The Gospel of Matthew is the Word of God. As such, the great concern in the study of any book of Scripture is "What has God said to us?" Controversies in Christian religion always involve quotations from Scripture to defend one’s own views and to refute the views of one’s opponents. Not only those who hold to the principle that Scripture is the sole rule of life and faith, but others who accord a greater or lesser role to Church tradition or Church authority, appeal to Scripture to justify their convictions, creeds and practices. Therefore, the theological or doctrinal significance of Scripture is paramount for Christian interpreters. Because such ultimate theological concerns motivate the study of Scripture, there is a tendency to rush to the dogmatic significance of a text without spending adequate time on the human aspects of the text. For Scripture is both Divine word and human words. It addresses questions of eternal significance and reveals an unchanging God. Yet it does so through human literature rooted in history and culture. Good interpretation requires us to attend to the human, that is, the literary, the cultural and the historical, before we pronounce the eternal and unchanging theological significance of the text. Otherwise we run the risk of making the text into a pretext for issues and concerns wholly beyond the intention of the human writers, and the plausible understanding of the original readers in their distinctive cultural-historical milieu.
This danger of rushing to the theological significance of the text is nowhere greater than when the text has become a part of larger doctrinal or apologetical controversy. What is needed is an adequate faith in the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture to allow the text to say what it actually says no matter how important that text has become in a controversy in the life of the Church. To allow the text to say what it actually says means attending first to the literary study of the text. It is to ask of the text, first of all, literary questions, and then only secondly, doctrinal and dogmatic questions. This essay series, Style and Motif, is an effort to further the literary study of Matthew’s Gospel, not as an end in itself, but as the means to the greater end of the theological significance of Scripture. But to arrive authentically at that greater end we must patiently consider the literary aspect of the text before we hem ourselves in with the consideration of the ultimate meaning of the text for faith and life. Our rule is first approach the text as human literature to be understood, then as Divine word to be believed and obeyed.
What, then, do we mean by a literary approach to the interpretation of Scripture? Rather than offer an abstract analysis of the subject, we will illustrate what we mean by an example. Matthew concludes his narrative of the birth of Jesus with the flight of Joseph and his family from Judea into Egypt, and then their return, not to Judea, but to Galilee. Joseph and his family settle in a small village in Galilee called Nazareth. To this historical narration Matthew adds the comment: "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’" (NASB). The problem is that there is no passage in the prophets which even remotely resembles Matthew’s citation. As a result the text has become part of the controversy over the nature of Scripture. If Scripture is infallible, then from where did Matthew get this citation? This passage has been cited as evidence of Matthew’s inadequate knowledge of the Old Testament. It has been used to call into question Matthew’s trustworthiness as a narrator of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Given the seriousness of these questions, it is not surprising that interpreters have become engrossed in them. Here is a case of Matthew purportedly quoting the Old Testament for which no quote seems to exist. There is a need, therefore, to find something in the Old Testament as a source for Matthew’s comment. Otherwise, it really does appear that Matthew has manufactured a citation. For those interpreters glad for a mistake, it is easy to point the finger at Matthew’s error and move on the doctrinal conclusion that Matthew (and hence Scripture as a whole) is not without error.
Before we enter into this apologetical and doctrinal morass, we must first look at the text as text. Why does Matthew include this comment? What would happen to his narrative if it were not there? How does this passage fit into the overall structure of his work? What themes belong to this section of his narrative? These are the larger thematic concerns that are a part of good literary analysis. But before we attend even to them, we must look at the details of the text. Matthew as a human writer has a distinctive style, a preference for certain ways of saying (writing) things, and a preference for some terms over other terms. We begin with these matters.
Matthew includes numerous citations from the prophets. Many of these are in the speech of characters in Matthew’s narrative. Matthew in these instances is quoting someone who is quoting Scripture. But our concern is with citations that Matthew as editor includes. There are ten occurrences where Matthew as editor inserts a citation from the prophets into his narrative. He is not quoting someone quoting Scripture. Rather, as editor he intrudes into the narrative to make a point for his readers. He always introduces the quotation as "that which was spoken through the prophet." Sometimes he adds "that which was spoken by the Lord." Sometimes he mentions the prophet by name. In all these cases his point is that what was spoken through the prophet has come to pass. Nine times he says that the citation has been fulfilled (plhrow). In the tenth case he simple asserts that "this is that." Finally, immediately prior to the quotation, Matthew uses the verb "to say" in a participial form, "saying"(legonteV).
So then, Matthew has an obvious and consistent style for introducing citations from the prophets. He invariable does so with this formula: "that which was spoken [by the Lord] through [prophet’s name] the prophet, saying..." The material in brackets is sometimes omitted. In Greek it would be to rhqen (upo kuriou dia Hsaiou h Ieremiou) tou profhtou legonteV. Three citations with this introductory formula precede the Nazarene passage. Another seven follow in the remainder of Matthew’s story. They are frequent enough that the reader becomes accustomed to Matthew’s style and expects it as he continues to read.
Our passage is in many ways similar to this pattern. Matthew uses the verb "to fulfill." He writes about "that which was spoken." But there are two striking changes in Matthew’s style. First, he does not precede the statement "he shall be called a Nazarene" with the participle "saying." In Matthew’s style, there can be no doubt that what follows "saying" is a quotation. But instead of "saying," Matthew substitutes "that." Matthew writes "thus was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets that he shall be called a Nazarene." This alteration in style suggests that what follows is not a citation from a specific text in the prophets as in the other instances. For those unfamiliar with koine Greek, it should be noted that there were no quotation marks or anything similar to identify the beginning and end of a quotation. Quotation marks are a modern printing convention. In koine Greek it was common to signal a quote by using some verbal formula such as "saying," "it is written," "you have heard," or "have you not read." All these occur in Matthew’s Gospel. Sometimes the quote has no introductory marker and it is left to the reader’s memory to recognize the words as derived from this prophet or that one.
In the abstract it is possible that Matthew is quoting "he shall be called a Nazarene" from some written source. However, in every occurrence but this one he always signals the beginning of his quote with the participle "saying." Only here does he use "that" instead. Stylistically, it suggests strongly that this statement ("he shall be called a Nazarene") is not a quotation in the way that the other ten instances are recognizable citations from a written source known by the intended readers. Given Matthew’s discernable style in introducing quotations, Matthew is telling his readers by his stylistic change that this is not a quote from a written source like the others. It is very much like omitting the quotation marks in English. Matthew does not intend that his readers should search their memory of the prophets for the words "he shall be called a Nazarene." He is offering them, not a quotation, but a summation. That such is the case is confirmed by another aspect of Matthew’s style.
In all of the places where Matthew as editor inserts a quotation from a prophet, he always refers to the prophet in the singular - "that which was spoken by the prophet." This is the case even in 27:9 where the citation is a composite from two prophets. Matthew still refers to "the prophet" and gives his name leaving the second prophet unmentioned. Only in the Nazarene passage does he refer to the prophets in the plural. He is, therefore, not quoting any one prophet but offering a summary of what many of the prophets have said. For the English reader the sentence should be rendered thus: "This was to fulfill that which was spoken through the prophets that he shall be called a Nazarene." The meaning is not that any one prophet said in so many words "he shall be called a Nazarene." Rather, the prophets as a whole were fulfilled when Jesus was called a Nazarene. Jesus was called a Nazarene because he grew up in Nazareth. There is no doubt that his contemporaries called him a Nazarene. Matthew’s point is that this calling of Jesus a Nazarene fulfills the that which was spoken by the prophets. So what is the significance of being a Nazarene?
Matthew presumes his readers know the significance of being a Nazarene. Throughout his narrative, Matthew assumes his readers have a knowledge of local customs and geography. As readers distant in time and place, we do not naturally know what Matthew’s intended readers knew. If all we had was the text of Matthew’s Gospel, we would not know that the Mount of Olives is across from the temple mount (compare Matthew 24:3 with Mark 13:3). Thus the poignant setting of the Olivet discourse occasioned by Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple would be lost on us. But it would have been obvious to the intended readers. In the same way, we cannot learn from Matthew the cultural significance of being from Nazareth and so we have no idea how being called a Nazarene fulfills that which was said through the prophets. Fortunately, we do have another contemporary source that supplies our lack of information. In John’s Gospel, Philip tells Nathaniel that he has found the Messiah and this promised one is from Nazareth. Nathaniel responds by saying, "Out of Nazareth can anything good be!" (1:46). It is evident from Nathaniel’s comment that Nazareth was a place of low repute. Nathaniel rejects and thinks lowly of Jesus, whom he has not yet met, just because he is from Nazareth. So then, for a Jew of that region and era a Nazarene was presumed to be disreputable and untrustworthy. To be called a Nazarene meant that a person was rejected and despised. Nathaniel was prejudiced against Jesus for no other reason than that Jesus was from Nazareth.
Therefore, for a Jew of the time and place of the Gospel events, to call someone a Nazarene was to call him disreputable, untrustworthy and thus someone to be rejected beforehand. This is how Nathaniel responds to the information that Jesus is from Nazareth. If he is from that town, he cannot possibly be the Messiah. Thus the cultural significance of being called a Nazarene is to be rejected and despised. The theme of the Messiah as despised and rejected by the people is found throughout the prophets. The suffering servant of Isaiah "was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we did not esteem him" (53:3). He would be "despised and abhorred by the nation" (49:7). David wrote prophetically of his greater son, "I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock me: they hurl insults, shaking their heads" (Psalm 22:6-7). Zechariah writes, "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me" (13:7). With such passages in mind, and in light of the cultural significance of Nazareth, Matthew can correctly say "thus was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets that he would be called a Nazarene." Matthew appeals to the common knowledge of Nazareth’s status as a town of ill-repute to indicate the many places in the prophets where the messiah is to be rejected and despised.
So then, if this interpretation is correct, Matthew is not misquoting or making up a quotation. He is not quoting any text from the prophets but rather is using the cultural reputation of Nazareth as an way of summarizing the several passages in the prophets that speak of the messiah as despised and rejected. Is this interpretation correct? At the level of Matthew’s style, we have shown that Matthew is signally his readers that he is not quoting a specific text. At the level of cultural allusion, it is clear that Nazareth has a poor reputation among Jews of Jesus’ generation. In other words, the intended reader of Matthew’s gospel would have easily understood the meaning of Matthew’s comment about Jesus being called a Nazarene.
The correctness of this interpretation is further confirmed by the place of this passage in the thematic flow of Matthew’s gospel. The rejection motif is prominent in the birth narrative of Matthew. It is Herod’s despisal of the birth of Jesus that leads to his being carried away to Egypt. Herod sought to kill the infant. When Joseph returns from Egypt after Herod’s death, Herod’s son is on the throne. As a result, Joseph fears to return to Judea and instead settles in Nazareth. Yet the very locale of safety becomes a cause for future rejection as we can see in the Nathaniel event in John’s Gospel. From the beginning Jesus is the despised and rejected one. Or in a colloquialism of first century Judea, he is a Nazarene. This rejection motif in the birth narrative foreshadows the entire ministry of Jesus. As the narrative continues he is more and more rejected until even the crowds cry out "Crucify him!" Thus our interpretation of "Nazarene" as a colloquialism for "rejected and despised" fits the thematic structure of the Gospel as a whole.
Matthew is telling his readers that Jesus will be despised and rejected by the people as Isaiah and David had prophesied. This is the most important and central fulfillment of the prophets in the entire Gospel. On this hangs everything else. It is not just one prophet whose words are fulfilled but the prophets in the plural who are fulfilled by Jesus being called a Nazarene. And this passage stands in juxtaposition to the other passage where men will call Jesus something. Paraphrasing Isaiah, Matthew says earlier in the birth narrative, "they shall call his name ‘Emmanuel’ which is translated ‘God with us.’" Notice how the birth narrative begins and ends with Jesus being given a name that fulfills what was spoken by the prophets. First he is called "Emmanuel" and then "Nazarene." Thus Matthew encourages his readers to ask whether this baby will be the presence of God with his people or rather will he be the rejected and despised?
In Matthew’s telling of the Jesus story, when Jesus is throughly rejected both by the people and by his God crying out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", then a new people recognize who he really is. The Roman Centurion and his troops at the cross, hearing his cry and seeing his death, exclaim "truly God’s son he was!" The soldiers recognize Jesus as God’s son (equivalent of God with us) in his dying. In this way the narrative tension between Jesus as "Emmanuel" and Jesus as a "Nazarene" is resolved. In the dying of Jesus both names come to the fullness of their meaning. God is with us, not as bare presence, but as the one who bears our afflictions and carries our sorrows. That is to say that Jesus is God with us precisely in his being a Nazarene (rejected and despised). Thus in the coalescence of his names Emmanuel and Nazarene, Jesus’ birth name is fulfilled as well. "And you shall call the name of him ‘Jesus,’ for he himself shall save his people from their sins." The name Jesus, as Matthew’s intended readers know, means "Yahweh saves." Jesus is God with us, that is, Emmanuel. But Jesus is also the rejected and despised one (Nazarene). In the theology of Matthew’s Gospel, God is with his people and saves his people precisely by being rejected and despised on the cross. God saves his people, not merely by becoming man, but by being a man of Nazareth, a rejected and despised one. This is what Matthew means when he says the prophets have been fulfilled in that Jesus should be called a Nazarene!
Patient stylistic and thematic analysis leads to good interpretation and therefore, to honest doctrine. In this case it enables us to see the correctness of the notion (not new with us) that being a Nazarene has to do with the reputation of Nazareth. Jesus was not called a Nazarene because he was a Nazirite (Numbers 6:2ff). He was not a Nazirite. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:18-19). Jesus was not called a Nazarene because the Hebrew word for sprout or branch in Isaiah 11:1a sounds a bit like the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic place name, "Nazareth." Jesus was called a Nazarene because he was from Nazareth! Ah, but to be from Nazareth to a first century Palestinian Jew was full of significance. As Nathaniel put it, "Out of Nazareth can anything good be!" Jesus was despised and rejected by the people even in terms of where he grew up. What occurred in his public ministry was foreshadowed in the cultural meaning of the name of his home town. Thus his name, Jesus of Nazareth, pointed to his rejection and death. This is what the prophets said would be the case. So then, in Matthew’s narrative theology because Jesus was a Nazarene (despised and rejected) God is with us in peace and forgiveness (Emmanuel, Jesus). This is the gospel as Matthew tells it.
Dr. Jack Kinneer