Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Matthew 2:23 we read, "And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" Since there doesn't seem to be a passage in the OT that Matthew would be quoting, how can Matthew say that this fulfills what was spoken by the prophets?

share|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

One explanation is that the Hebrew נֵ֫צֶר "branch" (transliterated nazer, netser or so) is related to Nazarene. Isaiah's usage of the word can be seen as prophetic, especially in Isaiah 11:1:

Isaiah 11:1. From

Source / Further reading:
Miller, Fred P. Isaiah's Use of the word "Branch" or Nazarene.

share|improve this answer
Thanks for the linked article. Wikipedia was pretty helpful as well. – Soldarnal Oct 19 '11 at 22:06

In sensus plenior:

Nazarene and Nazarite are considered puns.

Heb 10.1 tells us that the law has a shadow of the good things coming. The law has a prophecy of Christ.

The Nazarite law is a prophecy of Christ. The Nazarite wears long hair which the flesh tells us is a shame on a man:

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

This is a prophetic picture of Christ bearing our shame on the cross.

THe Nazarite did not drink wine or strong drink which represent grace and law, indicating that Jesus did not partake of grace or law since he was the source of grace and law.

The Nazarite did not touch dead bodies, and Jesus was buried in an unused tomb.

Jesus told us that he was about to fulfill the prophecy when, at the last supper, he said he would not drink again until...

We must not, however, mix pictures. He was not a Nazarite. He fulfilled the prophecy hidden in the law of the Nazarite. Since he was not a Nazarite, sipping a bit of vinegar on the cross does not violate the picture. To fulfill the prophecy, he bore our shame, did not partake of grace or law, and was untainted by sin in the grave though he carried ours there.

We can say with Matthew that he would be called a Nazarene.

A witness.

When Nathaniel heard Jesus was from Nazareth, he asked if anything good could come from there, because Nazareth has the same root Nazir, meaning separate, but also meaning undressed. It is a shame to be undressed. Nathaniel knew how to use the puns.

The first answer also uses a pun which is acceptable in sensus plenior and would be a confirming set of linked verses, but puns are not permitted in the literal-historical method, though they are used occassionally with great discomfort.

share|improve this answer

One must use puns to see the fulfillment.

The wisdom of God is riddle [1] and the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ. Matthew teaches the methods to read prophecy by giving us a series of riddles :

  1. He says there are 42 generations in the genealogy, when there are only 41.
  2. He says Yeshua (God's salvation) fulfills the prophecy he would be named Immanuel (God with us) Yeshua has a pun "Ya shuwa" meaning "God humbled".
  3. He teaches Drash by overlaying the stories of Moses, Abraham, Joseph and Israel concerning Egypt, then interpreting them Christologically.

Matthew uses the reference of the Nazarene because he fully expects we would understand, by way of pun, that the prophecy is that of the law of the Nazarite as a prophetic picture of Christ.

[1] Pr 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. [dark sayings = riddle]

share|improve this answer

As stated, there is nothing in the Old Testament that suggests it was spoken by prophets that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, so I look to Mark's Gospel for the answer. The strong consensus of modern New Testament scholars is that Matthew's Gospel was substantially based on Mark, which does refer to Jesus as a Nazarene.

In the original Greek, Mark refers to Jesus the Nazarene (Ναζαρηνοῦ) four times, at 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6 - although many Bibles translate this into English as 'Jesus of Nazareth'. Elsewhere, Mark 1:9 says Jesus came from Nazareth (ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ) to the place of baptism and on this basis Nazareth might well have been Jesus' home town, although some might have read this reference to Nazareth merely as the starting place of his journey. The author of Matthew knew that Mark several times referred to Jesus as the Nazarene.

Matthew’s Gospel mentions the town of Nazareth several times, but the first time Nazareth is mentioned (Matthew 2:23), the author felt the need to explain that the child Jesus was taken to Nazareth so that he shall be called a Nazarene. This suggests there was not yet a tradition that Jesus came from Nazareth, although there could have been an early tradition that Jesus was a Nazarene. The author assumed that Mark was well informed in calling Jesus a Nazarene, either from some prophetic source or even on the basis that the earlier evangelist should be considered a prophet in his own right. Either way, Matthew showed that what he thought of as said by the prophets had been fulfilled.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.