Once again, the hostile critics pounce on Matthew’s perfectly legitimate and culturally acceptable use Old Testament themes and words.

The more I study Matthew, the more I realize he was a genius in how he interpreted the Old Testament, deftly weaving together concepts in diverse passages. Call it the story teller’s art of narration. Original readers two thousand years ago who were well verses in the Hebrew Bible could catch on to his interpretation. I’m not an expert in Jewish interpretive strategies at the time, but I admire him.

I also quote published commentators because I learn a lot from them. They are a community of teachers I respect because they first respect the book they are commenting on. They are fair and reasonable, not hostile. I place friendly scholars on the same or higher level than hostile critics. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars.

The translation is mine, unless otherwise noted. If you don’t read Greek, skip the left column. For more translations, go to biblegateway.com.

Now let’s begin.

Jesus Shall Be Called a Nazarene (Matt. 2:22-23)
22 Ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι Ἀρχέλαος βασιλεύει τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῴδου ἐφοβήθη ἐκεῖ ἀπελθεῖν· χρηματισθεὶς δὲ κατ’ ὄναρ ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς Γαλιλαίας, 23 καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ· ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται.	22 On hearing that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to pass by there. But having received a revelation in a dream, he departed into the region of Galilee. 23 Going there, he settled in a town called Nazareth, in order that the word through the prophets might be fulfilled that he would be called a Nazarene.

Background

Joseph chose Nazareth, which was his former hometown (Luke 1:26-27; 2:39; Matt. 13:53-58). Craig Keener estimates that around five hundred people lived there (p. 113). Nazareth was a despised place, even among the Galileans (John 1:46; 7:42, 52). In John 1:46, Nathaniel asked Philip, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” So, Matthew’s Christian readers would have instantly picked up on Jesus being despised (see Pss. 22:6-8, 13; 69:8. 20-21; Is. 11:1; 49:7; 53:2-3, 8; Dan. 9:26). Matthew carries forward the theme of Jesus being despised (see Matt. 8:20; 11:16-19; 15:7-8). So Matthew gives us the substance of OT passages, and not a direct quotation. Note how Matthew writes ”by the prophets” (plural).

Further, Matthew is also referring to the neṣer (“branch” and pronounced neh-tzair) in Isaiah 11:1-2, which says:

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
² And 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 the fear of the Lord. (Is. 11:1-2, ESV)

Jeremiah also prophesied a righteous Branch would be raised up:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land (Jer. 23:5, ESV)

Zechariah prophesies a branch to the high priest Joshua, but Joshua is not the one:

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch. (Zech. 3:8)

Jesus’s name in Hebrew is Joshua. He is a branch from the royal line of David. He was despised, but ironically, the people who despise him are wrong. So Matthew is capitalizing on the similarity of the sound neṣer and Nazarene.

Keener: pp. 113-15

Commentaries

Commentator R. T. France writes of Jesus’s humble origins:

Jesus captured just what some of the prophets had predicted—a Messiah who came from the wrong place, who did not conform to the expectations of Jewish tradition, and who as a result would not be accepted by his people. Even the embarrassment of an origin in Nazareth is thus turned to advantage as part of the Scriptural model which Matthew has worked so hard to construct in this introductory section of his account of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. (p. 95)

Craig Blomberg says that Matthew is not quoting one specific text but summarizing popular, broader themes: the “Branch” that sprang from a chopped down stump,  and then the theme that the Messiah would be despised. Don’t look for a direct quotation, as seen in other fulfillment passages in Matthew 1-2.

The last of the five fulfillment quotations in Matt 1–2 poses a unique problem. No such citation appears in the Old Testament. Matthew may be acknowledging this fact by using, for the first time here, the plural “prophets.” In other words, he may be indicating that he is not quoting one specific text but summarizing a broader scriptural theme. What might this theme be? A common suggestion links Nazareth with the Hebrew nezer, which means branch and signifies a king from David’s line (cf. e.g., Isa 11:1). Matthew would then be making a typical Hebrew play on words because “Nazareth” itself does not derive from nezer.

The second possibility, proposed at least as long ago as the days of Jerome (fourth century), is that “Nazarene” was a slang or idiomatic term for an individual from a very remote or obscure place (much like our contemporary words hick or backwoodsman). This interpretation would fit well with the attitude toward Nazareth reflected in John 1:46 and is perhaps to be preferred in light of the context of Matt 2. Matthew has pointed out the originally insignificant town in which Jesus was born, the ignominy of his flight to Egypt, and the grief of death surrounding his infancy. It would be appropriate if a reference to the obscure and despised city of his childhood appeared here. Old Testament precedent for the Messiah’s obscurity culminates in Isa 52–53. (comment on v. 23)

Isaiah 52-53 speak of the Messiah being despised and not particularly attractive, and attractiveness often draws people. But not so for this Messiah.

D. A. Carson says that Matthew is alluding to the belief that Jesus came from humble and scornful surrounding, which the readers of Matthew’s Gospel could relate to, for they too were scorned. But first Carson has to deal with the form of words, which can be tricky when a word moves from one language to the next.

Matthew certainly used Nazōraios as an adjectival form of apo Nazaret (“from Nazareth” or “Nazarene”), even though the more acceptable adjective is Nazarēnos … Possibly Nazōraios derives from a Galilean Aramaic form. Nazareth was a despised place (Jn. 7:42, 52), even to other Galileans (cf. Jn. 1:46). Here Jesus grew up, not as “Jesus the Bethlehemite,” with its Davidic overtones, but as “Jesus the Nazarene,” with its opprobrium of the sneer.. When Christians were referred to in Acts as the “Nazarene sect,” (24:5), the expression was meant to hurt. First-century readers of Matthew, who had shared tasted their share of scorn, would have quickly caught Matthew’s point. He is not saying that a particular OT prophet foretold that the Messiah would live in Nazareth; he is saying that the OT prophets foretold that the Messiah would be despised (cf. Pss. 22:6-8, 13; 69:8, 20-21; Isa. 11:1; 49:7; 53:2-3, 8; Da. 9:26). The theme is repeatedly picked up by Matthew (e.g. 8:20; 11:16-19; 15:7-8; …). In other words, Matthew gives us the substance of several OT passages, not a direct quotation (so also Ezr. 9:10-12; …). (pp. 124-25)

So Matthew gives us the substance of the OT prophets, but his point is that the Messiah is the despised Servant of the Lord, and his origins from Nazareth alludes to this scornful, low status.

Then Prof. Carson also says that Matthew may be alluding to the neṣer (branch) of Isaiah 11:1, as was noted above in this post. The Targums, rabbinic literature, and Dead Sea Scrolls proclaimed that David’s son would emerge from obscurity. Carson writes: “Jesus is King, Messiah, Son of God, Son of David; but he was a branch from the royal line hacked down to a stump and reared in surroundings that were guaranteed to win him scorn. Jesus the Messiah, Matthew is telling us, did not introduce the kingdom with outward show or present himself with the pomp of an earthly monarch. In accord with prophecy, he came as the despised Servant of the Lord” (pp. 125-26)

What Prof. Carson is teaching us is that we should not move grains of sand one at a time with a tweezer and demand that Matthew explain himself in detail, in this verse. Rather we should understand Matthew’s main point in saying “the prophets” (plural): humble, despicable origins of the Messiah. Note Carson’s references to Scripture in the long excerpt with the theme of scorning. The earliest readers of Matthew’s Gospel could relate to this, for they too were despised.

David Turner, from whom Carson borrowed, favors this approach. Matthew is putting together the prophet theme of the Messiah’s humble  and despised origins. When Matthew says “through the prophets,” he does not tag on “saying,” which typically introduces a direct quotation, as he does elsewhere. Therefore we should not look for a direct quotation, but see Matthew’s word “prophets” as a theme running through the OT prophets when they speak of the Messiah, the despised Servant of the Lord (p. 100).

Joel Green agrees, also pointing out that Matthew does not use the word “saying,” which introduces a direct quotation, so let’s interpret the prophets thematically. “But the connotations of the derogatory word “Nazorean” as applied in the first century to the messianic pretender Jesus captured just what the some of the prophets had predicted– a Messiah who came from a wrong place …” (p. 95).

Grant Osborne first notes that Nazareth had been constructed in the 3rd century B.C. It was a small agricultural village, with tombs; he refers to professional archaeologists for confirmation (p. 102, note 27). This answers the criticism that Matthew merely invented the town of Nazareth. This hyper-skepticism is found in an article in American Atheist titled “The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Nazareth,” by René Salim (March 2007).

And so Osborne also favors the interpretation that Matthew picked on a broader theme of the Messiah’s humble and despised origins (p. 102).

Jesus fulfills the OT by patterns and themes, as well as by quoted verses. In Matthew 2:23, Jesus fulfilled a broader theme.

Conclusion and Recommendations

I believe that the commentators solved the riddle. (1) Matthew is punning on Nazarene with neṣer, which means the Davidic branch emerging from a hacked down stump, so the Messiah’s appearance is remarkable; and (2) the Messiah came from humble origins and a despised village, also a theme in the prophets and Psalms.

Matthew, so it seems to me, was an expert story teller. He understood the art of narration and the broader OT more deeply than his postmodern critics do.

My big-picture conclusion is the same as what I have written in previous posts.

Many postmodern critics read these ancient documents in bad faith, believing that the authors were liars and plagiarists (I have heard them on youtube.) The critics employ no subtlety or finesse and look for ways to put these ancient texts down. It seems they belong to their own hyper-skeptical age and may not even know it.

What Is Postmodernism?

The Skeptical Sneering Age

For you, the Christian, in contrast, you should not drink too deeply of the Postmodern Age. Be reasonable in your reading of the Gospels and the entire Bible. Your faith should not be so brittle that it snaps in two when you read the strategies of Matthew.

Don’t turn little molehills into unclimbable mountains. And don’t allow hostile critics of the Gospels who build mountains out of nothing to influence you. Either look for answers (at this website or elsewhere) or ignore them, if you are not ready for them.

I choose to be a reasonable, friendly reader.

I’m glad the Gutenberg printing press was invented only in the mid-1400s, long after the NT documents were eventually written down. Now we can read the oral traditions behind the Gospels. They live and breathe and pulsate with the truth of the main storyline. Jesus’s interaction with all sorts of people feel authentic to me. I celebrate them.

Recommendations

My view of Scripture: It’s very high, but I don’t believe in “total inerrancy” or “hyper-inerrancy”:

‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility?

Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:

15.. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective:

13..  Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:

14.. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

Celebrate them, as well.

SOURCES

For the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom:

Matthew 2