Matthew 2:23 states that Jesus went to live in Nazareth, “so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.'” This verse has puzzled Bible scholars for centuries, as no specific Old Testament prophecy clearly predicts that the Messiah will be called a Nazarene. There are several theories on what prophecy Matthew might have had in mind:
1. It refers to prophecies about the Messiah’s humble origins
Some argue Matthew meant the prophecies about the Messiah coming from humble beginnings, not the elite halls of power. Isaiah 53:2 states the Messiah will grow up before God “like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.” In John 1:46, Nathanael asks if any good can come from Nazareth, implying it was an insignificant and lowly place. Matthew may have wanted to underscore that Jesus came from a humble town, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy about the Messiah’s origins.
Nazareth was an obscure, backwater town in Galilee. The Messiah growing up there fits the prophetic picture of his humble roots and rejection by the ruling religious elite. Matthew saw continuity between Jesus’ lowly upbringing in Nazareth and the prophecies about the despised and rejected Messiah.
2. It refers to Jesus being a Nazirite
Some connect Matthew 2:23 to Samson and Samuel, famous Nazirites in the Old Testament. Nazirites like Samson and Samuel took special religious vows to abstain from wine and cutting their hair. Some argue “Nazarene” implies Jesus was also a Nazirite, distinguished by his holy lifestyle.
However, there is no biblical evidence Jesus took a formal vow or observed traditional Nazirite prohibitions. His critics even accused him of being “a glutton and drunkard” (Matthew 11:19), making charges no one would make against a traditional Nazirite. Still, Jesus led a consecrated life, consistent with the meaning of “Nazarene” as one dedicated to God.
3. It refers to prophecies of the Messiah’s rejection
Some scholars believe Matthew 2:23 refers broadly to prophecies of the Messiah’s rejection, like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Though no single prophecy says “He will be called a Nazarene,” many do speak of his rejection by men.
Growing up in Nazareth allowed Jesus to fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah’s suffering at the hands of men. Nazareth was despised as a backwater town (John 1:46), just as the prophets foretold the Messiah would be “despised and rejected” by the people (Isaiah 53:3). Matthew saw continuity between the contempt people had for those from Nazareth, and the rejection the prophets said the Messiah would face.
4. Typological fulfillment based on Nazirite parallels
Some see Matthew’s statement being fulfilled typologically, like other events in Jesus’ life repeating patterns from Israel’s history. In this case, Jesus recapitulates elements of the Nazirite tradition found in people like Samson and Samuel. Though Jesus was not a formal Nazirite, his holy life reflected aspects of their dedication to God.
Matthew made frequent use of typology, linking events in Jesus’ life to parallels in Israel’s history. His flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:15) mirrored the Exodus. His 40 days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:2) paralleled Israel’s wanderings. Matthew saw Jesus as the true Israel, reliving and fulfilling key experiences from the nation’s past.
5. No specific prophecy intended
Some scholars argue Matthew was not referring to any specific prophecy. He may have used “prophets” as a general reference to the messianic expectations found throughout the Old Testament. However, since no single passage makes a prediction about Nazareth, this general reference lack specificity.
On this view, Matthew’s language is rhetorical rather than literal. He is not quoting a prophecy, but using “prophets” loosely to refer to messianic hopes in the Old Testament. The connection between those hopes and Nazareth is based on typology more than a direct prediction.
6. Prophecy now lost to history
A minority view is that Matthew was quoting a genuine prophecy that has not survived in any Old Testament book now extant. Some suggest he had access to other prophetic books unknown to us that did contain this specific prediction.
However, most scholars find this unlikely. There is no evidence for such a prophecy in other Jewish literature of the period either. This view requires assuming unknown prophecies, not preserved in any Old Testament text or other documents.
7. Play on words with Nazareth and “branch”
Some see a play on words between “Nazarene” and the Hebrew word for branch (“netzer”). Isaiah 11:1 predicts the Messiah will come forth as a branch (“netzer”) from the root of Jesse. Matthew may have intimated a loose connection between “Nazarene” and this “branch” prophecy.
However, this depends on Matthew constructing an ambiguous word association that only works in Hebrew, not Greek. In addition, there is no solid evidence Jesus’ town was named Nazareth because of its nearness to this “Branch” prophecy, as some suggest.
Conclusion
There are good arguments for seeing Matthew’s statement fulfilled typologically, through prophecies of the Messiah’s humble origins and rejection by men. However, there remains mystery around Matthew’s specific intention. His quote defies attempts to attribute it to any one prophetic text. In the end, Matthew 2:23 illustrates how New Testament authors often took a creative and nuanced approach to applying Old Testament passages to the life of Jesus.
