But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel…’ And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. – Matthew 2:19–23
From the early church onward, scholars have puzzled over Matthew’s claim that Jesus “would be called a Nazarene”—specifically “so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled.” Where in the Old Testament do the prophets say this? Nowhere, it seems. Chrysostom resolved this tension (or so he thought) by noting that many prophetic books are lost to us.1
What are we to make of Matthew’s claim that Jesus was to be called a Nazarene in accordance with the prophets? I propose that the Old Testament story of Joseph provides the background for understanding this claim.
Matthew’s Gospel presents to us Joseph the Dreamer (1:20; 2:13; cf. Genesis 37:5, 9), the son of Jacob (1:16; cf. Genesis 30:24), who escapes to Egypt in order to preserve the messianic seed (2:14; cf. Genesis 37:28; 46:7); Joseph, for whom dreams in Egypt are instrumental for the salvation of him and his house (2:19; cf. Genesis 41:12); Joseph, whose family is called out of Egypt into the land of promise (2:20-21; cf. Genesis 50:24-25). Sound familiar?
In the case of each Joseph, that of Genesis and of Matthew, this “son of Jacob” is not the one through whom the promised seed would come. Rather, he is the one chosen by God to protect that chosen seed, separated out from among his brothers, in order to guarantee God’s promised salvation.
Significantly, the first Dreamer named Joseph (Genesis 37–50) is the original “Nazarite” (nazar) of the Hebrew Scriptures. “The blessings of your father…May they be on the head of Joseph, of the one distinguished among [nazir] his brothers,” says Jacob (Genesis 49:26; also Deuteronomy 33:16). The root verb nazar means to dedicate, consecrate, to separate out from. Joseph was the one separated out from among his brothers in order that the whole family of Jacob might be saved.
The Nazirite vow established by Moses follows this logic, whereby “the vow of a Nazirite” (one separated) is “to separate himself to the LORD” (Numbers 6:2). Here there are ceremonial elements added. Such a person is to “separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar made from wine.” This wine fast will continue until “the time of his separation has been completed,” at which time a lamb without blemish is to be sacrificed, with grain and drink—bread and wine—offered. “And after that the Nazirite may drink wine” (Numbers 6:1–20).
Samson is the only other individual, aside from Joseph, named nazar in the Old Testament, named as “a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.” But appropriately, following the original nazar, this nazar is “separated out” explicitly in order that he “shall begin to save Israel” (Judges 13:5–7)—separated out from his brethren for the salvation of the whole family of Jacob.
Matthew draws all of this together in his terse claim that Jesus’ time in Nazareth served to identify him as the Nazarite par excellence in accordance with the prophets. Where Jacob’s son Joseph is separated out for the salvation of all of Jacob, Matthew sees in Joseph’s son one who is separated out from his brothers, in order that through him the world might be saved.
It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that in Matthew’s account of the Last Supper, we find Jesus making his own Nazarite vow: “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (26:29). Even so, when the soldiers offer him “wine to drink, mixed with gall” (KJV: “vinegar”), on the cross “he would not drink it” (27:34).2
And here the end (or telos) of his vow draws near: that he would be the one cut off from his brothers, that all Israel would be saved. The cross thus marks, quite literally, the completion of Jesus’ Nazarite vow, at which time he offers what’s required—not a lamb but himself as the “lamb without blemish”; not mere grain and wine but his body and blood as the “grain” and “drink offering.” “And after that the Nazirite may drink wine”—new, with us, in the Father’s kingdom.
Joseph and Samson, as the two named Nazarites of the Old Testament, are thus signs and shadows of the same prophetic word—that One would come who would bring to completion the separation of one for the sake of the many. Where Joseph would be separated to save all Israel from famine and death, Jesus would deliver from a greater death. Where Samson would “begin to save Israel,” Jesus would in fact save Israel as the true and final Nazarite, Jesus the Nazarene.
Calvin sums this up well:
For Joseph, who was a temporal Saviour of the Church, and was, in many respects, a figure, or rather a lively image of Christ, is called a Nazarite of his brethren, (Gen. xlix. 26; Deut. xxxiii. 16.). God determined that the distinguished honour… should shine again in Samson, and gave him the name of Nazarite, that believers… might look more earnestly at the Redeemer who was to come, who was to be separated from all, ‘That he might be the first-born among many brethren,’ (Rom. viii. 29.)
Lyndon Jost is Director of the Reformed House of Studies at Wycliffe College.