Yes, I’m still going around in circles with this. In a previous post, I suggested that Matthew enters into a “sub-plot” of sorts here by recounting salvation history, all in an attempt to show Jesus the second Adam who ultimately brings salvation to God’s people (i.e. the messiah). The problem is that, while I may have been the one to write it, I’m not completely convinced of it. So I’m still wrestling with the escape to Egypt, “slaughter of the innocents,” and return to Judea.
I’m trying to keep in mind the fact that Matthew seems to have a three-fold focus for his gospel: (1) to show that Jesus is the promised messiah and (2) that the proper reaction then is to become his disciple which (3) is expressed/proven predominantly through personal missions. I have this gut feeling that the previous sentence may be the reason I’m having such a hard time wrapping my head around this…but I’m not sure yet.
I raised these same questions/observations in the earlier post, but I feel as though it’s worth looking at them again:
- Through his quotation of Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15, Matthew believes it’s important that his readers (mostly traditional Jews) see a connection between Jesus’ time in Egypt and Israel’s enslavement and exodus. This was important enough for Matthew to offer several proof-texts – but how does that connection re-inforce the three-fold purpose? (I think the answer to this question is key to unlocking the meaning of these 10 verses…)
- What is the point/call to action of Jesus’ own exile to Egypt for us today? How is this relevant for today’s audience? I think the simple answer is something having to do with God’s providence, but I also fear that’s giving in too easily to one of Reformed theology’s favorite doctrines. In other words, I think providence is too simplistic and difficult to fit-in to Matthew’s over-all purpose; it seems disjuncted…
- The two OT passages the Matthew definitively quotes both strike me as a bit of a stretch in terms of their application to Jesus. This is causing problems for me. Hosea 11 is a reference to Israel, and I really doubt that the Pauline concept of the new Israel had been developed enough by the time Matthew was written to apply it here. Jeremiah 31 refers to the Babylonian captivity of Israel. Essentially, Matthew is saying that although these words were written to describe what happened then, they are actually referring to what is happening here. My hermeneutical method doesn’t permit me to apply these verses to this scene in Matthew.
- What is the theological/cultural/exegetical/and hermeneutical payoff for Matthew’s original readers for making this equation? This is also a key question for getting at the heart of this text. And yet again, I’m stuck here…
So here’s your job: what ideas, thoughts, insights, questions, etc. etc. do you have to unravelling Matthew 2:13-23. This is the next text I’m preaching on, so I’d really like it if I could get some idea of what’s happening here before I have to preach it.
Filed under: Bible Study, Christian Living, Discipleship, Evangelism, Ministry, Theology
