Q: Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 to an event in the life of Jesus, namely the sojourn in Egypt (which only Matthew mentions). Isnt Hosea 11:1 about the nation of Israel?
A: Yes, Hosea 11:1 is about Israel, and Matthew would affirm that. Perhaps if people knew their Old Testament better, and didnt try to make predictive fulfillments out of typological fulfillments, Matthews statements about fulfillments like this one would not appear problematic.
Matthew took for granted that his (Jewish) readers would know that Hosea 11:1 was about Israel. His intent was not to deny that meaning of the text. One of Matthews goals was to show that Jesus, as the Messiah, the Ultimate Israelite, is the Son of God -- Gods beloved representative. This had been the role of the nation of Israel as a whole, and it was with this role in the background that Hosea had written Out of Egypt I called My son -- i.e., God called and commissioned the Israelites to be His chosen instruments to exemplify the effects of God.
This mission, which Israel had on a national level (but never really lived up to), Jesus had on a personal level. Matthew is not saying that Hosea meant (in a conscious, predictive way) that Jesus would come to the land of Israel from Egypt. He is saying that Jesus life parallels the corporate life of the nation of Israel, and this is one of the corresponding features of the Israel-to-Jesus comparison: both began life in the land of Israel (it was called Canaan in Abrahams time, and Judea in Jesus time, but the same area is involved), and both went into Egypt for safetys sake (with the help of someone named Joseph, in both cases), and both returned from Egypt.
To put it another way: Matthew wanted his readers to understand that Jesus life was the work of God -- not some Hellenistic deity, but YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How can one defend an ascription of the life of Jesus to YHWH, and refute claims that His life was the work of false gods? By looking for the distinguishing fingerprints of YHWH, so to speak, impressed in historical events. (One could say, by looking for God's modus operandi.) And Matthew does this throughout his Gospel-account -- he draws parallels between the life of Jesus as the Son of God (which Israel was called by Hosea), and Jesus as the Servant of the Lord (which Israel was called by Isaiah), and other Old Testament motifs (one of which was mentioned back in 1:23 -- Jesus as the Sign of Gods Salvation) which illustrate that the God who worked through Israel, and the prophets, in the past, was working through Jesus.
Btw, Matthew was not trying to conceal anything by only quoting the last part of Hosea 11:1; he just quoted enough of the text to establish the typological pattern. (Verse-divisions as we know them were not around yet.)
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Yes, Hosea 11:1 is about Israel, and Matthew would affirm that. Perhaps if people knew their Old Testament better, and didnt try to make predictive fulfillments out of typological fulfillments, Matthews statements about fulfillments like this one would not appear problematic.
Matthew took for granted that his (Jewish) readers would know that Hosea 11:1 was about Israel. His intent was not to deny that meaning of the text. One of Matthews goals was to show that Jesus, as the Messiah, the Ultimate Israelite, is the Son of God -- Gods beloved representative. This had been the role of the nation of Israel as a whole, and it was with this role in the background that Hosea had written Out of Egypt I called My son -- i.e., God called and commissioned the Israelites to be His chosen instruments to exemplify the effects of God.
This mission, which Israel had on a national level (but never really lived up to), Jesus had on a personal level. Matthew is not saying that Hosea meant (in a conscious, predictive way) that Jesus would come to the land of Israel from Egypt. He is saying that Jesus life parallels the corporate life of the nation of Israel, and this is one of the corresponding features of the Israel-to-Jesus comparison: both began life in the land of Israel (it was called Canaan in Abrahams time, and Judea in Jesus time, but the same area is involved), and both went into Egypt for safetys sake (with the help of someone named Joseph, in both cases), and both returned from Egypt.
To put it another way: Matthew wanted his readers to understand that Jesus life was the work of God -- not some Hellenistic deity, but YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How can one defend an ascription of the life of Jesus to YHWH, and refute claims that His life was the work of false gods? By looking for the distinguishing fingerprints of YHWH, so to speak, impressed in historical events. (One could say, by looking for God's modus operandi.) And Matthew does this throughout his Gospel-account -- he draws parallels between the life of Jesus as the Son of God (which Israel was called by Hosea), and Jesus as the Servant of the Lord (which Israel was called by Isaiah), and other Old Testament motifs (one of which was mentioned back in 1:23 -- Jesus as the Sign of Gods Salvation) which illustrate that the God who worked through Israel, and the prophets, in the past, was working through Jesus.
Btw, Matthew was not trying to conceal anything by only quoting the last part of Hosea 11:1; he just quoted enough of the text to establish the typological pattern. (Verse-divisions as we know them were not around yet.)
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
