Some have greatly criticized the book of Matthew because it uses Hosea 11:1 to apply to Jesus Christ. Originally, Hosea was talking about God calling Israel out of Egypt. Yet, Matthew adapted Hosea’s statement to say God called Jesus out of Egypt. Was Matthew wrong for doing this? No, at least I do not think so. Matthew Pearce wrote a good dissertation on this topic called, The redemptive function and theological meaning of Matthew's citation of Hosea 11:1. “[Matthew] introduces many of his direct quotations from Scripture with the stereotyped formula ‘this was to fulfill what was spoken’….and they offer an authorial commentary on the narrative,” Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the NT, 174. “Matthew has about 60 references of quotations from the Old Testament…Only in Matthew has Jesus come not to abolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them (5.17-20),” We have to understand Matthew's interpretive views. Reading Matthew’s fulfillment citations in this manner may require rethinking the nature of the good news of Jesus.
Matthew, under the inspiration of God, picked up on Rachael's weeping theme to describe her sorrow of the killing of the innocents in Matt 2:18. Her offspring being the subject of sorrow and promise. Although no consolation is given Rachael in this passage as previously done, Matthew subsequently chronicled the exiled Jesus and return from Egypt to prove how the life of young Jesus fulfilled key historical aspects of national Israel's history. In other words, although there was sorrow and pain throughout Judea, true consolation had arrived via the birth of the Savior.
The difficulty with the brief quote "he will be called a Nazarene" is that it occurs nowhere in the Old Testament prophets, or any other extant source. A number of theories have been advanced to explain this. At the time the canon was not firmly established and it is possible that Matthew is quoting some lost source, but all the other quotations in Matthew are from well known works, and if a quotation so closely linking Jesus’ hometown and the Messiah existed it would likely have been preserved.
A potential linguistic objection to Matthew’s method of fulfillment must be addressed: is it possible to use πληροῦν in this way? Considering the instances of “πληροῦν + a word” formulations in koinē Greek, the author of this discussionconcludes that such language would have no default idiomatic meaning in the ears of Matthew’s speakers and could be used in the manner proposed. Jesus is not “fulfilling” prophecy but rather is “fulfilling” Torah. As with Matt 3:15, some exegetes would understand πληροῦν in light of their understanding the verb in the fulfillment citations to mean a coming-to-pass of that-which-was predicted. Thus, Jesus “fulfills” the “law and prophets” by “bring[ing] to realization that which the Torah… prophesied….”
Comments
Post a Comment