'Egypt' in the story stands not only, we may assume, for the pagan Egypt of the writer's own day, always capable of launching another pogrom against its Jewish inhabitants, but for any great power which oppresses and enslaves God's people. (p. 242)This reminded me of Matt. 2:15, where I think something very similar is going on. Egypt is not 'Egypt'; rather, Judah is 'Egypt.' Judah is the "great power which oppresses and enslaves God's people." I've posted on this before, though I'm not sure the point is generally recognized.
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Saturday, February 1, 2014
'Egypt' and Matt. 2:15
I was reading through ch. 3 of Wright's big book on Paul when I came across this sentence. It has to do with the second half of Wisdom of Solomon, which concerns a retelling of the exodus narrative.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The Followers of Jesus in Matthew
I am reading through Matthew right now, preparing for a popular-level presentation near the end of the February on the depiction of Jesus in this Gospel. I'm trying to pay attention to the different characters in the text, and how Matthew presents them. Followers of Jesus are, of course, important characters, and this post gives some basic summary of the titles Matthew gives to this group. These are just basic impression arising from a little use of an electronic concordance.
Apostles
10:2: "the names of the twelve apostles are"
That's the only appearance of this word in Matthew. Mark uses it in 6:30 (and in a variant at 3:14); Luke in 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10 (cf. 11:49); John never uses it in direct reference to Jesus' followers (though cf. 13:16).
This of course became the technical term for Jesus' specially appointed emissaries. Luke attributes this definition to Jesus himself (6:13; cf. the variant at Mark 3:14). Acts uses the word 28x, all in reference to the Twelve, it seems to me, except for 14:4, 14, where it refers to Paul and Barnabas. Elsewhere it frequently encompasses a wider group than just the Twelve. Paul uses it of himself frequently. He also distinguishes the Twelve from the apostles (and from himself) in 1Corinthians 15:5-8. Paul might not always use it as a technical term for emissaries specially appointed by the Lord. See Romans 16:7 on Andronicus and Junia; 2Corinthians 8:23 on Paul's "brothers"; Galatians 1:19 on James; Philippians 2:25 on Epaphroditus; Hebrews 3:1 on Jesus. He also questions the legitimacy of some who call themselves apostles (2Cor. 11:5, 13; 12:11, 12; cf. also Rev. 2:2).
The Twelve
10:1: "Jesus summoned his twelve disciples"
10:2: "the names of the twelve apostles are"
10:5: "these twelve Jesus sent out"
11:1: "giving instructions to his twelve disciples"
20:17: "he took the Twelve [disciples] aside by themselves"
26:14: "one of the Twelve, named Judas Iscariot"
26:20: "he took his place with the Twelve"
26:47: "Judas, one of the Twelve"
That's 8 times that Matthew refers to the close followers of Jesus as the Twelve, whether as a substantive itself or as an adjective modifying "disciples" or "apostles". Mark does this 11x, Luke 7x, John 4x. In the rest of the NT, it appears only in Acts 6:2; 1Corinthians 15:5; Revelation 21:14.
Disciples
Matthew uses this word 72x. I have previously offered some reflections on the use of this word in the Bible. As to the question asked in that post--whether Matthew uses the term of a wider circle of Jesus' disciples after he has named the Twelve as his apostles (10:2)--I have now looked through all of Matthew's use of the word and I can't find any such references. That is, all the references to Jesus' "disciples" after 10:2 seems to be in reference to the Twelve. Actually, before 10:2, the only reference that seems to encompass a wider circle of disciples is 8:21.
Apostles
10:2: "the names of the twelve apostles are"
That's the only appearance of this word in Matthew. Mark uses it in 6:30 (and in a variant at 3:14); Luke in 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10 (cf. 11:49); John never uses it in direct reference to Jesus' followers (though cf. 13:16).
This of course became the technical term for Jesus' specially appointed emissaries. Luke attributes this definition to Jesus himself (6:13; cf. the variant at Mark 3:14). Acts uses the word 28x, all in reference to the Twelve, it seems to me, except for 14:4, 14, where it refers to Paul and Barnabas. Elsewhere it frequently encompasses a wider group than just the Twelve. Paul uses it of himself frequently. He also distinguishes the Twelve from the apostles (and from himself) in 1Corinthians 15:5-8. Paul might not always use it as a technical term for emissaries specially appointed by the Lord. See Romans 16:7 on Andronicus and Junia; 2Corinthians 8:23 on Paul's "brothers"; Galatians 1:19 on James; Philippians 2:25 on Epaphroditus; Hebrews 3:1 on Jesus. He also questions the legitimacy of some who call themselves apostles (2Cor. 11:5, 13; 12:11, 12; cf. also Rev. 2:2).
The Twelve
10:1: "Jesus summoned his twelve disciples"
10:2: "the names of the twelve apostles are"
10:5: "these twelve Jesus sent out"
11:1: "giving instructions to his twelve disciples"
20:17: "he took the Twelve [disciples] aside by themselves"
26:14: "one of the Twelve, named Judas Iscariot"
26:20: "he took his place with the Twelve"
26:47: "Judas, one of the Twelve"
That's 8 times that Matthew refers to the close followers of Jesus as the Twelve, whether as a substantive itself or as an adjective modifying "disciples" or "apostles". Mark does this 11x, Luke 7x, John 4x. In the rest of the NT, it appears only in Acts 6:2; 1Corinthians 15:5; Revelation 21:14.
Disciples
Matthew uses this word 72x. I have previously offered some reflections on the use of this word in the Bible. As to the question asked in that post--whether Matthew uses the term of a wider circle of Jesus' disciples after he has named the Twelve as his apostles (10:2)--I have now looked through all of Matthew's use of the word and I can't find any such references. That is, all the references to Jesus' "disciples" after 10:2 seems to be in reference to the Twelve. Actually, before 10:2, the only reference that seems to encompass a wider circle of disciples is 8:21.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Does Matthew 1 Narrate a Virginal Conception?
Yesterday, I received the alert that in the new issue of JSNT appears an article by Andrew T. Lincoln, "Contested Paternity and Contested Readings: Jesus' Conception in Matthew 1.18-25," 34.3 (2012): 211-31.
The article evaluates two ways of reading Matthew 1:18-25 with regard to the issue of the virginal conception. The traditional view sees in Matt. 1 a virginal conception because Matthew calls Mary a παρθένος, emphasizes that the product of her womb is begotten of the Holy Spirit, and informs his readers that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of the child.
The revised view (represented by Jane Schaberg, David Catchpole, and Robert J. Miller) does not see a virginal conception here, and charges the traditional reading with being unduly influenced by data outside Matthew's text, such as Christian tradition and the Lucan infancy narrative, which definitely (I think) contains a virginal conception (Luke 1:34; of course, yesterday I would have said that Matthew definitely contains a virginal conception). According to the revised view, the word παρθένος does not always mean virgin (more on this below), the Holy Spirit's involvement in the conception does not eliminate the possibility that a human father was also involved (see, e.g., Gen. 4:1-2; Judg. 13), and the reason for stressing that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born was not to ensure a virginal conception, but to highlight once again (cf. Matt. 1:19) that Joseph was a righteous man, who therefore avoided the impurity of sexual relations with his pregnant wife (cf. Josephus, Against Apion, 2.199, 202).
At the end of the article, Lincoln offers this conclusion:
But what about the word παρθένος? Does it really not mean virgin? Let me first note that Lincoln's article re-affirms my own interpretation that Matthew's main reason for citing Isa. 7:14 was not the word παρθένος--that is, not as a prediction of the virginal conception--but because of the child's name, Immanuel, for this child of Joseph and Mary would truly be "God with us".
Lincoln can cite some evidence that παρθένος does not mean 'virgin' but simply 'young woman' (p. 215 n. 10). This includes some Classical Greek references, but also a couple of instances in the LXX (Gen. 34:3; Joel 1:8). The idea is not that παρθένος never means 'virgin', but that this is a specialized meaning of the word that usually has not implications regarding sexual experience. It turns out, then, that the Greek translators of Isaiah got their translation correct, and, on the revised reading of Matthew, the Evangelist cited the verse without meaning to stress the virginity of the παρθένος.
Lincoln purposefully omits Luke from discussion, because he wants to focus on how we read Matthew apart from Luke. But Luke might give some support to the revised reading of Matthew, at least in regard to the meaning of παρθένος. About Mary's virginity, Luke is much more explicit than Matthew. In the crucial verse that establishes beyond doubt that Mary is a virgin (Luke 1:34), Luke does not rely on the word παρθένος (which he had already used about Mary; 1:27), perhaps because he knew it to be ambiguous. Instead, he has Mary say, ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω. I think this might support the idea that παρθένος cannot carry the meaning 'virgin' without the help of context.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day I still agree with the traditional interpretation of Matt. 1. Certainly, Lincoln's article has helped me to be a more critical reader by identifying some presuppositions that I bring to the text. Yet, if I were presented with Matthew's Gospel with no prior knowledge of Christianity, I think I would understand it to be asserting that Jesus was conceived without any male human agency, before Mary had sexual relations with any man, thus a virginal conception.
The article evaluates two ways of reading Matthew 1:18-25 with regard to the issue of the virginal conception. The traditional view sees in Matt. 1 a virginal conception because Matthew calls Mary a παρθένος, emphasizes that the product of her womb is begotten of the Holy Spirit, and informs his readers that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until after the birth of the child.
The revised view (represented by Jane Schaberg, David Catchpole, and Robert J. Miller) does not see a virginal conception here, and charges the traditional reading with being unduly influenced by data outside Matthew's text, such as Christian tradition and the Lucan infancy narrative, which definitely (I think) contains a virginal conception (Luke 1:34; of course, yesterday I would have said that Matthew definitely contains a virginal conception). According to the revised view, the word παρθένος does not always mean virgin (more on this below), the Holy Spirit's involvement in the conception does not eliminate the possibility that a human father was also involved (see, e.g., Gen. 4:1-2; Judg. 13), and the reason for stressing that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born was not to ensure a virginal conception, but to highlight once again (cf. Matt. 1:19) that Joseph was a righteous man, who therefore avoided the impurity of sexual relations with his pregnant wife (cf. Josephus, Against Apion, 2.199, 202).
At the end of the article, Lincoln offers this conclusion:
The provisional conclusion of this article, then, is that the revised reading needs to be taken seriously as a minority report that raises significant questions about the traditional reading, questions that should cause the latter's adherents to re-think its justification, but that, on balance, it is not compelling enough to make them abandon it. Matthew, though obliquely, probably remains a witness to a virginal conception. But, with apologies for the puns, the article will have succeeded in its aim if it has raised suspicions about the legitimacy of both the revised and the traditional readings of Jesus' conception in Matthew and planted the seed for further reflection and discussion. (p. 229)Lincoln thus seems to lean toward the traditional view, which apparently represents something of a revision of his own position (see the conclusion here).
But what about the word παρθένος? Does it really not mean virgin? Let me first note that Lincoln's article re-affirms my own interpretation that Matthew's main reason for citing Isa. 7:14 was not the word παρθένος--that is, not as a prediction of the virginal conception--but because of the child's name, Immanuel, for this child of Joseph and Mary would truly be "God with us".
Lincoln can cite some evidence that παρθένος does not mean 'virgin' but simply 'young woman' (p. 215 n. 10). This includes some Classical Greek references, but also a couple of instances in the LXX (Gen. 34:3; Joel 1:8). The idea is not that παρθένος never means 'virgin', but that this is a specialized meaning of the word that usually has not implications regarding sexual experience. It turns out, then, that the Greek translators of Isaiah got their translation correct, and, on the revised reading of Matthew, the Evangelist cited the verse without meaning to stress the virginity of the παρθένος.
[Note, however, that Lincoln gives two contradictory explanations for παρθένος in LXX Isa. 7:14. On p. 215, he says: "The LXX translators do not, then, change the force of the Hebrew. [...] [I]t makes perfectly good sense to read παρθένος [in Matt. 1:23], in line with the Hebrew and the LXX, as having its more general meaning of 'young woman' [...]."
But on p. 221, Lincoln writes: "There is, then, still no decisive reason against thinking that Matthew understood Isa. 7:14 in the way the LXX does: as referring to one who was at the time a virgin but who would conceive naturally."
I think this latter view--LXX Isa. 7:14 means that a woman who is now a virgin would conceive naturally (thus being a virgin no longer) and bear a son--was the one supported in R. Brown, Birth of the Messiah. But it is different from saying that παρθένος is actually the correct translation of almah, as Lincoln seems to say on p. 215.]
Lincoln purposefully omits Luke from discussion, because he wants to focus on how we read Matthew apart from Luke. But Luke might give some support to the revised reading of Matthew, at least in regard to the meaning of παρθένος. About Mary's virginity, Luke is much more explicit than Matthew. In the crucial verse that establishes beyond doubt that Mary is a virgin (Luke 1:34), Luke does not rely on the word παρθένος (which he had already used about Mary; 1:27), perhaps because he knew it to be ambiguous. Instead, he has Mary say, ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω. I think this might support the idea that παρθένος cannot carry the meaning 'virgin' without the help of context.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day I still agree with the traditional interpretation of Matt. 1. Certainly, Lincoln's article has helped me to be a more critical reader by identifying some presuppositions that I bring to the text. Yet, if I were presented with Matthew's Gospel with no prior knowledge of Christianity, I think I would understand it to be asserting that Jesus was conceived without any male human agency, before Mary had sexual relations with any man, thus a virginal conception.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Explicit Quotations of Scripture in Matthew 1-2 (Part 4)
We have finally arrived at the verse that started all this off in our series on Matthew's use of scripture at the beginning of his Gospel. Through looking at the quotations in Matthew 2, we have learned that the evangelist does not always use scripture in a straightforward, prediction-fulfillment way as we would expect, even when he uses the word "fulfill". Matthew's use of this word is complex, but its appearances especially in chapter 2 of his Gospel would not lead us to think that it signals the fulfillment of a direct messianic prediction from the OT, and indeed its appearance might make us think the exact opposite, especially when compared with its non-appearance in Matt. 2:5-6.
So, when we see that Matthew's first explicit quotation of scripture in his Gospel, the virginal conception of Jesus is said to "fulfill" Isa. 7:14, we know to be cautious before we conclude that Matthew viewed Isa. 7:14 as a direct messianic prediction. Here's the Isaiah passage with its context:
The translation of v. 14 should be something along the lines of: "Behold, the young woman is pregnant and she'll bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Why will she call his name Immanuel? Because his birth will signal that God is again caring for his people Judah by ridding them of this threat of war; his birth will signal that "God is with us."
Does Matthew know all of this? I think so. When Luke talks about the virginal conception of Jesus in Luke 1, he does not quote Isa. 7:14. Indeed, this is the only quotation of this verse in the NT. That means that it was not common to apply this verse to Jesus. Nor was it common to see this verse as awaiting fulfillment in the Messiah. Isa. 7:14 is never cited in Second Temple Jewish literature or rabbinic literature as applying to the Messiah. It was always viewed as a simple prophecy for the eighth century BCE. This is exactly like Hos. 11:1 and Jer. 31:15, which we have already seen Matthew knowingly apply to Jesus, in full awareness that their original contexts had nothing to do with a coming Messiah.
Just as in those other instances, so also here Matthew sees a typological fulfillment of the OT passage. What has happened in the life of Jesus is parallel in some significant ways with what happened earlier in the history of Israel. Just as in the eighth century BCE a child was born who signaled God's love for his people, who signaled God's presence with his people, so also now a child has been born that "fulfills" this as well. That is, I think it is this name "Immanuel", maybe even more than the word "virgin", that drew Matthew to this passage as possibly helpful in his presentation of Jesus' early years.
I wouldn't deny, though, that the word "virgin" itself played a part. Levine thought it was mainly this word: "When, 200 years later [200 years after the Greek translation of Isaiah], the author of Matthew’s gospel read Isaiah 7:14 in Greek, he saw a prediction of a virginal conception." I assume that Matthew saw this translation "virgin" in the Greek of Isaiah (parthenos, for the Hebrew word almah) as fortuitous for his own purposes.
But it should be noted that Matthew typically does not rely on a Greek translation in his Gospel. Richard Longenecker (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2d ed. [Eerdmans, 1999]) surveys the evidence, and it is rather striking. Whereas Jesus in the Gospels typically relies on a Septuagintal form (Longenecker 45), Matthew typically does not in his editorial comments, as here (Longenecker 48, 120-21). In fact, in looking at this exact quotation, Longenecker notes how difficult it is to classify even Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 as "Septuagintal" (pp. 127-28). Certainly, Matthew's quotation of Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15 departs from the LXX and would make no sense if he had used that text. Longenecker (121) points out other passages in Matthew (4:15-16; 8:17; 27:9) where this also holds true. So, while I wouldn't doubt that Matthew saw a Greek translation of Isa. 7:14 and that that helps to explain why he uses the word parthenos in his quotation of that verse, I do doubt that Matthew came upon Isa. 7:14 for the first time as suggestive of Jesus through the Greek translation. It was, after all, not Matthew's habit to rely on a Greek translation.
Did Matthew misunderstand Isa. 7:14? It looks like that at first-blush, but a closer examination of Matthew's use of scripture at the beginning of his Gospel I think points to a more sophisticated, complex, nuanced use of scripture on his part. At the end of the day, I think Matthew did realize that he was applying a new meaning to Isa. 7:14, that it was not originally a prediction of a far-future Messiah.
I hope that helps as a partial explanation for what Matthew is doing with scripture in his first couple of chapters. While I'll probably return to Matthew's use of scripture at some point, and probably also to Isa. 7:14, I'm going to go ahead and consider this series closed.
So, when we see that Matthew's first explicit quotation of scripture in his Gospel, the virginal conception of Jesus is said to "fulfill" Isa. 7:14, we know to be cautious before we conclude that Matthew viewed Isa. 7:14 as a direct messianic prediction. Here's the Isaiah passage with its context:
Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, "Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!" Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of my God as well? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken." (Isa. 7:10-16; NASB)There are two terrible aspects of the translation of the crucial v. 14--(a) virgin, and (b) will be with child. Both of these obscure the point that Isaiah is making to Ahaz. For the evidence and arguments, see the commentaries. The message that Isaiah wants to present to Ahaz is that the Syro-Ephraimite War (see also 1Kings 16) that has distressed Judah (over which Ahaz is king) will soon be over. How soon? It'll take as long as it takes a baby to be born and grow to the point of eating solid food. It's a message of comfort to Ahaz, and it would be "fulfilled" in the days of Ahaz. It does not look forward seven centuries to Jesus.
The translation of v. 14 should be something along the lines of: "Behold, the young woman is pregnant and she'll bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Why will she call his name Immanuel? Because his birth will signal that God is again caring for his people Judah by ridding them of this threat of war; his birth will signal that "God is with us."
Does Matthew know all of this? I think so. When Luke talks about the virginal conception of Jesus in Luke 1, he does not quote Isa. 7:14. Indeed, this is the only quotation of this verse in the NT. That means that it was not common to apply this verse to Jesus. Nor was it common to see this verse as awaiting fulfillment in the Messiah. Isa. 7:14 is never cited in Second Temple Jewish literature or rabbinic literature as applying to the Messiah. It was always viewed as a simple prophecy for the eighth century BCE. This is exactly like Hos. 11:1 and Jer. 31:15, which we have already seen Matthew knowingly apply to Jesus, in full awareness that their original contexts had nothing to do with a coming Messiah.
Just as in those other instances, so also here Matthew sees a typological fulfillment of the OT passage. What has happened in the life of Jesus is parallel in some significant ways with what happened earlier in the history of Israel. Just as in the eighth century BCE a child was born who signaled God's love for his people, who signaled God's presence with his people, so also now a child has been born that "fulfills" this as well. That is, I think it is this name "Immanuel", maybe even more than the word "virgin", that drew Matthew to this passage as possibly helpful in his presentation of Jesus' early years.
I wouldn't deny, though, that the word "virgin" itself played a part. Levine thought it was mainly this word: "When, 200 years later [200 years after the Greek translation of Isaiah], the author of Matthew’s gospel read Isaiah 7:14 in Greek, he saw a prediction of a virginal conception." I assume that Matthew saw this translation "virgin" in the Greek of Isaiah (parthenos, for the Hebrew word almah) as fortuitous for his own purposes.
But it should be noted that Matthew typically does not rely on a Greek translation in his Gospel. Richard Longenecker (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 2d ed. [Eerdmans, 1999]) surveys the evidence, and it is rather striking. Whereas Jesus in the Gospels typically relies on a Septuagintal form (Longenecker 45), Matthew typically does not in his editorial comments, as here (Longenecker 48, 120-21). In fact, in looking at this exact quotation, Longenecker notes how difficult it is to classify even Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23 as "Septuagintal" (pp. 127-28). Certainly, Matthew's quotation of Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15 departs from the LXX and would make no sense if he had used that text. Longenecker (121) points out other passages in Matthew (4:15-16; 8:17; 27:9) where this also holds true. So, while I wouldn't doubt that Matthew saw a Greek translation of Isa. 7:14 and that that helps to explain why he uses the word parthenos in his quotation of that verse, I do doubt that Matthew came upon Isa. 7:14 for the first time as suggestive of Jesus through the Greek translation. It was, after all, not Matthew's habit to rely on a Greek translation.
Did Matthew misunderstand Isa. 7:14? It looks like that at first-blush, but a closer examination of Matthew's use of scripture at the beginning of his Gospel I think points to a more sophisticated, complex, nuanced use of scripture on his part. At the end of the day, I think Matthew did realize that he was applying a new meaning to Isa. 7:14, that it was not originally a prediction of a far-future Messiah.
I hope that helps as a partial explanation for what Matthew is doing with scripture in his first couple of chapters. While I'll probably return to Matthew's use of scripture at some point, and probably also to Isa. 7:14, I'm going to go ahead and consider this series closed.
Monday, March 5, 2012
"Fulffillment" in Matthew
In my last post, I made a big deal about when Matthew uses this word "fulfill" (πληρόω). I now feel the need to be a little more systematic in my analysis, so here goes.
I'll just be focusing on the verb πληρόω here, and not any cognate nouns or verbs, though those surely should be taken into account to get a full picture.
The verb πληρόω appears 198x in the Greek Bible (LXX with apocrypha + NT). A typical use:
Aside from Matthew's usage of the term, that of John is the most demanding of attention, which perhaps we will give it at some later time. But clearly the most pronounced usage of the verb πληρόω with the meaning "fulfillment of scripture" is in Matthew. Of the 16 appearances of the verb in that Gospel, only three do not carry this meaning (3:15; 13:48; 23:32).
The passages where it does appear in Matthew with the meaning "fulfillment of scripture" include three general references (like those in parentheses in the list two paragraphs up).
I'll just be focusing on the verb πληρόω here, and not any cognate nouns or verbs, though those surely should be taken into account to get a full picture.
The verb πληρόω appears 198x in the Greek Bible (LXX with apocrypha + NT). A typical use:
God blessed them saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill (πληρόω) the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." (Gen. 1:22; NASB)The verb appears 86x in the NT:
- Matthew: 16x--1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 3:15; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35, 48; 21:4; 23:32; 26:54, 56; 27:9
- Mark: 2x--1:15; 14:49
- Luke: 9x--1:20; 2:40; 3:5; 4:21; 7:1; 9:31; 21:24; 22:16; 24:44
- John: 15x--3:29; 7:8; 12:3, 38; 13:18; 15:11, 25; 16:6, 24; 17:12, 13; 18:9, 32; 19:24, 36
- Acts: 16x--1:16; 2:2, 28; 3:18; 5:3, 28; 7:23, 30; 9:23; 12:25; 13:25, 27, 52; 14:25; 19:21; 24:27
- Romans: 6x--1:29; 8:4; 13:8; 15:13, 14, 19
- 2Corinthians: 2x--7:4; 10:6
- Galatians: 1x--5:14
- Ephesians: 4x--1:23; 3:19; 4:10; 5:18
- Philippians: 4x--1:11; 2:2; 4:18, 19
- Colossians: 4x--1:9, 25; 2:10; 4:17
- 2Thessalonians: 1x--1:11
- 2Timothy: 1x--1:4
- James: 1x--2:23
- 1John: 1x--1:4
- 2John: 1x--v. 12
- Revelation: 2x--3:2; 6:11
(Mark 14:49;) Luke 4:21; (24:44;) John 12:38; 13:18; 15:25; (17:12;) 19:24; 36; Acts 1:16; 13:27; (Romans 13:8;) Galatians 5:14; James 2:23
Aside from Matthew's usage of the term, that of John is the most demanding of attention, which perhaps we will give it at some later time. But clearly the most pronounced usage of the verb πληρόω with the meaning "fulfillment of scripture" is in Matthew. Of the 16 appearances of the verb in that Gospel, only three do not carry this meaning (3:15; 13:48; 23:32).
The passages where it does appear in Matthew with the meaning "fulfillment of scripture" include three general references (like those in parentheses in the list two paragraphs up).
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (5:17)
How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way? (26:54)
But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets. Then all the disciples left him and fled. (26:56)There are ten appearances of πληρόω in Matthew in the sense of "fulfillment of scripture" with an actual verse citation. Four of these (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23) we have already looked at, or will look at, in our series on the Explicit Quotations of Scripture in Matthew 1-2. The other six are these:
This [i.e., Jesus' settlement in Galilee, specifically Capernaum] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, by the way of the sea, beyond he Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles--the people who were sitting in darkness saw a great light, and those who were sitting in the land and shadow of death, upon them a light dawned." (4:14-16; quoting Isa. 9:1-2)
This [i.e., Jesus' healing] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases." (8:17; quoting Isa. 53:4)
This [i.e., Jesus' healing and warning to tell no one] was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: Behold my servant whom I have chosen; my beloved in whom my soul is well-pleased; I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the gentiles. He will not quarrel, nor cry out; nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. A battered reed he will not break off, and a smoldering wick he will not put out, until he leads justice to victory. And in his name the gentiles will hope." (12:17-21; quoting Isa 42:1-3)
This [i.e., Jesus' parables] was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world." (13:35; quoting Psa. 78:2)
This [i.e., preparations for the Triumphal Entry] took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: Say to the daughter of Zion, Behold your king is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden." (21:4-5; quoting Zech. 9:9)
Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the Potter's Field, as the Lord directed me." (27:9-10; quoting Zech. 11:12-13)This post has collected the data. Later I will offer some analysis.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Explicit Quotaitons of Scripture in Matthew 1-2 (Part 3)
Back from the SECSOR (see here, and follow the links back), I am ready to resume my discussion of Matthew's explicit use of scripture in his first two chapters. Our examination is taking a reverse course, starting at the end of chapter two and going backwards toward chapter one. We have dealt with Matt. 2:23 and 2:17-18 (here) and Matt. 2:15 (here).
We are now ready for Matt. 2:5-6. When the Magi arrive in Jerusalem and ask Herod where the new king was, Herod assembled the "chief priests and scribes" to ask what had been predicted about the birthplace of the Messiah.
First, this quotation does not appear as an editorial comment (i.e., Matthew himself didn't quote the passage) but as something said by one of the characters in the story being told by Matthew. This distinguishes this quotation from the others we have seen, all of which are interpretations of the story by the editor. In other words, for the other quotations we have examined, Matthew himself interprets Jesus' life--whether his descent into Egypt (2:15), or the slaughter of the innocents (2:17-18), or Jesus' move to Nazareth (2:23)--in terms of Israel's scripture, but in none of these cases does Matthew imply that Jews in the time of Jesus would have likewise interpreted Jesus' life, or that they were looking for some sort of fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 or Jer. 31:15. But, in this case, that is the point. Matthew represents the Jerusalem priests and scribes as themselves saying that Mic. 5:2 would be fulfilled in the life of the Messiah. That sets this quotation apart and suggests that we should see it as unique in this context.
Second, the quotation itself does not exactly match the text from which it is taken. Micah 5:2 actually says that Bethlehem is "too little to be among the clans of Judah." (This is not a LXX vs. MT issue; both texts of Mic. 5:2 highlight Bethlehem's small size.) The change from "too little" to "by no means least" seems to be a homiletical adaptation emphasizing that though Bethlehem is small, this particular promise of its generating Israel's ruler makes it "by no means least." Since Matthew places this small change in the mouth of the Jerusalem priests and scribes, he apparently thinks it is not an unusual interpretation.
Third, we notice that the word 'fulfill' (πληρόω) is not used in this instance. It was used in Matt. 2:15, 2:17, and 2:23, and each time we noticed that the passage cited by Matthew as being 'fulfilled' in the life of Jesus actually had nothing to do with the Messiah in its own historical context. Here, this verb is not used. Now, that may be because of the different way this quotation is presented--in the mouth of some of the characters of the story, characters who have not yet met Jesus, and so could not comment on whether this prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. But the non-use of 'fulfillment' language here may also point to a more nuanced meaning for 'fulfill' than we are accustomed to thinking about (see below).
Fourth, the passage quoted--Micah 5:2--actually is a messianic passage in its own historical context. That partly explains why Matthew can have the Jerusalem priests and scribes quote the passage in reference to the Messiah: anyone reading Micah 5:2 would recognize that it concerned the future anointed ('messiah') king. Even if the word 'messiah' does not appear in Micah 5, nor 'David' nor 'king', the reference to a ruler from Bethlehem--the hometown of David (1Sam. 16)--clearly implies that this ruler would be from David's line, and therefore he would be a Davidic king, which is what the Messiah is (see 2 Sam. 7:12-16).
This post has begun to address some of the questions I raised at the end of the first post in this series. We'll need to assess at the end of the series whether Matthew typically uses the LXX or a Hebrew textual form. But, as for the word 'fulfill', we have seen a strange phenomenon. For those OT passages that are not originally concerned with messianic prediction, Matthew says that they are 'fulfilled' in the life of Jesus. For this one passage that is originally concerned with a future king (messiah), that term does not appear in Matthew's narrative. As we continue this series in the next post with the final (actually, first) quotation of scripture in these chapters, we will want to notice whether Matthew uses the word 'fulfill', and what implications that might have for what he thinks about the relationship between Isa. 7:14 and the life of Jesus.
We are now ready for Matt. 2:5-6. When the Magi arrive in Jerusalem and ask Herod where the new king was, Herod assembled the "chief priests and scribes" to ask what had been predicted about the birthplace of the Messiah.
They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; for out of you shall come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel." (Matt. 2:5-6; NASB)The quotation is from Micah 5:2. There are several interesting features of Matthew's use of this quotation:
First, this quotation does not appear as an editorial comment (i.e., Matthew himself didn't quote the passage) but as something said by one of the characters in the story being told by Matthew. This distinguishes this quotation from the others we have seen, all of which are interpretations of the story by the editor. In other words, for the other quotations we have examined, Matthew himself interprets Jesus' life--whether his descent into Egypt (2:15), or the slaughter of the innocents (2:17-18), or Jesus' move to Nazareth (2:23)--in terms of Israel's scripture, but in none of these cases does Matthew imply that Jews in the time of Jesus would have likewise interpreted Jesus' life, or that they were looking for some sort of fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 or Jer. 31:15. But, in this case, that is the point. Matthew represents the Jerusalem priests and scribes as themselves saying that Mic. 5:2 would be fulfilled in the life of the Messiah. That sets this quotation apart and suggests that we should see it as unique in this context.
Second, the quotation itself does not exactly match the text from which it is taken. Micah 5:2 actually says that Bethlehem is "too little to be among the clans of Judah." (This is not a LXX vs. MT issue; both texts of Mic. 5:2 highlight Bethlehem's small size.) The change from "too little" to "by no means least" seems to be a homiletical adaptation emphasizing that though Bethlehem is small, this particular promise of its generating Israel's ruler makes it "by no means least." Since Matthew places this small change in the mouth of the Jerusalem priests and scribes, he apparently thinks it is not an unusual interpretation.
Third, we notice that the word 'fulfill' (πληρόω) is not used in this instance. It was used in Matt. 2:15, 2:17, and 2:23, and each time we noticed that the passage cited by Matthew as being 'fulfilled' in the life of Jesus actually had nothing to do with the Messiah in its own historical context. Here, this verb is not used. Now, that may be because of the different way this quotation is presented--in the mouth of some of the characters of the story, characters who have not yet met Jesus, and so could not comment on whether this prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. But the non-use of 'fulfillment' language here may also point to a more nuanced meaning for 'fulfill' than we are accustomed to thinking about (see below).
Fourth, the passage quoted--Micah 5:2--actually is a messianic passage in its own historical context. That partly explains why Matthew can have the Jerusalem priests and scribes quote the passage in reference to the Messiah: anyone reading Micah 5:2 would recognize that it concerned the future anointed ('messiah') king. Even if the word 'messiah' does not appear in Micah 5, nor 'David' nor 'king', the reference to a ruler from Bethlehem--the hometown of David (1Sam. 16)--clearly implies that this ruler would be from David's line, and therefore he would be a Davidic king, which is what the Messiah is (see 2 Sam. 7:12-16).
This post has begun to address some of the questions I raised at the end of the first post in this series. We'll need to assess at the end of the series whether Matthew typically uses the LXX or a Hebrew textual form. But, as for the word 'fulfill', we have seen a strange phenomenon. For those OT passages that are not originally concerned with messianic prediction, Matthew says that they are 'fulfilled' in the life of Jesus. For this one passage that is originally concerned with a future king (messiah), that term does not appear in Matthew's narrative. As we continue this series in the next post with the final (actually, first) quotation of scripture in these chapters, we will want to notice whether Matthew uses the word 'fulfill', and what implications that might have for what he thinks about the relationship between Isa. 7:14 and the life of Jesus.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Explicit Quotations of Scripture in Matthew 1-2 (Part 2): Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15
We are continuing our look at the way that Matthew uses scripture in his first two chapters. We started at the end of chapter 2 and are working our way backwards toward the quotation of Isa. 7:14 in Matt. 1:23. Last time, we looked at Matt. 2:23 and 2:17-18.
The next previous ("next previous"? Is that oxymoronic? Well, you know what I mean) explicit quotation is in Matt. 2:15. I'll quote the whole paragraph.
Now, one time I read Hos. 11:1 in a congregation and asked what it was talking about? The answer came quickly--it's a messianic prediction! This Christian had been trained to read Hos. 11:1 through (a poor understanding of) Matt. 2:15. Well, I submit to you that Matthew's audience had not been trained to so read Hos. 11:1, and Matthew then could not have relied on the assumption that his audience would read Hos. 11:1 in that way. So, imagine that you've never read Matthew (as Matthew's first audience had never read Matthew); now, what is Hos. 11:1 about? Is it a messianic prophecy? Does it have any connection to the Messiah at all? What is it predicting?
A casual reading of the passage (without reference to Matthew) should reveal that it has nothing to do with the Messiah and that it isn't even a prediction. It is a statement about the past, about how God rescued Israel from Egypt. It is a historical statement about the exodus--"Out of Egypt I called my son [= Israel]." It is a beautiful passage in its own right, and I have little doubt that Matthew's audience would have been familiar with it (assuming they were educated Jews).
So, what in the world is Matthew doing with it? We saw last time that his use of Jer. 31:15 was in no way a straightforward prediction-fulfillment type of thing. Matthew is using scripture in a manner much more subtle and sophisticated. Just like with Jer. 31:15, so now with Hos. 11:1, Matthew cites scripture as fulfilled in the life of Jesus in the sense that the things Israel experienced are now being recapitulated in this child, so that the history of Israel is being summed up in his own experience. He does not mean that Hos. 11:1 directly prophesied this particular event in the life of Jesus; he means that what has happened to Jesus is typologically similar to what happened to Israel.
How do we know that Matthew used scripture in this complex fashion, rather than the much simpler explanation that he merely misinterpreted Hos. 11:1 and thought that it actually was a prediction of the Messiah (the son of God)? I think there is a way to be very certain about this point.
Notice that the event that Matthew says was a fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 is the descent of the holy family into Egypt. If Matthew had been looking for a literal fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 as if it were a prediction of something, the logical place to insert his quotation of it would be after Matt. 2:21, when "Joseph got up, took the child and his mother [out of Egypt], and came into the land of Israel." Instead, Matthew says that when Joseph took his new wife and child out of Israel, that fulfills what Hosea said about God's son coming out of Egypt. In other words, Matthew typologically equates Israel with Egypt (Israel = Egypt). Why does he do this?
Let's look for the parallels between Israel and Egypt that Matthew wants us to see. A child is born who would become the savior of his people (Moses, Jesus). The life of this child is under threat from a wicked king (Pharaoh, Herod). The wicked king ensures that Jewish male children are killed. There may be other parallels, but these are the ones that pop out to me. So, in response to this situation, God rescues his 'son' (whether Israel or Jesus) from the hand of the wicked king, brings him out of that evil land, and into a place of safety. Only this time, the evil land is Israel itself, and the place of safety is actually Egypt. [A similar comparison between Israel and Egypt seems to happen in Rev. 11:8--"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified."]
So, does Matthew misinterpret Hos. 11:1? I wouldn't call it that. Certainly, he has not offered an exegetical analysis of the passage that would be acceptable in most seminary classrooms, but he wasn't trying to do that, either. He has creatively re-used Hos. 11:1 in order to add significance to his narrative about Jesus. When the incongruity between the quotation and its supposed fulfillment are realized, Matthew's readers gain more insight into who Jesus is and what he has come to do.
We're not done yet, but you'll have to wait till next time for Matt. 2:5-6 and then Matt. 1:22-23.
The next previous ("next previous"? Is that oxymoronic? Well, you know what I mean) explicit quotation is in Matt. 2:15. I'll quote the whole paragraph.
Now when they [i.e., the Magi] had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him." So Joseph got up and took the child and his mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." (2:13-15; NASB; I have not always retained capitalization)The quotation is from Hosea 11:1. Let me cite that passage, with the subsequent verses.
(1)When Israel was a youth I loved him,The passage continues with assurances that, in fact, God will not do what he had just said that he would do, that is, send Israel into exile to Assyria (cf. v. 5). It's a beautiful passage, and written only a couple decades before Assyria actually did come in and destroy Israel (722 BCE) and take many of its inhabitants into exile.
And out of Egypt I called my son.
(2) The more they called them,
The more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals
And burning incense to idols.
(3) Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk,
I took them in my arms;
But they did not know that I healed them.
(4) I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love,
And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws;
And I bent down and fed them.
(5) They will not return to the land of Egypt;
But Assyria--he will be their king
Because they refused to return to me.
(6) The sword will whirl against their cities,
And will demolish their gate bars
And consume them because of their counsels.
(7) So my people are bent on turning from me.
Though they call them to the one on high,
None at all exalts him.
(8) How can I give you up, O Ephraim?
How can I surrender you, O Israel?
Now, one time I read Hos. 11:1 in a congregation and asked what it was talking about? The answer came quickly--it's a messianic prediction! This Christian had been trained to read Hos. 11:1 through (a poor understanding of) Matt. 2:15. Well, I submit to you that Matthew's audience had not been trained to so read Hos. 11:1, and Matthew then could not have relied on the assumption that his audience would read Hos. 11:1 in that way. So, imagine that you've never read Matthew (as Matthew's first audience had never read Matthew); now, what is Hos. 11:1 about? Is it a messianic prophecy? Does it have any connection to the Messiah at all? What is it predicting?
A casual reading of the passage (without reference to Matthew) should reveal that it has nothing to do with the Messiah and that it isn't even a prediction. It is a statement about the past, about how God rescued Israel from Egypt. It is a historical statement about the exodus--"Out of Egypt I called my son [= Israel]." It is a beautiful passage in its own right, and I have little doubt that Matthew's audience would have been familiar with it (assuming they were educated Jews).
So, what in the world is Matthew doing with it? We saw last time that his use of Jer. 31:15 was in no way a straightforward prediction-fulfillment type of thing. Matthew is using scripture in a manner much more subtle and sophisticated. Just like with Jer. 31:15, so now with Hos. 11:1, Matthew cites scripture as fulfilled in the life of Jesus in the sense that the things Israel experienced are now being recapitulated in this child, so that the history of Israel is being summed up in his own experience. He does not mean that Hos. 11:1 directly prophesied this particular event in the life of Jesus; he means that what has happened to Jesus is typologically similar to what happened to Israel.
How do we know that Matthew used scripture in this complex fashion, rather than the much simpler explanation that he merely misinterpreted Hos. 11:1 and thought that it actually was a prediction of the Messiah (the son of God)? I think there is a way to be very certain about this point.
Notice that the event that Matthew says was a fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 is the descent of the holy family into Egypt. If Matthew had been looking for a literal fulfillment of Hos. 11:1 as if it were a prediction of something, the logical place to insert his quotation of it would be after Matt. 2:21, when "Joseph got up, took the child and his mother [out of Egypt], and came into the land of Israel." Instead, Matthew says that when Joseph took his new wife and child out of Israel, that fulfills what Hosea said about God's son coming out of Egypt. In other words, Matthew typologically equates Israel with Egypt (Israel = Egypt). Why does he do this?
Let's look for the parallels between Israel and Egypt that Matthew wants us to see. A child is born who would become the savior of his people (Moses, Jesus). The life of this child is under threat from a wicked king (Pharaoh, Herod). The wicked king ensures that Jewish male children are killed. There may be other parallels, but these are the ones that pop out to me. So, in response to this situation, God rescues his 'son' (whether Israel or Jesus) from the hand of the wicked king, brings him out of that evil land, and into a place of safety. Only this time, the evil land is Israel itself, and the place of safety is actually Egypt. [A similar comparison between Israel and Egypt seems to happen in Rev. 11:8--"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified."]
So, does Matthew misinterpret Hos. 11:1? I wouldn't call it that. Certainly, he has not offered an exegetical analysis of the passage that would be acceptable in most seminary classrooms, but he wasn't trying to do that, either. He has creatively re-used Hos. 11:1 in order to add significance to his narrative about Jesus. When the incongruity between the quotation and its supposed fulfillment are realized, Matthew's readers gain more insight into who Jesus is and what he has come to do.
We're not done yet, but you'll have to wait till next time for Matt. 2:5-6 and then Matt. 1:22-23.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)