Birth of the Son of God: Matthew 2:15

December 28th traditionally commemorates the “Massacre of the Innocents” as narrated in Matthew 2:13-23. In the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus” I examined the use and influence of the Old Testament in this passage, especially the citation of Jeremiah 31:15 in verse 18. Today I will be looking specifically at the citation of Hosea 11:1 in verse 15, according to the theme for this Christmas season of “The Birth of the Son of God“.

Matthew 2:15 (Hosea 11:1b)

The citation of Hos 11:1b punctuates the flight into Egypt (vv. 14-15a), following the angelic appearance in a dream to Joseph, warning him (v. 13). The citation-formula follows in verse 15b:

“…(so) that it might be (ful)filled, the (thing) uttered by (the) Lord through the Foreteller [i.e. Prophet], saying ‘Out of Egypt I called my Son'”

The Gospel writer cites Hos 11:1b in a form closer to the Aquila version rather than the Septuagint (LXX), and is generally an accurate rendering of the Hebrew:

Hos 11:1b

yn]b=l! yt!ar*q* <y]r^x=M!m!W
“and from Egypt I called ‘My Son'”

Matt 2:15b

e)c Ai)gu/ptou e)ka/lesa to\n ui(o/n mou
“out of Egypt I called my Son”

The Hebrew verb ar*q*, like the Greek kale/w, can mean “call” either in the sense of summoning a person or giving a name to someone; it is possible that both meanings of arq are played on in Hosea 11:1, as I indicate above with the use of quote marks.

In considering the expression “Son of God” (ui(o\$ qeou=), as well as the plural “Sons of God” (ui(oi\ qeou=), in the New Testament, early Christians appear to have drawn upon the three primary ways it is used in the Old Testament and ancient tradition:

  1. Of divine/heavenly beings, especially in the plural (“Sons of God”)
  2. Of the king as God’s “son” in a symbolic or ritual sense
  3. Of the people of Israel (collectively) as God’s “son”

The first two uses will be discussed further in upcoming notes; here I focus on the third—Israel as the “son of God”. There are several passages in the Old Testament where Israel is referred to (collectively) as God’s son, most notably in Exod 4:22, but see also Isa 1:2f; 30:1, 9; Jer 31:9; Mal 1:6, and here in Hos 11:1. Admittedly the title “son of God” does not appear in the Hebrew Old Testament in such a context, but the Greek ui(o\$ qeou= is used of Israel in the deutero-canonical Book of Wisdom (Wis 18:13, for more on this passage cf. below). Interestingly, the Prophetic references above draw upon a basic thematic construct:

  • Israel as a disobedient son
    • Disobedience brings punishment (i.e. exile)
      • God ultimately will restore his son, bringing him (repentant/obedient) back out of exile

This is very much the context of Hos 11. A number of the oracles in Hosea are messages of judgment couched in brief and evocative summaries of Israelite history, such as we see in chapter 11:

  • Israel/Ephraim as a disobedient child (vv. 1-4), with disobedience understood primarily in terms of idolatry, involving elements of pagan Canaanite religion
  • Disobedience leads to punishment (vv. 5-7), understood as a return to “Egypt”, i.e. conquest and exile into Assyria
  • (verses 8-9, in colorful anthropomorphic terms, depict God as being torn between whether or not to proceed with the judgment)
  • God ultimately will bring his son back out of exile (vv. 10-11)

All of this, of course, is foreign to the Gospel writer’s use of the passage, except in terms of the general framework of Exodus and Return from Exile. Certainly, he would not have seen Jesus as a disobedient son, though he may well have in mind a connection with Jesus (as Savior) and the sin of disobedient Israel (Matt 1:21). It would seem that the author (and/or the tradition he has inherited) really only has first verse of Hosea 11 in view, taking it more or less out of context and applying it to Jesus. There are four elements in the verse which might lead to it being used this way:

  • Israel as a child—Jesus is a child (infant)
  • The context of the Exodus narrative, especially the birth and rescue of Moses (Exod 1:15-2:10), for which there is a clear historical/literary correspondence and synchronicity with Matt 2:13-23
  • The mention of Egypt—coming out of “Egypt” is symbolic of both the Exodus and a Return from exile (in Assyria); note the exile context of Jer 31:15 as well—these themes have been applied in Matt 2:13-23 and influenced the shaping of the narrative
  • Israel as God’s son (“My Son”)

It is also possible that the birth of Israel (as God’s people, i.e. his “son”) is implied in Hos 11:1b. If we consider v. 1a as a kind of setting for the oracle—literally, “For Israel (was) a youth [ru^n~] and I loved him”, however the force of the syntax is best understood as a temporal clause: “When Israel was a youth/child, I loved him…” The context of vv. 2-4, as in Isa 1:2ff; 30:1, 9, suggests a child being raised (by God), who comes to be disobedient, unwilling to heed the guidance and authority of his Father. If so, then v. 1b could indicate the initial stages of life, i.e. the birth and naming of the child, in a metaphorical sense. Israel was “born” in Egypt (cf. Exod 4:22 and the death of the firstborn motif), passing through the waters (i.e. crossing the Sea), into life (the Exodus), being “raised” during the wilderness period and thereafter. It is in just such a context that God calls Israel “My Son”. Consider, in this regard, the naming associated with the conception/birth of Jesus in the angel’s announcement to Mary:

  • “he will be called ‘Son of the Highest’ [ui(o\$ u(yi/stou klhqh/setai]” (Lk 1:32)
  • “(the child)…will be called…’Son of God’ [klhqh/setai ui(o\$ qeou=]” (Lk 1:35)
  • “I called (him) ‘My Son’ [yn]b=l! yt!ar*q* e)ka/lesa to\n ui(o/n mou]” (Hos 11:1 / Matt 2:15)

There is an interesting connection here with the reference to Israel as “Son of God” (ui(o\$ qeou=) in Wisdom 18:13, mentioned above. There, too, the setting is the Exodus, and specifically the death of the firstborn motif—beginning with the rescue of Moses (v. 5a), which is set in parallel with the tenth plague, involving the Passover celebration and the death of the Egyptian firstborn, which directly precedes and initiates the Exodus (cf. Exod 11-12). This is narrated in Wisdom 18:5b-12, after which we find the statement in verse 13b:

“upon the destruction of their first(born) offspring, as one [i.e. together] they counted (your) people to be (the) son of God”

The death of the firstborn is narrated again, even more powerfully, in vv. 14-19. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, verses 14-15 came to be associated with the incarnation and birth of Jesus, the Latin (Vulgate) rendering of Wis 18:14f becoming part of the Roman Catholic liturgy (Introit for the Sunday in the Octave of Christmas). On the one hand, this may be the ultimate example of Christians taking a Scriptural passage out of context, since, originally these verses referred to the coming of the (Messenger of) Death out of heaven (cf. Exod 11:4; 12:29). In the Exodus narrative, it is YHWH himself who comes bringing death, traditionally understood as taking place through a Messenger (“Angel”) of Death. In Wis 18:14-15, it is the personified “Word” (lo/go$) of God that comes out of heaven, and this is certainly the main reason for its application to the person of Christ. The highly evocative midnight setting was doubtless what caused it to be associated specifically with the night-time birth of Jesus. More properly, of course, Wisdom 18:5-19 would be better applied to the episode narrated in Matt 2:13-23—the “Slaughter of the Innocents”—but only insofar as both passages deal with the “death of the firstborn” motif from Exodus. In any event, it is striking that there are three different passages which combine: (a) the Exodus setting, (b) the death of the firstborn motif, and (c) Israel as “son of God”—Exodus 4:22; Wisdom 18:13; and Hosea 11:1 (as used by Matthew).

“And you shall call His Name…”: Matthew 2:15

Matthew 2:15

Today’s note looks at the third section of the Matthean Infancy narrative—2:13-23. It has a clear structure comprising three episodes:

  • Angelic Appearance—Call to go into Egypt (vv. 13-15)
    —Joseph’s Response
    —Scripture (Hos 11:1)
  • Slaughter of the Children by Herod (vv. 16-18)
    —Scripture (Jer 31:15)
  • Angelic Appearance—Call to come out of Egypt (vv. 19-23)
    —Joseph’s Response—with added detail
    —Scripture (Isa 4:3 ?)

The section is framed by the two Angelic appearances to Joseph, each narrated in nearly identical wording, and parallel to the earlier appearance in 1:18-25 (cf. the prior note on 1:21). As in the first appearance scene, Joseph’s faithfulness is indicated by his obedience to the Angel’s message (v. 24). Here, however, this is enhanced by having the description of Joseph’s act match precisely the words of the Angel (2:14-15a, 21f). Each of the episodes in this section contain a Scripture quotation illustrating how the events were the fulfillment of prophecy. Both of the Angelic appearances really relate most directly to the first Scripture cited (Hos 11:1; v. 15)—that is, both episodes, taken together, fulfill the prophecy. The historical and narrative context is established in the central scene, involving the danger posed by Herod (v. 13b) which continues into the last scene in the person of Herod’s son (v. 22).

The narrative itself is clearly patterned after, and corresponds to, the story of Israel’s entry into Egypt (Joseph Narratives) and Exodus out of it (Moses Narratives). The events narrated fulfill Scripture, not only through the specific passages cited, but in their typology and correspondence with the Old Testament narratives. Note the essential structure:

  • Israel goes down into Egypt—Joseph Narratives, with the motif of communication/revelation through dreams
  • Slaughter of the children by the wicked King—Moses’ childhood (Infancy Narrative: Exod 1:15-2:10)
  • Israel comes up out of Egypt—the Exodus under Moses’ leadership

The central Scripture narrative is prominent—the birth of Moses parallel with the birth of Jesus. The correspondence is even more definite and closer if we take into consideration details from later Jewish tradition (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 2.205-223). Beyond this, it is also possible to glimpse in the Matthean episodes three additional scenes from Israel’s history, indicated by the specific Scriptures cited in each:

In considering the main scripture cited in the first episode (Hosea 11:1; v. 15), it is interesting to note that the quotation matches the underlying Hebrew, instead of the LXX; as cited by Matthew it is:

“Out of Egypt I called my Son”
e)c Ai)gu/ptou e)ka/lesa to\n ui(o/n mou

This quotation serves as a guiding theme for all three episodes, including the interpretation of them as scenes/periods of Israel’s history (cf. above):

In the Gospel of Matthew, as in the other Gospels, Jesus essentially never refers to himself by the title “Son of God”; rather, he uses the distinct Semitic expression “Son of Man”. However, Jesus is called the Son of God by others, or at least the title is used by others regarding him (Matt 3:17 [17:5]; 4:3, 6; 8:29; 14:33; 16:16; 26:63; 27:40, 43, 54 and pars). It occurs somewhat more frequently in Matthew. On several occasions, Jesus refers to himself with the absolute “the Son” (11:27; 24:36 par; 28:19), a self-reference which is far more common in the Gospel of John, and virtually always related to (God) the Father. In early Christian tradition, the title “Son of God” came to be regularly applied to Jesus, and was connected with the title “Anointed One” (Messiah/Christ). Note, for example, the first verse of the Markan Gospel (Mk 1:1), as well the conjunction of these titles in Acts 9:20-22; Rom 1:3-4; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 1:19; Gal 2:20; Jn 11:27; 20:31, etc. This association was influenced, to a large extent, by a uniquely Christian application of the Messianic interpretation for Psalm 2:7—cf. Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5, and the variant reading in Luke 3:22. Initially, in the earliest Christian preaching, Jesus was identified as God’s Son in connection with his resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of God. Eventually, however, believers came to recognize this Sonship for Jesus in a more fundamental sense, going back to the Transfiguration scene, the Baptism, the Infancy Narratives, and even to the idea of his pre-existent (eternal) relation with the Father (John 1:1ff; Heb 1:2ff). It may be possible to glimpse something of this development in early Christian thought by examining the different versions of Peter’s confession. Mark’s is the simplest (8:29):

“You are the Anointed (One)”

In Luke (9:20) it is a bit longer:

“(You are) the Anointed (One) of God

Matthew’s version (16:16), however, is the most extensive:

“You are the Anointed (One), the Son of the living God

Interestingly, in the scene of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, the question of the High Priest, as recorded in Matthew (26:63), is nearly identical to Peter’s confession:

“according to the living God…(tell us) if you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God

There can be little doubt that the Gospel writer (trad. Matthew) would have understood Jesus as the Son of God even within the context of the Infancy Narrative, just as we see in Luke (cf. the note on Lk 1:32). However, this identification is not made explicit until later in the Gospel (at the Baptism), just as in the main Synoptic tradition. The title “Son of God”, is discussed in more detail in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

December 28 is the traditional date in the West commemorating the killing of the children in Bethlehem (The Slaughter/Massacre of the Innocents) as narrated in Matt 2:16-18. In Christian tradition they came to be regarded as the first Martyrs, those put to death for their faith in Christ. Their numbers increased considerably over the years, from 14,000 (in Greek Orthodox tradition) to 64,000, and even higher. However, if we accept the basic historicity of the narrative, then, at the historical level, the number of male children at the ages indicated may not have been more than two or three dozen. For the Old Testament background of this passage and the Scripture (Jer 31:15) cited in verse 18, cf. the article in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”

Saturday Series: John 18:37

In celebration of this Christmas season, I thought it worth taking a slight detour in order to discuss briefly the only passage in the Gospel of John which specifically refers to Jesus’ birthJn 18:37. There are a number of references to Jesus, as the Word (Logos) and Son of God, coming to earth as a human being (what we would call the Incarnation), and one oblique reference to the birth of the Messiah (in Bethlehem, 7:42). However, only in 18:37 is Jesus’ birth actually mentioned. Let us examine this verse, according to the method and approach adopted in this Saturday Series, to demonstrate how a careful study of the Greek text allows for greater insight into the meaning of the Scripture.

John 18:37

This verse is part of the dialogue between Jesus and Pontius Pilate, which makes up the interrogation/trial scene in the Fourth Gospel (18:28-19:16). It clearly draws upon the basic Gospel tradition, in which Jesus’ interrogation before Pilate centered upon his possible identity as “King of the Jews”—a title with strong nationalistic (and Messianic) implications. This is virtually all the information we have about the interrogation scene in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:2-5 par), and it is confirmed, objectively, by the written charge applied to Jesus on the cross, recorded (with slight variations) in all four Gospels (Mk 15:26 par; Jn 19:19ff).

While John’s version follows this tradition, it is written in a manner more in keeping with the great Discourses of Jesus that run throughout the Gospel (to be discussed further in the Saturday Series studies). These Discourses have both an historical and a literary aspect, and it is virtually impossible to separate the two. From a literary standpoint, the Discourses follow a basic pattern (with certain variations):

  • A saying, statement or question, by Jesus
  • The reaction of his audience, indicating a lack of understanding of his true meaning, which leads to
  • An exposition of the saying by Jesus

Sometimes the discourse takes on the character of a dialogue, with multiple exchanges between Jesus and his audience. Jn 18:37 puts us in the middle of such a dialogue:

Then Pilate said to him, “Are you not then a king?
Yeshua answered: “You say that I am a king. I have come to be (born) unto this, and unto this I have come into the world—that I should witness to the truth; every one being [i.e. who is] out of the truth hears my voice.”

Both the similarity and the contrast with the Synoptic tradition could not be more clear; for the points of similarity, note the italicized portions here and above:

And Pilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Yehudeans {Jews}?”
But, answering him, he [i.e. Jesus] said: “You said (it)
(Mark 15:2)

However, according to the Synoptics, that short response is all that Jesus says (Mk 15:5a par). By contrast, in John’s version, there is a more extensive exchange between Jesus and Pilate. Critical commentators naturally would question the historicity of this, in light of the Synoptic tradition. However one judges the matter (that is, the relation between the Synoptic and Johannine versions), there can be no doubt that Jesus’ statements to Pilate, in 18:36-37 and 19:11, effectively serve as a summary of the theology (and Christology) of the Fourth Gospel. This is especially true of the twin declarations in 18:36-37, set at this key climactic point of the Gospel narrative. The statement in v. 36 is negative—Jesus declares that he is not the sort of king Pilate envisions. With the statement in v. 37, on the other hand, Jesus declares the sort of “king” that he truly is. It is a formulation that utilizes and repeats a number of key words and phrases occurring throughout the Gospel, and, especially, in the earlier discourses of Jesus. Let us survey them here, though in order to understand them properly, it is necessary to study them as they appear elsewhere in the Gospel.

First, we have the motif of misunderstanding, which is essential to the Johannine Discourses. In verse 36, Jesus does speak of his “kingdom”, so it is natural that Pilate would assume that Jesus thinks he is a king—i.e. “King of the Jews” (v. 33), in the traditional/conventional sense. Jesus’ response makes clear that Pilate does not truly understand—”You say that I am a king”. This is a notable example of how the Gospel tradition (see above) is developed in John, expanding to include statements of profound theological (and Christological) significance. Such development is intrinsic to the Johannine Discourses.

In fact, Jesus is not at all a king as Pilate imagines; rather, he is something much more. Here are the words and phrases he uses:

1. First, notice the word order and emphasis in his response:
(a) The emphatic contrast: “You [su]…I [egœ]…”—each pronoun is in emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence.
(b) The first sentence ends with the verb eimi (“I am”), while the second sentence begins with the pronoun egœ (“I”)—thus there is embedded here the formula egœ eimi (“I am”) which features so prominently in the Fourth Gospel (3:28; 4:26; 6:20, 35, 41; 8:12, 18, 24, etc). It reflects both Jesus’ identity as the Son of God and his identifying relationship with God the Father. Pilate misunderstands this identity (“You say that I am…”).

2. The demonstrative pronoun houtos/touto (“this”) is often used to specify Jesus’ identity with the truth—i.e., “this water”, “this bread” —the spiritual reality of what the (earthly) object symbolizes, and so forth. Here it indicates the true meaning and purpose for Jesus’ life on earth as a human being. This is emphasized by the grammatical structure—two parallel phrases governed by a prepositional expression (eis touto, “unto this”, i.e. for this purpose):

    • unto this [eis touto] I have come to be born”
    • unto this [eis touto] I have come into the world”

3. These two phrases employ two verbs in the perfect tense, which often indicates a past action or condition that continues into the present. Here it refers specifically to Jesus’ life and existence as a human being. The two verbs are:

  • gennᜠ(“come to be [born]”)—gegénn¢mai (“I have come to be [born]”)
  • érchomai (“come”)—el¢lytha (“have come”)

3a. The verb gennᜠ(genna/w) is a primary existential verb of being/becoming (“come to be”). It is cognate to the verb gínomai (gi/nomai), which has a very similar meaning. Both refer to someone or something coming to be, i.e. coming into existence, happening, etc., which, in the case of a human being often means the person’s birth. The verb gennaœ more properly refers to a human birth, but ginomai can be used in this sense as well. Gennaœ occurs 18 times in the Gospel of John, referring both to the ordinary (natural) birth of a human being (9:2; 16:21, etc), but also for the spiritual birth of believers in Christ (1:13; 3:3-8). Spiritual “birth” is also the meaning it carries in all but one (?) of the 10 occurrences in 1 John as well (2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18).

The incarnation of the Word/Son of God, as described primarily in the Prologue (1:1-18), always uses the related verb ginomai, not gennaœ. For example, in v. 14: “The Word [Logos] came to be flesh…” (cf. also vv. 15, 30; overall the verb occurs 9 times in the Prologue). This distinction is important, even though the author would surely accept that Jesus (the Word/Son) was truly born as a human being. In the Prologue, he is referring not so much to his birth, specifically, as to his life/existence as a human being. In 18:37, Jesus is almost certainly referring to his birth, as such, even though the use of gennaœ otherwise differs little from that of ginomai. Both verbs are used for the spiritual birth of believers in 1:13-14. The two-fold use of gennaœ in 1 John 5:18, is more complicated, and involves variant readings which affect the meaning.

3b. The verb érchomai (e&rxomai) is also a principal verb which means “come, go”, and occurs frequently in ordinary narration. However, in the Gospel of John it also carries a deeper significance. Like ginomai, it refers to Jesus (the Word/Son of God) coming to earth as a human being, though with the specific connotation of his ministry and work on earth. Note especially the careful use of the verbs erchomai (“come”), ginomai (“come to be”), and eimi (“be”) in Jn 1:15 and 30. It is thus possible to identify the two aspects indicated by the parallel phrases here:

    • gennaœ: “I have come to be (born)“—Jesus’ birth as a human being
    • erchomai: “I have come into the world”—His human life and ministry

If these two phrases reflect the mystery and power of the Incarnation, the remainder of Jesus’ statement expounds the purpose for it, as contained within the expression “unto this” (eis touto), i.e. “for this purpose”. Space does not allow for a detailed exposition of the remaining words and phrases; here, I can offer only a brief summary:

  • “the world” (ho kosmos)—The noun kosmos (ko/smo$, “world-order, world”) is a key word, occurring 78 times in the Gospel of John (out of 186 total in the NT). It is primarily used in a negative, dualistic sense, signifying the realm of evil and darkness which is opposed to God. However, it also figures prominently in the idea of salvation—the Light (Jesus, the Son) comes into the world of darkness to save humankind. The usage here is similar to that in 3:16, etc (emphasizing salvation), while in the prior statement of 18:36, it is the negative contrast with God that is in view.
  • “witness” (vb. martyreœ)—The verb martyreœ (marture/w, “[give/bear] witness”) is another regular Johannine word, occurring 33 times in the Gospel, and another 10 times in the Letters (also 4 in Revelation), more than half of all NT occurrences. Especially important is the idea of Jesus as a witness—as the Son he makes known the person, presence and nature of God the Father to humankind.
  • “out of” (ek)—The Gospel and Letters of John frequently use the preposition ek (e)k, lit. “out of”) to refer to birth—specifically the birth of believers. One is born from (i.e. coming “out of”) another. As believers, we are born “out of the Spirit”, which is the same as being born “out of God” (Jn 1:13-14; 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, etc). Here the expression is “out of the truth”, but it essentially means the same thing, from the standpoint of Johannine theology (God = Truth = the Spirit, cf. below). The specific phrase used here by Jesus, “everyone being [i.e. who is] out of the truth”, is similar to that found repeatedly in 1 John (3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18); note also the close syntax (with the participle œn, “being”) in Jn 3:31.
  • “the truth” (h¢ al¢theia)—The word al¢theia (a)lh/qeia, “truth”) is another Johannine key term (25 times in the Gospel, 20 in the Letters, out of 109 in the NT). It refers to a fundamental characteristic of God the Father which is virtually identical with His Person. Jesus, as the Son, also identifies himself as Truth (Jn 14:6, etc).
  • “hears my voice”—The idea of hearing the voice is likewise fundamental to Johannine expression, especially in the Discourses. It goes back to Old Testament tradition—to the Sinai theophany (cf. 5:37), and to the idea of the Prophets hearing God’s word. Jesus, as the Son, hears the Father’s voice, indicating both obedience and the receiving of revelation. In turn, believers respond (in faith) to Jesus’ voice, which reflects and embodies the very voice of God (14:24, etc). See especially Jn 5:24-25ff; 8:43; 10:3ff, 16, 27; 12:47. Jesus’ words in 8:47 are very close to those here in 18:37.

The immediate exchange between Jesus and Pilate closes with Pilate’s famous question “What is (the) truth?” (v. 38). The answer is implicit in the message of the Gospel as a whole, and becomes clear enough through a careful study of the Discourses and other passages. However, if one seeks a more direct answer to the question, it is necessary to turn to the First Letter of John. I leave you today with these words from 1 John 5:6:

“…the Spirit is the Truth”
to pneuma estin h¢ al¢theia