# He shall be called a Nazarene



## jambo

Matthew 2 records the fulfilment of four OT prophecies. The first three are clear enough but what prophet states the Christ would be a Nazarene?


----------



## DTK

jambo said:


> Matthew 2 records the fulfilment of four OT prophecies. The first three are clear enough but what prophet states the Christ would be a Nazarene?



It was the view of the early Church father *Jerome (347-420)* that Matthew was making reference to the prophecy of Isaiah 11:1:



> Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “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.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene,’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacrilege either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery. See _NPNF2:_ Vol. 6, Epistle 57, To Pammachius.



Later, while referring back to this letter to Pammachius, Jerome wrote in his work Against Rufinus:



> I composed recently the book _De optimo genere interpretandi_, in which I pointed out that the following passages taken from the Gospel are found in the books of the Hebrews: ‘I called my son out of Egypt’; and : ‘For he shall be called a Nazarene’; . . . See _Fathers of the Church_, Vol. 53, _Saint Jerome: Dogmatic and Polemical Works, The Apology Against the Books of Rufinus_, section 27 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1949), p. 151. Footnote 114 on this page reads: “Matt. 2.23. This is quoted from Isa. 11.1.”



As a result of independent studies and exegetical investigation, others have reached the conclusion of Jerome:



> Nu 24:17 and Isa 11:1 together were already known to Matthew who refers to the latter at the end of his birth narrative (2:23): “In order to fulfill what was said through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene” (ο Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται). Matthew here refers to the Hebrew text of Isa 11:1 which contains the term Ne͂ser, translated in the LXX with ανθος. See Helmut Koester, _Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development_ (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1990), p. 384.



Harrison likewise connects Matt. 2:23 with Is. 11:1, adding the predictions of Jer. 23:5, Zech. 3:8, and 6:12 as well (See Everett F. Harrison, _A Short Life of Christ_ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprinted 1979), pp. 55-56.). Interestingly enough, in a recent Roman Catholic periodical, mention is made of the connection between Matthew 2:23 and Isaiah 11:1:



> Qumran Covenanters and early Christians alike expected the fulfillment of OT predictions in their movements, which they believed were “in the last time.” Ne͂ser, for its part means “sapling, scion” (Isa. 11:1). The Dead Sea Scrolls use this term for “the scion of David” in 2 Sam 7:11-14 (4qflor 1:10-12) and Gen 49:10 (4Q252 = the Genesis pesher), while the NT uses it of Jesus (Rom 15:12; Rev. 5:5; Matt 2:23). Jesus “the Nazarene” in Matt 2:23 and “the Nazarenes” in Acts 24:5 are intended to connect Jesus with the ne͂ser in Isa 11:1. See _Old Testament Abstracts_, published by The Catholic Biblical Association, Vol. 22, No. 3, October 1999, pp. 501-502.



I did some research on this because it is often assumed and asserted by Roman apologists, without explanation or proof, that this text refers to a prophecy preserved purely by oral tradition outside of the non-canonical Old Testament Scriptures. Matthew 2:23 is one of their favorite examples for appeal to oral tradition that was preserved orally prior to the Gospel narratives.

DTK


----------



## panta dokimazete

Matthew Henry said:


> In this is said to be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Which may be looked upon, (1.) As a man of honour and dignity, though primarily it signifies no more than a man of Nazareth; there is an allusion or mystery in speaking it, speaking Christ to be, [1.] The Man, the Branch, spoken of, Isa. 11:1. The word there is Netzar, which signifies either a branch, or the city of Nazareth; in being denominated from that city, he is declared to be that Branch. [2.] It speaks him to be the great Nazarite; of whom the legal Nazarites were a type and figure (especially Samson, Jdg. 13:5), and Joseph, who is called a Nazarite among his brethren (Gen. 49:26), and to whom that which was prescribed concerning the Nazarites, has reference, Num. 6:2, etc. Not that Christ was, strictly, a Nazarite, for he drank wine, and touched dead bodies; but he was eminently so, both as he was singularly holy, and as he was by a solemn designation and dedication set apart to the honour of God in the work of our redemption, as Samson was to save Israel. And it is a name we have all reason to rejoice in, and to know him by. Or, (2.) As a name of reproach and contempt. To be called a Nazarene, was to be called a despicable man, a man from whom no good was to be expected, and to whom no respect was to be paid. The devil first fastened this name upon Christ, to render him mean, and prejudice people against him, and it stuck as a nickname to him and his followers. Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:2, 3), a Worm, and no man (Ps. 22:6, 7), that he should be an Alien to his brethren Ps. 69:7, 8. Let no name of reproach for religion’s sake seem hard to us, when our Master was himself called a Nazarene.



from here


----------



## panta dokimazete

John Gill said:


> Which was a city of Galilee, and where Joseph and Mary had both dwelt before, (Luke 1:26) (2:4) here they came and fixed their habitation,
> 
> that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.
> This affair of going into Galilee, and settling at Nazareth, was brought about with this view, to accomplish what had been foretold by the prophets, or prophet, the plural number being used for the singular, as in (John 6:45) (Acts 13:40) . And indeed it is so rendered here in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions; and designs the prophet Isaiah, and respects that prophecy of his in (Isaiah 11:1) "and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and (run) , "a branch shall grow out of his roots"; a prophecy owned by the Jews F5 themselves to belong to the Messiah, and which was now fulfilled in Jesus; who as he was descended from Jesse's family, so by dwelling at Nazareth, he would appear to be, and would be "called a Nazarene, or Netzer, the branch"; being an inhabitant of Natzareth, or Netzer, so called from the multitude of plants and trees that grew there.
> 
> A Nazarene,
> as David de Pomis says F6,
> 
> ``is one that is born in the city Netzer, which is said to be in the land of Galilee, three days journey distant from Jerusalem.''
> 
> Now though Christ was not born, yet because he dwelt at Nazareth, and was educated there; hence the Jews frequently call him (yruwnh ewvy) , "Jesus, the Nazarene F7"; and sometimes only (yruwnh) , "the Nazarene" F8. They also design him by (run Nb) , "Ben Netzer" F9, of whom they say a great many evil things: and that Christ is often called Jesus of Nazareth, or the Nazarene, and his followers Nazarenes, from the place of his habitation, is known to everyone. One of Christ's disciples is called Netzer in the Talmud F11, and made to plead for his life, because his name signified a branch, according to (Isaiah 11:1) . Surenhusius observes F12, that the form (rmanv hm Mwyql) "to fulfil what is said", used by the Talmudists, and which he takes to be the same with this here, is used by them, when they allege not the very words of Moses, or the prophets, but their sense, which is deduced as a certain axiom from them; and thinks it is applicable to the present case.



from here


----------



## panta dokimazete

John Calvin said:


> 23. He shall be called a Nazarene Matthew does not derive Nazarene from
> Nazareth, as if this were its strict and proper etymology, but only
> makes an allusion. The word N+Z+J+R+, or Nazarite, signifies holy and
> devoted to God, and is derived from N+Z+R+, to separate. The noun
> N+Z+R+, indeed, signifies a flower: [221] but Matthew refers, beyond
> all doubt, to the former meaning. For we nowhere read that Nazarites
> meant blooming or flourishing, but persons who were consecrated to God,
> according to the directions given by the Law, (Numbers 6.) The meaning
> is: though it was by fear that Joseph was driven into a corner of
> Galilee, yet God had a higher design, and appointed the city of
> Nazareth as the place of Christ's residence, that he might justly be
> called a Nazarite But it is asked, who are the prophets that gave this
> name to Christ? for there is no passage to be found that answers to the
> quotation. Some think it a sufficient answer, that Scripture frequently
> calls him Holy: but that is a very poor explanation. For Matthew, as we
> perceive, makes an express reference to the very word, and to the
> ancient Nazarites, whose holiness was of a peculiar character. He tells
> us, that what was then shadowed out in the Nazarites, who were, in some
> sense, selected as the first-fruits to God, must have been fulfilled in
> the person of Christ.
> 
> But it remains to be seen, in what part of Scripture the prophets have
> stated that this name would be given to Christ. Chrysostom, finding
> himself unable to loose the knot, cuts it by saying, that many books of
> the prophets have perished. But this answer has no probability: for,
> though the Lord, in order to punish the indifference of his ancient
> people, deprived them of some part of Scripture, or left out what was
> less necessary, yet, since the coming of Christ, no part of it has been
> lost. In support of that view, a strange blunder has been made, by
> quoting a passage of Josephus, in which he states that Ezekiel left two
> books: for Ezekiel's prophecy of a new temple and kingdom is manifestly
> distinct from his other predictions, and may be said to form a new
> work. But if all the books of Scripture which were extant in the time
> of Matthew, remain entire to the present day, we must find somewhere
> the passage quoted from the prophets.
> 
> Bucer [222] has explained it, I think, more correctly than any other
> writer. He thinks that the reference is to a passage in the Book of
> Judges: The child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb, (Judges
> 13:5.) These words, no doubt, were spoken with regard to Samson. But
> Samson is called the "Redeemer" or "Deliverer" [223] of the people,
> only because he was a figure of Christ, and because the salvation,
> which was accomplished by his instrumentality, was a sort of prelude of
> the full salvation, which was at length exhibited to the world by the
> Son of God. [224] All that Scripture predicts, in a favorable manner,
> about Samson, may justly be applied to Christ. To express it more
> clearly, Christ is the original model: Samson is the inferior antitype.
> [225] When he assumed the character of a Redeemer, [226] we ought to
> understand, that none of the titles bestowed on that illustrious and
> truly divine office apply so strictly to himself as to Christ: for the
> fathers did but taste the grace of redemption, which we have been
> permitted to receive fully in Christ.
> 
> Matthew uses the word prophets in the plural number. This may easily be
> excused: for the Book of Judges was composed by many prophets. But I
> think that what is here said about the prophets has a still wider
> reference. For Joseph, who was a temporal Savior of the Church, and
> was, in many respects, a figure, or rather a lively image of Christ, is
> called a Nazarite of his brethren, [227] (Genesis 49:26; Deuteronomy
> 33:16.) God determined that the distinguished honor, of which he had
> given a specimen in Joseph, should shine again in Samson, and gave him
> the name of Nazarite, that believers, having received those early
> instructions, might look more earnestly at the Redeemer who was to
> come, who was to be separated from all,
> 
> "That he might be the first-born among many brethren,"
> (Romans 8:29.)



from here


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

John Collinges (in Matthew Poole's Annotations):



> Matt 2:23. It appeareth by Luke 2:4, that Joseph dwelt in Nazareth before our Saviour was born; and, Luke 2:39, after Mary's purification it is said, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth; and, Luke 4:16, he was there brought up. Hence, John 1:45, he is called by Philip, Jesus of Nazareth. But the following words of this verse afford as great difficulties as any other in holy writ. 1. How Christ could be called a Nazarene, who apparently was born at Bethlehem. 2. How the evangelist saith that was fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, He shall be called a Nazarene; whereas there is no such saying in all the prophets. There is a strange variety of opinions as to these questions. Spanhemius acquiesceth in that which seemeth least liable to exception, viz. That Christ was to put a period to that order of Nazarites amongst the Jews, whose rules we have Num 6:2-3; of which order Samson was, as appears by Judg 13:7, and Joseph was called ryzn Gen 49:26, the very same word which is used Judg 13:7. Both Joseph and Samson were eminent types of Christ. And it was spoken of Christ by the prophets, (the holy men of God who wrote the Scriptures,) that Christ should be called ryzn Nezir, as it is in the Hebrew, in that it was spoken of those that were his types; who are both expressly so called. The word signifieth a holy person, one separated to God, and from ordinary converse with men. Christ was to be such a Nazarite, separated to God, for the accomplishment of our redemption, and, like Joseph, separated from his brethren: Isa 53:3, he was rejected of men:—we hid as it were our faces from him, and we esteemed him not. God by his singular providence so ordered it, that he who was the antitype to all the Nazarites, and the true Nezir, or person separated, should be educated at Nazareth, a poor contemptible town: John 1:46, Nathanael said, Can there any good come out of Nazareth? That while his education there gave the Jews an occasion to reproach him, as a Nazarene, because born at Nazareth, believers amongst the Jews might understand him to be the true Nazarite, understood in Joseph and Samson called by this name, as types and figures of him who was to come, separated by God to a more excellent end, and from men in a more eminent manner. So that what the prophets spake of this nature concerning Christ, they spake of those who were the true types of Christ. Those who will read Spanhemius, and Poli Critica, will find large discourses about the difficulties of this text, but this seemeth to be Spanhemius's opinion, improving the notion of Mr. Calvin.


----------

