‘[Joseph] came to a town called Nazareth and lived there. Then what had been spoken by the prophets was fulfilled, that Jesus would be called a Nazarene.‘

Where does it say in the prophets ‘that Jesus would be called a Nazarene’?

This wording is not to be found in any of the prophets.  In fact, Nazareth is not mentioned at all in the Old Testament.  Bethlehem, on the other hand, had a higher status as the ‘city of David’.

Some have thought that Matthew is using word-play.  Back in the 5th century AD Jerome connected Mt 2:23 with the messianic prophecy found in Isa 11:1, where the word for ‘branch’ is ‘Neser‘.  Now, this same word is the Hebrew form of the name ‘Nazareth’.  Matthew’s sense would be that the lowly off-shoot will come from the lowly ‘off-shoot’ town of Nazareth.  This interpretation is supported by Wright.  However, it seems rather stretched, although it is supported by a number of modern commentators.

One clue is that Matthew says that it was written in the ‘prophets’ (plural).  Therefore, we might suppose that Matthew is giving the overall sense of the prophets, rather than any specific prophecy.

Another possible clue is that, rather than using the participle ‘saying’ Matthew uses the conjunction hoti, suggesting that this is an indirect quotation.

France (TNTC) thinks that this is not intended to be a specific quotation, but rather a summary of prophetic expectation.  Accordingly, it is possible that Matthew

‘saw in the obscurity of Nazareth the fulfilment of Old Testament indications of a humble and rejected Messiah; for Jesus to be known by the derogatory epithet Nazōraios (cf. John 1:46) was not compatible with the expected royal dignity of the Messiah, and thus fulfilled such passages as Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; Zechariah 11:4–14.’

Carson adopts a similar interpretation:

‘First-century Christian readers of Matthew, who had 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., Mt 8:20; 11:16-19; 15:7-8; see Turner). In other words Matthew gives us the substance of several OT passages, not a direct quotation.’ (EBC, 2nd ed.)

Morris:

‘It appears that Matthew is drawing attention to the thrust of Old Testament prophecy about the Christ rather than to any one passage. Jesus went to Galilee so that what was written about him in the prophets would be fulfilled, and we see this in his being called a Nazarene, a citizen of an obscure and unimportant town. Had he been known as “Jesus of Bethlehem” he would have had the aura of one who came from the royal city; there would have been overtones of messianic majesty. But “Jesus the Nazarene” carried with it overtones of contempt. We are to understand the prophets as pointing to one who would be despised and rejected, and Jesus as fulfilling this by his connection with obscure Nazareth.’

The sense is that, just as someone who came from Nazareth would have been regarded as contemptible (see Jn 1:46; 7:52; Acts 24:5), so the prophets had said that the Messiah would be despised, Psa 22:6–8, 13; 69:8, 20–21; Isa 11:1; 49:7; 53:2–3, 8; Dan 9:26; Zec 11:4-14.

In conclusion, Matthew knows, and his readers know, that Jesus came from Bethlehem.  That was a place with a ring to it, for it was the birth-place of King David.  Matthew knows, and his readers know, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem precisely because Joseph (and therefore Jesus, by law) was a descendant of King David.

But the family settled, not in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth.  And there was no ring to that place-name.  There was no kudos in being a Nazarene.  In fact, to same that someone came from Nazareth was to say that they were of no importance.

No prophet so much as mentions Nazareth.  But what they do say is that the Messiah would be ‘despised’ and of no account.  He would be ‘called a Nazarene’.

And this is borne out by the rest of the New Testament.  The Saviour is known, not as ‘Jesus of Bethlehem’, but, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’.

From time to time, places come to be associated with particular traits.  One such example is Sodom/Sodomite (cf. 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), and another is Corinth/Corinthianise.

As for the possible objection that it is nowhere recorded that Jesus was actually called a ‘Nazarene’, the repsonse must be that in Scripture language, ‘to be called’ is often the equivalent of ‘shall be’.  In Mt 1:23, ‘his name shall be Emmanuel’ means that he bears the nature of ‘God with us’ (his actual, literal name, being ‘Jesus’, of course).  See this.

Peter Mead helpfully sets out the New Testament witness to this appellation, beginning with Matthew:

Matthew mentions Nazareth three more times. After a passing reference in Mt 4:13-16, then comes Mt 21:11. Jesus’ triumphal entry so stirred Jerusalem that the locals asked the crowds who he was. The visiting Galilean crowds replied that this was the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth. Probably not what the locals wanted to hear!

Finally, in 26:71, Peter was in the courtyard of Annas’ house when he was identified as an accomplice of Jesus of Nazareth. Was there venom in that label? Probably, since Peter was again confronted due to his Galilean accent. To be from Nazareth was not a positive thing in Judea. In fact, it was not a good thing, even in Galilee!

What about the rest of the New Testament?

Jesus was a very common name at that time, so he needed an identifier. Who was his Dad? That was complicated. What was his job? Again, not easy. So where was he from? Nazareth became the label typically appended to his name.

We see Nazareth mentioned in Jesus’ childhood (Luke 2:51); as he called His disciples (John 1:45-46) – remember Nathanael’s sarcastic question: ‘can anything good come out of Nazareth?’; as the location of choice for launching his preaching ministry (Luke 4:16).

His subsequent visit to a synagogue in Capernaum sees him identified as Jesus of Nazareth by an unclean spirit, who also acknowledges that he is the Holy One of God. Jesus accepts the label, but silences the spirit once his heavenly identity is declared (Mark 1:24-25; Luke 4:34-35).

As Jesus headed toward Jerusalem, blind Bartimaeus recognizes the Nazareth label (Mark 10:47; Luke 18:37-38); then it is used in His arrest, (John 18:5); during Jesus’ trial it is used disparagingly of Peter (see also Mark 14:67); and even in his death, Pilate’s inscription reads, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

After his resurrection the two disconsolate disciples on the road to Emmaus refer to Jesus as being ‘of Nazareth’ (Luke 24:19). Fair enough, their hopes had been dashed.

But even the angel in the tomb used the label! Surely an angel sent from God could come up with something better!? (Mark 16:6)

Even after his ascension Jesus continues to bear the lowly label ‘of Nazareth.’ Peter’s Pentecost sermon climaxes with Jesus as Lord and Christ, but it launches with Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22).

The lame man is healed, not in the name of the risen and ascended Christ, but in the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 3:6; 4:10). Stephen’s accusers use the label (Acts 6:14). Peter tells Gentiles that God anointed and was with the Nazarene (Acts 10:38).

Then we discover that Jesus used the label of himself when He appeared to Paul at His conversion (Acts 22:8)! This had been the name opposed by Paul in his days of Christian persecution (Acts 26:9), and indeed even Jesus’ followers bore the disparaging label (Acts 24:5).

Peter Mead concludes:

God was with this Jesus of Nazareth. And in his willingness to carry this label in ministry up north and down south, in his arrest, his crucifixion, his resurrection and even in his ascension, this Jesus of Nazareth was most assuredly ‘with us.’

Immanuel, God with us. Not just near us, in some nice palace somewhere. But with us, like ‘in Nazareth’ with us. Jesus of Nowhere, Galilee. He came to be with us, so that he could be for us. And he is forever with us, for he still carries the lowliest of labels. It was all part of God’s plan, that He should be called a Nazarene.

Joseph’s first thought would have been to make a home in Bethlehem, or even in Jerusalem.  Each was replete with biblical promise, fitting one who would ‘save his people from their sins’.  Matthew and is readers know that Jesus was ‘of Bethlehem’.  But, as fitting one who would be ‘despised and rejected by men’ he would be known as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’.

Carson summarises:

‘Nazareth was a despised place (John 7:42, 52), even to other Galileans (cf. John 1:46). Here Jesus grew up, not as “Jesus the Bethlehemite,” with its Davidic overtones, but as “Jesus the Nazarene,” with all the 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 Christian readers of Matthew, who had 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; Dan 9:26). The theme is repeatedly picked up by Matthew (e.g., Mt 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 Ezra 9:10–12).’

Bruner, similarly:

‘I like to think that the Nazorean promised through Matthew’s plural “prophets” was, in short, the lowly Messiah, the Suffering Servant of God whose roots were transplanted first from Bethlehem to Egypt, and then from Egypt into the parched ground of Nazareth. He came to take a low place in history with us and for us, just as he submitted to baptism with all the sinners (Mt 3:13–17). Even the town where he would grow up, the town that became half his name, indicates half the truth about him (his true humanity), the truth that is later nailed over his head on the wood, “Jesus of Nazareth [his lowliness], the King of the Jews [his majesty]” (John 19:19).’ (Bruner)

Bruner adds:

‘He who in chap. 1 was regally called “God Saves” and “The With-Us-God” but who now in chap. 2 is uniformly and more modestly called “The Child” and “Jesus of Nazareth” will, by chap. 27, be mocked on the cross and in the next-to-last chapter be called “that impostor” (27:63). We descend in the first two chapters of this Gospel from Jesus’ deity in Mt 1:23 (= Isa 7:14) to his humanity in Mt 2:23 (= Isa 11:1). Given the character of God, it is likely that if God did visit earth the visit would be like this—in great modesty. Luke underlined this modesty by speaking of a manger, Matthew by speaking of a barrio [obscure settlement].’

[N.B. Bruner is favouring here a link, via word-play, between Isa 11:1 and the present saying.