Did Matthew make up the “He shall be called a Nazarene” prophecy?
Matthew writes,
“But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. 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.”
(Matthew 2:22–23)
The prophecy “He shall be called a Nazarene” does not exist anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures and this of course has led sceptics to posit that Matthew has made up this quotation solely to serve his narrative.
First, it is worth paying attention to how Matthew introduces the prophecy, he says “was spoken by the prophets”, which is different from how he typically introduces prophecy, for example,
“ and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
(Matthew 2:15)
And again,
“Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:”
(Matthew 2:17) And again,
“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
“He Himself took our infirmities
And bore our sicknesses.”
(Matthew 8:17)
Matthew typically prefaces his prophecy by either specifying the prophet in the case of major prophets (e.g. Jeremiah or Isaiah) or by saying “the prophet” in the case of minor prophets. This is the one instance where he uses the plural “prophets”. The idea here is that Matthew is not making a direct quotation from one prophet, but is rather expressing a thematic idea garnered from a number of prophets.
There is at least one other example of this practice in the New Testament, James writes,
“Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?”
(James 4:5)
There are two opinions regarding what exactly Matthew is getting at here.
The first is that Matthew is doing a wordplay based on the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 11:1. It reads,
“There shall come forth a stem of Jesse,
And a Branch shall grow out of his roots.”
The word translated “Branch” here is the Hebrew word “Netser”. The idea of the Messiah being a branch is thus interpolated into Him being a Nazarene. There are some other references to the Messiah as a branch in scripture (although they use a different Hebrew word “Tzemach”),
“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord,
“That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.”
(Jeremiah 23:5)
And again,
“…For behold, I am bringing forth My Servant the BRANCH.”
(Zechariah 3:8)
And again,
Then speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying:
“…Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!
From His place He shall branch out,
And He shall build the temple of the Lord;
Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord.
He shall bear the glory,
And shall sit and rule on His throne;
So He shall be a priest on His throne…”
(Zechariah 6:12–13)
So the Messianic prophecy of the Branch is built in to the Hebrew word “Netser” in Isaiah 11:1. This Hebrew word games might sound a bit weird to a 21st century westerner but this is standard procedure in the Jewish way of exegeting their scriptures. I present two other examples, one Talmudic, the other from the New Testament to evidence this practice.
In the Talmud (And bear in mind I do not personally agree with this exegesis, it is just to demonstrate this practice of Matthew is not at all strange in a Jewish setting), the rabbis stated that women died in child birth because of three reasons, one of them being the lighting of a candle on the Sabbath, to justify this position from scripture they stated,
“The soul that I have placed in you is called ner: “The spirit of man is the lamp [ner] of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27), and I warned you about matters of the Shabbat lamp. If you fulfill these mitzvot, fine, and if not, then I will take your soul.”
(Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 32a.2)
In the above, the word for lamp sounds like the word for “soul” and then the connection is made that the commandment not to light a lamp could result in the soul being taken away. There are multiple similar examples of this in the Talmud so the above does not represent one isolated instance.
Elsewhere in the New Testament, the writer of Hebrews states concerning his exegesis on the person of Melchizedek, King of Salem,
“ For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,”
(Hebrews 7:1–2)
Compare the original Old Testament text,
“Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High.”
(Genesis 14:18)
Based on this very scant account, the author of Hebrews exegetes the meaning of the name “Melchizedek” which is “King of righteousness” and the fact that Salem is a variant of “Shalom” then if he is King of Salem, he must be a King of Peace, all of this in the context of comparing him to the true Messiah, Jesus, of whom it is said that He is the King of righteousness,
““Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord,
“That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.”
(Jeremiah 23:5)
And the King of peace,
“For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever…”
(Isaiah 9:6–7)
The author of Hebrews also goes on to make the point that Jesus is the High priest after the order of Melchizedek. Thus utilising word play on one part of the Hebrew scriptures to make a point about something else was not a rogue practice. Practically speaking, the only consideration would be whether the other point being made is sufficiently backed up by (or at the very least not inconsistent with) the message of the scriptures as whole. (For the record, this is why I can agree with the author of Hebrews, but not the first Talmudic exegete).
The second opinion is that Matthew is identifying Jesus the Messiah with Nazareth in terms of their common identity of being rejected and despised. Nazareth was a city that had a reputation for being despised even way back in the Old Testament. Nazareth was located in Galilee for context.
When Hiram, David’s friend, helped Solomon with materials to build the first temple as well his own house, Solomon in order to thank him gave him twenty cities in Galilee. How did Hiram react?
“ (Hiram the king of Tyre had supplied Solomon with cedar and cypress and gold, as much as he desired), that King Solomon then gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee. Then Hiram went from Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him, but they did not please him. So he said, “What kind of cities are these which you have given me, my brother?” And he called them the land of Cabul, as they are to this day.”
(1 Kings 9:11–13)
“Cabul”, although the exact meaning is somewhat debated today, has been thought to mean “as good as nothing” or “something that does not please”. This was the reputation of Galilee, which included Nazareth, where Jesus started His ministry.
Even in Jesus’ day, Nazareth remained a despised city,
“And Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”…”
(John 1:46)
And again,
“Others said, “This is the Christ.”
But some said, “Will the Christ come out of Galilee?…”
They answered and said to him, “Are you also from Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee.”
(John 7:41,52)
This rejection of Nazareth in Galilee both by Hiram in the OT and by the first century Jews of Jesus’ day was paralleled by that experienced by the Messiah in the Hebrew scriptures.
“He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.”
(Isaiah 53:3)
And again,
“Thus says the Lord,
The Redeemer of Israel, their Holy One,
To Him whom man despises,
To Him whom the nation abhors,
To the Servant of rulers…”
(Isaiah 49:7)
And again,
“But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.”
(Psalm 22:6)
And again,
“Because for Your sake I have borne reproach;
Shame has covered my face.
I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother’s children;
Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up,
And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me.”
(Psalm 69:7–9)
And again,
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced”
(Zechariah 12:10)
Matthew is thus identifying the Messiah’s rejection with that of Nazareth, the city which would go on to be attached to His name. Hence in the book of Acts, miracles are done in the name of “Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 3:6, 10:38). The early followers of Jesus would also be referred to by their detractors as the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). It is in this context that Matthew calls Jesus a Nazarene.
Some commentators have further blended these two opinions to suggest that just as the “Netser” (Branch) arises out of the stump of Jesse to rule the whole earth in Isaiah 11, so would the Messiah come out of this lowly despised city (Nazareth) and a lowly humble estate, to become exalted (even according to the Jewish rabbis expectations of the Messiah) above Abraham, David and Zerubbabel.
Whatever option you choose, the point is that Matthew was not making up Old Testament prophecy, He was, based on multiple portions of the Hebrew scripture, extracting a Messianic theme.
Someone might also ask, “But what about the time Matthew blatantly lied by saying Jeremiah, instead of Zechariah prophesied that the Messiah would be sold for thirty pieces of silver? Does that not pose a problem for the reliability of Matthew? Is this not indicative of a pattern with this author?”. I am glad you asked. I have written an exhaustive article on that exact point linked for your reading pleasure below:
