UNLIKE Bethlehem, Nazareth has no written history. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Josephus does not refer to it, and that voluminous record of ancient Jewish thought and history, the Talmud, is equally silent. All that contained in the New Testament, in the writings of early Christian Fathers, and the accounts of modern Travelers. It is not even the same Nazareth as that which was familiar to the Lord in His boyhood and youth. “There is very little,” writes one traveler, “in the Nazareth of today to recall that of eighteen hundred years ago. Not a single building is now standing which was standing then. It is even doubtful whether the site remains unaltered, and we know that important changes have passed over the scenery of the neighborhood.” Another writer says: “It is nearly certain that every stone... has long ago dissolved back into the white marl of the hills from which it was quarried. This kind of rock disintegrates with great rapidity, and, as the place was often almost or quite destroyed and forsaken, the soft stones thus exposed would not last fifty years.” Only the setting of Nazareth is the same. It is when details are left, and the whole view is taken in, that we know that our eyes now look upon the scenes with which the Lord was familiar. The handiwork of man has changed, but the hills, the foundations of which the Lord hath laid, abide, and we that Hermon, on the north, is the same; Carmel and Sharon, with all their excellency, on the south; the wooded height of Tabor, the valley of the Jordan, and the plains of Gilead, on the east, and the distant Mediterranean on the west—all these, the strong outlines, remain, and are just as they were eighteen hundred years ago. There is this difference: where once were well-cultivated terraces of fruit and corn, bare hills now show themselves, for a blight has fallen on scenes formerly as fair as the garden of the Lord. “The Galilee of the time of Jesus was not only of the richest fertility, cultivated to the utmost, and thickly covered with populous towns and villages, but it was the center of every known industry, and the busy road of the world’s commerce. Northward the eye would sweep over a rich plain; rest here and there on white towns, glittering in the sunlight; then quickly travel over the romantic hills and glens which form the scene of Solomon’s Song, till, passing Safed, the view is bounded by that giant of the far-off mountain chain, snow-topped Hermon. Westward stretched a like scene of beauty and wealth―a land not lonely, but wedded; not desolate, but teeming with life; while on the edge of the horizon lay purple Carmel; beyond it a fringe of silver sand, and then the dazzling sheen of the Great Sea. In the farthest distance, white sails, like wings outspread towards the ends of the world; nearer, busy ports; then centers of industry, and, close by, traveled roads, all bright in the pure Eastern air and rich glow of the sun.”
In such a place lived that “highly favored” woman, the mother of the Lord. Here was made to her that announcement, the fulfilment of ancient prophecy, that of her should He be born who should be called the Son of the Highest. Here, amid these scenes, was He brought up, after the return from Egypt, until the time when He should be manifested to Israel. How little we are told of that early life, and yet what a depth of meaning the few words contain He grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him. He was subject to His parents. Those early years of quiet, of which we get only one glimpse―the visit to the Temple―were spent with God, and for God. And that is all that we are told, and we are content that it should be so. There is a natural craving to know more of the youth of the Lord, and lying legends in plenty have been invented by man to satisfy that craving, and the simple fact that the gospels preserve an almost complete silence, marks them as being no mere human compilations, but the work of a Divine Hand, which gave what was really needed, and withheld all that mere curiosity would fain know.
The inhabitants of Nazareth are equal to the task of satisfying this natural longing. They point out the workshop of Joseph, the house of Mary, the cave where the angel made his wonderful announcement, the slab of stone which the Lord and His disciples used as a table both before and after His resurrection, and, heedless of the Scriptures, which state that Nazareth was built upon the hill, from the brow of which the men of Nazareth would have cast the Lord, they point out a spot two miles away as “the Mount of Precipitation.” The “Fountain of Mary” is probably the only genuine relic of Mary’s days. It is the chief supply of water to the village, and, as a natural feature, would be hardly likely to change. The population, a few years ago, was between four and five thousand souls, most of them professing Christianity, but, like the Christians of Bethlehem, they bear a very bad character.
One of the chief points of interest in connection with Nazareth is this, that it gave its name to the Lord, and to His followers. “Jesus, the Nazarene” (for thus it should be rather than “of Nazareth”) was the name by which He was known throughout His life, and in His death. “Jesus, the Nazarene,” wrote Pilate for the title upon the cross and “Jesus, the Nazarene, whom thou persecutest.” was the Lord’s arresting-word to Saul of Tarsus. Truly, the word quoted by Matthew, “He shall be called (a) Nazarene,” received a strict fulfillment.
But whence did Matthew derive the prophecy? His words are express: that Joseph dwelt in Nazareth, so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He (Jesus) shall be called a Nazarene. As most of our readers doubtless know, the actual words are nowhere found in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the fact that Matthew speaks of the prophets. Some would refer us to the Nazarite vows of the Old Testament, but the two words are very different. Nor is it satisfactory to suppose that unwritten prophecies had been handed down, which Matthew quotes. We believe the answer may be found in the signification of the name.
That the Jews were in an eager state of expectancy for the Messiah the gospel narrative shows. That He should frequently be spoken of was natural, and among the many names applied to Him, drawn from the pages of Holy Writ, none was more largely used than that of “the Branch.” It found a place in the ancient daily prayers, which to this day the devout Jew repeats thrice a day— “Speedily make to shoot forth” (lit., branch forth) “the Branch of David Thy servant.” A trace of it appeared in the prayer of Zacharias, when he spoke of the tender mercy of out God, “whereby the Dayspring from on high hath visited us.” Against the word “day-spring” our translators have put in the margin― “or Sunrising, or Branch.”
The Old Testament is more full of prophecies concerning the Branch than we should at first imagine, and these are woven into the New Testament in a way not at once apparent. In the prophecy of Jeremiah, we read, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper.” The answer (in part at least) to this prophecy we find in Matthew’s Gospel, which sets out with the relation of the Messiah to David. David’s Branch―the King―appears throughout. Then in Zechariah we read, “Behold, I will bring forth My Servant the Branch,” which is answered in Mark’s Gospel of the Lord’s unwearied service. Again, in Zechariah we read, “Behold the Man whose name is the Branch,” which is answered in Luke’s Gospel of the Son of Man—the Man Christ Jesus. Lastly, Isaiah speaks of that day in which “the Branch of Jehovah shall be beautiful and glorious,” which has for its answer John’s Gospel of the divine glory—the glory of Him who is I Am. (John 8:5858Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58).)
The Hebrew word which in these passages is translated “Branch” is Zemach, and this was the common name for Messiah. But “what is expressed by the word Zemach is also conveyed by the word Nezer,” which occurs in that other Messianic prophecy: “There shall come forth a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch” (Nezer) “shall grow out of his roots.” To speak, then, of Jesus as Nezer, or Nozri (lit., Son of a Branch, that is, a Branch; in Greek, Nazaraios), was to use a Scripture equivalent for the commoner term Zemach, by which latter name three prophets―Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah―had borne witness to the Messiah.
We need only point out that Nezer and Nazareth spring from a common root (even if we do not accept what many learned men consider to be proved, that the Hebrew name of Nazareth was Nezer), and it will be seen that when men applied to Jesus the name of the place in which He was brought up, they, however unconsciously, fulfilled the scriptures of old. “He shall be called Nazarene” (Nezer, Branch), and every mention of that name now, whether in contempt or in worship, fulfils that scripture which “cannot be broken.”
We do not read that the Lord saw much of Nazareth after His ministry began. Its inhabitants heard and wondered at His gracious words, but their wonder turned to anger as He spoke of the ways of grace—that a Syrian leper or a Gentile widow should partake of mercy while there were lepers and widows in Israel. So they would fain have cast Him headlong down the hill, when He confirmed the truth of the proverb, that a prophet is not without Honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And as we step, so to speak, into city after city, and village after village, whither His blessed feet carried Him, and mark the “unbelief” which met Him in almost all, we wonder at His love and goodness, but we do not wonder so much at the tears which He wept when He considered those who “knew not the time of their visitation.” Jr.