Thursday, March 25, 2021

Michael Rydelnik on the Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15

  

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)