Matthew chapter 2 recounts the arrival of the wise men from the East to worship the Christ child (Matthew 2:1–12), Herod the Great’s attempt to destroy the true King of the Jews (Matthew 2:16–18), the flight of Joseph, Mary, and the young Lord Jesus into Egypt (Matthew 2:13–15), and their eventual return to Israel following Herod’s death (Matthew 2:19–22). These events culminate in the family’s settlement in Nazareth, where Matthew concludes: “and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23). This statement has perplexed many commentators, since no explicit Old Testament prophecy states that the Messiah “shall be called a Nazarene.” The question therefore arises: what does Matthew intend by this assertion?
This verse marks the fourth instance in Matthew’s Gospel where an event in Christ’s life is explicitly said to fulfill Old Testament prophecy. The preceding three references occur in Matthew 1:22–23; 2:15; and 2:17–18. What distinguishes this fourth example is its appeal to what “was spoken by the prophets,” employing the plural prophets rather than the singular prophet found in the earlier citations. When Matthew uses prophet in the singular, he has a specific prophetic text in view (Matthew 1:22; 2:5; 13:35; 21:4; 27:35), and he frequently identifies the prophet by name—Jeremy (Matthew 2:17; 27:9), Esaias (Matthew 3:3; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14), Daniel (Matthew 24:15), or the sign associated with Jonas (Matthew 12:29; 16:4).
By contrast, Matthew’s plural use of prophets typically refers either to “false prophets” (Matthew 7:15; 24:11, 24), to a collective body of true prophets—often in contexts recalling their persecution (Matthew 5:12; 13:17; 16:14; 23:29–31, 34, 37)—or to the expression “the law and the prophets,” which denotes the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40). Of particular importance for interpreting Matthew 2:23 is a unique occurrence in Matthew 26:55–56, where the plural form appears in a clearly comprehensive sense: “In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me. But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.” Although this passage is commonly associated with Zechariah 13:7 because of the disciples’ flight, that prophecy has already been explicitly cited in Matthew 26:31. In Matthew 26:55–56, no single prophetic text is quoted. Instead, Matthew appeals to “the scriptures of the prophets,” an expression functioning synonymously with “the law and the prophets,” thereby invoking the Old Testament in its entirety. Moreover, the disciples’ flight occurs after the declaration of fulfilled prophecy, indicating that the fulfillment pertains to the preceding action—namely, Christ’s arrest with the intent to put Him to death.
Accordingly, Matthew 26:56 represents the Old Testament broadly, which contains numerous prophecies anticipating the suffering and death of the Messiah. As Peter later proclaims, “Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days” (Acts 3:24). A similar construction appears in Mark 1:2–3: “as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Here, the plural “prophets” introduces two distinct prophetic texts drawn from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3.
Thus, when Matthew asserts that Jesus’ residence in Nazareth fulfilled what was “spoken by the prophets” (Matthew 2:23), he is not appealing to a single, verbatim Old Testament prediction. Rather, he is invoking the collective testimony of the prophetic corpus—an interpretive synthesis of recurring themes embedded throughout the Old Testament. The remaining question, therefore, concerns how this prophetic summary corresponds to the statement that Christ “shall be called a Nazarene.”
Many commentators—perhaps the majority—understand Matthew’s statement that Christ “shall be called a Nazarene” as an allusion to Old Testament prophecies that identify the Messiah as “the Branch.” Several prophetic passages employ this designation (Isaiah 4:2; 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12). The Hebrew term frequently translated “branch” is נֵצֶר (netzer), and it is often suggested that Matthew employs a deliberate wordplay in Matthew 2:23, thereby associating Jesus of Nazareth with these Messianic texts drawn from multiple prophets. Nevertheless, this interpretation encounters several significant difficulties.
From a linguistic perspective, the Hebrew letter tsade (צ) is ordinarily transliterated as tz or ts rather than as z, yielding the form netzer rather than nezer. By contrast, Matthew uses the Greek designation Ναζωραῖος, which contains the letter zeta (ζ), corresponding to the English z. This is not the expected transliteration of tsade, for which one would more naturally anticipate the Greek sigma (σ). Although there are instances in which tsade is rendered by zeta, such cases are exceptional rather than normative. An illustrative example is the name Zoar (Genesis 13:10), spelled in Hebrew צֹעַר, yet rendered in Greek as ζογορα or ζογορ in Jeremiah 48:34 (LXX Jeremiah 31:34). While such anomalies demonstrate that this transliteration is not impossible, they do not establish it as probable.
A more substantial difficulty arises from an examination of the relevant Old Testament passages. Of the six texts that refer to the Messiah as “the Branch,” only one—Isaiah 11:1—employs the term נֵצֶר (netzer). All the remaining passages use the distinct word צֶמַח (tsemach). The only other occurrences of netzer appear in Isaiah 14:19; 60:21; and Daniel 11:7, none of which are Messianic in character. Consequently, only a single prophet applies netzer to the Messiah. If Matthew intended to reference this term directly, it would be difficult to explain his use of the plural “prophets” in Matthew 2:23. One would instead expect the singular “the prophet,” or even an explicit identification of Isaiah—something Matthew does more frequently with Isaiah than with any other prophet (Matthew 3:3; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14; 15:7). Moreover, the only instance in which “the Branch” functions as a proper name appears in Zechariah 6:12, where the term tsemach is used, further weakening the proposal that Matthew’s language is derived from the netzer motif.
It is also significant that tsemach functions as a title, whereas Matthew’s expression concerns a name or epithet. In antiquity, it was customary to append a place of origin to a personal name in order to distinguish individuals bearing common names. This convention explains why Jesus is repeatedly designated “Jesus of Nazareth” (Matthew 21:11; 26:71; Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Luke 4:34; 18:37; 24:19; John 1:45; 18:5, 7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 10:38; 22:8; 26:9). Likewise, religious movements were frequently named after their founder; the “Epicureans” derive their designation from Epicurus (Acts 17:18). In a similar manner, early Christians were identified as “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5) through their association with Jesus of Nazareth.
A second possible Hebrew background for Matthew’s wording is the term נֶזֶר (nezer), the root from which the word “Nazarite” is derived. This term fundamentally conveys the idea of separation, consecration, or being set apart—a concept central to the Nazarite vow described in Numbers 6. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD” (Numbers 6:2). The Nazarite vow was voluntary and temporary in nature (Numbers 6:13), and it required abstention from cutting one’s hair (Numbers 6:5), from consuming any product of the vine (Numbers 6:3–4), and from contact with the dead, even in the case of immediate family members (Numbers 6:6–8). Although ordinarily limited in duration, this vow was imposed from birth upon Samson (Judges 13:5–7; 16:17), Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11), and likely John the Baptist (Luke 1:15).
In this case, the grammatical considerations align more naturally with Matthew’s terminology. The Hebrew letter zayin (ז) regularly corresponds to the Greek zeta (ζ), providing a plausible linguistic basis for the term Ναζωραῖος in Matthew 2:23. Beyond this linguistic coherence, the underlying concept of consecration bears significant relevance to Messianic expectation. Priests, for example, were prohibited from defilement by contact with the dead except in the case of immediate family members (Leviticus 21:1–4), a restriction that closely parallels the Nazarite regulations (Numbers 6:6–8). Similarly, priests were forbidden to consume wine or strong drink while performing sacred service (Leviticus 10:9–11), corresponding to the Nazarite abstention from the products of the vine (Numbers 6:3–4). These ordinances collectively underscore that priests were to be “holy unto their God” (Leviticus 10:10; 21:6), a requirement that reflects the core meaning of nezer as that which is separated, consecrated, and set apart.
The regulations governing the High Priest further illuminate this connection: “And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother; neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 21:10–12). This passage is particularly significant because it links the concept of “anointing”—derived from the Hebrew root מָשַׁח (māshach), from which the title “Messiah” is formed—with its Greek equivalent, Christos (Χριστός). Notably, in verse 12 the term translated “crown” is nezer. The expression “the crown of the anointing oil of his God” therefore establishes an explicit association between nezer and māshach within the High Priestly context.
The term nezer is rendered “crown” because it denotes the distinguishing diadem of the High Priest, which set him apart from the other priests (Exodus 29:6; cf. 28:36–38; 39:30; Leviticus 8:9). The word is likewise employed in royal contexts, referring to the king’s crown, such as the crown taken from Saul (2 Samuel 1:10). In several passages where the king’s crown is mentioned, nezer again appears in close association with māshach, since Israel’s kings were consecrated by anointing (2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chronicles 23:11; Psalm 89:38–39; 132:17–18; Proverbs 27:24). The convergence of nezer and māshach in Psalm 89:38–39 is particularly noteworthy, as the psalm concludes with the phrase “the footsteps of thine anointed” (Psalm 89:51), contributing to its recognition as a Messianic psalm in early Jewish interpretation. Matthew alludes to Psalm 89:9 in Matthew 8:26, identifying Christ with Jehovah who exercises authority over the waves (cf. Mark 4:39). Additionally, the term nezer appears in Zechariah 9:16, shortly after the well-known Messianic prophecy of Zechariah 9:9, which Matthew explicitly cites in Matthew 21:4–5. Taken together, Psalm 89 and Zechariah 9 provide internal textual support for Matthew’s use of the plural “prophets” in Matthew 2:23.
Further illumination arises from Luke 2:52, which clearly echoes 1 Samuel 2:26. Since Luke uniquely records that John the Baptist was vowed as a Nazarite (Luke 1:15), it is likely that his deliberate allusion to Samuel—who was likewise consecrated from birth—serves to reinforce an interpretive parallel with Matthew’s declaration that Christ fulfilled the designation “Nazarene.” Luke is also the only New Testament author who explicitly names the prophet Samuel (Acts 3:24; 13:20), apart from the general reference in Hebrews 11:32. This suggests that Luke may intentionally associate Christ with Samuel, thereby invoking the prophetic office, which itself was marked by divine consecration and anointing.
When these linguistic, theological, and canonical considerations are taken together, nezer emerges as the most coherent background for Matthew’s assertion that Christ “shall be called a Nazarene.” The term evokes the consecrated offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. This accords with the New Testament’s portrayal of Christ as the High Priest after the order of Melchisedec (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:5–6, 9–10; 6:20), since Melchisedec uniquely united the offices of Priest and King (Genesis 14:18; Hebrews 7:1–2). For Matthew’s original Jewish audience, the term nezer would naturally recall the sanctified status of Israel’s High Priest and anointed kings; Luke further reinforces the prophetic dimension through his allusions to Samuel. Consequently, the statement that Christ would “be called a Nazarene” carries profound theological significance, encapsulating His identity as the anointed Prophet, Priest, and King.