Matthew is very keen to see the life of Jesus in relation to
the prior scriptural witness. This
is demonstrated by his quotation of the Old Testament and by his use of the
word “fulfill.” Matthew has,
however, been accused of mishandling the Old Testament. This is usually a result of his
handling of the Old Testament in a manner modern interpreters find incompatible
with their exegetical techniques.
Two references in Matthew chapter two provide a reference point for the
discussion: Matthew 2.15 and 2.17-18.
In Matthew 2.15 there is a quotation from Hosea 11.1 which
Matthew utilizes: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” In the context of Matthew two this is in reference to Jesus
being taken into Egypt by Joseph and Mary to avoid the persecution of Herod
(Matt 2.13-14). In the original
context of Hosea 11.1 the Lord is not offering a prediction of the future but,
rather, speaking of the past event of the exodus when he delivered his people
from Egypt. Is Matthew misreading
Scripture? Has he misunderstood
the original context or does he show a complete disregard for the original
context?
It seems as though this citation is “a classic example of
pure typology.”[1] Matthew has noticed a correspondence
between the events that Israel as a nation has undergone and the events
happening to Jesus. Craig Blomberg
exlains:
“The original event need not have been
intentionally viewed as forward-looking by the OT author; 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.’”[2]
Matthew is not trying to exegete Hosea 11.1 in an attempt to
get at the authorial intention of Hosea.
He is attempting to draw broad parallels with Jesus and Israel. This paralleling of Israel and Jesus
comes out especially in chapters three and four in the baptism and temptation
narratives.[3] By quoting Hosea 11.1 Matthew wants his
readers to grasp the larger context of that single verse. Hosea is referencing the exodus—the
redemption of God’s people in the past.
By linking this passage with the birth of Jesus Matthew intends to
signal a new exodus—a new redemption—that is to come through Jesus Christ.
The same dynamics are at work in Matthew’s citation of
Jeremiah 31.15. In the context of
Matthew chapter two this verse is cited in reference to the slaughter of the
sons by Herod. There is obviously
a correspondence of emotion in that both the text of Jeremiah 31.15 and the
event of the death of these children will call for weeping. But there is more. Matthew, in all liklihood, has his eye
on the larger context of Jeremiah 31.
The citation occurs in a section of Jeremiah often called the “Book of
Consolation.” This is a section of
Jeremiah speaking of God’s gracious removal of his judgment and restoration of
his people Israel. In the specific
context of Jeremiah 31.15 there is God’s command to stop weeping (verse 16)
because “there is hope for your future…and your children will return to their
own territory” (verse 17). This
“return-from-exile” theme is important for Matthew. In the same way that he sees a new exodus so does Matthew present
the ministry of Jesus as providing an ultimate answer to the end of exile.
Can we adopt Matthew’s hermeneutical principles today? Greg Beale takes up this question and
answers in the affirmative in his essay “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the
Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?”[4] He points to the way in which the New
Testament authors consistently utilize the broad redemptive-historical
framework in which to understand the Old Testament and its relationship to
Christ Jesus. He articulates five
crucial presuppositions that are shared by the writers of the New Testament:
1. the
assumption of corporate solidarity or representation;
2. that
Christ is viewed as representing the true
Israel of the Old Testament and true Israel, the church, in the New
Testament;
3. that
history is unified by a wise and
sovereign plan so that the earlier parts are designed to correspond and point
to the latter parts (Matt. 11:13-14);
4. the
age of eschatological fulfillment has
come in Christ;
5. as
a consequence of (3) and (4), the fifth presupposition affirms that the latter
parts of biblical history function as the broader context to interpret earlier
parts because they all have the same, ultimate divine author who inspires the
various human authors, and one deduction from this premise is that Christ as
the centre of history is the key to
interpreting the earlier portions of the Old Testament and its promises.[5]
To the extent we share these presuppositions we also can
engage in their hermeneutical techniques.
Beale makes a helpful distinction between reproducing apostolic exegesis
(which he affirms) and the ability to reproduce “the inspired certainty of our typological
interpretations as either the Old Testament or New Testament writers could.”[6] This seems to me to be a helpful
distinction that provides direction for both our exegetical efforts and our
tentativeness with which we ought to hold our exegetical conclusions.
[3]
David E. Holwerda Jesus and Israel: One
Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995)—see especially chapter two
entitled “Jesus and Israel: A Question of Identity.” For a chart reflecting these parallels see my blog post entitled Jesus and Israel Parallels.
