Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 2)
In my last post I proposed a manner of biblical interpretation in which the ideas, concepts, world-view, etc. of the Old Testament must be the foundation for understanding the New Testament, rather than vice versa. The thought must flow from an informed Old Testament understanding into the New Testament, rather than reinterpreting the Old Testament by what is assumed the New Testament means.
One illustration will suffice for now, although I will elucidate this principle in a number of subsequent posts. In Matthew 2:15, Matthew describes how after the birth of Jesus, his parents took him to Egypt to avoid the threat of Herod. After Herod died, they came back to Judea. Matthew says, “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” On first glance, this may look like a fulfillment of prophesy “proving” that Jesus is the Messiah. It seems that way until one looks at the context surrounding the verse quoted in Hosea 11. Instead of being a prophecy foretelling the future, it is the recollection of God’s past faithfulness to Israel in bringing them out of Egypt in the Exodus. The “son” is Israel, who in the Exodus accounts is called Yahweh’s “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22). Does Matthew 2 thereby “prove” that Jesus is the Messiah on the basis of Hosea 11? Is that what Matthew means by “fulfillment?”
It seems like we have two interpretive options. We can read the Bible backwards – inserting the NT idea into the OT. This would leave us with a Hosea 11 which is maybe a little bit about Israel, but is really about Jesus, predicting his departure from Egypt when he was young so we could conclusively prove that Jesus came to die for our sins and bring our souls with him to heaven. The other possibility is to read the Bible in the other direction. Hosea 11 really is about Israel. It really is about the covenant. It really is about the history of promises given to an earthling (i.e., Abraham) about the future of life on earth. History does not become irrelevant in the light of eternity. Earth does not become irrelevant in light of heaven. Humanity does not become irrelevant in the light of God. Instead of Hosea 11 becoming about Jesus (which would make Hosea 11 pretty incomprehensible, especially to its original audience), Matthew is telling us that the birth and life of Jesus and the story he is recounting is in direct continuity with the OT history of promise, covenant and exodus.
This gets all the more interesting when we consider more of the surrounding context in Matthew:
- 1:23 – the angel Gabriel announces that a “savior” is going to be born (the word “savior” and “deliverer” are the same concept in Hebrew – think a deliverer, i.e. MOSES)
- 2:13 – Herod attempts to kill Jesus by killing all the children in Bethlehem (think Pharaoh killing all the Hebrew children in Exodus)
- 2:15 – “Out of Egypt I called my Son” – think the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt
- 3:6 – Jesus is baptized by John in the Jordan River, which in Jewish tradition is often seen in parallel with the Red Sea (compare, for example, Psalm 114) – here we are seeing Jesus “cross the Red Sea” after leaving Egypt
- 4:1ff – Jesus enters the wilderness for 40 days – think Israel wandering in the wilderness for forty years – they failed in their time of temptation, but Jesus triumphed.
- 4:12 – Jesus “enters the land” and begins his ministry proclaiming the Gospel.
Matthew 2:15 is not a proof-text for the Messiah-ship of Jesus. It is part of a larger drama where Matthew is implicitly retelling (indeed, with these passages, in chronological order) the story of Israel, specifically their central, paradigmatic story, the Exodus. Rather than being a Messianic proof-text, it tells us that Jesus is embodying the history of Israel and is indeed re-enacting it, to prepare us to understand that Jesus is the true representative of Israel, the one who will go into exile for their sins and burst through the bonds of the exile of death to herald the restoration, indeed the resurrection of Israel and all humanity. Jesus fulfills what was written in the prophets, in that he is the climax, the consummation, the fulfillment of the story of Israel. All of Israel’s hopes had been looking back to the covenant promises and forward to the nation’s restoration. They were looking for a new exodus, a final, eschatological exodus in which all things would be made new. This story of promise and expectation finds its fulfillment in Jesus. In Him, the Pharaoh of history, death itself, has been defeated and the way is opened for all to enter into the perpetual existence of resurrection life on earth.
Related posts
« Reading the Bible in the Right Direction
New Exodus – Part 1 – The Divine Name »
Comments
Comment from Richard
Time: January 12, 2010, 4:52 am
I think the contrast is part of the whole picture. Israel was unfaithful to its vocation, while Jesus, embodying the vocation of Israel is faithful.
Comment from Jeff
Time: January 12, 2010, 1:47 pm
I certainly agree that we first of all want to understand what the New Testament authors meant when they wrote their books; and in order to do that, we need to know how the scriptures that they were interacting with were understood by their audience. The NT needs to be the completion of the OT’s story, not an alien story that somehow produces a revisionist version of the OT.
But at the same time, it seems that we need a kind of a “hermeneutical spiral” between the OT and the NT. Once we have understood the story of the OT and then used that to interpret the NT, we have to reckon with the fact that there were events recorded in the OT that were not meant to be understood until the story was complete – “types” (Rom 5:14) and “shadows” (Col 2:17, Heb 8:5, 10:1). We also want to see those Old Testament “mysteries” in light of the end of the story – in much the same way that the end of a really good suspense novel or movie suddenly causes a reevaluation of all the things you thought you knew about the story that went before (e.g. The Sixth Sense).
Comment from Gary
Time: January 13, 2010, 5:19 am
I like this post also. I appreciate the Exodus motif that is quite clear though implicit nonetheless that you pointed out. But there are quite a few proof texts that Paul or others pulled out of the bible that makes one wonder if the author knew what was going on. Like Jesus being called “A Nazarene” taken from Judges. Wait is that why you go to NTS?
I was also thinking of the point that Jeff brought up. Isnt a veil over the OT when one is reading it apart from Christ? (2 Cor 3) Doesn’t the NT also shed some light on the OT?
Comment from Jennifer
Time: January 13, 2010, 9:03 am
I loved this. I have had a hard time with the OT quotations and what to do with them; mostly I go back and read the chapter they are in but not understanding how they relate to each other. I loved the part about it being a reminder of how the Lord brought them out of Egypt. So many times in the OT; it talks about how God brought them out of Egypt with a mighty hand and delivered them. I love the connection again to how Jesus is our deliver. It connects God of the OT and Jesus in the NT together in a beautiful way. Thanks Richard for sharing your insights.
Comment from Jesse
Time: January 13, 2010, 11:10 am
Glad you used these passages as your example. Like Natalie, this has been one of the more confusing OT quotes that I have come across. I had never seen this NT passage as an implicit retelling of the Exodus story and honestly did not know how to approach wrestling with how Matthew used this quote. Though I am not completely confident in how to approach interpreting OT quotes in the NT I am definitely in agreement that the OT must be the foundational starting point for our interpretation.
Comment from Sarah Beale
Time: January 13, 2010, 2:33 pm
I really liked this post. I have never thought about the scripture like that. to be honest i normally want to just ignore those little plug-ins that are mentioned to the old testament because i dont really get the correlation or just take it for face value. But your parallel of Jesus to Moses really opens up the scriptures and his life even more. Though your saying this passage is not a “prove” text that Jesus is the Messiah the parallel is actually even more convincing that Jesus truly is the Messiah. 
Comment from Chris
Time: January 13, 2010, 11:59 pm
Huh?? I had always wondered why that text was quoted. I had even gone back and look in Hosea but I had never really looked at it like that. I liked it although I would like to look at it closer. I liked your answer to Nathalie’s comment, and it makes me think what was Israel sopossed to display to the nations in revealing the knowlage of God, and what will they display when they come into their fullness as Jesus in his perfect obidence to that Father was a perfect representation of the Father. Overall I enjoyed the post and it brought clarity to that refrence that I never understood.
Comment from Emily
Time: January 14, 2010, 9:41 am
Wow. This was very helpful. I remember reading it and going back to Hosea, thinking that Matthew was out of his mind when he quoted that. I have noticed the similarities between the exodus story and Jesus’, but it was good to see it all written out side-by-side. Many times I do read the NT and flip back to the OT, inserting the meaning from the NT in the Old. It’s good to be aware of the danger of that!
Comment from Chris Minch
Time: January 14, 2010, 11:40 am
Wow. I have never heard “fulfillment” defined in these terms. (Nor the first chapters of Matthew explained in this way. That’s a bit disheartening.) Thank you for an excellent example of an OT reference that seemed to make no sense [to most of us] and how having an understanding of the OT can take a confusing reference and open it up into something much richer that will engage our hearts in a new way.
Comment from Melissa
Time: January 14, 2010, 12:12 pm
I like this explanation of this passage. I have been confused before why Matthew chooses that Hosea passage to prove his point. Your explanation makes sens. I especially liked when you said, “History does not become irrelevant in the light of eternity. Earth does not become irrelevant in light of heaven. Humanity does not become irrelevant in the light of God.” I can, all too simply, separate the past (OT) from the story of Jesus in his life and death and resurrection. It is crucial to not read onto a passage what we want it to say rather than wrestling with what is actually there.
Comment from SilverRain Lee
Time: January 14, 2010, 2:04 pm
Hmmm.. Out of two interpretive options in 3rd paragraph, it’s certainly and obviously right to choose the latter one. Of course, Hosea 11 is clearly about Israel, returning to the land, future FULFILLMENT of God’s covenant. At first glimpse, I was questioning, “what on earth is the correlation between ‘Hosea 11 speaking about Israel’ and ‘Jesus staying in Egypt until Herod’s death’?” “Why did Matthew claim this incident of Jesus as the ultimate FULFILLMENT of Exodus? Your last paragraph has the answer in it. But at the same time your last paragraph makes me to question.. Isn’t it just legitimate to say that NT does repeat the Israel’s history? You said that Matthew is implicitly retelling it. In this case, since Jesus is a new exodus, why is it wrong to say NT’s story is repeating the OT’s theme? I think it does repeat in a developmental way.
Comment from Joshua
Time: January 14, 2010, 2:45 pm
Gull’dern, Richard! That’s really cool. My understanding of of OT prophecy needs a lot of adjusting. Instead of a clean fulfillment of an obvious prediction it feels more like a having a memory being jogged about the deeds of God. This example shows us that God is consistent in His methods and that the same God who delivered Israel sent Jesus. I like it, but I hardly get it.
Comment from Brother Yoon
Time: March 15, 2011, 5:02 am
The Hosea 11 prophecy never made sense to me when I looked it up after reading the passage in Matthew. I always thought it strange Matthew would use a prophecy that didn’t seem to be about Jesus. I seemed like Matthew was forcing it. I now realize that I was unto something. It really wasn’t about Jesus, but about Israel. I never knew that the beginning of Matthew’s gospel had so many illustrations that connected Jesus with the history of Israel. chanyanghapnida hananim.
Comment from Kay
Time: March 15, 2011, 10:55 am
Okay, I knew that I was (wrongly) interpreting the OT through the lens of the NT to some degree. But I didn’t know I was doing it that much! Until I read this post. I am seeing more and more the need to understand what the writers knew (their culture, history, worldview, etc- all of which require the OT) in order to understand what they were trying to communicate in their writing. I readily admit my need to better understand the OT and this is all still quite a new way of thinking for me. The Jesus in the NT is the fulfillment of the story of Israel found in the OT. Would it be safe to say that the NT (story of Jesus) is pointing to the OT (story of Israel) AND the OT is pointing to the NT? Or would I be wrongly interpreting the OT through the lens of the NT? Or is it okay to do that as long as I understand the story of Israel in the OT?
Comment from Tyler
Time: March 15, 2011, 1:47 pm
An Affirmation:
I applaud the emphatic relevance on the biblical narrative. It has been and I’m sure will continue to be one of the most affecting revelations I have been taught in the past few years: understanding that I am caught up in a massive, epic, dynamic, enthralling story that spans from creation to forever. I don’t think I have the extent of the Israel focus that you have. My narration includes Israel as the tool employed by God to release everything (covenants, Scriptures, promises, Messiah, vindication, etc.), so it is a crucial importance. But I think in the modern context, I work harder to keep myself as not a part of Israel than I think of myself as now a part of Israel and being employed by God in a similar way that He has employed Israel in the past. I’m excited to have this expanded and challenged. I also am excited to understand the archetypes of the OT that are functioning in the quotation of OT passages in the NT. The list of archetypes you listed in one of the four blogs is a list I desire to become familiar with.
Comment from Tyler
Time: March 15, 2011, 1:48 pm
Affirmation of Correction:
I do appreciate and receive correction from the broadness of your perspective of salvation and the plan of God. I really like how it includes so much more than my personal salvation but in fact includes the restoration of all things. I see that as highly present in the Scriptures. Correction in this regard is really necessary for me and probably for many other sincere believers. I can see that this really is a certain ‘life-message’ for you and I am very grateful to have received it. May our view of the scope of God’s redemption continue to broaden and complicate into a more multi-faceted, multi-dimensional accomplishment. May my perspective of God’s task be more and more epic and entire, overwhelming and all-encompassing. Oh, it excites my frame to think of the true magnitude of what God is accomplishing. Aah!
Comment from Kendall Beachey
Time: March 15, 2011, 3:54 pm
What, you mean that apologetics persentation at my youth group, where if we filled the state of Texas waist deep with silver dollars and marked one with a red X we could see the statistical impropbablility of Jesus fulfilling every one of those propheses, was wrong. Where is my case for Christ now. Don’t I need all those to be literal predictive claims in order to maintain that Jesus is the Messiah! How are we going to prove to the Jews that Jesus really was the their Messiah who fulfilled every single one of their propheses. How are they going to be convinced… oh, they’re not convinced, are they.
Comment from Spencer Baker
Time: March 16, 2011, 3:47 am
It’s kinda funny, but I don’t know that I ever came across this problem until I heard you bring this verse up at homegroup once. In my school and church and such, I had always heard that Jesus fulfilled all these OT prophecies, so I don’t think I even bothered to ever look up the OT passages. After looking at these supposed inconsistencies though, I find that this view seems much more powerful and beautiful than the other. Instead of the Biblical authors just listing a bunch of facts about why Jesus is who he is, they actually invite the reader into the story of the whole Bible, discovering that the climax of that story is found in the person of Jesus Christ.
Comment from Katie Thompson
Time: March 16, 2011, 11:15 am
This is good! As I am reading, I found myself say, “wow…this is really all about Israel (or very, very much about Israel)!” I definitely need more understanding of Hosea to really make an informed comment, but I can see how this is so much bigger than just Jesus being a fulfillment to prove that He is Messiah, but that it encompasses so much more (the history of Israel, God’s promises, God’s faithfulness to His promises, Israel’s exodus out of Egypt, and ultimately, who Jesus is). I have a question though…could it possibly be both interpretations? (or does that not align with the meaning of Hosea?)
Comment from Kara VanHover
Time: March 16, 2011, 11:39 am
Your thoughts on Matthew and how you view it through the lens of the Old Testament is intriguing. I was wondering if you came up with these ideas from your own personal study or if it has partially stemmed from other authors you’ve read.
Comment from Kristina Wu
Time: March 16, 2011, 1:10 pm
Wow. This is so eye opening! I must admit that I have fallen into the category of people that have interpreted Matt. 2:15 as a proof-text for the Messiah-ship of Jesus. But the way that you have presented it, by seeing Jesus as the climax and consummation of the story of Israel, there is so much more depth and power. I must look into this!
Comment from James Kufeldt
Time: March 16, 2011, 1:55 pm
I liked reading this a lot. You are helping me on my path of recovery from quasi-Marcionism, though it does seem a bit overwhelming….I’m getting the sinking feeling that it will take me years to come to the place of being able to see things like that in the text for myself. Years and years and years.
This recovery path is looking to be long and arduous indeed.
Comment from Lauren
Time: March 16, 2011, 2:06 pm
I love the way the NT quotes of OT pulls Jesus into the story of Israel. And I also love feeling the impact of how unexpected Jesus’ first coming was to the Messianic expectation. For example, I was just looking at Matt. 1:21, the same passage of Gabriel’s announcement that was referenced above. He says that a son will be born and you shall call him [Joshua] (OT hero who lead Israel across the Jordan into the promise land). Without us asking why this name, Gabriel answers. Because he will deliver his people. Pause and think of the Jewish expectation for a great deliverer who would save them from their enemies. But no, Gabriel says that Jesus will save His people from their sins. While the sins of the people and their captivity are dynamically linked, I cannot help but stand in awe of the unexpected twist God threw into His story at the birth of Jesus.
Comment from Matt Dettman
Time: March 16, 2011, 2:09 pm
Consider a reader who has only read the New Testament and a few “favourite” texts from the Old Testament. What you have just written, shows that If I were to follow a method of only reading the NT with a sprinkling of OT, I would wind up (eventually) in heresy, or worse. Where understanding is lacking, frustration lurks for an opportunity to take the reader off the narrow path.
Comment from Shaklee
Time: March 16, 2011, 2:50 pm
Reading this makes me want to wipe my New Testament memory and forget it all until i have spent years in the Old Testament maybe even only listen to OT preachers to that teach the OT without connecting it o the NT.
Comment from Jonathan Toenniges
Time: March 16, 2011, 6:08 pm
This is a good example of interpreting the New Testament in light of the Old. Without understanding the OT, we would have to interpret Matthew’s quotation in a way that undermines the OT, as Richard also gave an example of. The other option to undermining the OT is to skim over that verse, or ignore it’s OT context, leading to quasi-Marcionism. But Interpreting the NT through the OT just makes the NT make sense, giving a rich meaning.
Comment from Nathalie
Time: January 11, 2010, 9:05 pm
I loved this post…especially because you cleared up what (for me) is on the top of the list of ‘vague OT quotations.’ My question is why would Matthew use a quote from a passage where the surrounding context is all about Israel’s unfaithfulness to God, which Jesus obviously didn’t embody. Maybe the answer is that there are no passages for Matthew to draw from that talk about Israel being brought out of Egypt and yet don’t also talk about Israel’s unfaithfulness.