Typical Fulfillment: Matthew 2:15/Hosea 11:1
The
second OT citation in Mt 2 is generally understood to be “a classic example of
pure typology” or typical fulfillment. R. T. France provides a traditional
definition of typology as “the recognition of a correspondence between New and
Old Testaments, based on a conviction of the unchanging character of the
principles of God’s working.” (R.T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew,
40) This section will explore whether Matthew’s citation of Hos 11:1 as a type
is valid.
After
the narrative of the angel telling Joseph to flee to Egypt to save the child
from Herod’s soldiers, Matthew recounted that the family stayed in Egypt until
Herod’s death. According to Matthew, these events took place to fulfill “what
was spoken by the Lord through the prophet …‘Out of Egypt I called My Son.’”
Although Matthew’s quotation is brief, and there is little to which to compare
it, the rendering is distinct from the Septuagint’s translation of Hos 11:1. In
fact, Matthew’s translation is taken from the Masoretic version and is far more
literal and accurate than the Septuagint’s rendering. (Archer and Chirichigno, Old
Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 147) This is
evident in that the Septuagint uses the word tekna (children) as opposed to the
more literal huios (son) that Matthew uses. The citation from Hos 11:1
has been found problematic through the years because Hosea was plainly speaking
of Israel’s departure from Egypt at the exodus and not about the Messiah. The
synonymous parallelism in Hos 11:1 shows this beyond a shadow of a doubt: “When
Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” “Israel” in
the first strophe is parallel to the “son” spoken of in the second strophe.
Hosea undoubtedly had Ex 4:22-23 in mind, where God calls Israel, “My firstborn
son.” Hence the same parallelism is evident in Hosea. (Cooper, Messiah: His
Historical Appearance, 175)
So why
does Matthew take a verse that clearly refers to Israel and then maintain that
Jesus’ return from Egypt is its fulfillment? According to W. S. LaSor this is a
case of sensus plenior, meaning that while Hosea only had Israel in
mind, God had the fuller messianic sense in His mind.2 (W.L. LaSor, “Prophecy, Inspiration,
and Sensus Plenior,” Tyndale Billetin 29 [1978]:49-60) As Carson points
out,
So
blunt an appeal to what God has absolutely hidden seems a strange background
for Matthew’s insisting that Jesus’ exodus from Egypt in any sense fulfills the
Hosea passage. This observation is not trivial; Matthew is reasoning with Jews
who could say, “You are not playing fair with the text!” (D.A. Carson, “Matthew,”
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:92)
Blomberg
states that the OT author need not have intended the future Messiah when he
wrote but rather that “for believing Jews, merely to discern striking parallels
between God’s actions in history, especially in decisive moments of revelation
and redemption, could convince them of divinely intended ‘coincidence.’” (Blomberg,
“Matthew,” in Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the
Old Testament, 8) While an improvement on LaSor’s sensus plenior, is
it really a sufficient explanation for Matthew’s typological interpretation?
Carson’s objection appears to be just as valid in response to Blomberg as it
was to LaSor—it does not appear to be fair to the OT text. Although this is
indeed an example of typical fulfillment, there should be, and there is, a more
plausible explanation for Matthew’s use of Hos 11:1 as a type than merely
noting striking parallels.
The
basis of Matthew’s use of Israel as a type of the Messiah is from Nm 23 and 24,
which present Israel as a general type of the Messiah. Moreover, that type
specifically identifies coming out of Egypt as a point of correspondence between
Israel and the future Messiah. This becomes apparent by examining the second
and third Balaam oracles (Nm 23:22-24; 24:7-9).
The
second Balaam oracle (Nm 23:22-24) describes God’s care for the nation of
Israel. Singular pronominal suffixes are used of Israel in 23:21, treating the
people of Israel as a
collective
singular. But in 23:22, there is a deliberate shift to a plural pronoun to
clarify that it is the whole people of Israel in view. Thus, Nm 23:22a (‘el
motsiyam mimmitsrayim) literally reads, “God brings them out of Egypt.” The
phrase hen ’am in Nm 23:24 (lit., “Behold, a people”) makes it plain that
Balaam’s second oracle is about the whole people of Israel. In summary, the
oracle states that God brings Israel out of Egypt (23:22a), that He is for Israel
like the horns of a wild ox (23:22b), and that Israel will be as powerful as a
lion (23:24).
The
third Balaam oracle (Nm 24:5-9) begins by describing the fruitfulness of Israel
(24:5-6). Then, in Nm 24:7, it predicts a future “seed” or descendant of Jacob
(literally, “And his seed [i.e., Jacob’s seed] is in the many waters”). Furthermore,
this “seed” will also be a king with an exalted kingdom (24:7). In the
Masoretic Text, the King is said to be higher than Agag, but other ancient
versions read, “He shall be higher than Gog,” the end-time enemy of Israel. The
combination of His exalted kingdom and His superiority to Gog, no doubt, was
the foundation for the ancient Targum’s correct interpretation of the third
Balaam oracle as a reference to the future Messiah.
Especially
significant is that the third oracle, juxtaposed to the second, deliberately
uses similar descriptions of its subject (24:8-9). However, just as
deliberately, there is a difference, namely, a shift to the singular pronoun.
While in the second oracle “God brings them [Israel] out of Egypt,” in the
third, lit. “God brings him [the future king] out of Egypt” (‘el motsiy’o
mimmitsrayim). (Sailhamer, “Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15,” 94-95) Further,
the third oracle, in a fashion similar to the second, states that God is for
Him (the King) like the horns of a wild ox and that the King will be as powerful
as a lion.
The author of the Pentateuch is using a
significant compositional strategy in placing these two oracles next to each
other. The following shows the deliberate repetition of phrases. (Michael Rydelnik, “The
Old Testament in the New Testament,” in Michael Rydelnik and Edwin eds., The
Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in
the Old Testament [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019], 106-8)
