There is
another rationale for understanding how Matthew can take what applied to the nation
in Hosea 11:1 and apply it to the individual Messiah Duane Garrett analyzed the
use of Genesis in Hosea and found that repeatedly the prophet alludes to descriptions
in Genesis of the individual patriarchs and other significant individuals in
Israel’s history. Sometimes these are good portrayals, and sometimes bad. The prophet
applies these descriptions to the nation of his day. For example, the iniquity of
Israel in the present involves its following the same patterns of disobedience
as that of Adam (6:7) or Jacob (12:2-5), and the promise made to the individual
Jacob to “make [his] seed as the sand of the sea, which is too great to be
numbered” (Gen. 32:12 AT [cf. Gen. 15:5; 22:17, addressed to Abraham]) is not
reapplied and addressed directly to the nation Israel:
Yet the
number of the sons of Israel
Will be like the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered. (Hosea 1:10)
Similarly,
the valley of Achor, where Achan and his family were taken to be executed for
his sin (Josh. 7:24-26), is taken by Hosea and reversed to indicate that God
will reverse Israel’s judgment of defeat and exile, and Israel will not be
exterminated for its sin but rather will have a hope of redemption (Hosea
2:15). Instead of going from one to the many, as Hosea did, Matthew goes from
the many (Israel) to the one (Jesus), but he utilizes the same kind of “one and
many” corporate hermeneutical approach to interpreting and applying prior Scripture
as did Hosea. (See Garrett, “Ways of God.” See also Bass, “Hosea’s Use of
Scripture.”)
Therefore,
Matthew contrasts Jesus as the “Son” (2:15) with the “son” in Hosea (11:1). The
latter, who came out of Egypt, was not obedient and was judged but would be
restored (11:2011), whereas the former did what Israel should have done: Jesus
came out of Egypt, was perfectly obedient, and did not deserve judgment but suffered
it anyway for guilty Israel. Jesus’ obedience and restoration to the land of
Israel as God’s Son, the true Israel, meant that those he corporately
represented were also considered to be obedient sons, true Israel, and were
being restored. Jesus’s work was true Israel began during his ministry and was
consummated at this cross and ascension, at which time he became the escalated “true
Israel” in glory. However, Matthew 2:15 has focused on Jesus as true Israel
during his earthly ministry and not on his ascended status as Israel. (G. K.
Beale, Union with the Resurrected Christ: Eschatological New Creation and
New Testament Biblical Theology [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2023],
156)
