Hosea 11:1--When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
Matthew 2:15--So Joseph got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."
The tension here is obvious. Hosea is relating the history of the nation of Israel, whom God rescued from the hand of Pharaoh. The verse appears in one of the minor prophets, but it is not predictive prophecy in the ordinary, self-consciously forward-looking sense. And yet Matthew argues that Hosea's statement is fulfilled when Joseph emerges from Egypt with the toddler Jesus. How do we explain this? Well, there are at least four options:
- Perhaps Hosea actually did mean this to be a prophecy and Matthew's keen exegetical eye caught what the rest of us missed. It is a prophecy that Matthew interpreted literally.
- Perhaps the divine author intended a prophecy of which the human author was ignorant, then specially informed Matthew of this latent intent by the miracle of inspiration.
- Perhaps God arranged the Exodus event as a historical type (of which Hosea was ignorant) the greater meaning of which Christ "filled up" in Matthew 2.
- Perhaps Matthew simply noted (under inspiration, of course) an interesting parallel in history and made an analogical reference to it.
The first of these options is perhaps the easiest to harmonize with literal interpretation, but it is far-fetched, and I know of no one that holds this view.
The second option comports least with literal interpretation, either by (a) flat-out rejecting it or (b) by special pleading (i.e., the Bible is exceptional because it has two authors; further, Matthew could ignore normal hermeneutics because he was inspired). While this arguably solves the tension, the implications of this model are frightful. What other latent meanings hover above the text? Why do I need the Bible at all if it is merely a hinweis to revelation? And, more ominously, how can I be assured that the kind of latent connotations that controvert the literal meaning of the OT will not someday controvert the Christian Scriptures? The parameters of interpretation evaporate and hermeneutical nihilism commences. In time, the whole of God's special revelation could be legitimately controverted by such a hermeneutic.
The third option improves on the second and offers what is perhaps the most popular of the four. It gives a plausible understanding of fulfillment and thus offers a bit of hermeneutical relief. But there are still (to me anyway) three problems: (1) Hosea never intended what Matthew says he intended. (2) Hosea never expected someone to come along and "fill up" his words any more than you or I do when we use words. (3) Further, the vocabulary and syntax of Hosea's words cannot be construed by any ordinary interpretive technique to mean what Matthew says they mean. If Matthew intended to exegete and interpret Hosea, then he betrayed Hosea. Badly. He banished Hosea from his own words.
Excursus: I do not by this statement intend to eliminate the idea of types. God does place in the stream of progressive revelation certain incongruities that almost immediately left the original readers with a realization that there is something bigger in view than the immediate--the seed motif, the king motif, the sacrificial system, etc. Hosea's prophecy does not seem to fit here.
This brings us to the fourth option--that Matthew did not intend properly to exegete and interpret Hosea at all. He was not discovering a latent prophecy or even a type in Hosea's words, but was simply making an analogical observation: "THIS reminds me of THAT." This option seems most faithful to the intentions and integrity of the original writer, Hosea. What is missing, though, is a credible defense of the use of fulfillment language in this scenario. In the third and final part of this miniseries, I will address this question. After Christmas. Enjoy the holiday.
MAS
8 comments:
I'll be looking forward to the final installment.
Moo argues that a New Testament author can utilize the Old Testament in a manner similar to a person “raised on the classics” and therefore has a vocabulary and manner of communication that is “sprinkled with terminology and idioms drawn from those texts.”
This lens would seem to provide a basis for the analogical view in numerous NT intances. However, I fail to see how this takes "fulfilled" seriously, so I'm looking forward to the last installment as well.
But an analogical observation seems rather drab for an inspired Scripture fulfillment. What is so special about analogies that make this one worth pointing out in Scripture and worth noting about the Messiah? How does it advance the argument of Matthew?
You draw out a good point, but I'm not convinced it's a dealbreaker. In the case of Matthew 1:23 and 2:15, the point seems to be that "this is like that, but better." This understanding, I think, forwards the argument of Matthew--the Messiah will do what Israel should have done but failed to do.
Matthew 2:17 is to me the hardest of the Advent passages to fit in here. The connection between Matthew and Jeremiah is so remote that a comparison seems to be Matthew's sole rhetorical point.
MAS
"the Messiah will do what Israel should have done but failed to do."
Once you say this I think you have moved into typology.
Perhaps that's true according to some definitions of "type" (most notably, Zuck's) but not according to the one I offered. Like I said in my excursus, when I use "type" I mean by it an incongruity placed by God into the stream of progressive revelation that almost immediately left the original readers with a realization that there is something bigger in view than the immediate.
I don't see that in Matthew 2:15.
MAS
I like your statement about "an incongruity placed by God into the stream of progressive revelation that almost immediately left the original readers with a realization that there is something bigger in view than the immediate." But this is in some sense"prophetic" and does not, I think, agree with your own position that the relationship is just analogical. I agree that there can be these analogies--Acts 2:16 being the perfect example--but Matt 2:15 seems to be more than an analogy. And once you speak of "an incongruity placed by God into the stream of progressive revelation that almost immediately left the original readers with a realization that there is something bigger in view than the immediate," you have moved beyond analogy in my way of thinking.
I agree with much of what you're saying, but I think we may be having some confusion on terms here.
Specifically, I agree with your obervation that a type (my "incongruity placed by God...") moves beyond the idea of analogy and is in some sense prophetic.
Where we don't (apparently) agree is in identifying what Matthew is doing in Matthew 2:15. I see this as analogy and not as type. This is because I see nothing prophetic in Hosea 11:1.
Post a Comment