguing, just telling you what I was taught and learned in study groups with said "scholars." Many years ago and I can't name a one by name, but I knew a few in person.

Also, we were told by these scholars that a Nazarene wasn't necessarily from "Nazareth."

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

One was named Barkley, I think.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

I bought and read several of William Barclay's books forty years ago, nwtk2007, then I wrote "Apostate" across the front cover, and set them aside.

Far better than I could, is the following attempted explanation of Barclay's writings by Wayne Jackson... for although personally Barclay did not believe in the tenets of the Christian faith, he was able to capture in his writing, the essence of how Christians should live out that faith.


The Enigmatic William Barclay
By Wayne Jackson

Begin Quote: "William Barclay (1907-1978), the famous Scottish scholar, was, in some respects, a brilliant writer. But he was an enigma. Barclay taught at the University of Glasgow for 28 years. Though a man of humble background, he became a theological celebrity. He was widely known in Great Britain for his radio and television broadcasts, but his most significant legacy — whether for good or bad — was his writing.

Barclay’s Modernism

Barclay once described himself as a “liberal evangelical” — an expression that is somewhat contradictory. The truth is, the engaging professor was a theological modernist. For example, he did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. We are not compelled to accept this teaching “in the literal and physical sense” he wrote.

And while he felt there was some essence of the “miraculous” in the deeds of Christ, he believed that many of the Lord’s miracles had perfectly “natural” explanations.

He argued that the Savior did not multiply the loaves and fishes literally; Jesus merely motivated the thronging people to share their food with one another. He opined that Christ did not actually walk upon the Sea of Galilee; it was just that, from the disciples’ vantage point, it appeared that he did — as he walked in the shallow water near the beach. Further, he said, the Lord did not really intend for Peter to cast his fishing hook into the sea in order to obtain a coin from a fish’s mouth; rather, he meant for the apostle to use his fishing skill to raise the funds for the temple tax. So went the Barclay “spin.”

If you were to read some of Barclay’s writings regarding Jesus, you would be convinced that he believed in the Savior’s deity. For example, in his discussion of John 1:1, the famous theologian said that Jesus was “of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God.” But when two acquaintances of this writer visited with Barclay at his home in Glasgow, in the spring of 1970, the distinguished professor strongly denied that he believed that Jesus was divine, and he insisted he never had endorsed that idea. He claimed that the Lord himself believed that he was divine, as did others, but personally, he did not. When Paul was cited as evidence to the contrary, the professor snapped: “I don’t care what Paul said.”

Barclay repudiated the doctrine of the substitutionary nature of the death of Jesus. He denied that, in the divine scheme of things, Christ had to die to atone for the sins of humanity (see Isa. 53:4-6; Rom. 3:21-26). The Lord himself expressed it like this: the Son of man came to “give his life a ransom for many” (Mt. 20:28). But Prof. Barclay believed that to literalize this statement was a “crude” approach to a passage that was merely an instance of the “poetry of love.” The real power of Jesus’ death, he suggested, was in its benevolent, selfless example — nothing more.

Though Jesus taught more about the topic of “hell” than did any other biblical character, Barclay denied the existence of eternal torment. The punishment of hell is “not to be taken literally” he said. In fact, as historian J.D. Douglas observed, “Barclay was a universalist (one who believes that all people will be saved ultimately).” In one of his books the professor declared that man “cannot drift beyond the love and care of God.” Supposedly, the Lord God will “never leave or forsake” any person — regardless of the depth of his depravity. For all his learning, the Scottish expositor knew nothing of the concept of God’s justice and wrath.

On the Other Hand

Even in the face of these most deplorable ideas — wherein the respected educator totally set aside sacred Scripture and substituted his own foolish opinions — he stuns you with some of his teaching.

For instance, in a time when it was popular to claim that the Gospel narratives were written by unknown writers of the second century or so, Barclay contended that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the actual authors of the compositions that bear their names. He was the only faculty member of his university to take that position.

He deplored the fact that churches neglected to practice discipline. (Of course, if they had, he should have been the first in line to receive such — if heresy is a disciplinary matter!)

And though he repudiated the deity of Jesus, he produced some of the richest material regarding the Lord’s teaching that has ever been written. Barclay’s discussion of Christ’s “Golden Rule” is a masterpiece that demonstrates the originality of Jesus’ teaching — contrary to the claims of many modernists.

And while the respected professor rationalized away many of Jesus’ miracles, he vigorously contended that there is no way to explain the explosive success of Christianity other than by the fact that such was the result of Christ’s resurrection from the grave!

Where Lies the Value?

Inasmuch as William Barclay was such a theological maverick, why do so many serious Bible students — even conservatives (including this writer) — find his writings valuable — even thrilling, on occasion? I have asked myself that question many times. Permit me to share my thoughts.

(1) The Scottish professor was a life-long student. He was not a cleric who spoke or wrote lazily. He did not employ stale, borrowed (or stolen) or warmed-over material. He obviously had a thirst for knowledge.

For more than half his life he was a teacher of Hellenistic Greek. He was perfectly at home with Aristotle, Thucydides, or Herodotus. In his discussions of biblical words he would track the terms from their classical origins, into the environment of the Septuagint era. He was familiar with words in Koine (common) Greek (the first-century Greek). He would explore the New Testament usage of terms, and even compliment the investigation by showing how the early “church fathers” employed various biblical texts. His linguistic studies are models of research methodology. Barclay’s little book, New Testament Words, is a must — especially for ministers.

(2) His writings are mosaics of literary treasure. Hundreds of illustrations from the works of Shakespeare, Tennyson, Kipling, etc., adorn his compositions in illustrative fashion. His productions are filled with rich deposits of historical lore. For instance, he once wrote regarding Roman domestic life: “So high was the standard of Roman morality that for the first five hundred years of the Roman commonwealth there was not a single recorded case of divorce.”

Barclay’s New Testament commentaries (eighteen small volumes) are packed with information that it would take years and years to locate on one’s own. For instance, his discussion of “slavery” in connection with the book of Philemon is a treasure that significantly illuminates that ancient problem, and the Christian approach to the oppressive institution.

(3) For all his scholarship, the professor of Glasgow was never “pedantic.” He did not “strut” while sitting at his desk! He wrote so that the average person could understand him. He once stingingly declared: “It is usually true that the man who is unintelligible is not unintelligible because he is ‘deep,’ but because he does not himself understand what he is talking about.”

By way of contrast, some today write so as to flaunt their alleged scholasticism, rather than to communicate meaningfully to the man-on-the-street. They speak to the wind!

Barclay’s words flowed easily and elegantly. He is never boring, but always a delight to read. (In a way, this is what makes him so dangerous as well — especially to the novice who may be unable to separate the “wheat” from the “chaff.”) But one can never read Barclay to a significant degree without learning something.

(4) His writings were never intended to be mere exercises in the theoretical. He was ever applying the truths of the Bible to the circumstances of daily life. He believed that the student of the Scriptures must learn to practice the teaching of Christ.

He once commented that the teacher who arouses only passion in his student, without pointing out what needs to be done, is a dangerous instructor. That sort of teaching lulls the student into a psychological comfort zone that lends itself to the development of a cancerous apathy that ultimately is deadly. The good teacher, he declared, provides his audience with something to know, to feel, and to do.

(5) Barclay had a way of illustrating his lessons so as to make them memorable. I remember the story he told of a dog he once had. Rusty, a bull-terrier, would accompany his master on walks down through the meadow and beside the stream. Rusty had a passion for plunging into the water, locating a rock on the bottom, getting it in his mouth, and bringing it to the bank. He would carefully deposit the stone some distance from the water’s edge, and then go for another one. Time and again he would fetch his treasured rock, repeating the process for hours — if so allowed. Barclay asked this question: “What is the point?”

So far as he could determine, there was none. The exercise served no discernable purpose at all. He then observed that this is the way many Christians are. They seem to be going through the same monotonous routine every day, but without a purpose; with no projected goal. They appear not to know what their reason for existing actually is. They operate on the “dog” level.

Is it not the case that many of us scurry to make money (having little time for faith or family), and then die, leaving our resources (be they much or meager) to others, over which to squabble. We stay frustrated over the most trivial issues. As the saying goes, we “major in minors.” We are ever sidetracked from our main goal — reverencing our Creator, keeping his commands, and teaching others to do likewise.

And so, Barclay’s “what-is-the-point?” point was powerful indeed — and obviously memorable!

William Barclay frustrates me and delights me. He makes me angry, yet he teaches me. I despise his theology, but I thrill to many truths I have learned from him. I listen to him, and I ignore him. I recommend his writings, yet with a grain of salt (no, a bucket of salt!)."End Quote

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

There was nothing wrong with his theology, he simply, like me, didn't believe the "magic" things actually happened, but he could interpret the Bible incredibly well.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

You obviously love the word, especially the Proverbs. Proverbs 4:7 seems to have made a deep impact on you. I've had never even heard of Barclay, that I can recall. I would have loved to have learned from you in my youth. I think I would have gained much. Salute, my friend! Thanks for sharing your knowledge and wisdom again. Being from Jackson, MS., I can relate to being from a type of Nazareth. Everyone seems to enjoy looking down on my state and hometown and I only know of some of the sweetest, kindest people ever. It was where I was planted and for a reason. I hope I don't disappoint you too much but our formulation years and teachers were very different. I sat under some great preachers but not many great teachers. They could get you to the altar and baptized! Reading was a luxury. Work was a necessity. The only thing I loved about school was the rest and history.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

O.K., Peewee. Don't try to pull that, "Aw shucks, I'm from a wee little town."

Ever heard of Dolan, Indiana? It was composed of an elementary school, a church and a small grocery/service station when I was a child, and it was the closest (1 1/2 mile) "civilization" to my Father's farm.

Getting individuals to the altar and baptized, after hearing, believing and accepting Jesus Christ by saving faith, through the proclamation of His gospel is still the greatest thing anyone can do... but it is God's work and God's accomplishment.

"So then neither is he that plants any thing, neither he that waters; but God that gives the increase." (1st Corinthians 3:7)