Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1: A Misapplication or Fulfillment?

For more sources on this topic, clear on this article.

Many critics argue that Matthew misuses Hosea 11:1 by applying it to Jesus in Matthew 2:15, since Hosea clearly refers to Israel in its original context. Committing the presentism fallacy oftentimes form a western understanding of what prophecy means in an ancient context. However, this objection assumes that prophecy must be fulfilled only in a literal, predictive sense. In reality, Jewish interpretive tradition allowed for layered meanings including typology and patterns. As David Stern explains, Matthew likely used the remez (hint) method, drawing a deeper connection between Israel as God’s “son” and Jesus as the true Son who fulfills Israel’s calling. A more modern term for interpreting Scripture in the context of ancient Jewish tradition is typology prophecy. Thus, Matthew isn’t misapplying Hosea he’s revealing a theological pattern rooted in Jewish understanding.

Video Explanation:

CHAPTER 2

“15 Out of Egypt I called my son. Hosea 11:1 clearly refers not to the Messiah but to the people of Israel, who were called God’s son even before leaving Egypt (Exodus 4:22). The previous two Tanakh quotations (1:23, 2:6) involved literal fulfillment, but this does not. In what sense, then, does Yeshua’s flight to Egypt fulfill what Adonai had said through the prophet? To answer, we must understand the four basic modes of Scripture interpretation used by the rabbis. These are: (1)P’shat (“simple”) — the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by “grammatical-historical exegesis,” which looks to the grammar of the language and the historical setting as background for deciding what a passage means. Modern scholars often consider grammatical-historical exegesis the only valid way to deal with a text; pastors who use other approaches in their sermons usually feel defensive about it before academics. But the rabbis had three other modes of interpreting Scripture, and their validity should not be excluded in advance but related to the validity of their implied presuppositions. (2)Remez (“hint”) — wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware. (3) Drash or midrash (“search”) — an allegorical or homiletical application of a text. This is a species of eisegesis — reading one’s own thoughts into the text — as opposed to exegesis, which is extracting from the text what it actually says. The implied presupposition is that the words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, which God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all. (4)Sod (“secret”) — a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at by operating on the numerical values of the Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters, and the like. For example, two words, the numerical equivalents of whose letters add up to the same amount, are good candidates for revealing a secret through what Arthur Koestler in his book on the inventive mind called “bisociation of ideas.” The implied presupposition is that God invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even the individual letters. The presuppositions underlying remez, drash and sod obviously express God’s omnipotence, but they also express his love for humanity, in the sense that he chooses out of love to use extraordinary means for reaching people’s hearts and minds. At the same time, it is easy to see how remez, drash and sod can be abused, since they all allow, indeed require, subjective interpretation; and this explains why scholars, who deal with the objective world, hesitate to use them. These four methods of working a text are remembered by the Hebrew word “PaRDeS” an acronym formed from the initials; it means “orchard” or “garden.” What, then, is Mattityahu doing here? Some allege he is misusing Scripture, twisting the meaning of what Hosea wrote from its context in order to apply it to Yeshua. Such an accusation stands only if Mattityahu is dealing with the p’shat. For there is no question that the p’shat of Hosea 11:1 applies to the nation of Israel and not to Yeshua. Some think Mattityahu is using the drash approach, making a midrash in which he reads the Messiah into a verse dealing with Israel. Many rabbis used the same procedure; Mattityahu’s readers would not have found it objectionable. Nevertheless, I believe Mattityahu is not doing eisegesis but giving us a remez, a hint of a very deep truth. Israel is called God’s son as far back as Exodus 4:22. The Messiah is presented as God’s son a few verses earlier in Mattityahu (1:18–25), reflecting Tanakh passages such as Isaiah 9:5–6(6–7), Psalm 2:7 and Proverbs 30:4. Thus the Son equals the son: the Messiah is equated with, is one with, the nation of Israel. This is the deep truth Mattityahu is hinting at by calling Yeshua’s flight to Egypt a “fulfillment” of Hosea 11:1.

Stern, David H.. Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament . Messianic Jewish Communications. Kindle Edition.

This source offers insight into how early Christians and Jews interpreted the Pentateuch and the whole Old Testament, reflecting both the methods found in New Testament writings and the interpretive practices preserved in other ancient Jewish texts. Meaning, what Matthew is doing is not foreign to ancient Jewish interpretation, but rather fits with it nicely.

The following source demonstrates that the interpretive methods used in the New Testament were neither entirely foreign to Jewish tradition nor necessarily identical to later Midrashic approaches. While the methods may not be strictly the same, the key point is this: critics often assume a rigid, one-dimensional model of prophecy fulfillment, yet the evidence indicates that the biblical tradition allowed for more flexible, layered, and typological interpretive approaches. Although debates continue over whether the New Testament writers consistently employed contextual exegesis, it is highly likely that figures such as Paul operated within an established interpretive tradition. To dismiss this possibility entirely is unwarranted. As seen in Midrashic literature though it developed after the New Testament period it nonetheless reflects the broader reality that Jewish exegetes utilized a variety of interpretive methods. To accuse New Testament writers of employing such methods inappropriately, while ignoring this broader Jewish context, reflects an inconsistent and uncharitable standard. It also assumes that the New Testament cannot stand on its own as an independent historical source, simply because many approach it with bias and apply an unrealistically high level of scrutiny to its contents.

“Halachic and Haggadic Rules of Interpretation. — The preceding exposition of the method and plan of the Midrash has prepared us to enter upon the Halachic and Haggadic rules of interpretation which were collected and systematized by Eliezer ben-Jose the Galilean (ר’ אליעזר בן יוסי הגלילי), one of the principal interpreters of the Pentateuch in the 2nd century of the Christian era. According to this celebrated doctor, whose sayings are so frequently recorded in the Talmud and the Siphri, there are thirty-two rules (שלשים ושתים מדות) whereby the Bible is to be interpreted, which are as follows:”

McClintock, John, and James Strong, eds. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. 6, Harper & Brothers, 1894, p. 243-246.

Jesus’ Name Is Israel

Isaiah 49:3-6

So the Servant is Israel in some sense, while at the same time being distinct from exiled Israel. He is best identified as an ideal Israel who is all that God intended the nation to be, in contrast to exiled Israel, which failed to fulfill God’s purposes. This ideal Israel will deliver exiled Israel from bondage (Isa 49:5, 8-13) and will carry out God’s ideal for Israel by bringing God’s salvation to the nations (Isa 42:6; 49:6). He will mediate a covenant on behalf of both Israel (cf. Isa 49:8) and the nations (Isa 42:1-7). He will do this by bearing the sins of “the many,” including both Israel and the nations (Isa 52:13–53:12). Though the Servant will suffer the judgment of God on behalf of “the many” (Isa 53:4-6, 10-12; cf. 49:7; 50:10), the Lord will eventually reward him by elevating him to kingship over the nations (Isa 52:13-15; 53:11-12; cf. 49:7). In defense of the position articulated above, Oswalt points out that “it is the function, not the identity, of Israel that is emphasized” here. He explains: “This Servant is going to function as Israel.” In what way will he do this? Oswalt continues: “He will be for Israel, and the world, what Israel could not be. Faced with Israel’s failure, God does not wipe out the nation; he simply devises another way in which Israel’s servanthood could be worked out: through the ideal Israel.”4

Rydelnik, Michael; Blum, Edwin. The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament (p. 946). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

The Messiah is the one who represents Israel and even bears the name Israel according to Isaiah 49:3. He is the one through whom God will redeem both Israel and the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:5–6). In this light, Jesus fulfills the very roles where Israel had previously failed. Therefore, Matthew’s application of Hosea 11:1 to Jesus in Matthew 2:15 likening Jesus to Israel is not problematic. On the contrary, it aligns with how Jewish readers in Matthew’s time would have understood the Messiah: as the ideal embodiment of Israel’s mission and identity.

More later…