On prophecy that Jesus “Shall be Called a Nazarene"

[TexasSky]

I believe it means the village of Nazareth.
It fits, and the bible tends to say what it means.
I think there is a "lost prophecy" out there somewhere.

For one thing, the author is a very detailed driven professional. For another, that particular part of the bible seems to be laying out a clear explanation for doubters as to how Christ fulfills the requirements to be THE Messiah.

Nazareth was a small fishing village, made up of descendants of David, home to approximately 25 small families.

It is possible this prophecy is in the Torah somewhere and we have not included it in the King James bible.

It is clear that it was a common and accept prophecy of Christ's day as the author does not make any effort to explain what he means, nor do others question his writing on that.

 

[HankD]

It is possible this prophecy is in the Torah somewhere and we have not included it in the King James bible.

I thought so TexasSky and earlier in this thread I laid out how I thought it was included in the Bible in Numbers 6 (the vow of the Nazar - or "Nazarite") who were not to drink wine or even consume grapes.

It is not too obvious in the English but in the Hebrew the word NZR (nazar) is used 13 times of one who is "separated" to God and the NT word "Nazarene" could be a play on that word (howbeit a transliterated one), "Nazareth" appears to be the plural transliteration of "Nazar".

I asked this question before : Do you think that the following is His Nazarite vow?

KJV Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

So, I thought Numbers 6 was the origin and quoted another passage in Deuteronomy that numbered Moses as one of the prophets.

HankD

 

[natters]

I believe it is a Midrashic interpretation of Isa 11:1, as Helen mentioned earlier.

 

[robycop3]

Mr. Blair...

I saw an article in USA Today about 3 yrs. ago saying that the discovery of some ancient catacombs & Jewish artifacts in the immediate area confirms the idea that Nazareth had been settled by the Jews no later than David's time, and that the local legend to that effect was true. That legend also says the Jews built Nazareth, rather than taking it by force from previous inhabitants as they'd done Jerusalem.

There still seems to be some confusion over spelling, which I believe causes confusion over 'NazIrite', 'NazArite', & NazArene'.

In English, we often use the suffix "ite" to mean, 'from of of a certain group, I.E. 'Campbellite', 'Israelite', while we use "an" or "ian" to mean "from a given place" or sometimes, "from a given group", I.E. "Ohioan, Brazilian".

I believe some other languages use "-ene" the same way as a noun suffix. However, in English, it's used for an unsaturated carbon compound,, I.I. "Benzene, ethylene".

Samson was a 'Nazirite'; the root word is 'nazir'(nah-ZEER), which means "delineated one", one set aside for a special purpose. Nazareth means, "a guarded or protected one", so a rabbi told me; he said he has no clue how long the village had had that name, nor how it got the name.(It's no longer a mere village; it has a population of about 50 K.)

The immediate area around Nazareth was/is also called Nazareth.

Evidently, God chose not to record the prophecy about Jesus being a Nazarene until He had Matthew mention it. There can be no dispute that it was a prophecy, as Matthew says,"which was spoken by the prophets".

I think Helen may have had the same little prob with "cretin", which is from French, which got it from Latin...CHRISTIAN! Indeed, many Romans thought Christians were stupid.

A resident of Crete is a CretAn!

 

[HankD]

OK Roby, Now I see what you are saying, I totally missed the word "spoken of the prophets" rather than "written in the prophets".

It would be a traditional statement transmitted by word of mouth down to Jesus appearing and then finally recorded in Matthew.

Although it does have a Catholic-Traditionesque ring to it.

Thanks.

HankD

 

[R. Charles Blair]

robycop - Thanx for the source - I missed that one. (Only see USAT when I'm staying in a motel that gives them away!) But as I say, recent digs haven't been primary on my radar screen - they tend to be controverted with some regularity, and so much is subject to both interpretation and theology. The ossuary of James got good "play," but of course there are lots of variables there. So with the occupied site; no way for us to know whether it was actually called "Nazareth" in those years unless we find something with the town name - sign on a railroad depot?

Re "Naz," etc. - my Heb. is pretty rusty, and my
"pony" lexicon has English for the verbs but not the nouns, but my Septuagint and the Isaac Leeser
"interlinear" OT are helpful. While there are 3 Heb. words, just as we have "sprout," "branch,"
"twig," and even "limb," with some interchangability, Leeser gives "sprout" for all of them in Is. 11:1, Jer. 22:5, and Zech. 3:8 and 6:12, even translating "Sprout is his name." ("He shall be called the BRANCH.") Here are 3 prophets, plural, all referring to that which is apparently insignificant in the eyes of the world, yet of great significance to God and for the future. So with the "little Sprout" born in Bethlehem, taken to Egypt, raised in the town of "Dry Twig" or "Broken Branch," regardless of the age of the town (the proverb in John 1), "out of His place" - His was rightfully the throne; Joseph should have been the reigning monarch, but was reduced to a lowly peasant in a despised area. To me, the Nazarite vow is a "red herring" considered only because of the similarity of the English words, but entirely different concepts. John Baptist may have had a Nazarite vow; from His public contact "eating and drinking with sinners," it is evident that Jesus did not.

I enjoyed your post - you have a good command of language and ideas across a variety of fields. Wishing you His best, especially in this season- Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

[R. Charles Blair]

Oops - I missed one point. "Spoken" is from "hreo," and does not preclude the idea of written documentation; the prophets often spoke what they also wrote, of course. The related noun, "hreema," is used, e.g., in Mt. 4:4 and Lk. 4:4 to refer to written Scripture. Like HankD, I have a very cautious attitude toward anything not documented in written Scripture; it opens the door to any conceivable heresy. Merry Christmas!
(Now where is THAT written?) Charles - Ro.8:28

 

[robycop3]

Texas Sky...

I am not limited to just the KJV, but the "Nazarene" prophecy doesn't appear in the OT of any other valid versions either.

Nazareth was of no real importance in OT days. It was a village that 'simply existed', barely able to feed itself; its inhabitants often worked away from home. It had little known history before Jesus came.

When Nathanael exclaimes, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?"(John 1:46) it was in reference to its lack of resources and arable land. I cannot find that it was known as an evil place.

Joseph, being a carpenter, could find lotsa work any place where wood was used.(I wonder how he made a living in Egypt, where wood was scarce and precious?)

This oral tradition differed from that of the Pharisees in that it was from prophets of God, and was not a command, as the Pharisees had added to GOD'S commands.

 

[robycop3]

Thank you for the comments, Mr. Blair, but knoe ye that I am but a steelworker w/no formal education past high school and a coupla tech schools. I try to look at things, not with a scholar's eye, but from a COMMON-SENSE perspective.

Some of them are:

GOD CAN DO ANYTHING.

GOD DOES NOT LIE.

In Scriptural exegesis, the most obvious view is usually correct.

Any doctrine ABOUT Scripture MUST BE SUPPORTED by Scripture, as Scripture is the highest authority we have, after God Himself.

The Bible should be 'taken' LITERALLY, with few exceptions.

 

[Aaron]

I think John Gill's explanation is best:

web page

 

[R. Charles Blair]

robycop3 - And Bunyan was just a poor tinker? Yet more people read him today than read Milton! And Wm. Carey "just a cobbler"? But look what he set in motion! You have nothing to make you feel in any way inadequate - I took you for someone with much more formal training. At any rate, the idea of a "broken branch" (not necessarily anything evil, just "the day of small things") would have quickly brought to a Jewish mind of that day the prophecies (Isa., Jer., Zech.) of the "netzer" or
"BRANCH" (and related words), in my estimate.

Great to have such fellowship. Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28