He will be called "Nazarene"...

[Betho_br]

Matthew 2:23 KJV
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.

Nearly two millennia have passed, and yet all still claim that this prophecy is not to be found in the Hebrew Bible...

However, if we look in the Christian Bible:

Luke 2:22-39
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

These are the two prophets referred to in the plural in Matthew 2:23. For the people of Jerusalem who heard the prophecies of Anna and Simeon, the child was the prophet who would dwell in Nazareth; therefore, he would be Jesus of Nazareth, the Nazarene...

 

[Eli G]

The name of the city "Nazareth" probably means "city of the sprout."

In Isaiah 11:1, 10 Jehovah predicts that:

"A twig will grow out of the stump of Jesse,
And a sprout from his roots will bear fruit. (...)
In that day the root of Jesse will stand up as a signal for the peoples.
To him the nations will turn for guidance,
And his resting-place will become glorious."

The Hebrew word there translated "sprout" is "netser," the probable origin of the prophecy's connection to the appellation "Nazarene" given to Jesus. He identified himself as such when he spoke to Paul after his resurrection in Acts 22:8. His disciples also preached to him with that additional appellation (Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10).

Apparently this prophecy gave the "prophetic" name with which the Messiah would be identified, in a prophecy that with different Hebrew words predicts the same thing about him in other Scriptures: Isaiah 53:2, Jer. 23:5, 33:15, Zech. 3:8; 6:12,13.

The prophecy is mentioned in other places in the Scriptures, both Hebrew (Ps. 132:11,17; 89:3,5; 2 Sam. 23:4,5) and Greek (Rom. 15:12; Acts 13:22,23; Luke 1:32,33). The image alludes to a branch of a tree that grows strong, blossoms and bears fruit... to identify a descendant of David who becomes King forever. A netser (sprout) coming out of him.

 

[Betho_br]

The name of the city "Nazareth" probably means "city of the sprout."

In Isaiah 11:1, 10 Jehovah predicts that:

"A twig will grow out of the stump of Jesse,
And a sprout from his roots will bear fruit. (...)
In that day the root of Jesse will stand up as a signal for the peoples.
To him the nations will turn for guidance,
And his resting-place will become glorious."

The Hebrew word there translated "sprout" is "netser," the probable origin of the prophecy's connection to the appellation "Nazarene" given to Jesus. He identified himself as such when he spoke to Paul after his resurrection in Acts 22:8. His disciples also preached to him with that additional appellation (Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10).

Apparently this prophecy gave the "prophetic" name with which the Messiah would be identified, in a prophecy that with different Hebrew words predicts the same thing about him in other Scriptures: Isaiah 53:2, Jer. 23:5, 33:15, Zech. 3:8; 6:12,13.

The prophecy is mentioned in other places in the Scriptures, both Hebrew (Ps. 132:11,17; 89:3,5; 2 Sam. 23:4,5) and Greek (Rom. 15:12; Acts 13:22,23; Luke 1:32,33). The image alludes to a branch of a tree that grows strong, blossoms and bears fruit... to identify a descendant of David who becomes King forever. A netser (sprout) coming out of him.

Hello, peace. I have read many Jewish studies contradicting this thesis.

 

[Eli G]

Hello, peace. I have read many Jewish studies contradicting this thesis.

I find it very interesting that you are looking for answers about Jesus coming from the Jews.

 

[Betho_br]

I find it very interesting that you are looking for answers about Jesus coming from the Jews.

So here again there was a definite fulfillment of prophecy, though not of a specific passage, but of "the prophets" in general. OBJECTIONABLE VIEWS: 1. Matthew is thinking of a definite passage in Isaiah 11:1, where the word "netser" is used to indicate Nazareth. Answer: There is no etymological connection between this Hebrew word and Nαζαρετ

New Testament Commentary
William Hendriksen (1900-1982) (ThD, Princeton Theological Seminary) was professor of New Testament literature at Calvin Theological Seminary.

And many other Protestant and Catholic dictionaries from renowned PhDs.

Aristotle teaches that virtue lies in the middle. Most conservative and scholarly dictionaries and commentaries do not approve of the connection.

In addition to these facts, the HEBREW BIBLE belongs to the Jews, it is their religion, they have primacy of interpretation and they do not offend the Christian Bible in any way.

 

[Eli G]

...There is no etymological connection between this Hebrew word and Nαζαρετ...

Who says so?

 

[Eli G]

...the HEBREW BIBLE belongs to the Jews, it is their religion, they have primacy of interpretation...

Based on what?

 

[Betho_br]

Who says so?

MOODY BIBLE COMMENTARY
Moody Bible Institute of Chicago

23. Nazareth seems to have been Joseph's own choice, within divine providence. Why Matthew regarded this as the fulfillment of a prophecy is difficult to understand. Through the prophets prevents us from looking for just one OT passage, and consequently makes it doubtful that there is a play on words based on nêser, "new" in Is. 11:1, even though this is the common view. It seems better to understand that Matthew thought that little Nazareth was an unsuitable place for the Messiah's residence (John 1:46), a fulfillment of all the OT prophecies, which indicate that the Messiah would be despised (Is. 53:3; Ps. . 22:6; Dan. 9:26).

Among many others...

 

[Eli G]

Did you know that the Hebrew language that modern Jews speak is not the Hebrew language in which the Torah was originally written?

 

[Eli G]

... the Hebrew language that modern Jews speak is not the Hebrew language in which the Torah was originally written ...

The above fact means that modern Jews do not know everything related to the etymology of biblical words. In fact, there are some Hebrew words that even Jews who are experts in biblical Hebrew cannot translate directly.

Incidentally, the modern Hebrew language is a construction more or less based on traditional Hebrew already transformed by the context of Jewish communities spread across different parts of the world like Spain, Germany, etc, in addition to the invention of many new words that define objects and cultural and technological phenomena of modernity.

Modern Jews re-created the Hebrew language when they decided to make it the official language of the country to which they returned when the modern state of Israel was founded. This implies that many non-Jewish Christians who were already experts in traditional biblical Hebrew are not lagging behind in the biblical study that is based on the Hebrew language in which the OT was copied from generation to generation. In fact, there are dozens of 19th century (and previous) Hebrew scholars who were non-Jewish Christians, and who contributed their grammars and so on to the creation of the modern Hebrew language.

... the HEBREW BIBLE belongs to the Jews, it is their religion, they have primacy of interpretation ...

Do you still believe that the Old Testament (or the Torah) "belong to the Jews"? What is your basis for that?

 

[Eli G]

Check this https://www.jstor.org/stable/42575923?seq=1

 

[jimb]

Matthew 26:71, "Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
Mark 1:9, "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
Mark 1:24, "“What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” Also Luke 4:34, "“Go away! What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” (Even the demons knew where Jesus was from.)
Mark 10:47, "When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
John 1:45, "Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
John 18:7, "Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.
John 19:19, "Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.
Acts 2:22, "“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know."
Acts 3:6, "Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”

There are more, but the point is obvious: God's word -- the Bible -- clearly says that Jesus, as a man, was from Nazareth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Matthew 2:23 KJV
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.

Nearly two millennia have passed, and yet all still claim that this prophecy is not to be found in the Hebrew Bible...

However, if we look in the Christian Bible:

Luke 2:22-39
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

These are the two prophets referred to in the plural in Matthew 2:23. For the people of Jerusalem who heard the prophecies of Anna and Simeon, the child was the prophet who would dwell in Nazareth; therefore, he would be Jesus of Nazareth, the Nazarene...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Simeon and Anna are actaully prophets. Neither one of them calls Jesus a Nazarene or predicts that he will be called a Nazarene.

The sentence that says "they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" is neither a prophecy nor something that is said by either Simeon or Anna.

Well, you gave it your best shot.

 

[Betho_br]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Simeon and Anna are actaully prophets. Neither one of them calls Jesus a Nazarene or predicts that he will be called a Nazarene.

The sentence that says "they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" is neither a prophecy nor something that is said by either Simeon or Anna.

Luke, when reporting the context of the prophets, saw no need to repeat the prophecy contained in Matthew.

1) they prophesy about Jesus in Jerusalem 2) Jesus will be a prophet 3) Jesus will grow up in Nazareth 4) He will be called the prophet of Nazareth.

 

[Betho_br]

Well, you gave it your best shot.

Christianity has many PhDs and teachers who strive to provide us with a peaceful and respectful religion. It is agreed by these great masters that the Christian Bible ("Greek New Testament") does not have the morphological rigor that the Hebrew Bible has, what do they mean by this? that we Christians should be more attentive to the profession of faith, rather than trying to dogmatize people using sacred writings.

I try to read these great masters, I consult them! They teach us to respect and be virtuous, that's what's in academic books. they gave the best, I just quote them.

 

[amatuerscholar]

I think the easier answer is that there was no actual prophecy regarding this, and it was something read into the story after the fact. There is no clear reference to this prophecy anywhere. It's only mentioned in one Gospel, and no one else seems to care.

More so, we can't use Matthew to explain Luke. The two disagree on the narrative. Matthew has the family living in Bethlehem, only to flee only after Jesus is born. Matthew has to make sense as to why the family then goes to Nazareth, which was an insignificant place, and reads a prophecy into it.

Luke doesn't have that problem, as he acknowledges that the family already lived in Nazareth, and then he has to find a reason to have them go to Bethlehem. To do such, he makes up a situation that is not historical.

The stories disagree, so trying to read them into each other fails.

The simplest answer then is that there is no actual prophecy.

 

[jimb]

I think the easier answer is that there was no actual prophecy regarding this, and it was something read into the story after the fact. There is no clear reference to this prophecy anywhere. It's only mentioned in one Gospel, and no one else seems to care.

More so, we can't use Matthew to explain Luke. The two disagree on the narrative. Matthew has the family living in Bethlehem, only to flee only after Jesus is born. Matthew has to make sense as to why the family then goes to Nazareth, which was an insignificant place, and reads a prophecy into it.

Luke doesn't have that problem, as he acknowledges that the family already lived in Nazareth, and then he has to find a reason to have them go to Bethlehem. To do such, he makes up a situation that is not historical.

The stories disagree, so trying to read them into each other fails.

The simplest answer then is that there is no actual prophecy.

That may be the simplest answer, but not the best one. You, like others, think that the Gospels are a variant of Western journalism. They are not.

They are portraits of Jesus Christ, His life on Earth, the many miracles He performed, the teachings He gave, etc. are more like impressionists paintings than journalistic narratives.

The "simplest answer" is not the best one. In fact, it shows a clear misunderstanding.

 

[amatuerscholar]

That may be the simplest answer, but not the best one. You, like others, think that the Gospels are a variant of Western journalism. They are not.

They are portraits of Jesus Christ, His life on Earth, the many miracles He performed, the teachings He gave, etc. are more like impressionists paintings than journalistic narratives.

The "simplest answer" is not the best one. In fact, it shows a clear misunderstanding.

I do not think that the Gospels are a variant of Western journalism. I think they fall into the category of genre called Lives. That they are more similar to the ancient texts we have of say Augustus. They contain not just history, but theology. They are also heavily influenced by the beliefs of the day.

The simplest answer here is in fact the best one. It doesn't make one jump through intellectual hoops in order to explain why the narratives don't agree with each other. Why don't they agree? Because they are theologically motivated and are not meant to actually reveal history. The birth narratives are theologically motivated, not historically. That's why Luke and Matthew disagree, because the history isn't important, it's the truth they are telling that is important.

That's why Matthew can tell a story that mimics the birth narratives of Moses, and still be true, even though it's not historically accurate.

 

[John D. Brey]

So here again there was a definite fulfillment of prophecy, though not of a specific passage, but of "the prophets" in general. OBJECTIONABLE VIEWS: 1. Matthew is thinking of a definite passage in Isaiah 11:1, where the word "netser" is used to indicate Nazareth. Answer: There is no etymological connection between this Hebrew word and Nαζαρετ

Hebrew Netzer​

One view holds that the name 'Nazareth' is derived from one of the Hebrew words for 'branch', namely ne·ṣer, ‏נֵ֫צֶר‎,[a] and alludes to the prophetic, messianic words in Book of Isaiah 11:1: "from (Jesse's) roots a Branch [netzer] will bear fruit".[9]​

​

Wikipedia, Nazareth.​

John

 

[metis]

The irony is that it wasn't called "Nazareth" during Jesus' time, so my guess is that it was changed in the scriptures to that somewhat later.