He will be called a Nazarene

[logical bob]

Thanks westtexas, that's interesting. If you're right, though, why does Matthew think that this prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus living in Nazareth? What would make him think that those references in the prophets were about a place?

 

[westtexas]

Thanks westtexas, that's interesting. If you're right, though, why does Matthew think that this prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus living in Nazareth? What would make him think that those references in the prophets were about a place?

From the little word study that I have done the word nazareth is the fem. plural of the word nazer or netzer. Why this city is in scripture, I don't know, maybe to put a little more emphasis on the word branch and the coming promised Branch. To me, the town is not the important part of this scripture. Matthew could have said "And he came and dwelt in a city called Odessa, Tx., that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

He was the prophesied coming Nazarene, the prophesied coming BRANCH as spoken of by the prophets. "Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH!" Zech. 6:12 NKJV (The caps ARE in scripture)
Westtexas

 

[Free]

We know that the OT was full of the prophesies of Jesus Christ. This I am sure you are aware of and in agreement with. What I proposed, was this record in Judges 13:5 & 7 < which was a prophecy of Jesus Christ.

I did catch that but there is no reason to think it is a Messianic prophecy.

Was the answer I gave Bob pertaining to his question about the OT declaring that he shall be called a Nazarene. I gave the prophecy that is in Psalms 68:26 - 28. I was wondering why no one addressed this. Maybe you would be willing ?

I think Isa. 9:1 would have been a better choice. But again, I do not think the Matt 2:23 reference can be said to allude to Ps. 68:26-28 since verse 27 is only listing four nations or groups and I don't see any Messianic prophecy in there.

I still think the strongest argument is a combination of what different prophets say and there is no one specific prophecy. As has been pointed out, it is significant that Nazareth means "sprout" or "shoot" and several Messianic prophecies refer to the Messiah as being a shoot or a branch--most notably Isa. 11:1 and Jer. 23:5 and 33:15. But it is also significant that in the NT the term "Nazarene" was a term of derision. This links to the Messianic prophecies in Isa. 49:7 and 53:3.

 

[Physicist]

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.

You are correct here. Nazerene and Nazerite are different words. If one wants to engage in pure speculation, some scholars think that Nazarenes may have been a first century Hebrew sect led by John the Baptist.

 

[Mysteryman]

A Zebulun "is" a Nazarene , they are the same. He shall be called a Nazarene was a prophecy from the OT Prophet(s). So you have to go back and look up "Zebulun". Bethlehem is a part of Zebulun. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which makes him a Nazarene by birth.

Nazareth is a city in Zebulun. One born in Bethlehem or one born in Nazareth or even Tabor, are all a "Nazarene . Psalm 68:26 - 28 is the prophecy of a "prince" of Zebulun = a Nazarene

Joshua 19:15 & 16 reveals the "inheritance" (twelve cities within Zebulun) Bethlehem being one of the twelve.

Being a Nazarite not only seperates one's self, but this also deals with "strength" Judges 16:17 --- What all these prophesies represent, are the things that Jesus Christ also represented, and his strength was one of those qualities.

Lam. 4:7 - "Nazarites were purer than snow" ---- Jesus was without sin. Pure !

Jesus Christ was the "Stem" , not the "branch" ! The two become confused by many in their research.

Romans 15:12 Jesus is called the "root" of Jesse, and in Isaiah 11:1 , the root is called the "stem", then it goes on and changes the word "rod" to the word "Branch" right within the same verse. So "rod" and "Branch" are exactly the same. The same holds true with the word "stem" and "roots" within this same verse. "Stem" and "roots" are exactly the same. Jesus is not the "branch" , he is the "stem" or "root" of Jesse. The body of Christ is the "Branch" of the (stem-root). Jesus Christ is also called the "root" of David - Rev. 5:5 & Rev. 22:16.

WE are the branch, because we have been grafted into the "stem -root" - Romans chapter 11:16 - 21

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[stovebolts]

So you're saying people thought that nothing good came from Nazareth, therefore any reference to parched land would be understood as referring to Nazareth even though it was a tiny place in something of a backwater. Sorry, but that's way too tenuous.

Nazareth was a very lush land and produced a very rich crop in terms of agriculture. However, it had a bad reputation from a Jewish perspective.
This isn't hard to understand. For example, what are the odds that somebody from inner Detroit would end up attending Harvard or Oxford? You see, from a Harvard perspective, nothing good comes from inner Detroit.

...he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him.

It's interesting that you raise John 7:52 though. You'd think that if there was a prophecy that said the Messiah would come from Nazareth, the Pharisees would have known about it.

Prophecy has two parts concerning the Messiah.
1. He would be born in Bethlehem. This is made very clear in scripture.
2. He would sprout up like a root out of parched soil... This I believe is what the Pharisees missed when they made the statement in 7:52. They were looking for a stately fellow witha pedigree.

 

[handy]

A Zebulun "is" a Nazarene , they are the same. He shall be called a Nazarene was a prophecy from the OT Prophet(s). So you have to go back and look up "Zebulun". Bethlehem is a part of Zebulun. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which makes him a Nazarene by birth.

Nazareth is a city in Zebulun. One born in Bethlehem or one born in Nazareth or even Tabor, are all a "Nazarene . Psalm 68:26 - 28 is the prophecy of a "prince" of Zebulun = a Nazarene

Joshua 19:15 & 16 reveals the "inheritance" (twelve cities within Zebulun) Bethlehem being one of the twelve.

Being a Nazarite not only seperates one's self, but this also deals with "strength" Judges 16:17 --- What all these prophesies represent, are the things that Jesus Christ also represented, and his strength was one of those qualities.

Lam. 4:7 - "Nazarites were purer than snow" ---- Jesus was without sin. Pure !

Jesus Christ was the "Stem" , not the "branch" ! The two become confused by many in their research.

Romans 15:12 Jesus is called the "root" of Jesse, and in Isaiah 11:1 , the root is called the "stem", then it goes on and changes the word "rod" to the word "Branch" right within the same verse. So "rod" and "Branch" are exactly the same. The same holds true with the word "stem" and "roots" within this same verse. "Stem" and "roots" are exactly the same. Jesus is not the "branch" , he is the "stem" or "root" of Jesse. The body of Christ is the "Branch" of the (stem-root). Jesus Christ is also called the "root" of David - Rev. 5:5 & Rev. 22:16.

WE are the branch, because we have been grafted into the "stem -root" - Romans chapter 11:16 - 21

Love IN Christ - MM

MM, Zebulun was far north of Bethlehem. Nazareth was part of Zebulun, but Bethlehem was a city of Judah. How are you tying Bethlehem with Zebulun?

Not a stumbling block, no. Like I said in the OP, it came up in a discussion on RDF (it was a discussion on whether Jesus existed or not, but I’m not going there on this site ).

That would be a good, lively discussion though! There are logical reasons to believe in the existence of Jesus! ;)

Opinion split the same was as here on whether there are grounds to connect Nazareth with the Nazrites and the connection to roots and shots came up too. I wondered if we’d missed anything so I thought I’d ask you guys as you know your Bible pretty well.

Again, there is no clear cut prophesy in the OT that Matthew but the connection between the word Nazarene and branch is probably the key. In all the discussion, its probably good to be reminded that Matthew didn't reference a singular prophet like Isaiah or Jeremiah, but referred to "the prophets", a very broad term.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote handy: "MM, Zebulun was far north of Bethlehem. Nazareth was part of Zebulun, but Bethlehem was a city of Judah. How are you tying Bethlehem with Zebulun?"

This where I usually tell someone to please do the research first , then reply back.

However, I will help you out here --- Zebulun was a territory also called a tribe.

Bethlehem was a "part" or city within Zebulun.

Like our states we live in. They have cities within your state. If you are a resident of New York, but live in Albany New York. You are still a resident of New York. But live in the city of Albany.

The name Zebulun comes from the man Jacob. It was his tenth son . Zebulun is the tenth son of Jacob.

Bethlehem was called --"Bethlehem-Judah to distinguish it from Bethlehem which is in Zebulun.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

A Nazareth is a city inside of Zebulun ( a Nazarene )

If you live in New York city, in the state of New York. < You are a Nazareth - Nazarene (Zebulun)

IN Christ - MM

 

[handy]

*edit*

 

[handy]

Quote handy: "MM, Zebulun was far north of Bethlehem. Nazareth was part of Zebulun, but Bethlehem was a city of Judah. How are you tying Bethlehem with Zebulun?"

This where I usually tell someone to please do the research first , then reply back.

Had the maps right in front of me when I posted! ;)

However, I will help you out here --- Zebulun was a territory also called a tribe.

Umm, yeah. I know. :nag

Bethlehem was a "part" or city within Zebulun.

Will come back to this.

Like our states we live in. They have cities within your state. If you are a resident of New York, but live in Albany New York. You are still a resident of New York. But live in the city of Albany.

No! Really!?! Amazing what you learn each day! :P

The name Zebulun comes from the man Jacob. It was his tenth son . Zebulun is the tenth son of Jacob.

Believe or not, I knew this as well. :nag

:D

Seriously now:

Bethlehem was a "part" or city within Zebulun.
Bethlehem was called --"Bethlehem-Judah to distinguish it from Bethlehem which is in Zebulun.

Now we get to the part I didn't know, which was that there was a Bethlehem in Zebulun, which is mentioned once in the Bible in Joshua 19:10,15. It was not on any of my maps, and until this moment, I didn't know it existed. I Googled it, and found a map with it on it.

However, I still go back to my question before, but this time with a bit of clarity:

You said:
"A Zebulun "is" a Nazarene , they are the same. He shall be called a Nazarene was a prophecy from the OT Prophet(s). So you have to go back and look up "Zebulun". Bethlehem is a part of Zebulun. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which makes him a Nazarene by birth."

Jesus was in no way born in the Bethlehem in Zebulun. Jesus was born in the city of David, the Bethlehem in Judea. This is one of the better known facts of history. So, I'll ask again: How are you tying Bethlehem (the City of David, birthplace of Christ) with Zebulun?

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote handy: "Jesus was in no way born in the Bethlehem in Zebulun. Jesus was born in the city of David, the Bethlehem in Judea. This is one of the better known facts of history. So, I'll ask again: How are you tying Bethlehem (the City of David, birthplace of Christ) with Zebulun?"

Hi

Same question with a twist ! Nice, now I implore you to go back and read what I have already told you.

Bethlehem is the city of David, which is a city "within" the tribe / territory of ----- Zebulun < Anyone from within any of the twelve cities within Zebulun is a Nazarene !

You are trying to tell me that there are two different Bethlehem's, which is not true !

Jesus was born in Bethlehem within Zebulun ! ! !

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[handy]

Nope. Now it's your turn to do some research here MM. Bethlehem, the City of David, is only about 5 miles from Jerusalem, and is in historic Judea, where the tribe of Judah settled. The Bethlehem in Zebulum was (now a ruin) a little to the north of Nazareth.

You can see from the map where Zebulum was (is? I don't know if modern Israel has the historic states) and it's far from the Bethlehem, the City of David, where Jesus was born.

Here's a link to a really good map of the 12 tribes.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bemap.html
As you can see from this map, Jerusalem and Bethlehem are in Judah, whereas Zebulum where Nazareth and the ruined city of Bethlehem is far to the north.

Yes, there were two Bethlehems.

 

[logical bob]

So you're saying people thought that nothing good came from Nazareth, therefore any reference to parched land would be understood as referring to Nazareth even though it was a tiny place in something of a backwater. Sorry, but that's way too tenuous.

This isn't hard to understand. For example, what are the odds that somebody from inner Detroit would end up attending Harvard or Oxford? You see, from a Harvard perspective, nothing good comes from inner Detroit.

I understand what you're saying. I bet Harvard has few people from South Central LA or rural Montana. So if a Harvard academic refered to a place as parched ground for that reason, how would we know whether he meant inner Detroit, South Central LA or rural Montana? Or somewhere else?

In the same way, why should parched ground in the OT refer to Nazareth in preference to all the other places which a bad reputation?

Prophecy has two parts concerning the Messiah.
1. He would be born in Bethlehem. This is made very clear in scripture.
2. He would sprout up like a root out of parched soil... This I believe is what the Pharisees missed when they made the statement in 7:52. They were looking for a stately fellow witha pedigree.

The root out of parched soil is a potent image so it could mean many things. Given the way the prophets keep decrying the spiritual state of the nation couldn't it just mean spiritual renewal? It seems a bit contrived to say with hindsight that it must mean Nazareth because Jesus came from there.

 

[stovebolts]

I understand what you're saying. I bet Harvard has few people from South Central LA or rural Montana. So if a Harvard academic refered to a place as parched ground for that reason, how would we know whether he meant inner Detroit, South Central LA or rural Montana? Or somewhere else?

Good questions bob. Hey, I used to live at 825 Rosecrans in Gardena Ca and I also lived between 8 and 9 mile in Eastpoint Mi. That being said, Montana doesn't belong in the above equation ;)

Although your analogy fits, I think that if we look at the geographic location of Galilee in relation to Jerusalem, it certainly would narrow down the search I'd also like to consider the ideology of the Pharasis and why they were the "Puritans" of the day. Perhaps well talk more on this later. But anyway, Jesus was known to have been from Nazareth. Would it then be fair to infer that the author is simply affirming Jesus with the OT prophesies and thus simply "inserts city here".

I don't know if you'll agree with this, but often I've found that when I study the bible, it's like a puzzle and sometimes it doesn't look like all the pieces are there and if you have a piece and it doesn't quiet fit, we shouldn't force it. For me, this piece fits, but I know there are more pieces before the puzzle is solved.

The root out of parched soil is a potent image so it could mean many things. Given the way the prophets keep decrying the spiritual state of the nation couldn't it just mean spiritual renewal? It seems a bit contrived to say with hindsight that it must mean Nazareth because Jesus came from there.

By all means yes, I do believe it infers a spiritual renewal. But it wasn't going to come from Zion. If you look at the state of Israel in the days of Jesus, they were worse off than when they were in exile. And this brings us to the sages and priests in Jerusalem. If Jerusalem was the epitome of Torah, then Nazareth was the epitome of said lack of understanding.

Let's say though that Jesus was from.. well, lets say Ohio Would it have made a difference if scripture read, "He will be called an Ohioan"?

 

[Mysteryman]

Nope. Now it's your turn to do some research here MM. Bethlehem, the City of David, is only about 5 miles from Jerusalem, and is in historic Judea, where the tribe of Judah settled. The Bethlehem in Zebulum was (now a ruin) a little to the north of Nazareth.

You can see from the map where Zebulum was (is? I don't know if modern Israel has the historic states) and it's far from the Bethlehem, the City of David, where Jesus was born.

Here's a link to a really good map of the 12 tribes.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... bemap.html
As you can see from this map, Jerusalem and Bethlehem are in Judah, whereas Zebulum where Nazareth and the ruined city of Bethlehem is far to the north.

Yes, there were two Bethlehems.

Well, I stand corrected . You are correct, The town of Bethlehem is in Zebulun, and the city of Bethlehem is in Judea.

But, and I am sure you saw that coming. LOL -- But, After Jesus was born, where did his family flee too during the time of Herod the King ? A prophecy we read about in Matthew 2:6 < But this would not have made him a Nazarene. So like Paul Harvey use to say, "rest of the story" needs to be identified.

Joseph and Mary fled into Egypt until the death of Herod. Another prophecy in Matt. 2:15 - "Out of Egypt have I called my son". Again , this would not have made him a Nazarene either. So we need to find the "rest of the story" pertaining to him being called a Nazarenen. So the third prophecy spoken of was in verse 17 & 18.

The answer is in verse 23 of Matthew chapter 2. They dwelt in a city called Nazareth. This is why he was called a Nazarene, because from a little over 2 years of age (age not determind exact) they finished raising Jesus in Nazareth.

So now we are still left with finding the prophecy in the OT where it tells us this. Of course we know that Nazareth was within Zebulun, which would make him a Nazarene by way of township, being raised there.

So now we are back to square one. Looking once again for the prophecy of him being called a Nazarene.

As much as Isaiah 9:1 gives an explanation of how he did not affect them there but only slightly. I do not believe this verse is indicating that he would be called a Nazarene, as in a Prophecy pertaining to him being called a Nazarene. But I still believe that Psalms 68:26 - 28 shows us using the word "strength" here, and the word "princes". For Jesus was of Bethlehem of Juda (Judah) as the prophecy in Matthew 2:6 indicates, and includes Zebulun in Psalms 68:26 - 28. Jesus was the prince among princes that came out of Bethlehem of Juda and Zebulun ( Nazareth - Matt. 2:23 )

So my belief still stands that this record in Psalms 68:26 - 28 is the record of the prophecy in Matt. 2:23.

And I also still stand upon the fact that he was a Nazrite - :yes

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

A Zebulun "is" a Nazarene , they are the same. He shall be called a Nazarene was a prophecy from the OT Prophet(s). So you have to go back and look up "Zebulun". Bethlehem is a part of Zebulun. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which makes him a Nazarene by birth.

Nazareth is a city in Zebulun. One born in Bethlehem or one born in Nazareth or even Tabor, are all a "Nazarene . Psalm 68:26 - 28 is the prophecy of a "prince" of Zebulun = a Nazarene

Not quite correct. A Nazarene (town) is a Zebulun (region) but a Zebulun is not necessarily a Nazarene.

Being a Nazarite not only seperates one's self, but this also deals with "strength" Judges 16:17 --- What all these prophesies represent, are the things that Jesus Christ also represented, and his strength was one of those qualities.

Lam. 4:7 - "Nazarites were purer than snow" ---- Jesus was without sin. Pure !

Again, none of these show that Jesus was a Nazarite.

Jesus Christ was the "Stem" , not the "branch" ! The two become confused by many in their research.

Romans 15:12 Jesus is called the "root" of Jesse, and in Isaiah 11:1 , the root is called the "stem", then it goes on and changes the word "rod" to the word "Branch" right within the same verse. So "rod" and "Branch" are exactly the same. The same holds true with the word "stem" and "roots" within this same verse. "Stem" and "roots" are exactly the same. Jesus is not the "branch" , he is the "stem" or "root" of Jesse. The body of Christ is the "Branch" of the (stem-root). Jesus Christ is also called the "root" of David - Rev. 5:5 & Rev. 22:16.

WE are the branch, because we have been grafted into the "stem -root" - Romans chapter 11:16 - 21

The passages I gave, and I can give some more, are considered by many to be Messianic passages and they state that the Messiah will be a branch. In the very least, the only argument you could make is that the passage refers to Israel, not the Gentiles.

Looking at the very passage you gave to show that "we are the branch":

Rom 11:16-20, "16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear."

It is clear that the Jews here are referred to as branches and the Gentiles "a wild olive shoot." Since the Jews are branches, it further strengthens my point that the Messiah is being referred to as "a righteous Branch."

 

[Mysteryman]

Free

The Word tells us that he is the "root" of Jesse and he is also the "root" of David.

Now we know that Jesse is the father of King David, and King David is the lineage to the King line, and also the flesh line of Jesus.

The "root" is the "stem" of a tree or a vine. One might say that a root is a root. But, the stem of a tree means the trunk, that which "prodeedeth" out from the ground.

Then we have branches. And the branches represent the twelve tribes of Israel ( not literally, but spiritually). Gentiles were those grafted in, but not only gentiles. But Jews and Gentiles , which includes the whole body of Christ.

To be grafted in, is not to be grafted into the Israel that is here on this earth. But the "Israel" of God, which is above, and proceeds from the Father above.

Jesus is the vine which prceedeth out of the Father. The Father being the "root" , and Jesus being the "stem", and all the rest of the Israel of God is the body of Christ < the branch. And all those whom God will have mercy and those whom he will have compassion. < These will make up all the other branches of the vine. The harvest is plenty, but the labourers are few. This is why many are called, but few are chosen.

The root is connected to the stem, and the stem to the branches.

My understanding and my two --

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[logical bob]

But anyway, Jesus was known to have been from Nazareth. Would it then be fair to infer that the author is simply affirming Jesus with the OT prophesies and thus simply "inserts city here".

Mysteryman said something close to that too. I think it's pretty clear from the passage that the author of Matthew is saying that it's the fact of coming from Nazareth that fulfills what was said through the prophets. Yet that prophecy is distinctly lacking from the Old Testament. I think there's only one conclusion to draw from this.

 

[Free]

But anyway, Jesus was known to have been from Nazareth. Would it then be fair to infer that the author is simply affirming Jesus with the OT prophesies and thus simply "inserts city here".

Mysteryman said something close to that too. I think it's pretty clear from the passage that the author of Matthew is saying that it's the fact of coming from Nazareth that fulfills what was said through the prophets. Yet that prophecy is distinctly lacking from the Old Testament. I think there's only one conclusion to draw from this.

Well, don't leave us hanging, tell us what that one conclusion is.


But, before you do, you might want to take into consideration the finer details of what was said in Matthew 2:23: 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."

Notice the plural: "prophets." Contrast that with every other instance of a prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew:

Matt 2:5 They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

Matt 2:17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

Matt 3:3a For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah

Matt 4:14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

Matt 12:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:

Matt 13:14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

Matt 13:35a This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet:

Matt 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

Matt 21:4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,


Every other instance of a specific prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew was spoken by a prophet (singular). That Matthew 2:23 uses the plural "prophets" fully supports what has been said regarding the matter--it is a summary of what was said by several prophets and there is no specific prophecy in mind here.