The Use of Hosea 11.1 in Matthew 2.15

8/20/2019 The Use of Hosea 11.1 in Matthew 2.15

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-use-of-hosea-111-in-matthew-215 1/34

THE USE OF HOSEA 11:1 IN MATTHEW 2:15

by Andy Woods

INTRODUCTION

A straightforward reading of Hosea 11:1 yields merely a historical statement regarding Israel’s

Exodus experience. Verse 2 corroorates this understanding y highlighting the e!ents of the nation

following the Exodus experience. "hus# these !erses are merely focusing on the history of the nation

rather than the coming messiah. "herefore# at first glance# this passage is not in need of recei!ing any

future fulfilling. Howe!er# what ma$es the passage prolematic is that %athew 2:1& indicates that

Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled 'ina plhrwqh( y e!ents that transpired in the early life of )esus. In other

words# *hrist’s departure into Egypt to escape the slaughter of the infants y Herod somehow fulfilled

the words of Hosea 11:1. +hat in the context of Hosea 11:1 needed fulfilling when the !erse merely

loo$ed ac$ward to Israel’s historical experiences rather than forward to the coming messiah,

"his -uestion has plagued numerous interpreters. or example# Ellis as$s# /"o many *hristian

readers# to say nothing of )ewish readers# 0ew "estament interpretation of the ld appears to e

exceedingly aritrary. or example# Hosea 11:1 'ut of Egypt I ha!e called my son’( refers to Israel’s

experience of the Exodus3 how can %t. 2:1& apply it to )esus so4ourn in Egypt,51 6imilarly# 6il!a

oser!es# / ut of Egypt I ha!e called my son’ 'Hosea 11:1( is applied in %atthew 2:1781& to what

appears to e a different and unrelated e!ent.52

"he su4ect of the use of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1& is an important one for se!eral reasons. or

example# if %atthew in -uoting Hosea 11:1 disrespected its contextual integrity# then -uestions egin

1 E. Earl Ellis# /How the 0ew "estament 9ses the ld#5 in New Testament Interpretation# ed. I. Howard %arshall'rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<==(# 2><.

2 %oises 6il!a# /"he 0ew "estament 9se of the ld "estament#5 in Scripture and Truth# ed. ?. A. *arson and)ohn ?. +oodridge 'rand ;apids: @onder!an# 1<B(# 1&C.

1



to surface regarding the inspiration and inerrancy of 6cripture. urthermore# if %athew engaged in

aritrary exegesis in -uoting Hosea 11:1# then perhaps 0ew "estament writers cannot ser!e as a guide

for contemporary exegesis. It is for reasons such as these that a careful examination of the use of Hosea

11:1 in %atthew 2:1& is warranted.

"his paper will attempt to sur!ey this su4ect in the following manner. irst# a historical analysis

and rief o!er!iew of the pertinent passages will e pro!ided. 6econd# se!eral inade-uate solutions that

e!angelicals ha!e offered in an attempt to explain the use of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1& will e

highlighted. "hird# the !iew that I elie!e est handles the prolem will e presented.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE PERTINENT PASSAGES

Hos! 11:1

Historical Background of Hosea 11

Hosea was a prophet to the 0orthern $ingdom of Israel who prophesied during its final years.

"he time frame of Hosea’s ministry is indicated through his mention of the !arious $ings under whom

he prophesied. According to Hosea 1:1# the southern $ings included 9DDiah# )otham# AhaD# and

HeDe$iah and the northern $ing was )erooam II. "hus# it is safe to say that Hosea prophesied nearly 7>

years from =C> to =22 .*. Hosea proaly egan his ministry during the later part of the reign of

)erooam II and continued until Israel fell to the Assyrians in =22 .*." +hen Hosea prophesied# the

ten northern $ings experienced military prominence and economic prosperity under )erooam II.#

9nfortunately# experiencing such prosperity was not conduci!e to the spiritual welfare of the people as

they egan to attriute their prosperity to aal instead of Fahweh.5 *onse-uently# syncretism and aal

B *harles ?yer and ene %errill# Old Testament Explorer # 6windoll Geadership Girary# ed. *harles ;. 6windolland ;oy . @uc$ '0ash!ille: +ord ulishing# 2>>1(# =22.

7 ;oert . *hisholm# /Hosea#5 in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament # ed. )ohn . +al!oord and;oy . @uc$. 2 !ols. '*olorado 6prings: *hariot Victor ulishing# 1<&(# 1B==.

& ?ietrich ;itschl# /ods *on!ersion#5 Interpretation 1& '1<C1(: 2.



worship proliferated within Israel. "hus# throughout the oo$# Hosea denounces aalism and warns of

the co!enant curses that are destined to come upon the nation ecause of its !iolation of the terms of

the %osaic *o!enant '?eut 2:1&8C(.

"he oo$ of Hosea consists of se!eral cycles 'Hos 1:182:13 2:282B3 B3 7817( with each cycle

enumerating the sins of the nation# the impending 4udgment that resulting from the nation’s sins# and

the ultimate restoration awaiting the nation upon her return to the terms of the %osaic *o!enant.$

Hosea 11:1 is found in the final cycle# which consists of a co!enant lawsuit against Israel. In this final

cycle# od ta$es the nation to court for !iolating the terms of its co!enant.% "he chapters that

immediately precede chapter 11 'chapters <81>( detail the sins and wic$edness of the nation. *hapter

11 continues these same themes ut y way of contrast. In addition to sin and 4udgment# chapter ele!en

also focuses upon od’s lo!e and ultimate plan to restore the nation. %ost commentaries di!ide

*hapter 11 into three sections. Verses 187 descrie od’s lo!e for the nation in spite of her sin. Verses

&8= descrie the imminent 4udgment that is soon to come upon the nation as a result of her sin. Verses

811 depict the temporal nature of such 4udgment and how od will ultimately restore the nation.

Overview of Hosea 11

In !erses 187# od’s lo!e for the nation is depicted in terms of a tender lo!e that a father has for

his son. 6uch lo!e was expressed as od called 'or summoned( His son Israel out of Egyptian ondage

'!s. 1(. 9nfortunately# such fatherly lo!e was not reciprocated y the nation '!s. 2(. "he more the

prophets called to the wayward nation# the more the Israelites mo!ed away from the prophetic message

into sin.& "he nation sacrificed to aals and urned incense to car!ed images. In employing the Herew

!ers /sacrificed5 and /urned incense#5 Hosea shifts away from the perfect tense and instead ma$es

C ?yer and %errill# Old Testament Explorer # =2B.

= Iid.# =2<.

*hisholm# /Hosea#5 17>2.



use of two piel customary imperfects# which denote repeated action in past time. "he idea is that the

nation $ept sacrificing to aals and urning incense. "he use of such a tense depicts the nation’s

continued willful disoedience against the ac$drop of Fahweh’s e!er8present fatherly lo!e.'

Verses B87 continue the theme of Fahweh’s lo!e for Israel. Fahweh’s estalishment of Israel

after the Exodus is analogiDed to a parent training a child to wal$ and a master remo!ing or

repositioning an animal’s yo$e so that it might eat more easily. Fet despite Fahweh’s care# the nation

refused to ac$nowledge His acts of healing on their ehalf.1( In sum# despite Fahweh’s lo!e and

expression of that lo!e through His deli!erance of His people from Egyptian ondage# the nation

ignored the prophets and haitually worshipped another god. In so doing# the nation committed idolatry

and thus !iolated the asic tenet of the %osaic *o!enant 'Exod 2>:B# 2B3 22:2>3 B7:1=(.

"he conse-uence of Israel’s sin is gi!en in !erses &8=. ?euteronomy 2:7< predicted that od

would use a foreign power to discipline His people if they persisted in sin. In !erse &# Hosea uilds

upon this theme y explaining that od would use the Assyrian empire as his disciplining instrument.

Although od once rought Israel out of Egypt as e!idence of his lo!e for His chosen people# he would

now use Assyria as an instrument of His 4udgment. Verse C !i!idly depicts the imminent Assyrian

in!asion. "he repetition of the Herew !er /eats5 or /de!ours5 in !erses 7 and C emphasiDes the

contrast etween the Gord’s past lessings and future 4udgment. In the past od had gi!en Israel food

to eat. 0ow He was aout to send Assyrian swords to eat or de!our His nation.11 Verse = pinpoints

Israel’s refusal to repent as the culprit of this coming 4udgment.

Verses 811 pertain to Israel’s restoration. Verses 8< introduce the idea of di!ine restraint.

Although od will discipline Israel# He will not permanently destroy her. Verses 1>811 depict Israel’s

future oedience and return to land from gloal dispersion. "wo similes '/as a ird5 and /as a do!e5(

< "racy G. Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&5 '"h.%. "hesis# ?allas "heological 6eminary# 1<7(#11.

1> *hisholm# /Hosea#5 17>2.11

Iid.



are used to depict the speed y which this future return will occur.12 Verse 11 indicates that the return

will e from their former place of exile# Egypt# as well as their future place of exile# Assyria. Here

Hosea is most proaly using Egypt and Assyria figurati!ely to portray a /0ew Exodus.5 9nli$e the

former Exodus# which resulted in resulted in past national disoedience 'Hos 11:187(# the new Exodus

will result in future national oedience 'Hos 811(.1"

9nderstanding the o!erall context of Hosea 11 is important for two reasons. irst# it helps place

Hosea 11:1 in its proper context. An understanding of this o!er all context is important ecause# for

reasons that will e explained later# %atthew is proaly drawing from the o!er all context of chapter

ele!en when he cites Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&. 6econd# a contextual and exegetical reading of

Hosea 11 shows that the chapter concerns the history and future of Israel rather than the coming

messiah. "he indi!idual )ewish messiah is not found in either in !erse 1 or throughout the entirety of

chapter 11.

M!))*+ 2:15

Historical Background of Matthew 2:15

9nli$e )ohn who expressly re!eals the purpose of his gospel ')ohn 2>:B1(# %atthew’s gospel

furnishes no similar purpose statement. Howe!er# most would agree that %atthew selected# recorded#

and arranged e!ents from the life and ministry of *hrist in order to demonstrate to His )ewish audience

that *hrist truly was the long awaited ?a!idic messiah spo$en of in the ld "estament.1# "oussaint

est summariDes the twofold purpose of %atthew# which he sees as not only demonstrating to the )ews

12

+illiam ;ainey Harper# Critical and Exegetical Commentary on mos and !osea# International *ritical*ommentary 'Edinurgh: ". J ". *lar$# 1<>&(# B=2.

1B Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&#5 1C81=.17

?a!id Hill# The "ospel o# $atthew# 0ew *entury ile *ommentary# ed. ;onald E. *lements 'rand ;apids:Eerdmans# 1<=2(# 7B.



that *hrist is the ?a!idic $ing ut also offering them an explanation as to why the $ingdom did not

materialiDe the way they expected if *hrist truly was the ?a!idic $ing.15

%atthew 2:1& is found in the early part of the oo$# which focuses on the infancy narrati!es as

well as *hrist’s early life and ministry. As we approach this section of the oo$# we see %atthew

selecting and organiDing his material so as to accomplish his first purpose of identifying *hrist as the

long awaited ?a!idic messiah. or example# %atthew assigns *hrist a title lin$ing Him to the

Arahamic and ?a!idic co!enants '1:1(. %atthew’s presentation of *hrist’s genealogy also lin$s

*hrist to these co!enants '1:281=(. %atthew also uni-uely identifies *hrist y descriing His

miraculous irth '1:182&(# aptism 'B:181=(# and endurance under temptation '7:1811(.

Overview of Matthew 2

*hapter 2 is included within the context of these early chapters. *hapter 2 descries oth a

positi!e and a negati!e reaction to *hrist’s messianic identity. "he positi!e reaction in!ol!es the

!isitation of the %agi for the purpose of worshipping the neworn $ing '2:1812(. "he negati!e reaction

in!ol!es King Herod’s desire to $ill the *hrist child in order to preser!e His own throne '2:1B82B(.

%atthew proaly includes these polariDed reactions in order to foreshadow oth the increasing )ewish

re4ection and gentile acceptance of the messiah that will e featured throughout his gospel.

After od warned the %agi in a dream not to return to Herod# od issued a similar warning to

)oseph. He was instructed to ta$e his family and depart for Egypt. erhaps this particular geographic

refuge was selected ecause Egypt was relati!ely near and there were )ews already li!ing in that region

')er 7B:=3 77:13 Acts 2:1>3 C:<3 1:27(. "hus# there were friends a!ailale in Egypt upon whom the

royal family could call for help.1$ In the ld "estament# Egypt typically pro!ided a refuge for the )ews

1&

6tanley ?. "oussaint# Behold the King 'ortland: %ultnomah ress# 1<>(# 1.1C +illiam Hendri$sen# Exposition o# the "ospel ccording to $atthew 'rand ;apids: a$er# 1<=B(# 1==.



'en 728&>3 1 Kgs 11:7>3 )er 2C:2182B3 7B:=(. Egypt also pro!ided asylum for the )ews during the

%accaean struggle.1%

%atthew is clear that *hrist’s departure into Egypt fulfilled prophecy. %atthew’s use of ina

plhrwqh while citing Hosea 11:1 indicates that *hrist’s departure into Egypt was in some sense the

fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. It is also worth noting that %atthew’s citation of Hosea 11:1 comes from the

%" rather than the GLL. or reasons that will e explained later# %atthew proaly -uoted the %"

ecause its wording etter accommodated %atthew’s theological purpose than the GLL.1& +hile li!ing

in Egypt# the refugees recei!ed word that Herod had died and therefore )oseph mo!ed his family up

from Egypt to 0aDareth '%att 2:1<82C(.

In sum# although a plain reading of Hosea 11:1 indicates that the !erse does not need fulfilling

and is not e!en discussing the coming messiah# %atthew’s use of this citation indicates that *hrist’s

flight into Egypt fulfilled Hosea 11:1. In other words# although %atthew’s use of the fulfillment

formula was not an exegetical result of Hosea 11:1# it did connect *hrist’s flight into Egypt to Israel’s

Exodus experience. How and on what asis did %atthew expect to see the historical e!ents

surrounding the Exodus fulfilled in the infant life of *hrist, Attempting to answer to this -uestion will

now e ta$en up in the suse-uent sections of this paper.

INADE,UATE SO-UTIONS

E!angelicals ha!e proposed !arious solutions for explaining the use of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew

2:1&.

1'

+hile many of these options initially appear attracti!e# their flaws upon closer inspection

1=

Hill# The "ospel o# $atthew# 73 6ee also )osephus# nt 12.<.=.1

Iid.# &.1< "his list was originally complied y "racy G. Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e

6olution#5 Bibliotheca Sacra B1C 'ctoer8?ecemer 1<C(: B1C82>.



ultimately outweigh their attracti!eness. "he options include predicti!e prophecy# sensus plenior #

exposition in )udaism# and prefigurement typology.

P.d/0)/ P.o*0y

"he predicti!e prophecy !iew maintains that Hosea 11:1 is actually predicting *hrist’s descent

and return to Egypt in %atthew 2. "hus# *hrist’s so4ourn into Egypt was a direct fulfillment of what the

Gord had spo$en through the prophet Hosea. In other words# a one to one correspondence exists in

etween Hosea 11:1 and %atthew 2:1&. "herefore# Hosea 11:1 is solely a reference to )esus and not a

reference to Israel at all. Gens$i2( and ayne21 are ad!ocates of this position.

"his !iew understands %atthew’s fulfillment formula ina plhrwqh as indicating a direct

fulfillment of prophecy. "his interpretation at first glance seems reasonale upon reading the initial

sections of %atthew’s ospel. rior to %atthew 2:1&# %atthew uses this exact same fulfillment

formula to show two direct fulfillments of ld "estament prophecy. "he prediction of Isaiah =:17 finds

its direct fulfillment in the !irgin irth of *hrist according to %atthew 1:2B.22 "he prediction regarding

the irthplace of the messiah in %icah &:2 finds its direct fulfillment in %atthew 2:&8C. ased upon the

pattern of these prior precedents# it would seem that the use of the identical fulfillment formula in

%atthew 2:1& would also suggest that Hosea 11:1 finds a direct fulfillment. roponents of this position

couple this interpretation of %atthew’ fulfillment formula with the translation /I called5 in Hosea 11:1

as /I will ha!e called.52" In other words# they ta$e this !er as a future perfect.

2>

;. *. H. Gens$i# n Interpretation o# St% $atthew&s gospel '%inneapolis: Augsurg ulishing House# 1<C7(# ==8=<.

21 ). arton ayne# The Theology o# the Older Testament 'rand ;apids: @onder!an# 1<C2(# 2C<8=>.22 Although most non e!angelical interpreters elie!e that this prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day and many

e!angelical commentators elie!e that the prophecy finds a dual fulfillment in Isaiah’s day and in the !irgin irth of *hrist# I elie!e the weight of the e!idence demonstrates that the prophecy of Isaiah =:17 finds a singular# direct fulfillment in the!irgin irth of *hrist. 6ee Arnold ruchtenaum# $essianic Christology '"ustin# *A: Ariel %inistries# 1<<(# B28B=3Edward E. Hindson# Isaiah&s Immanuel: Sign o# !is times or the Sign o# the ges'# International Girary 6eries# ed.;oert G. ;eymond 'hilipsurg# 0): resyterian and ;eformed ulishing *o.# 1<=<(.

2B

ayne# The Theology o# the Older Testament # 2C<.



f all the options# howe!er# this !iew is proaly the most difficult to maintain. Its first

prolem re!ol!es around the fact that it is uilt upon too narrow a definition of ina plhrwqh. A

roader definition of this phrase is e!ident from %atthew’s other uses of it. "he use of this phrase in

the form of a fulfillment formula is used fi!e times in %atthew’s infancy narrati!es '%att 1:223 2:&# 1&#

1# 2B(. As discussed ao!e# a direct fulfillment of prophecy is in referred to in 1:22 and 2:1&.

Howe!er# in 2:1=81# which -uotes )eremiah B1:1&# a direct fulfillment of prophecy is not alluded to.

?yer oser!es# /Is )eremiah B1:1& e!en a remote prediction of death of aies in )erusalem, If so# it’s

a prophecy that names the wrong city ';amah !ersus ethlehem(# the wrong action 'capti!ity !ersus

death(# and the wrong outcome 'return from capti!ity !ersus no return from death(.52#

6imilarly# a direct fulfillment of prophecy is not alluded to in 2:2B which contains a -uotation

found nowhere in the ld "estament. "his !erse is simply summing up what the prophets said rather

than directly -uoting them. In this case# the prophets said# /that he should e called a 0aDarene.5 In the

first century# 0aDarenes were despised people ')ohn 1:7&87C(. "hus# %atthew is saying that the

prophets predicted that the messiah would e a despised and re4ected indi!idual.25 "he fulfillment

formula is also used an additional se!en times throughout the rest of %atthew’s gospel '%att 7:173

:1=3 12:1=3 1B:B&3 21:73 2C:&C3 2=:<(. Although it is true that ina plhrwqh is used !arious times to

refer to ld "estament citations directly fulfilled in the life of *hrist '%att 21:7(# in other instances the

ld "estament -uotation is not a forward loo$ing utterance ut rather a reflection upon a fact of history

'%att 2=:<(.

In sum# it is impossile to argue that %atthew’s use of the fulfillment formula always refers to

the direct fulfillment of prophecy. Although the use of the formula demonstrates a direct fulfillment of

prophecy in some contexts# a roader understanding of the formula is e!ident from %atthew’s other

uses of it. "hus# the mere existence of the fulfillment formula is insufficient to cause the interpreter to

27

*harles ?yer# /ilical %eaning of ulfillment#5 in Issues in (ispensationalism# ed. +esley ;. +illis '*hicago:%oody# 1<<7(# &=.

2& ruchtenaum# $essianic Christology# 1&18&2.



automatically conclude a direct fulfillment of prophecy is at sta$e. Each use of the fulfillment formula

in connection with an ld "estament citation must e examined on a case8y8case asis to properly

determine meaning.

In addition# the ospel of %atthew contains two instances where the !er plhrow is used to

indicate something other than a direct fulfillment of prophecy. In B:1&# )esus says that He fulfilled all

righteousness at His aptism. "his hardly meets the definition of a prediction. In &:1=# )esus says that

he came to fulfill the law and the prophets rather than aolish them. "his passage is not saying that the

law and the prophets are predictions of future e!ents. ;ather# it is saying that )esus is the true purpose

and goal of the ld "estament.2$ Plhrow is proaly eing used in a similar way in %atthew 2:1&.2%

%oreo!er# most of the attempts to define plhrow demonstrate a le!el of meaning that includes

and yet goes eyond the mere fulfillment of direct prophecy. or example# "?0" yields fi!e

definitions. "hese include the following: to fill something with content# to fulfill a demand or a claim#

to fill up completely a specific measure# to complete# and to fulfill prophetic sayings.2& Interestingly#

?yer oser!es that less that one third of the occurrences of in the 0ew "estament fit the last category.2'

?A also yields se!eral semantic domains for plhrow. "hese include the following: to fill#

completion of a time period# finishing something# to complete a numer# and fulfillment of a prophetic

utterance."( *remer notes that plhrow can con!ey the nuance /to complete5 or /to estalish5 without

2C ?an %c*artney and eter Enns# /%atthew and Hosea: A ;esponse to )ohn 6ailhammer#5)estminster Theological *ournal CB '2>>1(: 1>B81>7.

2=

Interestingly# regarding the use of the word plhrow in %atthew 2:1&# "oussaint points out that

%atthew emphasiDed that the word spo$en through the prophets might e fulfilled. 6ee 6tanley ?.

"oussaint# /"he Argument of %atthew5 'h.?. diss.# ?allas "heological 6eminary# 1<&=(# C>.

2

T(NT 'rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<C(# C:2<>8<.2<

?yer# /ilical %eaning of ulfillment#5 &B.B>

?A# s.!. /plhrow,5 2=82<.



any reference to predicti!e fulfillment."1 "his road range of meanings for plhrow pre!ents the

interpreter from automatically concluding that a direct fulfillment of prophecy is at sta$e when the !er

is used.

In addition to a reliance on an o!erly rigid definition of the phrase ina plhrwqh# the prediction

!iew also suffers ecause to ta$e the !er /I called5 in Hosea 11:1 as a future perfect is tenuous

contextually. n the one hand# the pre!ious !er /I lo!ed5 is a definite past preterite that loo$s ac$ to

Israel’s Exodus experience. n the other hand# !erse 2 is also a past reference ecause it deals with the

nation’s re4ection of the Fahweh in order to follow aal."2 ecause the context loo$s ac$ward it is

inappropriate to categoriDe the !er /I called5 as a future perfect. In sum# to treat Hosea 11:1 as a

futuristic prediction of the coming messiah is to wrench from the !erse what is not there. Hosea 11:1

merely has in !iew Israel’s historical Exodus under %oses.

Sns3s P4n/o.

Interestingly# the concept of sensus plenior originated from the pens of ;oman *atholic

theologians."" Howe!er# e!angelicals egan studying and incorporating the concept when wrestling

with how the 0ew "estament uses the ld."# Sensus plenior relies hea!ily upon the concept of dual

authorship. ;oman *atholic scholar ;aymond rown defines sensus plenior as follows: /"he sensus

plenior is that additional# deeper meaning intended y od ut not clearly intended y the human

author# which is seen to exist in the words of a ilical text 'or group of texts# or e!en a whole oo$(

B1

Herman *remer# Biblico+Theologico ,exicon o# the New Testament 'Edinurgh: ". J ". *lar$#

1<&(# s. !. Mplhrow#M &>>.

B2 Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B1C.BB

;oert G. "homas# E-angelical !ermeneutics: The New .ersus the Old 'rand ;apids: Kregel# 2>>2(# BC13ernard ;amm# /rotestant Biblical Interpretation 'rand ;apids: a$er# 1<=>(# 7>872.

B7

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B1C. In note 17# Howard citesnumerous *atholic theologians who first emraced sensus plenior . In note 1&# he cites numerous e!angelicals who ha!eincorporated !arious aspects of sensus plenior .



when they are studied in light of further re!elation or de!elopment in the understanding of

re!elation.5"5 oc$ communicates a similarly definition of sensus plenior : "he /Human author did not

always fully understand or comprehend the prophetic reference# while od intended the full

reference.5

"$

ayne captures the essence of the !iew when he notes# /ur primary tas$ is to understand

od’s intention# not fundamentally the human author’s.5"%

According to the sensus plenior !iew# od as the di!ine author ehind Hosea’s message $new

more than Hosea and intended more than what Hosea recorded. *onse-uently# although Hosea may not

ha!e $nown of a messianic fulfillment# od intended one. "he e!idence that the di!ine author intended

a messianic component in Hosea 11:1 is found in the way %atthew 2:1& applies Hosea 11:1 to *hrist.

"hus# this !iew allows Hosea 11:1 to e messianic in nature without finding a messianic prediction in

the !erse !ia the literal# grammatical# historical hermeneutical method."&

Ga6or ad!ocates sensus plenior as a solution for resol!ing the Hosea 11:1 and %atthew 2:1&

prolem. He writes:

+hen he deli!ered the Israelites from Egypt# he was deli!ering all of his people from ondageNin a literal sense# for if Israel had not een deli!ered from Egypt# there would ha!e

een no Israel3 and in a fuller sense# for if there had een no Israel# there would ha!e een no

?a!idic $ing# no prophets# no 6criptures# no messiah# and no redempti!e fulfillment. It wastherefore true# in this fuller sense# that od did call his own out of Egypt."'

Elsewhere Ga6or writes# /He OHoseaP was inspired y od’s spiritQand the spirit led him to

express his words in a form that was capale of a fuller meaning. "he fullness of that prophetic word

was seen y %atthew# and he found fulfillment in *hrist.5#( According to Ga6or# although Hosea may

B&

;aymond E. rown# The Sensus /lenior o# Sacred Scripture 'altimore: 6t. %arys 9ni!ersity# 1<&&(# <2.BC

?arrell oc$# /E!angelicals and the 9se of the ld in the 0ew# part 1#5 Bibliotheca Sacra 172 ')uly86eptemer 1<&(: 21B.

B=

hilip . ayne# /"he allacy of E-uating %eaning with the Human Authors Intention#5 *ournal o# the E-angelical Theological Society 2># no. B '6eptemer 1<==(: 2&2.

B +illiam 6. Ga6or# /rophecy# Inspiration# and Sensus /lenior #5 Tyndale Bulletin 2<# no. 7<8C> '1<=(: &&.B<

+illiam 6. Ga6or# /"he Sensus /lenior and ilical Interpretation#5 in Scripture0 Tradition0 and Interpretation#ed. +. +ard as-ue and +illiam 6. Ga6or 'rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<=(# 2=&.

7>



not ha!e $nown how od’s plan would e!entually wor$ out# his words were capale of eing fulfilled

in *hrist.#1 Ga6or also seems to ad!ocate sensus plenior in the %atthean fulfillment texts ecause of

the use of plhrow.#2

Howe!er# understanding %atthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 on the asis of sensus plenior has een

criticiDed on a numer of grounds. irst# if od is furnishing meanings un$nown to the human author#

how would an interpreter e!er understand all of the di!ine implications gi!en in a text other than the

written expression, "hus# emracing sensus plenior mo!es the interpreter from the realm of o4ecti!ity

into su4ecti!ism.#" Kaiser oser!es# /+hen extrinsic implications are read into the ilical text# with a

note of di!ine authentication# then we ha!e introduced an uncontrollale element of su4ecti!ity if not

indeed eisegesis.5##

Howard ad!ances the following three8pronged approach in order to estalish control and

o4ecti!ity with a sensus plenior interpretation: the fuller sense must e gi!en y further re!elation# the

human author must at least e !aguely aware of the fuller sense# and the fuller sense would ha!e to e

grounded in a literal# grammatical# historical reading of the ld "estament text. Howard goes on to

oser!e that these criteria are not met regarding a sensus plenior interpretation of Hosea 11:1 in

%atthew 2:1&. "he second and third criteria are not met ecause it is difficult to estalish that Hosea

included any messianic ideas in his discussion of Israel’s historical Exodus.#5 E!en Ga6or seems to

ac$nowledge that these latter criteria are not met regarding Isaiah =:17 and Hosea 11:1 when he says#

/In neither case is there any indication that the author had some distant future e!ent in mind# hence it is

Ga6or# /rophecy# Inspiration# and Sensus /lenior #5 &.71

Iid.72

Ga6or# /"he Sensus /lenior and ilical Interpretation#5 2=1.7B "racy G. Howard# /"he Authors Intention as a *rucial actor in Interpreting 6cripture: An Introduction#5

Baptist 1e#ormation 1e-iew 1> '1<1(: 2282=.77

+alter *. Kaiser# 1esponse to &uthor&s Intention& and Biblical Interpretation& by Elliot E% *ohnson 'a paper presented at the International *ouncil on ilical Inerrancy# *hicago# 0o!emer 1<2# 1<2(# 13 -uoted in Howard# /"he9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B1=.

7&

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B1=.



most difficult to conclude that the author’s were spea$ing of )esus *hrist or e!en an unnamed

messiahQFet oth of these passages are cited as fulfilled in )esus *hrist.5#$

6econd# the use of plhrow in the %atthean fulfillment texts does not ad!ocate a sensus plenior

understanding. As already discussed under the prediction !iew# plhrow does not ha!e to mean the

fulfillment of predicti!e prophecy or a fuller sense ecause of the road semantic range of the word.7=

"hird# some ha!e criticiDed sensus plenior on the grounds that it misrepresents the process of

inspiration. "he principle of sensus plenior ma$es the human author a secondary element in the process

as od supplies to the reader additional readings not intended in the original context. "his suggests a

process of inspiration closely resemling mechanical dictation.7

ourth# although a minority !iew# it is possile that the fuller sense re!ol!es around the issue of

timing rather than su4ect matter. Kaiser re4ects interpreting the !arious texts# which are typically relied

upon to pro!e dual authorship in 6cripture# as teaching that the initial spea$er or writer did not

understand his utterance. After dealing with these passages in detail# he concludes that the only thing

that the ld "estament writer did not understand was the time of the fulfillment of his prophecy.

;egarding ?aniel :2=# Kaiser says# /6o clear was ?aniel’s understanding of the meaning of his

prophecy and so dramatic was its effect on him that he was o!ercome and lay sic$ for some days.’57<

+hen commenting upon ?aniel 12:C8<# Kaiser says# /the fact that these words of the angel were to e

closed up and sealed until the time of the end’ was no more a sign that these e!ents were to remain

unexplained until the end time than was the e-ui!alent expression used in Isaiah :1C# ind up the

testimony# seal the law.’5&> inally# in interpreting 1 eter 1:1>812# Kaiser notes that the ld "estament

7C

Ga6or# /"he Sensus /lenior and ilical Interpretation#5 2=1.7=

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B1=.7 Iid.# B1C.7<

+alter *. Kaiser# /"he 6ingle Intent of 6cripture#5 in E-angelical 1oots: Tribute to )ilbur Smith# ed. Kenneth6. KantDer '0ash!ille: "homas 0elson# 1<=(# 12=.

&>

Iid.



prophets understood the following fi!e topics: the %essiah# His sufferings# His glory# the se-uence of

e!ents 'His suffering was followed y His glorification(# and that the sal!ation announced in those pre8

*hristian days was not limited to the prophets audience# ut it also included the readers of eter’s day.

"hus# Kaiser concludes that the prophets’ search was not for the meaning of what they wrote ut rather

simply the timing of the su4ect matter.&1 "hus# a sensus plenior understanding of Hosea 11:1 and

%atthew 2:1& is wea$ened to the extent that Kaiser’s understanding of dual authorship is correct.

Eos/)/on /n 63d!/s7

6ome attempt to explain %atthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 y arguing that %atthew used the same

hermeneutical methodology employed in first century )udaism. ne such methodology is $nown as

%idrash. Gongenec$er offers the following definition:

%idrashic interpretation# in effect# ostensily ta$es its point of departure from the ilical

text itself 'though psychologically it may e moti!ated y other factors( and see$s to explicate the

hidden meanings contained therein y means of agreed upon hermeneutical rules in order to

contemporiDe the re!elation of od for the people of od. It may e riefly characteriDed y the

maxim# /that has rele!ance to this53 i.e.# what is written in 6cripture has rele!ance to our present

situation.&2

loch says %idrash /designates an edifying and explanatory genre closely tied to 6cripture# in

which the role of amplification is real ut secondary and always remains suordinate to the primary

religious end# which is to show the full import of the wor$ of od# the +ord of od.5&B

&1

Iid.# 12&82C. or a fair assessment of Kaiser’s position regarding dual authorship see Elliott E. )ohnson# Expository !ermeneutics: n Introduction 'rand ;apids: Academie oo$s# 1<<>(# &2# 17.

&2 ;ichard 0. Gongenec$er# Biblical Exegesis in the postolic /eriod 'rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<=&(# B=.&B

;enee loch# /%idrash#5 in pproaches to ncient *udaism# ed. trans. %ary Howard *allaway '%issoula# %:1<=(# 2<.



Howe!er# not all scholars are comfortale with the notion that %atthew is using %idrash. or

example# there appear to e some differences etween %atthean -uotations and contemporary %idrash.

rahu oser!es that %idrash is /literature aout literature5 which comments upon a ilical text.&7

rance notes how this description of %idrash contrasts with the ospels when he says: /0owhere in

the ospelsQdo we find a sustained commentary on a gi!en ilical passage.5&& urthermore# in

%idrash# the words of the prophecy are primary and ser!e as the foundation on which the %idrash

interpretation depends. It too$ as its asis texts that it wished to ma$e more intelligile. Howe!er# in

%athew# the words of the prophecy seem to e secondary and only point to %atthew’s words. %atthew

added citations to an already existing narrati!e. "hus# %atthew’s infancy narrati!es were not composed

for the purpose of ma$ing ld "estament citations more intelligile ut rather to ma$e )esus more

intelligile.&C *unningham and oc$ similarly oser!e that a composition can e laeled %idrash only

when the new wor$ exists for the sa$e of the older text and the reader’s attention is focused on the

prior text.&=

Another hermeneutical methodology employed in first century )udaism is $nown as esher.

"his methodology attempts to explain texts y including a written running commentary in the

document.& esher refers to exposition of texts that !iews them as eschatological fulfillments in the

current era.&< "he Rumran community elie!ed that it was li!ing in the last days and thus interpreted

6cripture in light of first century e!ents. 6ome elie!e that %atthew also employed esher ecause he

interpreted the ld "estament in light of first century e!ents and continually made use of the

&7

eorge 6oares8rahu# The 2ormula 3uotations in the In#ancy Narrati-e o# $atthew: n In4uiry into theTradition !istory o# $t 5+6# Analecta ilica ';ome: ilical Institute ress# 1<=C(# 1&.

&&

;. ". rance# /"he ormula Ruotations of %atthew 2 and the rolem of *ommunication#5 New Testament Studies 2= ')anuary 1<1(: 2B&.

&C ;aymond E. rown# The Birth o# the $essiah 'arden *ity# 0F: ?ouleday# 1<==(# &C>8C1.&=

6cott *unningham and ?arrell oc$# /Is %atthew %idrash,#5 Bibliotheca Sacra 'April8)une 1<=(: 1C<.&

?a!id 0oel reedman# ed.# nchor Bible (ictionary# C !ols. '0ew For$: ?ouleday# 1<<2(# &:277.&<

?arrell oc$# /9se of the ld "estament in the 0ew#5 in 2oundations #or Biblical Interpretation '0ash!ille:roadman J Holman# 1<<7(# 1>1.



fulfillment formula. Howe!er# others are less comfortale with the notion that %atthew used esher

ecause the formula of fulfillment found in the 0ew "estament has no e-ui!alent in the Rumran

literature.C> Also# esher interpretation has a tendency to disregard the context of the ld "estament

citation.

C1

6tendahl comines these categories in arguing that %atthew employed a hermeneutical

procedure $nown as %idrash8esher. 6tendahl maintains that %atthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 resemles

the %idrash8esher exegetical techni-ue employed in the Rumran commentary on Haa$$u$

'1RpH&(.C2 Gongenec$er has also adopted 6tendahl’s %idrash8esher approach.CB %idrash8esher has

the two elements. irst# each ma4or section of the ?ead 6ea 6crolls Haa$$u$ commentary egins with

a similar formal Herew introduction meaning /its prophetic interpretation5 or /the interpretation of

the prophetic word#5 which means outo" 'estin( in ree$. 6econd# this formal feature is coupled with

an eschatological perspecti!e found in the Rumran community.C7 "his eschatological perspecti!e

wea!es together the following ideas: od re!ealed mysteries to the prophets particularly with regard to

the time when the di!ine purposes would e fulfilled# these meanings could not e understood until its

meaning was imparted to the "eacher of ;ighteousness# the mysteries hidden in the ilical oo$s

pertained to the history of their community# all the wor$s of the prophets had reference to the end and

the time of the end was at hand# the interpretation of these mysteries was re!ealed to the "eacher of

;ighteousness and the selected interpreters that followed him# the disciples of the "eacher of

;ighteousness were taught the principles of instruction which sometimes included the delierate

manipulation of the text to suit the new context etter.C&

C>

)oseph itDmyer# /"he 9se of Explicit ld "estament Ruotations in Rumran Giterature and in the 0ew"estament#5 New Testament Studies = '1<C1(: B>B# BB1.

C1

Iid.# 2<=8BBB.C2 Krister 6tendahl# The School o# St% $atthew and its 7se o# the Old Testament 'Gund: . +. K. leerup# 1<&7(#

B&.CB

Gongenec$er# Biblical Exegesis in the postolic /eriod # 17787&.C7

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&#5 7=87.C&



Howe!er# there seem to e some differences etween the exegetical method practiced y

%atthew and that of %idrash8esher. irst# the formal features are dissimilar etween the Rumran

commentary on Haa$$u$ and %atthew. "he formal -uotations in %atthew follow the fulfillment

formula ina plhrwqh. itDmyer points out that this type of introductory formula is asent from the

Rumran texts.CC itDmyer oser!es# /"he famous formulae of fulfillment or realiDation which are

fre-uently found in the 0ew "estament ha!e practically spea$ing no e-ui!alent in the Rumran

literature.5C=

6econd# ecause the Rumran community saw itself as eing in the last days to which all

prophecy pointed# the community had a tendency of disregarding the original context when exegeting

prophetic passages.C 6uch strained exegesis can e oser!ed in the community’s attempt to e-uate the

*haldeans in the ?ead 6ea 6crolls with Kittim or the ;omans.C< After researching 72 explicit

-uotations# itDmyer finds only se!en -uotations where the community considered the original context.

"he rest were moderniDed '11(# accommodated '12(# and applied in the new eschaton '1>(.=>

"hird# there also seem to e a difference etween %atthew’s method of recording a story aout

)esus y using ld "estament citations to demonstrate its fulfillment and the esher techni-ue# which

is a line8y8line analysis of the ld "estament.=1 %oreo!er# in %atthew# the ld "estament citation is

suser!ient to the e!ent. %atthew ma$es his point aout *hrist and then employs the ld "estament

-uotation to strengthen his case. %atthew’s methodology attempts to explain the life of *hrist rather

. . ruce# Biblical Exegesis in the 3umran Texts 'rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<C>(# <3 itDmyer# /"he 9se of Explicit ld "estament Ruotations in Rumran Giterature and in the 0ew "estament#5 BB1.

CC

itDmyer# /"he 9se of Explicit ld "estament Ruotations in Rumran Giterature and in the 0ew "estament#5 B>B#BB1.

C= Iid.# B>B.C

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B181<.C<

Horan# /esharim: 3umran Interpretation o# Biblical Boo8s# # 2C.=>

itDmyer# /"he 9se of Explicit ld "estament Ruotations in Rumran Giterature and in the 0ew "estament#5 B>&8BBB.

=1

rown# The Birth o# the $essiah# 1>2# n. 1B.



than the 6criptural citation. In esher# the scriptural text represents the ground around which the

explanation was crafted.=2

inally# there is an inade-uate parallel etween *hrist and the "eacher of ;ighteousness.

Estalishing such a parallel is central toward 6tendahl’s thesis. He argues that 4ust as %atthew’s

formula -uotations are interpreted so as to e fulfilled in *hrist# the Haa$$u$ commentary applies in a

!erse y !erse manner the first two chapters of Haa$$u$ to the "eacher of ;ighteousness.=B Howe!er#

artner argues that the "eacher of ;ighteousness does not occupy the same central position as *hrist

does in %atthew’s gospel. +hile %atthew concentrates upon *hrist and see$s from 6cripture to

estalish His identity# the Rumran community concentrated upon periods of time and the different

e!ents that left their mar$ upon the community.=7

Tyo4o8/0!4 P.9/83.7n)

"he typological prefigurement option maintains that the e!ents in!ol!ing Israel’s national life

as recorded in Hosea 11:182 typified the life of messiah as recorded in %atthew 2:1B81&. ritsch

defines typology as /an institution# historical e!ent or person# ordained y od# which effecti!ely

prefigures some truth connected with *hristianity.5=& oppelt furnishes a similar definition.=C "hus#

many commentators maintain that the e!ents descried in %atthew 2:1B81& were prefigured in Hosea

11:182.== Hagner contends that although %atthew did not use %oses8*hrist typology# he might ha!e in

=2

+. ?. ?a!ies# The Setting o# the Sermon on the $ount '*amridge: 9ni!ersity ress# 1<C7(# 2>82><3 Hill# The"ospel o# $atthew# BC.

=B 6tendahl# The School o# St% $atthew and its 7se o# the Old Testament # 1B.=7

ertil artner# /"he Haa$$u$ *ommentary '?6H( and the ospel of %atthew#5 Studia Theologica '1<&7(: .=&

*. ". ritsch# /ilical "ypology#5 Bibliotheca Sacra 1>7 'April )une 1<7=(: 217.=C

Geonard oppelt# Typos: The Typological Interpretation o# the New# trans. ?onald H. %ad!ig 'rand ;apids:Eerdmans# 1<2(# 1=81.

==

A. . ruce# $atthew# "he Expositors ree$ "estament# ed. +. ;oertson 0icoll# & !ols. 'Gondon: Hodder and6toughton# 1<>>81<1>3 reprint# rand ;apids Eerdmans# 1<=<(# 1:=&3 Hendri$sen# Exposition o# the "ospel ccording to

$atthew# 1=8=<3 Alfred lummer# n Exegetical Commentary on the "ospel ccording to $atthew 'Gondon: 6toc$# 1<><3reprint# rand ;apids# Eerdmans# 1<&B(# 1=.



mind )esus’ so4ourn in Egypt in light of His people’s so4ourn in Egypt in )oseph’s time.= Kent admits

that e!en though it is difficult to find a messianic type from the historical account of the Exodus#

%atthew proaly had in mind a typological prefigurement ased upon the phrase /ut of Egypt I ha!e

called my son.5

=<

Howe!er# the typological prefigurement is -uestionale for purposes of explaining %atthew’s

use of Hosea 11:1. irst# the !iew presupposes a latent meaning in the text of which the human author

was unaware. "his presupposition is prolematic ecause a straightforward reading of Hosea 11:1 fails

to yield a latent messianic antitype anywhere in its context.> *arson attempts to counter this notion y

contending that Hosea 11:1 is part of a messianic matrix that includes such descriptions as the seed of

the woman# the elect son of Araham# the prophet li$e %oses# the ?a!idic King# and the %essiah.

"herefore# insofar as the matrix points to *hrist the %essiah and insofar as Israel’s history loo$s

forward to the one who sums it up# the Hosea 11:1 loo$s forward to *hrist.1 Howe!er# *arson’s

contentions is prolematic ecause Hosea 11:1 is found in a context that is retrospecti!e rather than

forward loo$ing as it historically depicts the eginning of Israel’s history.2 "hus# Hosea’s historical

reference to the disoedient national son is incongruous with typologically prefiguring the oedient

son.B 6econd# the concept of prefigurement typology is similar to the pre!iously discussed sensus

plenior . rown admits the similarity when he recogniDes that prefigurement typology and sensus

=

?onald A. Hagner# $atthew 5+59# +ord ilical *ommentary# ed. ?a!id A. Huard and lenn +. ar$er '?allas: +ord oo$s# 1<<B(# B7.

=<

Homer A. Kent# /%atthews 9se of the ld "estament#5 Bibliotheca Sacra 121 ')anuary 1<C7(: B=8B.> Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B2>.1

?. A. *arson# /%atthew#5 in Expositor&s Bible Commentary 'rand ;apids: @onder!an# 1<7(# :<2.2

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B2C# n. 2>.B

Iid.#B2>.



plenior oth contain meaning that exceeds human awareness.7 "hus# typological prefigurement

contains the same !ulnerailities as a sensus plenior approach that were discussed pre!iously. &

AN ADE,UATE SO-UTION: ANA-OGICA- CORRESPONDANCE

A etter understanding of typology reflects the concept of historical correspondence rather than

prefigurement. "hus# +oolcome proposes the following definition of typology:

"ypology# considered as a method of exegesis# may e defined as the estalishment of

historical connexions etween certain# e!ents# persons# or things in the ld "estament and similar

e!ents# persons# or things in the 0ew "estament. *onsidered as a method of writing# it may e defined

as the description of an e!ent# person or thing in the 0ew "estament in terms orrowed from the

description of its prototypal counterpart in the ld "estament.C

thers ha!e also sought to define typology in terms of analogies etween the ld and 0ew

"estament.= +oolcome’s definition of typology reflects an understanding of historical

correspondence rather than prefiguration. In other words# Hosea is not prospecti!e ut rather %atthew

is retrospecti!e. "hus# %atthew loo$ed ac$ and drew analogies or correspondences with e!ents

depicted in Hosea 11:1 rather than Hosea 11:1 loo$ing forward to the e!ents depicted in %atthew 2:1B8

1&. "his understanding of typology in no way denies prefiguration typology in places where the ld

"estament author understood some component of the latent antitype. Howe!er# in those instances such

7

rown# The Sensus /lenior o# Sacred Scripture# 11.&

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B2>.C K. ). +oolcome# /"he ilical rigins and atristic ?e!elopment of "ypology#5 in Essays on Typology# !ol.

22# 6tudies in ilical "heology# ed. eoffrey +. H. Gampe and Kenneth +oolcome '0aper!ille# IG: A. ;. Allenson#1<&=(# B<87>.

=

Hans +. +olff# /"he Hermeneutics of the ld "estament#5 in Essays on Old Testament Interpretation# ed. *laus+esterman 'Atlanta: )ohn Knox ress# 1<CB(# 1=<813 erhard !on ;ad# Old Testament Theology# trans. ?. %. . 6tal$er#2 !ols. '0ew For$: Harper J ;ow# 1<C2(# 2:BCB.

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B2>.



as Hosea 11:1# which fail to yield such an antitype# the category analogical correspondence rather than

prefigurement typology seems preferale.<

If %atthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 is explained in terms of the analogical correspondence model#

then %athew -uotes Hosea 11:1 for purposes of reaching ac$ into Israel’s Exodus experience and

drawing delierate parallels etween Israel and *hrist. As will e explained elow# %atthew’s purpose

in drawing such parallels is to show that *hrist succeeded in e!ery area where Israel failed thus

ecoming all that failing Israel was called to e. 6uch a line of argumentation would e consistent with

%atthew’s purpose of con!incing his )ewish audience of *hrist’s uni-ue identity as the ?a!idic

messiah. +hat points of correspondence exist etween Israel’s Exodus experiences as portrayed in

Hosea 11:1 and *hrist’s so4ourn into Egypt as depicted in %atthew 2,

*ommentators ha!e pointed out at least eight parallels etween Israel’s Exodus experience and

the early life of *hrist.<> irst# oth Israel and *hrist are referred to as od’s son. od calls Israel His

son in Exodus 7:2282B and %atthew routinely refers to )esus as the 6on of od not only in the infancy

narrati!es '%att 2:1&3 B:1=( ut also throughout his oo$ '%att 7:B# C3 :2<3 11:2=3 17:BB3 1C:1C3 1=:&3

2C:CB3 2=:7># 7B# &7(. In fact# in %atthew 2:1&# %atthew -uotes the %" rather than the GLL in order

to accomplish his theological purpose#<1 which proaly entails highlighting the fact that *hrist is the

6on of od. "he GLL is rendered /his children5 while the %" is rendered /my son.5 6econd# oth

Israel and *hrist experienced persecution. Israel experienced persecution under haraoh while the

*hrist child experienced persecution at the hands of Herod.

"hird# oth the persecution under haraoh and the persecution under Herod in!ol!ed the death

of infant males. ourth# oth Israel and *hrist so4ourned into Egypt for purposes of finding refuge

during a time of distress. )aco’s sons so4ourned to Egypt to find grain in the midst of famine and

<

Iid.#B2# n. B.<> Iid.: B218223 Hagner# $atthew 5+59# B7.<1

Hill# The "ospel o# $atthew# &.



*hrist so4ourned into Egypt to attain refuge in the midst of persecution. ifth# when )aco and his sons

so4ourned into Egypt# they fell under the protecti!e influence of )oseph. 6imilarly# when *hrist

descended into Egypt# he was under the protecti!e care of )oseph His father. 6ixth# the matriarch

;achael figures prominently in the story of )aco’s sons. 6imilarly# ;achael is referred to in relation to

*hrist’s so4ourn into Egypt '%att 2:1=81(.<2 6e!enth# the return from Egypt was critical to the

suse-uent wor$ of oth Israel and *hrist. "he return from Egypt was central to the nation’s

estalishment and de!elopment 'Hosea 11:B87(. 6imilarly# *hrist’s return from Egypt was necessary in

order for the inauguration of His ministry to e!entually come to pass.<B

Eighth# %atthew also reaches ac$ to Hosea 11:1 in order to draw an analogy etween od’s

disoedient 6on Israel and od’s oedient 6on *hrist. In citing Hosea 11:1# %atthew adds another

point of 4uxtaposition to a larger contrast etween *hrist and Israel de!eloped throughout the early

chapters of his gospel. "hrough this contrast# %atthew see$s to show that *hrist succeeded in e!ery

area where Israel failed. In other words# *hrist recapitulated in a positi!e sense the history of the

<2

%c*artney and Enns# /%atthew and Hosea: A ;esponse to )ohn 6ailhammer#5 <8<<# n.B.

<B 6ome may argue that the 6criptural citation in %atthew 2:1& can only e used to draw parallels with Israel’s

descent into Egypt rather than the nation’s Exodus from Egypt ecause the citation occurs efore )esus actual departure

from Egypt '%att 2:21(. Howe!er# it is reasonale to propose that %atthew had in !iew the entire e!ent of departure into

and out of Egypt and thus felt free to -uote the passage as early as !erse 1&. 6ee rown# The Birth o# the $essiah# 21<82>.

thers also challenge whether %atthew 2:1& can refer to Israel’s and *hrist’s departure from Egypt. undry contends that

the connection etween Hosea 11:1 and %atthew 2:1& is not departure in and out of Egypt ut rather preser!ation in Egypt.

6ee ;oert H. undry# $atthew: Commentary on !is ,iterary and Theological rt 'rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<2(# B7.

%orris follows a similar line of thin$ing in suggesting that %atthew is emphasiDing *hrist’s entrance into Egypt. 6ee Geon

%orris# The "ospel ccording to $atthew 'rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<<2(# 7B. Howe!er# the emphasis of undry and

%orris does not fit the context of Hosea 11:182# which depicts Israel’s Exodus from Egypt and suse-uent disoedience.

6ee Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution#5 B2&# n. &.



nation.<7 "hus# )esus through oedience ecame all that failing Israel was called to e.<& EmphasiDing

this comparison would ser!e %atthew’s purpose of ringing into focus the ?a!idic identity of *hrist.

Here is how %atthew’s Hosea citation fits into the larger contrast etween *hrist and Israel

de!eloped throughout the early chapters of his gospel.

<C

oth Israel and *hrist were called from Egypt

as a child 'Hos11:13 %att 2:1&(. Israel was disoedient as a child 'Hos 11:28&(. *hrist was not. oth

Israel and *hrist were aptiDed 'Exod 173 1 *or 1>:182(. Israel disoeyed od within three days after

the ;ed 6ea aptism 'Exod 1&: 2282C(. n the other hand# the ather said of *hrist following His

aptism /"his is my 6on whom I lo!e3 with Him I am well pleased5 '%att B:1=(. oth Israel and *hrist

went into the wilderness to e tempted. Israel was tempted 7> years 'Exod80um( and *hrist was

tempted 7> days '%att 7:1811(. Israel failed her temptations and *hrist successfully endured His. oth

Israel and *hrist recei!ed od’s Gaw. Israel went to 6inai to recei!e od’s law 'Exod 1<( and *hrist

went to a mountainside and explained od’s 0ew *o!enant Gaw '%att &8=(. Israel ro$e the law

efore %oses could carry the talets down from the mountain 'Exod B2(. n the other hand# *hrist

said# /?o not thin$ that I ha!e come to aolish the Gaw of the rophets3 I ha!e come not to aolish

them ut to fulfill them5 '%att &:1=(. oth Israel 'Exod 7:2282B( and *hrist were called to worship

od. Israel failed to worship Fahweh following her emancipation from Egypt instead opting to

worship aals 'Hosea 11:18&(. n the other hand# *hrist reser!ed worship only for od following His

departure from Egypt '%att 7:1>(.

In ma$ing this contrast etween od’s disoedient and oedient son# %atthew may e

following a similar pattern already e!ident in Isaiah’s ser!ant songs 'Isa 723 7<8&=(. In these passages#

<7

Hill# The "ospel o# $atthew# &3 %. ?. oulder# $idrash and ,ection in $atthew 'Gondon: 6. . *. K.# 1<=7(#2B<.

<&

;itschl# /ods *on!ersion#5 2<=. "he concept of an indi!idual messiah recapitulating the history of an entirenation is consistent with the concept of /the one in the many5 found throughout 6cripture. According to this concept# asingle memer of the community represents the whole. Illustrations of this concept include Adam and *hrist asrepresentati!es for all of humanity ';om &3 1 *or 1&:2>82B# 7&87<(# the $ing or priest as a representati!e for the nation# anda sacrificed animal as a representati!e for the sin guilt of the nation. 6ee oc$# /9se of the ld "estament in the 0ew#5 1>2#112.

<C

?yer# /ilical %eaning of ulfillment#5 &&.



Israel’s calling is portrayed as the true ser!ant of od 'Isa 72:18=(. Fet# these passages indicate that

Israel failed in fulfilling this calling 'Isa 72:1822(. "hus# od predicted that He would raise up a new

ser!ant to ecome all that Israel failed to e 'Isa 7<:18=(. "he notion of a second ser!ant that is distinct

from Israel ecomes apparent in Isaiah 7<:&8C# which depicts the ser!ant restoring Israel. "his second

ser!ant is the suffering %essiah 'Isa &2:1B8&B:12(. "he identity of the suffering ser!ant is clarified

through %atthew’s application of some of the ser!ant song passages to *hrist '%att 12:1=821(. "hus#

*hrist ecame a new ser!ant in succeeding in the !ery calling in which Israel had failed and

conse-uently -ualifying to e the one who would ultimately restore wayward Israel.<= %atthew seems

to e following the same pattern of the ser!ant songs in de!eloping a similar contrast etween Israel

and *hrist in the early chapters of His ospel.

0ot only does %atthew reach ac$ to Hosea 11 in order to uild an analogy etween *hrist and

Israel# ut he may also e similarly reaching ac$ward in order to uild an analogy etween *hrist and

%oses in order to further clarify *hrist’s identity. %any ha!e oser!ed the parallel etween *hrist’s

life as portrayed in the early chapters of %atthew and the life of %oses.< "he infant li!es of oth )esus

and %oses were oth miraculously spared from plots in!ol!ing the annihilation of all the infant males

within the !icinity. )ust as %oses escaped from Egypt in the midst of persecution and later returned to

Egypt# )esus escaped to Egypt in the midst of persecution and later returned from Egypt.<< ?a!ies notes

that %oses was the $ey figure in the Exodus from Egypt# the crossing of the ;ed 6ea 'which was a

aptism according to 1 *orinthians 1>:182(# the 4ourney through the wilderness# and the reception of

the Gaw. ?a!ies notes that in a similar fashion %atthew portrayed )esus as the central figure following

the same pattern. )esus also left Egypt '%att 2:1&(# was aptiDed in water '%att B(# was tempted in the

wilderness '%att 7(# and inaugurated the 0ew *o!enant Gaw '%att &8=(.1>> "hus# the Hosea 11:1

<= ?yer and %errill# Old Testament Explorer # &C&8CC3 %c*artney and Enns# /%atthew and Hosea: A ;esponse to)ohn 6ailhammer#5 <<.

< Hagner# $atthew 5+59# B7.<<

H. enedict reen# The "ospel ccording to $atthew# 0ew *larendon ile# ed. H. . ?. 6par$s 'xford:xford 9ni!ersity ress# 1<=&(# &<.

1>>



citation in %atthew 2:1& regarding the Exodus form Egypt helps uild the parallel etween )esus and

%oses.

y -uoting Hosea 11:1# %atthew may e see$ing to estalish yet another parallel etween )esus

and %oses. His point may e that 4ust as %oses led Israel in the original Exodus# )esus will ultimately

lead the nation through a 0ew Exodus. As already discussed in the ac$ground section of this paper#

Hosea 11 not only spea$s of Israel’s disoedience '187( and imminent 4udgment '&8=( ut also od’s

di!ine restraint in the midst of 4udgment '8<( and Israel’s ultimate restoration '1>811(. "he final !erses

of the chapter contrasts Israel’s ultimate oedience with Israel’s prior disoedience spo$en of at the

eginning of the chapter. Egypt is used to help uild this contrast. Verses 187 discuss Israel’s

disoedience following her first Exodus from literal Egypt while !erses 1>811 discuss Israel’s

oedience following her gloal re8gathering from figurati!e Assyria and Egypt. ecause of the

!i!idness of this contrast# some ha!e referred to Hosea’s depiction of Israel’s future re8gathering as a

/0ew Exodus.51>1 ;eferring to Israel’s restoration as a /0ew Exodus5 is not uni-ue to Hosea. oc$

sees similar /0ew Exodus5 imagery in Isaiah 7>.1>2 ?yer sees the final ten chapters of EDe$iel as a

recapitulation of Israel’s original Exodus experience.1>B

It is possile that %atthew was referring to this 0ew Exodus depicted in the later !erses of

Hosea 11 when he -uoted Hosea 11:1. 6ome may argue against this notion on the grounds that it is

illegitimate to assume that %atthew was referring to the entire chapter when he -uoted 4ust part of

Hosea 11:1. Howe!er# ?odd argues that the early *hristians normally -uoted ld "estament passages

as pointers to larger contexts rather than them eing testimonies in and of themsel!es. He oser!es# /At

the same time# detached sentences from other parts of the ld "estament could e adduced to

illustrations or elucidate the meaning of the main section under consideration. ut in the fundamental

?a!ies# The Setting o# the Sermon on the $ount # =3 Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 AnAlternati!e 6olution#5 B2# n. 7>.

1>1 6te!en %cKenDie# /Exodus "ypology in Hosea#5 1estoration 3uarterly 22 '1<=<(: 1>=81>.1>2

oc$# /9se of the ld "estament in the 0ew#5 1>B.1>B

?yer and %errill# Old Testament Explorer # C<1.



passages it is the total context that is in !iew# and is the asis of the argument.51>7 Alright and %ann

similarly note# / roof texts#’ with the ensuing arren contro!ersies they ha!e engendered down

through the years# would conse-uently ha!e puDDled any 0" writer. 0ot only would the whole context

of a cited passage ha!e to e searchedNif indeed a gospel author wished to disco!er what we call a

!erse’Nut the whole context would usually e $nown y heart.51>& 6imilarly# oc$ oser!es that one

of the rules of Hillel# $nown as (aber halamed meinyano# called for an explanation from the entire

context. In other words# numerous 0" texts reflect citations that deal not only with the !erse cited# ut

summariDe arguments in the larger context.1>C

"hus# this ac$ground information demonstrates the proaility that %atthew was referring to

all of chapter ele!en when he cited Hosea 11:1. If %atthew’s citation of Hosea 11:1 can e ta$en as

encompassing the 0ew Exodus depicted in the later !erses of chapter ele!en# then %atthew was

drawing another important parallel etween *hrist and %oses. It is possile that %atthew is identifying

)esus as the one who would ultimately lead Israel in the 0ew Exodus and thus inaugurate the age to

come. "his parallel would further uild the connection etween )esus and %oses.1>= In sum# according

to the analogical correspondence !iew# %atthew’s used Hosea 11:1 in order to reach ac$ward for the

purpose of drawing analogical points of correspondence etween *hrist and Israel and *hrist and

%oses. %atthew drew these analogies for the purpose of demonstrating *hrist’s ?a!idic identity to his

)ewish audience.

"he analogical correspondence !iew is consistent with %atthew’s use of ina plhrwqh. As

already discussed under the wea$nesses of the predicti!e prophecy !iew# plhrow has a semantic range

1>7

*. H. ?odd# ccording to the Scriptures: The Substructure o# New Testament Theology 'Gondon: 0iset# 1<&2(#12C.

1>&

. . Alright and *. 6. %ann# $atthew# "he Anchor ile 'arden *ity# 0F: ?ouleday# 1<=1(# lxii.1>C oc$# /9se of the ld "estament in the 0ew#5# 1>1.1>=

Howard# /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&#5 B21822. "his parallel ecomes e!en stronger if it isac$nowledged that %atthew when -uoting Hosea 11:1 was drawing from the context of the entire oo$ of Hosea rather than

4ust the context of chapter ele!en. 0ew Exodus language is found throughout he entire oo$ of Hosea. 6ee %cKenDie#/Exodus "ypology in Hosea#5 1>=81>.



that is roader than mere predicti!e prophecy. or example# %atthew &:1= is not saying that the law

and the prophets are predictions of future e!ents. ;ather# it is saying that )esus is the true purpose and

goal of the ld "estament.1(& %atthew is proaly using plhrwqh in the same way in %atthew 2:1&.

His point in -uoting Hosea 11:1 is that *hrist completes the true purpose of oth %oses and Israel.

%oreo!er# most of the attempts to define plhrow demonstrate a le!el of meaning that could encompass

analogical correspondence. "hese definitions include the following: to fill something with content# to

complete#1(' finishing something#11( to complete# and to estalish.111 "hese definitions of plhrow fit

well with the analogical correspondence !iew that sees )esus as the completion of od’s purposes for

Israel and %oses.

Interestingly# some scholars employ the concept of analogical correspondence while using a

different lael when handling the use of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&. or example# ruchtenaum

laels his approach to Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1& as /typology.5 Fet he is not using the term

/typology5 in the prefigurement sense of the word. "his ecomes clear when he states that Hosea 11:1

is not a prophecy ut rather is spea$ing of a literal# historical e!ent. ruchtenaum is careful to oser!e

that the disoedient national son only ecomes a type after the ad!ent of the ideal indi!idual son.112

ruchtenaum’s oser!ation communicates the retrospecti!e nature of %atthew 2:1& rather than the

prospecti!e nature of Hosea 11:1.

6imilarly# oc$ seems to use an analogical correspondence !iew when discussing %atthew’s

use of Hosea 11:1 although he laels his approach T;/O,O"IC,+prophetic. Fet oc$ is not using

1>

%c*artney and Enns# /%atthew and Hosea: A ;esponse to )ohn 6ailhammer#5 1>B81>7.1>< T(NT # C:2<>8<.11>

?A# s.!. /plhrow,5 2=82<.

111

*remer# Biblico+Theologico ,exicon o# the New Testament # s.!. Mplhrow#M &>>.

112

ruchtenaum# $essianic Christology# 17.



the term /typological5 in the prefigurement sense. He notes that when Hosea 11:1 is read historically

and exegetically it refers to Israel and e!erything aout the passage loo$s to the past. Fet oc$

oser!es that %atthew draws a typological connection etween the Exodus e!ents and )esus who

recapitulates in a positi!e sense the history of the nation. Howe!er oc$ is careful to oser!e that the

pattern is not seen in the ld "estament language ut rather only ecomes clear after the decisi!e

pattern occurs. In other words# the connection etween the disoedient# national 6on of od and the

indi!idual# ideal 6on of od only ecomes !isile after the ideal 6on’s life falls into a specific pattern

4uxtaposing Him against the national son.11" If this pattern had een anticipated in the ld "estament

language# then oc$ proaly would ha!e laeled %atthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 as typological+

/1O/!ETIC rather than T;/O,O"IC,+prophetic.11# oc$’s reluctance to see Hosea 11:1 as

messianic at an exegetical le!el is consistent with the retrospecti!e nature of %atthew 2:1& rather than

the prospecti!e nature of Hosea 11:1.

CONC-USION

%atthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 is prolematic. Although Hosea 11:1 loo$s ac$ward and does

not appear to need fulfilling# %atthew 2:1& claims that Hosea 11:1 was fulfilled in the e!ents

surrounding the early life of *hrist. "his paper has sought to offer the analogical correspondence !iew

as a solution to this dilemma. "his !iew contends that Hosea 11:1 is not loo$ing forward. ;ather#

%atthew is loo$ing ac$ward to Hosea 11:1 for the purpose of drawing analogies etween *hrist and

%oses and *hrist and Israel. "his approach seems preferale in comparison to other solutions offered

y e!angelicals. It does the est 4o maintaining the integrity of ld "estament citation. %eanings

un$nown to the context of Hosea 11:1 are not extracted from the text and thus Hosea 11:1 is not forced

to say something it was ne!er meant to say. %oreo!er# the analogical correspondence !iew is

11B oc$# /9se of the ld "estament in the 0ew#5 111812.117

Iid.# 11>811.



consistent with the phrase ina plhrwqh found in %atthew 2:1&. inally# %atthew’s desire to draw

points of correspondence etween the disoedient son and the ideal son satisfies his purpose of

communicating *hrist’s ?a!idic identity to his )ewish audience.



BIB-IOGRAPH

Alright# . .# and *. 6. %ann. $atthew. "he Anchor ile. arden *ity# 0F: ?ouleday# 1<=1.

auer# +alter. A ree$8English Gexicon of the 0ew "estament and ther *hristian Giterature.;e!ised and edited y rederic$ +illiam ?an$er# Bd ed. *hicago: 9ni!ersity of *hicago ress#2>>>.

loch# ;enee. /%idrash.5 In pproaches to ncient *udaism# ed. trans. %ary Howard *allaway.%issoula# %# 1<=.

oc$# ?arrell. /9se of the ld "estament in the 0ew.5 In 2oundations #or Biblical Interpretation. 0ash!ille: roadman J Holman# 1<<7.

SSSSSSSS. /E!angelicals and the 9se of the ld in the 0ew# part 1.5 Bibliotheca Sacra 172 ')uly8

6eptemer 1<&(: 2><822B.

rown# ;aymond E. The Sensus /lenior o# Sacred Scripture. altimore: 6t. %arys 9ni!ersity# 1<&&.

SSSSSSSS. The Birth o# the $essiah. arden *ity# 0F: ?ouleday# 1<==.

ruce# A. . $atthew. "he Expositors ree$ "estament# ed. +. ;oertson 0icoll. & !ols. Gondon:Hodder and 6toughton# 1<>>81<1>. ;eprint# rand ;apids Eerdmans# 1<=<.

ruce# . . Biblical Exegesis in the 3umran Texts. rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<C>.

*arson# ?. A. /%atthew.5 In Expositor&s Bible Commentary. rand ;apids: @onder!an# 1<7.

*hisholm# ;oert . /Hosea.5 In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament # ed. )ohn .+al!oord and ;oy . @uc$. 2 !ols. *olorado 6prings: *hariot Victor ulishing# 1<&.

*remer# Herman. Biblico+Theologico ,exicon o# the New Testament . Edinurgh: ". J ". *lar$# 1<&.

*unningham# 6cott# and ?arrell oc$. /Is %atthew %idrash,5 Bibliotheca Sacra 'April8)une 1<=(:1&=81>.

?a!ies# +. ?. The Setting o# the Sermon on the $ount . *amridge: 9ni!ersity ress# 1<C7.

?odd# *. H. ccording to the Scriptures: The Substructure o# New Testament Theology. Gondon: 0iset# 1<&2.

?yer# *harles. /ilical %eaning of ulfillment.5 In Issues in (ispensationalism# ed. +esley ;.+illis. *hicago: %oody# 1<<7.

?yer# *harles# and ene %errill. Old Testament Explorer . 6windoll Geadership Girary# ed. *harles ;.6windoll and ;oy . @uc$. 0ash!ille: +ord ulishing# 2>>1.

B1



Ellis# E. Earl. /How the 0ew "estament 9ses the ld.5 In New Testament Interpretation# ed. I. Howard%arshall. rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<==.

itDmyer# )oseph. /"he 9se of Explicit ld "estament Ruotations in Rumran Giterature and in the 0ew "estament.5 New Testament Studies = '1<C1(: 2<=8BBB.

rance# ;. ". /"he ormula Ruotations of %atthew 2 and the rolem of *ommunication.5 NewTestament Studies 2= ')anuary 1<1(.

reedman# ?a!id 0oel# ed. nchor Bible (ictionary. C !ols. 0ew For$: ?ouleday# 1<<2.

ritsch# *. ". /ilical "ypology.5 Bibliotheca Sacra 1>7 'April )une 1<7=(: 217822.

ruchtenaum# Arnold. $essianic Christology. "ustin# *A: Ariel %inistries# 1<<.

artner# ertil. /"he Haa$$u$ *ommentary '?6H( and the ospel of %atthew.5 Studia Theologica '1<&7(: 1827.

oppelt# Geonard. Typos: The Typological Interpretation o# the New. "ranslated y ?onald H. %ad!ig.rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<2.

oulder# %. ?. $idrash and ,ection in $atthew. Gondon: 6. . *. K.# 1<=7.

reen# H. enedict. The "ospel ccording to $atthew. 0ew *larendon ile# ed. H. . ?. 6par$s.xford: xford 9ni!ersity ress# 1<=&.

undry# ;oert H. $atthew: Commentary on !is ,iterary and Theological rt . rand ;apids:Eerdmans# 1<2.

Hagner# ?onald A. $atthew 5+59. +ord ilical *ommentary# ed. ?a!id A. Huard and lenn +.ar$er. ?allas: +ord oo$s# 1<<B.

Harper# +illiam ;ainey. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on mos and !osea. International*ritical *ommentary. Edinurgh: ". J ". *lar$# 1<>&.

Hendri$sen# +illiam. Exposition o# the "ospel ccording to $atthew. rand ;apids: a$er# 1<=B.

Hill# ?a!id. The "ospel o# $atthew. 0ew *entury ile *ommentary# ed. ;onald E. *lements. rand;apids: Eerdmans# 1<=2.

Hindson# Edward E. Isaiah&s Immanuel: Sign o# !is times or the Sign o# the ges' InternationalGirary 6eries# ed. ;oert G. ;eymond. hilipsurg# 0): resyterian and ;eformed ulishing*o.# 1<=<.

Horan# %aurya . /esharim: 3umran Interpretation o# Biblical Boo8s. "he *atholic ilical Ruarterly%onograph 6eries# no. . +ashington: "he *atholic ilical Association of America# 1<=<.

Howard# "racy G. /"he Authors Intention as a *rucial actor in Interpreting 6cripture: AnIntroduction.5 Baptist 1e#ormation 1e-iew 1> '1<1(: 2282=.

B2



SSSSSSSS. /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&.5 "h.%. "hesis# ?allas "heological 6eminary#1<7.

SSSSSSSS. /"he 9se of Hosea 11:1 in %atthew 2:1&3 An Alternati!e 6olution.5 Bibliotheca Sacra B1C'ctoer8?ecemer 1<C(: B178B2&.

)osephus# la!ius. "he 0ew *ompleted +or$s of la!ius )osephus. "ranslated y +illiam +histon.Edinurgh# 6cotland: +illiam . 0immo# 1C=. ;eprint# rand ;apids: Kregel ulications1<<=.

)ohnson# Elliott E. Expository !ermeneutics: n Introduction. rand ;apids: Academie oo$s# 1<<>.

Kaiser# +alter *. /"he 6ingle Intent of 6cripture.5 In E-angelical 1oots: Tribute to )ilbur Smith#ed. Kenneth 6. KantDer. 0ash!ille: "homas 0elson# 1<=.

SSSSSSSS. 1esponse to &uthor&s Intention& and Biblical Interpretation& by Elliot E% *ohnson: a paper presented at the International *ouncil on ilical Inerrancy# *hicago# 0o!emer 1<2# 1<2.

Kent# Homer A. /%atthews 9se of the ld "estament.5 Bibliotheca Sacra 121 ')anuary 1<C7(: B787B.

Ga6or# +illiam 6. /rophecy# Inspiration# and Sensus /lenior .5 Tyndale Bulletin 2<# no. 7<8C> '1<=(.

SSSSSSSS. /"he Sensus /lenior and ilical Interpretation.5 In Scripture0 Tradition0 and Interpretation# ed. +. +ard as-ue and +illiam 6. Ga6or. rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<=.

Gens$i# ;. *. H. n Interpretation o# St% $atthew&s gospel . %inneapolis: Augsurg ulishing House#1<C7.

Gongenec$er# ;ichard 0. Biblical Exegesis in the postolic /eriod . rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<=&.

%c*artney# ?an# and eter Enns. /%atthew and Hosea: A ;esponse to )ohn 6ailhammer.5)estminster Theological *ournal CB '2>>1(: <=81>&.

%cKenDie# 6te!en. /Exodus "ypology in Hosea.5 1estoration 3uarterly 22 '1<=<(: 1>>81>.

%orris# Geon. The "ospel ccording to $atthew. rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<<2.

ayne# ). arton. The Theology o# the Older Testament . rand ;apids: @onder!an# 1<C2.

ayne# hilip . /"he allacy of E-uating %eaning with the Human Authors Intention.5 *ournal o# the E-angelical Theological Society 2># no. B '6eptemer 1<==(: 27B8&2.

lummer# Alfred. n Exegetical Commentary on the "ospel ccording to $atthew. Gondon: 6toc$#1<><. ;eprint# rand ;apids# Eerdmans# 1<&B.

;ad# erhard !on. Old Testament Theology. "ranslated y ?. %. . 6tal$er. 2 !ols. 0ew For$: Harper J ;ow# 1<C2.

BB



;amm# ernard. /rotestant Biblical Interpretation. rand ;apids: a$er# 1<=>.

;itschl# ?ietrich. /ods *on!ersion.5 Interpretation 1& '1<C1(: 2C8B>B.

6il!a# %oises. /"he 0ew "estament 9se of the ld "estament.5 In Scripture and Truth# ed. ?. A.*arson and )ohn ?. +oodridge. rand ;apids: @onder!an# 1<B.

6oares8rahu# eorge. The 2ormula 3uotations in the In#ancy Narrati-e o# $atthew: n In4uiry intothe Tradition !istory o# $t 5+6. Analecta ilica. ;ome: ilical Institute ress# 1<=C.

6tendahl# Krister. The School o# St% $atthew and its 7se o# the Old Testament . Gund: . +. K.leerup# 1<&7.

T(NT . rand ;apids: Eerdmans# 1<C.

"homas# ;oert G. E-angelical !ermeneutics: The New .ersus the Old . rand ;apids: Kregel# 2>>2.

"oussaint# 6tanley ?. /"he Argument of %atthew.5 h.?. diss.# ?allas "heological 6eminary# 1<&=.

SSSSSSSS. Behold the King . ortland: %ultnomah ress# 1<>.

+olff# Hans +. /"he Hermeneutics of the ld "estament.5 In Essays on Old Testament Interpretation#ed. *laus +esterman. Atlanta: )ohn Knox ress# 1<CB.

+oolcome# K. ). /"he ilical rigins and atristic ?e!elopment of "ypology.5 In Essays onTypology# 6tudies in ilical "heology# !ol. 22# ed. eoffrey +. H. Gampe and Kenneth+oolcome. 0aper!ille# IG: A. ;. Allenson# 1<&=.

The Use of Hosea 11.1 in Matthew 2.15

Documents

Transcript of The Use of Hosea 11.1 in Matthew 2.15