Why Was the Book of Revelation Written Symbolically?

A common view among Christians generally is that John wrote the Book of Revelation in symbols as a kind of code. The church was experiencing persecution and John wanted to write critically of Rome in such a way that the recipients of his book would not get in trouble for harboring such an inflammatory document. He wrote in symbols so that any non-initiated Roman would fail to understand what he was reading, and thus the church would be spared further persecution.

I taught a class on Revelation tonight in a church, and this idea came up. The idea itself is wrong, and I said so during class. But following class I reflected on the idea a little more and eventually determined five reasons against it. I thought I would list them here.

1. There is no evidence that the Romans attempted to censor Christian literature in this way. 
2. It would take a pretty ignorant Roman censor to fail to notice that the harlot riding the beast in ch. 17--the beast with seven heads which are seven mountains (17:9), and the harlot that is the great city (17:18)--represents Rome. 
3. Christians did not shrink from directly challenging Roman authority, by doing exactly what John wanted them to do: refusing to participate in Roman religion. This often resulted in martyrdom for Christians, which they welcomed; they did not flee from it. Moreover, Christians knew how to directly insult the powers-that-be in their literature.
4. Revelation is written in symbols because it is apocalyptic literature. That is how apocalyptic literature works, and there are plenty of other examples to bear out this point. If Revelation were the only example of this type of literature, then we might have to devise an explanation for all the symbols, but it is, in fact, not unique in this aspect. And it would be foolish to argue that all apocalypses were written as such in order to avoid punishment for their readers. 
5. The symbols are essential to the message that Revelation wants to convey. It is not as if John wanted to communicate a message to the churches and then decided to do so symbolically. No; the symbols are integral to the message. John wants to reform our minds, to transform the way we see reality. He cannot accomplish this 'conversion of the imagination' (to borrow a phrase from Richard Hays) without the powerful and unrelenting symbols. 

Those are the arguments that popped into my head. Of course, none of these are original with me, but I thought it would be helpful--to me, more than anyone--to gather these thoughts in one place. Let me know if you have more to add to the list.

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:

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.

"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:

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

The following list contains the occurrences of the word, outside Matthew, when it carries the meaning "fulfillment of scripture," a quite infrequent usage. Verse citations in parentheses indicate that the reference to fulfillment does not cite a particular verse that is fulfilled, but more generally speaks of fulfillment of prophetic oracles.

(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.

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.

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.

SECSOR 2012 Handout

Tomorrow I leave for Atlanta to attend the SECSOR conference. I've noted a couple of times the paper that I am presenting there this year (but mainly here, where you can read the abstract). One of the positive things that came out of yesterday's graduate seminar (not that there were any negative things!), where I previewed my paper, was my realization (based on a comment from Nathan Daily) that I needed a handout.

So, here it is:

The End of the Bible? The Position of Chronicles in the Canon

Edmon L. Gallagher

Heritage Christian University

egallagher@hcu.edu

SECSOR 2012, Atlanta

Is our Bible supposed to end with Chronicles?

Internal Arguments

Georg Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlussphänomen: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik, BBB 93 (Weinheim: Beltz, 1995).

Julius Steinberg, Die Ketuvim: Ihr Aufbau und ihre Botschaft, BBB 152 (Hamburg: Philo, 2006).

Stephen Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2004), chs. 1–2.

1. Chronicles echoes Genesis and other parts of the Torah, making it an appropriate conclusion to the Bible, thus giving the Bible a symmetrical structure.
2. Chronicles recapitulates the entire sweep of biblical history, making it an appropriate conclusion to the Bible.
3. Chronicles is misread as simply a supplement and/or expansion of Samuel-Kings when it is placed immediately after them, in accordance with the Greek order.

External Arguments

For: Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).

Against: John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986).

1. Sirach Prologue: “Law, Prophets, Other Books”
2. b. B. Bathra 14b: order of Ketuvim, concluding with Chronicles
3. Matt. 23:35 // Luke 11:51: “blood of Abel [Gen. 4] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24]”

Possible pre-rabbinic references to a tripartite canon: Prologue to Sirach, 4QMMT C 10, Philo, On the Contemplative Life 25; Luke 24:44; Josephus, C. Ap. 1.37–43.

References employing a bipartite formula (‘Law and Prophets’):

Qumran: 1QS 1.2–3; 8.12–16; CD 7.15–17; 4QDibHam^a 3.12–13

New Testament: Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13 (// Luke 16:16); 22:40; Luke 16:29–31; 24:27; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23; Rom. 3:21.

Apocrypha: 2 Macc. 15:9; 4 Macc. 18:10.

Tannaitic literature: Sifre Deut. 21.18; m. R.H. 4.6; m. Meg. 4.1, 3, 4; t. B. Metzia 11.23; t. Terumoth 1.10. [Contrast t. R.H. 4.6, which has a tripartite formula.]

Current Hagiographa once among the Prophets?

            Daniel: 4Q174 1–3 II, 3–4; Matt. 24:15; Josephus, A.J. 9.267–69; b. Meg. 15a

            David: 11QPs^a 27.3–11; Acts 2:25–31; Josephus, A.J. 8.109–10; b. Sotah 48b

            Solomon: Sifre Deut. 1.1; b. Sotah 48b

            Mordecai: b. Meg. 15a (cf. Barton, Oracles of God, 40–41)

Alternative orders:

            Melito of Sardis, end II CE (apud Eus., Hist. eccl. 4.26.12–14)

            Origen, early III CE (apud Eus., Hist. eccl. 6.25.1–2)

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 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,
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?

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.

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.

Sailhamer on Dan. 9 and the Shape of the Tanakh

After presenting my Chronicles paper at the first graduate seminar yesterday, my colleague Nathan Daily asked me how John Sailhamer related Dan. 9 to the shape of the Tanakh. This was a point I had brought up in my paper but had not elaborated on. I cited it as a bizarre curiosity, and Nathan received it as such. But he was so shocked by its curiousness, that he wanted more. So, here I present the paragraph from The Meaning of the Pentateuch (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009).

As you read this, recall that in the canon list of Baba Bathra 14b, the Book of Daniel appears near the end of the canon, right before Esther, Ezra[-Nehemiah], and Chronicles. Recall further that a rabbinic arrangement alternative to the one in Baba Bathra sets Chronicles at the beginning of the third section of the canon and Ezra-Nehemiah at the end. It is this latter arrangement, found in some important Masoretic manuscripts (Aleppo, Leningrad), that Sailhamer is arguing against in order to establish the canon list of Baba Bathra as primary.

According to the version of the Tanak that ends with Ezra-Nehemiah, there are no significant events expected in Israel's subsequent history. The future, so far as it can be made out of the biblical texts, will be either a continuation of the present or an extension of the past. In the version of the Tanak that ends with Chronicles, the next biblical events are to be the coming of the Messiah (Dan 9:25), the death of the Messiah (Dan 9:26) and the destruction of the temple (Dan 9:26b). These events, all taken from Daniel, 9, are projected on to the screen of the future by 2 Chronicles 36 at the close of the Tanak. Those events take us directly into the first century. (p. 214)

Of course, see Sailhamer's book for more, but there it is before you in a nutshell. I cannot possibly add anything to what Sailhamer has said, so I submit this passage to you without comment.