He will be called a Nazarene

[logical bob]

I was involved in a discussion on the Richard Dawkins forum where there was considerable disagreement on Matthew 2:23 "... and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." "

It seems that nowhere in the Old Testament does it say "he will be called a Nazarene." Does anyone know what the Gospel is referring to here?

 

[Mysteryman]

I was involved in a discussion on the Richard Dawkins forum where there was considerable disagreement on Matthew 2:23 "... and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." "

It seems that nowhere in the Old Testament does it say "he will be called a Nazarene." Does anyone know what the Gospel is referring to here?

Yes, I do.

The record is in Judges 13:5 threw verse 7 < This was the prophesy of Jesus Christ who was a Nazarene.

The child that she bare was Samson.

The child that Mary bare was Jesus the Christ.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[stovebolts]

I seem to view it in light of Isaiah 53:2

53:2 He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him.

53:3 He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.

53:4 But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished,
attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done.

53:5 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed.

Nazareth was a humble little dirt clod and Sampson is the epitome of somebody who was blessed by God and used that blessing the wrong way. Sampson should have learned how to drop that jawbone :yes .. hence, "Has anything good ever came out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46)

 

[Mysteryman]

I seem to view it in light of Isaiah 53:2

53:2 He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him.

53:3 He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.

53:4 But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished,
attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done.

53:5 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed.

Nazareth was a humble little dirt clod and Sampson is the epitome of somebody who was blessed by God and used that blessing the wrong way. Sampson should have learned how to drop that jawbone :yes .. hence, "Has anything good ever came out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46)

There were many prophesies throughout the OT pertaining to Jesus Christ, and they were fulfilled, as such is true of these verses in Isaiah.

But , every man has fallen short of the glory of God, except one - Jesus Christ.

So Samson fell short, but we see that he changed and that God was still with Samson, and his power was restored, unto his own death. Which is a mirror image of Christ's death.

IN Christ - MM

 

[stovebolts]

That was a great reply MM, thank you :yes

It really got me to thinking what Israel was looking for when they were looking for the Messiah.. Many were looking for a Sampson. ;)

 

[Mysteryman]

That was a great reply MM, thank you :yes

It really got me to thinking what Israel was looking for when they were looking for the Messiah.. Many were looking for a Sampson. ;)

Thanks, and your comment made me think of when the Messiah actually did come. They rejected him.

All the signs were given in the OT, and one would think that they would be looking for the Messiah to come. But when he did come, they should have recognized all the signs. But they were so far removed from the prophesies of the OT, that they stopped looking. And he came out of Nazareth and was called a Nazarene. So you would think that they would be looking for the Messiah to come out of Nazareth. Which he did, but I say again, they stopped looking for the Messiah which would come out of Nazareth, of whom would be called a Nazarene.

Now all the signs are given unto us. The question is, are we keeping our focus on the Messiah to come shortly in the clouds ? Walk by faith, not by sight.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[logical bob]

Thanks guys, but I'm still confused. First up, and this is ignorance on my part, what's the connection to the root out of parched soil in Isaiah 53? I'm afraid that's not obvious to me.

Secondly, Judges 13 seems to talk about a Nazrite, not a Nazarene. The Nazrites, as I understand it, were and are an ascetic Jewish sect who vow, amongst other things, to abstain from wine and avoid corpses. As the Gospels portray Jesus as raising the dead and attending a wedding where he provided the wine they surely can't be portraying him as a Nazrite. Can they? And what's the connection between the Nazrite sect and the town of Nazareth?

 

[Free]

I don't think there is a connection. I really don't think there is any specific prophecy to which the statement in Matthew is alluding to.

 

[stovebolts]

bob,
Your not a farmer are you?

What kind of plant would be expected grow in parched soil? What would you expect from said plant as far as edible fruit? Cities took on an identity, much like today. For instance, LA is called "Shakey" because of all it's earthquakes while whole states like Washington for instance is called the "Evergreen State". As such, each city held it's own reputation and in the scheme of things, "Nothing good comes out of Nazareth" was the general consensus. Thus, Nazareth would have been considered "parched" for at the sages exclaimed, John 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

Also, the language points back to Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit.

 

[handy]

I don't think there is a connection. I really don't think there is any specific prophecy to which the statement in Matthew is alluding to.

I've seen various interpretations about this as well.

The truth is, we really cannot know for certain exactly what Matthew was referring to here. Some believe that it was an orally interpreted prophesy. Others feel that the reference isn't to be interpreted as a specific reference to Nazareth as a place but rather as a source of derision, and this fulfilled the numerous prophesies that the Messiah would be despised. This comes from a statement made by someone (I forget the specific text) "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Apparently, Nazareth was considered an uncouth backwater. This theory would explain the fact that Matthew referenced "the prophets" as opposed to specifically referring to one prophet.

As for the connection between the "root out of parched soil" this is based upon the theory that Nazareth was a Greek name rooted in the Jewish word "Nazara" which means "a shoot" referring to a branch which shoots up from the trunk of a tree. This is a pretty solid theory.

I'm curious, is this a particular stumbling block of yours, Logical Bob? Something that makes it harder for you to accept the Scriptures? It would be somewhat amazing if everything written in a book like the Bible was crystal clear, at least it would seem so to me.

 

[Adullam]

The English misses the mark here. Jesus was not a nazir but a notsri. Take the OT verses regarding the netser (Branch)..

1And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

2And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

There is a play on words regarding the Branch (netser) and the place where Jesus grew up (netseret or Nazareth). So Jesus was the netser from netseret. These plays on words are common in the Hebrew!

Nazarene is nazir...of a different root and spelling.

 

[Mysteryman]

Thanks guys, but I'm still confused. First up, and this is ignorance on my part, what's the connection to the root out of parched soil in Isaiah 53? I'm afraid that's not obvious to me.

Secondly, Judges 13 seems to talk about a Nazrite, not a Nazarene. The Nazrites, as I understand it, were and are an ascetic Jewish sect who vow, amongst other things, to abstain from wine and avoid corpses. As the Gospels portray Jesus as raising the dead and attending a wedding where he provided the wine they surely can't be portraying him as a Nazrite. Can they? And what's the connection between the Nazrite sect and the town of Nazareth?

Hi Bob

Jesus didn't touch Lazarus when he was dead. He called him out of the grave. Jesus didn't touch leper's , he spoke and then the lepor was healed, and then he touched him, but he was not leporous anymore but clean - this record can be found in Mark 1:40 & 41. Many read verse 40 incorrectly, and see what they perceive as him touching him first, then speaking the words "be thou clean". Then Jesus told him to go out and tell no man, but to offer up that which was according to the law of Moses. The man did not do what Jesus told him to do, in fact he did the opposite.

IT should read in verse 40 -"as Jesus was reaching forth to put his hand on him, Jesus spoke these words - "be thou clean". < Notice that I said "read" not written !

Jesus was a Nazarite. And Jesus didn't drink wine either. Another misconception by many who read the scriptures incorrectly. He changed water into wine. He even had wine during the last supper. But he never drank any. He passed the cup and when the cup came back to him it was empty.

One record of what he did drink is in Matthew 10:41 & 42 and Mark 9:41

The cup of the Lord, was his shed blood.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

And Jesus didn't drink wine either. Another misconception by many who read the scriptures incorrectly. He changed water into wine. He even had wine during the last supper. But he never drank any. He passed the cup and when the cup came back to him it was empty.

Jesus drank wine:

Matt. 11:18-19, "18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."

Even if the NT was silent on the matter we could not assume that he didn't drink wine.

 

[Mysteryman]

And Jesus didn't drink wine either. Another misconception by many who read the scriptures incorrectly. He changed water into wine. He even had wine during the last supper. But he never drank any. He passed the cup and when the cup came back to him it was empty.

Jesus drank wine:

Matt. 11:18-19, "18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."

Even if the NT was silent on the matter we could not assume that he didn't drink wine.

WOW

You take scripture out of context and then you assume. This is not the way in which one should study scripture my friend.

No, he didn't drink wine ! If he did, then the scriptures and prophesies would not be true ! He came to fulfill prophecy . He was indeed the fulfillment of a Nazarene. If he drank any wine, the scriptures would fall apart, and not be worth the paper they are written upon.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

And Jesus didn't drink wine either. Another misconception by many who read the scriptures incorrectly. He changed water into wine. He even had wine during the last supper. But he never drank any. He passed the cup and when the cup came back to him it was empty.

Jesus drank wine:

Matt. 11:18-19, "18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."

Even if the NT was silent on the matter we could not assume that he didn't drink wine.

WOW

You take scripture out of context and then you assume. This is not the way in which one should study scripture my friend.

No, he didn't drink wine ! If he did, then the scriptures and prophesies would not be true ! He came to fulfill prophecy . He was indeed the fulfillment of a Nazarene. If he drank any wine, the scriptures would fall apart, and not be worth the paper they are written upon.

Love IN Christ - MM

The error is on your part. The text above is clear that Jesus drank wine. And it has been shown already that "Nazarene" and "Nazirite" are not one and the same. You are taking an obscure verse and using it to reinterpret a clear verse to say something it is not.

 

[Mysteryman]

WOW

You take scripture out of context and then you assume. This is not the way in which one should study scripture my friend.

No, he didn't drink wine ! If he did, then the scriptures and prophesies would not be true ! He came to fulfill prophecy . He was indeed the fulfillment of a Nazarene. If he drank any wine, the scriptures would fall apart, and not be worth the paper they are written upon.

Love IN Christ - MM[/quote]

The error is on your part. The text above is clear that Jesus drank wine. And it has been shown already that "Nazarene" and "Nazirite" are not one and the same. You are taking an obscure verse and using it to reinterpret a clear verse to say something it is not.[/quote]

Hi Free

I am sorry to see that we can not agree here. I would never handle the scriptures the way this other poster did. The scriptures and the prophesies must always line up. Matt. 2:23 clearly tells us that he was prophesied to be a Nazarene. A Nazarene is a Nazarite. And he did not drink any wine.

This I would say is where we part from one another in out beliefs. Maybe someday we will see this eye to eye in our understanding. And just for clarification, the unbelievers thought he was drunk, so it was what they thought. I personnaly would never take the word or words of any unbeliever and attach myself to their beliefs. But thats me . :yes

Bless - IN Christ - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

The English misses the mark here. Jesus was not a nazir but a notsri. Take the OT verses regarding the netser (Branch)..

1And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

2And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

There is a play on words regarding the Branch (netser) and the place where Jesus grew up (netseret or Nazareth). So Jesus was the netser from netseret. These plays on words are common in the Hebrew!

Nazarene is nazir...of a different root and spelling.

Jesus Christ of the root of Jesse, was the "stem". We ( Christians ) are the branch.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

The error is on your part. The text above is clear that Jesus drank wine. And it has been shown already that "Nazarene" and "Nazirite" are not one and the same. You are taking an obscure verse and using it to reinterpret a clear verse to say something it is not.

Hi Free

I am sorry to see that we can not agree here. I would never handle the scriptures the way this other poster did. The scriptures and the prophesies must always line up. Matt. 2:23 clearly tells us that he was prophesied to be a Nazarene. A Nazarene is a Nazarite. And he did not drink any wine.

This I would say is where we part from one another in out beliefs. Maybe someday we will see this eye to eye in our understanding. And just for clarification, the unbelievers thought he was drunk, so it was what they thought. I personnaly would never take the word or words of any unbeliever and attach myself to their beliefs. But thats me . :yes

"Nazirite" means "one that is separate" (read Numbers 6). A "Nazarene" was someone who was from the town of Nazareth. Those are two very different words. If you still disagree, please find just one reputable source that proves otherwise.

The Bible is silent about whether or not Jesus was a Nazirite but from Matt. 11:18-19, it is most likely that he was not, unless he gave up that vow. That unbelievers thought he was a drunkard is only significant in that they stated it precisely because they saw him drinking. And it is Jesus no less who states that he "came drinking." Notice the contrast with John who didn't drink.

John 10:30-33, "30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Do you then disagree with the above?

 

[Mysteryman]

The error is on your part. The text above is clear that Jesus drank wine. And it has been shown already that "Nazarene" and "Nazirite" are not one and the same. You are taking an obscure verse and using it to reinterpret a clear verse to say something it is not.

Hi Free

I am sorry to see that we can not agree here. I would never handle the scriptures the way this other poster did. The scriptures and the prophesies must always line up. Matt. 2:23 clearly tells us that he was prophesied to be a Nazarene. A Nazarene is a Nazarite. And he did not drink any wine.

This I would say is where we part from one another in out beliefs. Maybe someday we will see this eye to eye in our understanding. And just for clarification, the unbelievers thought he was drunk, so it was what they thought. I personnaly would never take the word or words of any unbeliever and attach myself to their beliefs. But thats me . :yes

"Nazirite" means "one that is separate" (read Numbers 6). A "Nazarene" was someone who was from the town of Nazareth. Those are two very different words. If you still disagree, please find just one reputable source that proves otherwise.

The Bible is silent about whether or not Jesus was a Nazirite but from Matt. 11:18-19, it is most likely that he was not, unless he gave up that vow. That unbelievers thought he was a drunkard is only significant in that they stated it precisely because they saw him drinking. And it is Jesus no less who states that he "came drinking." Notice the contrast with John who didn't drink.

John 10:30-33, "30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Do you then disagree with the above?

I'm affraid I will have to wholeheartedly disagree with the above.

A Nazarite is one who seperates one's self different from the others. That is what a Nazarite means. It does not mean that he was someone seperate of being a Nazarene. He was a Nazarene because his family raised him there. He was born in Jerusalem. He was of Nazareth, because he came out from there. That is why he was called a Nazarene.

No , they did not see him drinking. Again you are taking the words out of context. They saw him as a drunk, in that, they thought his words were such words that would come from a drunkard. There is no sciptural proof that Jesus ever drank wine. Actually the total opposite is true. There is a tremendous amout of scripture that indicates that he never drank anything but water.

What I do see you saying here, is that they saw Jesus drinking, thus calling him a drunkard. But you would have to stretch the scriptures to an extreme in order to come to this conclusion.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the scriptures and the prophesies pertaining to himself , spoken by the Prophets. He fulfilled the prophecy pertaining to the law of a Nazrite < One who seperates one's self from all others. A Nazarite is one who vows and refrains from.

Your explanation is telling me the total opposite, that he was one who did not "refrain from" , thus not making him a Nazarite. Jesus Christ also "refrained from all sin" which again shows that he was a Nazarite.

Bless - Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

"Nazirite" means "one that is separate" (read Numbers 6). A "Nazarene" was someone who was from the town of Nazareth. Those are two very different words. If you still disagree, please find just one reputable source that proves otherwise.

The Bible is silent about whether or not Jesus was a Nazirite but from Matt. 11:18-19, it is most likely that he was not, unless he gave up that vow. That unbelievers thought he was a drunkard is only significant in that they stated it precisely because they saw him drinking. And it is Jesus no less who states that he "came drinking." Notice the contrast with John who didn't drink.

John 10:30-33, "30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Do you then disagree with the above?

I'm affraid I will have to wholeheartedly disagree with the above.

I should have been clearer. I was wondering if, in regards to the passage from John, you would disagree with the unbelievers and say that Jesus isn't God. I am looking for consistency in your arguments.

A Nazarite is one who seperates one's self different from the others. That is what a Nazarite means. It does not mean that he was someone seperate of being a Nazarene. He was a Nazarene because his family raised him there. He was born in Jerusalem. He was of Nazareth, because he came out from there. That is why he was called a Nazarene.

I'm not sure what your point is here since you seem to be restating what I said. A Nazarite is "one who is separate" and has taken the vow of the Nazarites as stated in Numbers 6; we both agree. A Nazarene is someone from Nazareth; again, we both agree.

However, a Nazarite is not necessarily a Nazarene. Although it is entirely possible that someone from Nazareth could have taken the vow of the Nazarite and rightly be called a Nazarite, being from Nazareth does not make one a Nazarite since a Nazarite could be from Jerusalem or any other city or town.

No , they did not see him drinking. Again you are taking the words out of context. They saw him as a drunk, in that, they thought his words were such words that would come from a drunkard. There is no sciptural proof that Jesus ever drank wine. Actually the total opposite is true. There is a tremendous amout of scripture that indicates that he never drank anything but water.

Jesus' own words: "The Son of man came eating and drinking." If all he drank was water, then how is it that the people could even begin to say that he was a drunkard? How does one claim someone is a drunkard if all they drink is water? The text isn't saying that Jesus was a drunkard, that is merely what the people said. Jesus clearly says that the unbelievers' claim that he was a drunkard was directly related to his drinking.

In what context can it ever be said that "eating and drinking" means "eating and speaking words like one who is drunk?"

What I do see you saying here, is that they saw Jesus drinking, thus calling him a drunkard. But you would have to stretch the scriptures to an extreme in order to come to this conclusion.

There is no stretching at all. In fact, there is no other conclusion one can come to. As I pointed out, if all Jesus drank was water, then his statements make no sense. Again, notice that he first states that "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil."

Why would Jesus be talking about wine in regards to John and talking about water in reference to himself? Either it is wine in both instances or water, in which case John would have been a drunkard and died from dehydration and the unbelievers would have no basis for calling Jesus a drunkard.

Your position only leaves you two choices:

1. The people didn't actually believe Jesus was a drunkard and Jesus was wrong in thinking that was the case.
2. The people believed that one could get drunk on water.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the scriptures and the prophesies pertaining to himself , spoken by the Prophets. He fulfilled the prophecy pertaining to the law of a Nazrite < One who seperates one's self from all others. A Nazarite is one who vows and refrains from.

There is no prophecy, that is my whole point. Matt 2:23 says "Nazarene," which we both have agreed is someone from Nazareth and not a Nazarite.

Your explanation is telling me the total opposite, that he was one who did not "refrain from" , thus not making him a Nazarite. Jesus Christ also "refrained from all sin" which again shows that he was a Nazarite.

Yes, that is what I am saying. There is absolutely zero evidence that Jesus took the vow of the Nazarites. And you have introduced another error here, namely, the presupposition that "refraining from all sin" makes him a Nazarite. The implication being that drinking wine is a sin, which is not Scriptural.