Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 2:15
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
15. until the death of Herod ] According to the chronology adopted above this would be for a space of less than two years.
that it might be fulfilled ] See note on ch. Mat 1:22.
Out of Egypt have I called my son ] Better, I called my son. The history of Israel is regarded as typical of the Messiah’s life. He alone gives significance to that history. He is the true seed of Abraham. In Him the blessing promised to Abraham finds its highest fulfilment. (See Lightfoot on Gal 3:16.) Even particular incidents in the Gospel narrative have their counterpart in the O.T. history. Accordingly St Matthew, who naturally reverts to this thought more constantly than the other Evangelists, from the very nature of his gospel, recognises in this incident an analogy to the call of Israel from Egypt.
The quotation is again from the original Hebrew of Hos 11:2, and again the LXX. differs considerably. Cp. Exo 4:22-23: “Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The death of Herod – Herod died in the thirty-seventh year of his reign. It is not certainly known in what year he began his reign, and hence it is impossible to determine the time that Joseph remained in Egypt. The best chronologers have supposed that he died somewhere between two and four years after the birth of Christ, but at what particular time cannot now be determined. Nor can it be ascertained at what age Jesus was taken into Egypt. It seems probable that he was supposed to be a year old (see Mat 2:16), and of course the time that he remained in Egypt was not long. Herod died of a most painful and loathsome disease in Jericho. See the notes at Mat 2:16; also Josephus, Ant. xvii. 6. 5.
That it might be fulfilled … – This language is recorded in Hos 11:1. It there evidently speaks of Gods calling His people out of Egypt, under Moses. See Exo 4:22-23. It might be said to be fulfilled in his calling Jesus from Egypt, because the words in Hosea aptly expressed this also. The same love which led him to deliver His people Israel from the land of Egypt, now led him also to deliver His Son from that place. The words used by Hosea would express both events. See the notes at Mat 1:22. Perhaps, also, the place in Hosea became a proverb, to express any great deliverance from danger; and thus it could be said to be fulfilled in Christ, as other proverbs are in cases to Which they are applicable. It cannot be supposed that the passage in Hosea was a prophecy of the Messiah. It is evidently used by Matthew only because the language is appropriate to express the event.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. Out of Egypt have I called my son.] This is quoted from Ho 11:1, where the deliverance of Israel, and that only, is referred to. But as that deliverance was extraordinary, it is very likely that it had passed into a proverb, so that “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” might have been used to express any signal deliverance. I confess, I can see no other reference it can have to the case in hand, unless we suppose, which is possible, that God might have referred to this future bringing up of his son Jesus from Egypt, under the type of the past deliverance of Israel from the same land. Midrash Tehillin, on Ps 2:7, has these remarkable words: I will publish a decree: this decree has been published in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Hagiographia. In the Law, Israel is my first-born son: Ex 4:22. In the Prophets, Behold, my servant shall deal prudently: Isa 52:13. In the Hagiographia, The Lord said unto my lord: Ps 110:1. All these passages the Jews refer to the Messiah. See Schoetgen.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
15. And was there until the death ofHerodwhich took place not very long after this of a horribledisease; the details of which will be found in JOSEPHUS[Antiquities, 17.6.1,5,7,8].
that it might be fulfilledwhich was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying (Ho11:1).
Out of Egypt have I called mysonOur Evangelist here quotes directly from the Hebrew,warily departing from the Septuagint, which renders the words,”From Egypt have I recalled his children,” meaning Israel’schildren. The prophet is reminding his people how dear Israel was toGod in the days of his youth; how Moses was bidden to say to Pharaoh,”Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, My first-born;and I say unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me; andif thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son,even thy first-born” (Exo 4:22;Exo 4:23); how, when Pharaohrefused, God having slain all his first-born, “called Hisown son out of Egypt,” by a stroke of high-handed power andlove. Viewing the words in this light, even if our Evangelist had notapplied them to the recall from Egypt of God’s own beloved,Only-begotten Son, the application would have been irresistibly madeby all who have learnt to pierce beneath the surface to the deeperrelations which Christ bears to His people, and both to God; and whoare accustomed to trace the analogy of God’s treatment of eachrespectively.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And was there until the death of Herod,…. Which was in a very short time; for Eusebius i says, that immediately, in a very little time after the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem, the divine vengeance inflicted diseases on him, which quickly brought him to his end; so that, according to the learned Dr. Lightfoot k, Jesus was not above three or four months in Egypt. Now all this was brought about,
that it might be fulfilled; not by way of accommodation of phrases to a like event; or by way of type, which has a fresh completion in the antitype; or as a proverbial sentence which might be adapted to any remarkable deliverance out of hardship, misery and destruction; but literally, properly, and in the obvious sense thereof;
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, not Balaam, in
Nu 23:22 or Nu 24:8 but in Ho 11:1 “when Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”: the meaning of which passage is, either in connection with the last clause of the foregoing chapter thus; “in a morning shall the king of Israel be cut off”,
, “because Israel is a child”, a rebellious and disobedient one, acting a very weak and wicked part; “yet I have loved him, or do love him”, and “have called”, or “will call”, (the past tense for the future, frequent in the Hebrew language, especially in the prophetic writings,) “my son out of Egypt”; who will be obliged to retire there for some time; I will make him king, set him upon the throne, who shall execute justice, and reign for ever and ever; or thus, “because Israel is a child”, helpless and imprudent, and “I love him”, though he is so, “therefore l will call”, or I have determined to call
my son out of Egypt: who through a tyrant’s rage and malice will be obliged to abide there a while; yet I will bring him from thence into the land of Judea, where he shall live and “help” my “servant”, l, “child Israel”; shall instruct him in his duty, teach him the doctrines of the Gospel, and at last, by his sufferings and death, procure for him the pardon of all his transgressions; of which there is a particular enumeration in Mt 2:3. This is the natural and unconstrained sense of these words, which justifies the Evangelist in his citation and application of them to Christ’s going to Egypt, and his return from thence, as I have elsewhere m shown.
i Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 8. p. 25, 26. k Harmony of the New Testament, p. 6. l Luke i. 54. m Prophecies of the Messiah, &c. p. 123, &c.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Until the death of Herod ( H). The Magi had been warned in a dream not to report to Herod and now Joseph was warned in a dream to take Mary and the child along ( gives a vivid picture of the purpose of Herod in these three verbs). In Egypt Joseph was to keep Mary and Jesus till the death of Herod the monster. Matthew quotes Ho 11:1 to show that this was in fulfilment of God’s purpose to call his Son out of Egypt. He may have quoted again from a collection of testimonia rather than from the Septuagint. There is a Jewish tradition in the Talmud that Jesus “brought with him magic arts out of Egypt in an incision on his body” (Shabb. 104b). “This attempt to ascribe the Lord’s miracles to Satanic agency seems to be independent of Matthew, and may have been known to him, so that one object of his account may have been to combat it” (McNeile).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And was there until the death of Herod:” (kai an ekei heos tes teleutes Herodou) “And was (remained) down there in Egypt until the end or death of Herod,” perhaps for a few months only. His death as per Josephus was by a horrible disease.
2) “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord,” (hina plerothe to hrethen hupo kuriou) “in order that the thing might be fulfilled which had been spoken by the Lord,” in prophecy. God’s leading Israel out of Egyptian bondage was is essence a prophetic foreview of His protecting His Son Jesus Christ and calling Him out of Egypt, Exo 4:22-23.
2) “By the prophet, saying,” (dia tou prophetou legontos) “Through the prophet saying,” foretelling as historically recounting.
4) “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (eks aiguptou ekalesa ton huion mou) “Out of and away from Egypt I called my son (my heir),” Hos 11:1. This attests the definitive accuracy of the claims of the Scripture, stated by David, “Thy word is true from the beginning,” Psa 119:160.
HEROD’S MURDER OF SMALL CHILDREN
V. 16-18
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. Out of Egypt have I called my Son Matthew says that a prediction was fulfilled. Some have thought, that the intention of the prophet was different from what is here stated, and have supposed the meaning to be, that the Jews act foolishly in opposing and endeavoring to oppress the Son of God, because the Father hath called him out of Egypt In this way, they grievously pervert the words of the prophet, (Hos 11:1,) the design of which is, to establish a charge of ingratitude against the Jews, who, from their earliest infancy, and from the commencement of their history, had found God to be a kind and generous Father, and yet were provoking him by fresh offenses. Beyond all question, the passage ought not to be restricted to the person of Christ: and yet it is not tortured by Matthew, but skilfully applied to the matter in hand.
The words of the prophet ought to be thus interpreted: “When Israel was yet a child, I brought him out of that wretched bondage in which he had been plunged. He was formerly like a dead man, and Egypt served him for a grave; but I drew him out of it as from the womb, and brought him into the light of life.” And justly does the Lord speak in this manner; for that deliverance was a sort of birth of the nation. Then were openly produced letters of adoption, when, by the promulgation of the law, they became “the Lord’s portion,” (Deu 32:9,) “a royal priesthood, and a holy nation,” (1Pe 2:9😉 when they were separated from the other nations, and when, in short, God “set up his tabernacle” (Lev 26:11) to dwell in the midst of them. The words of the prophet import, that the nation was rescued from Egypt as from a deep whirlpool of death. Now, what was the redemption brought by Christ, but a resurrection from the dead, and the commencement of a new life? The light of salvation had been almost extinguished, when God begat the Church anew in the person of Christ. Then did the Church come out of Egypt in its head, as the whole body had been formerly brought out.
This analogy prevents us from thinking it strange, that any part of Christ’s childhood was passed in Egypt. The grace and power of God became more illustrious, and his wonderful purpose was more distinctly seen, when light came out of darkness, and life out of hell. Otherwise, the sense of the flesh might have broken out here in contemptuous language, “ Truly a Redeemer is to come out of Egypt!” (210) Matthew therefore reminds us, that it is no strange or unwonted occurrence for God to call his Son out of that country; and that it serves rather to confirm our faith, that, as on a former occasion, so now again, the Church of God comes out of Egypt. There is this difference, however, between the two cases. The whole nation was formerly shut up in the prison of Egypt; while, in the second redemption, it was Christ, the head of the Church alone, who was concealed there, but who carried the salvation and life of all shut up in his own person.
(210) “ Qui croira que le Redempteur viene d’Egypte ?” — “Who will believe that a Redeemer will come out of Egypt?“
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15) Until the death of Herod.The uncertainty which hangs over the exact date of the Nativity hinders us from arriving at any precise statement as to the interval thus described. As the death of Herod took place a little before the Passover, B.C. 4 (according to the common but erroneous reckoning), it could not have been more than a few months, even if we fix the Nativity in the previous year.
Out of Egypt have I called my son.As the words stand in Hos. 11:1, When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt, they refer, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to the history of Israel, as being in a special sense, among all the nations of the world, the chosen son of Jehovah (Exo. 4:22-23). It is hard to imagine any reader of the prophecy not seeing that this was what we should call the meaning. But the train of thought which leads the Evangelist to apply it to the Christ has a distinct method of its own. A coincidence in what seems an accessory, a mere circumstance of the story, carries his mind on to some deeper analogies. In the days of the Exodus, Israel was the one representative instance of the Fatherhood of God manifested in protecting and delivering His people. Now there was a higher representative in the person of the only begotten Son. As the words Out of Egypt did I call my Son (he translated from the Hebrew instead of reproducing the Greek version of the LXX.) rose to his memory, what more natural than that mere context and historical meaning should be left unnoticed, and that he should note with wonder what a fulfilment they had found in the circumstances he had just narrated. Here, as before, the very seeming strain put upon the literal meaning of the words is presumptive evidence that the writer had before him the fact to which it had been adapted, rather than that the narrative was constructed, as some have thought, to support the strained interpretation of the prophecy.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. By the prophet Hos 11:1. Out of Egypt son The passage quoted from the prophet is spoken of Israel, the people being personified as an individual. When Israel was a child then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. A type is a person or object divinely designed to prefigure a future character or object to which it bears designed resemblance. The future object so prefigured is called the antitype. Type is therefore visible prediction, as prophecy is spoken prediction. Thus the sacrifices were divinely appointed types of the great atoning sacrifice of Christ. An entire set or combination of objects may be typical of an entire set of antitypical objects. The objects may resemble, and the principle which connects the objects of the combination may be the same in both sets. Thus here we have of type and antitype, then, two sets:
1 . Pharaoh, Israel, Egypt, Canaan.
2 . Herod, Christ, Egypt, Palestine.
The individuals of each couplet are similar or same, and the relation connecting the individuals of each set is the same. So Israel is a type of the Church, and Christ’s infantile history is a type of his Messianic history, as his Messianic history is a type of the Church. Thus: Adversary, Righteous One, Trial, Restoration.
1 . Pharaoh, Israel, Egypt, Canaan.
2 . Herod, Christ, Egypt, Palestine
3. Satan, Christ, World, Glory.
4 . Satan, Church, World, Heaven.
When the Old Testament designedly uses words which describe the typical points in the type, those words will describe the future antitype. It thereby becomes prediction, which is fulfilled in the antitype. Thus the words, “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” describe the typical point which Israel bears to Christ. It is therefore a prediction which is fulfilled in Christ.
So God’s dispensations do repeat and reproduce similar sets of types and antitypes in continuity. In printer’s phrase, the type continually produces the same set of words and paragraphs, through successive pages and editions. In the present case, Christ’s infant history was so framed as to be brought into antitypical relation; and the words of the prophet were so framed as to predict the antitype Christ in describing the type Israel. The inspiration that enabled the prophet to utter, enabled the evangelist to explain the prediction.
As Israel was God’s chosen among the nations, so Christ was God’s chosen among men. Reciprocally, as Christ was his Son, so Israel was his son. Both are his firstborn. So Exo 4:22: “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” In Isa 49:3, the words, “Thou art my servant, O Israel,” are spoken of the Messiah. So the Jewish rabbis have recognized the Scripture doctrine that Israel is type of Messiah. This typeism between Israel and Christ and the Church arises from the fact of their sameness of relation to God, as being objects of divine favour, representatives of righteousness in a world of trial, under pressure of the adversary, yet destined to victory; as we have exhibited in the parallels above.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.’
And all this was to be seen as a ‘filling full’ of God’s purposes for Israel. Matthew here refers back to a passage in Hos 11:1. That verse had referred to God’s call to Israel as His ‘firstborn’ in the time of Moses (Exo 4:22), and it was at that time that He had ‘called them out of Egypt’. He had looked on them as His son. But Hosea does not stop with that. He then goes on to point out that they had not obeyed the call. They had not responded to God’s love. They had left Egypt physically, but their hearts had remained in Egypt (Exo 4:2). And thus God had caused them to return again to Egypt until such a time as they were ready to truly respond (This is described in Mat 2:5, in MT by taking it as a question, ‘shall he not return to Egypt, and Assyria shall be his king?’, (which is what is required in context) or in LXX by literal translation ‘they will return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria will be their king, because they refused to return to Me’). Then He would one day call them again. But this had never happened. Israel’s heart had remained in Egypt, and a million Jews were still there in order to prove it. Now, however, God was going to call them one last time in the person of their Messiah. For He had sent Him to Egypt too, as an exile, and He would call Him from there and He would come. His heart would not remain in Egypt. The idea would seem to be that through Him their call out of Egypt would also become a reality, at least in so far as the faithful were concerned, for they would come out in Him. Their hearts would be wooed from Egypt once and for all through the activity of this child Who was His Son as no other had been. For He was the Saviour.
And that this would now proceed with reasonable urgency comes out in that what has been spoken has been spoken directly by ‘the Lord’. He will Himself act to bring it about, as the next few years would reveal. There was nothing of Egypt about Jesus.
The idea contained here is important if we are to understand what follows in Matthew. God is calling His King to come out from Egypt. But with what purpose? There could surely only be one purpose, so as to fulfil the original purpose of God in calling His son out of Egypt, in other words to initially establish in Palestine the Kingly Rule of God. That had been the original intention previously, and Moses had gone into the mountain in order to view that kingdom afar off, but God’s purpose in this had failed because of Israel’s failure to truly come out of Egypt in their hearts. Now God was in action again, and was bringing His Son out of Egypt. It is no accident that John the Baptist will shortly declare that, ‘The Kingly Rule of Heaven is at hand’ (Mat 3:2) as he begins to prepare the way for the King, and that God will declare of His King, ‘This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased.’ It was His coronation.
In view of the complexity of this verse we will now consider it in more detail, on behalf of those who are puzzled about it, in an Excursus.
EXCURSUS. On ‘Out of Egypt Have I Called My Son.’
In considering this quotation one or two factors need to be born in mind. And the first is as to what is meant by ‘prophecy’. The prophets are not to be seen as a kind of glorified fortune-teller. That is not how they saw themselves at all. Rather they are to be seen as men who spoke from God, and who spoke in God’s name, and who in that speaking sought to cover the whole range of history. They were forth-tellers rather than fore-tellers. Thus the greatest of the prophets ‘prophesied’ about the past, they ‘prophesied’ about the present and they ‘prophesied’ about the future. And they sought to bring it all together as one, as descriptive of the purposes of God. In other words they were God’s mouthpiece as regards the whole of the past, the present and the future. And thus all their writings were to be seen as ‘prophecy’, the forth-telling of the mighty ways and acts of God.
That means that they were not all to be seen as simply foretelling future events. Far from it. Rather they were to be seen as relating the future to the past and the present. Clearly the future was important to them, but it was important, not as something to be forecast so as to show how clever they were, but as something that was in the hands of God, and as something in which God was going to act in fulfilling the promises of the past, precisely because of that past, taking into account the present. And their main aim in speaking was in order to affect that present. So even in the case of their looking into the future it is better to think of them as declaring what God was going to do in the future in fulfilment of the promises and warnings of the past, rather than as simply an attempt to discern the future. That is not to doubt that sometimes they did specifically act to discern the future, and did even lay claim at times to be heard because what they said came about (for they were confident that God was speaking through them), but it was not to be seen as the central purpose of prophecy. (It is the modern not the ancient view of prophecy that prophecy is merely about foretelling).
A further thing that we need to keep in mind when considering the application of Old Testament Scriptures to the days of Jesus was the Jewish sense of being a part of their past. They did not see the past as something that was of little concern to them apart from being a matter of historical interest. They felt themselves as bound up in that past. Thus each year when they met to celebrate the Feast of the Passover, they felt that they were at one with those people in Egypt who had first celebrated the Passover. As they ate ‘the bread of affliction’ they saw themselves as sharing in their experience. And they looked ahead for a similar great deliverance for themselves. They believed that the past would be repeated in their own futures. And it was not only so with the Passover. In the whole of their worship there was the same sense of unity with the past, for they saw themselves as connected with Moses and the past in all that they did. Thus prophecies concerning Israel could very much be seen as equally applying in their day. They felt that the promises of Moses and the prophets had been made to them. For they considered themselves to be the same as the Israel of the past, the same as those to whom the promises and warning were originally given, they were YHWH’s firstborn son. So when Matthew spoke of ‘fulfilment’, of prophecy being ‘filled to the full’, it would be an idea close to their hearts
The next thing that must be recognised as we consider these ‘prophecies’ is that Matthew saw Jesus as very much a continuation of the promises and history of the Old Testament. Indeed he saw Him as the One Who summed them up. Jesus is the son of Abraham (Mat 1:1). He is the son of David (Mat 1:1). He is, in His family, One Who has, as it were, endured Exile (Mat 1:12; Mat 1:17), just as the patriarchs with their families had long before (Exo 1:1). And now He is One Who has left behind the ties of Egypt (Mat 2:15) and is therefore the hope of all who are in exile. His coming spurs again the weeping of Rachel as she awaits the deliverance of her children (Mat 2:17). He is One Who bears the name of being despised and rejected, ‘a Nazarene’ (Mat 2:23). Like Israel of old He goes into the wilderness to be tested, although in His case He emerges from it as triumphant (Mat 4:1-11). He is the One Who confirms and establishes the Law, bringing out its deeper meaning (5-7). He is the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah (Mat 12:17-21) Who has been described as ‘Israel’ by God (Isa 49:3). Thus in His person He is to be seen as representing Israel in every way, and in such a way that God would be able to say of Him, just as He did of the Servant in Isa 49:3, ‘You are My Servant Israel, in Whom I will be glorified’. This idea that Jesus represents Israel is elsewhere most obviously emphasised by John in Joh 15:1-6 where Jesus declares Himself to be ‘the true Vine’ in contrast with the old Israel, the degenerate vine, and in the other synoptic Gospels by, for example, the cursing of the fig tree. It is also confirmed by the fact that the New Testament writers saw the new people of God as being the continuation of the true Israel of the Old Testament, what are often called the Remnant. They saw them as the new ‘congregation (of Israel)’ set up on the rock of Christ and His Apostles and on what they believed about Him (Mat 16:16-19). Or to put it in modern parlance, they believed that the true church, as made up of all true believers, was the true Israel (so Rom 11:16-28; Gal 3:27-29; Gal 4:26-31; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:11-22; 1Pe 2:5-9; etc.).
And this therefore is partly why Matthew can see Him as ‘fulfilling’ certain prophecies. But in saying this we must not stop there. We must also note again what the content of the word ‘fulfilled’ has for Matthew, as for Judaism. The word means ‘to fulfil’, ‘to complete’, and often ‘to complete something already begun’. Thus Matthew is not necessarily saying that the prophecies that He ‘fulfils’ referred solely to Jesus, so that first we have the foretelling out of the blue, and then He fulfils that foretelling. The argument is often rather that in the end things which are stated by the prophets, which have never really come to their final completion, do find their completion in Him (see above).
So even if we stopped there we could see good reason for Matthew applying this verse to Jesus on the grounds that 1). He was Israel. 2) Because they were His people and had come out of Egypt He could see Himself as being involved with Israel in coming out of Egypt. 3) Because it could be seen as a further fulfilment of the prophecy.
But in fact we do not have to stop there, because when we look at what Hosea actually said we realise that there is an even greater significance in the words. So keeping these ideas in mind we will now consider these words cite in Mat 2:15 in their original context. There we read, ‘This was to fulfil (or ‘bring to completion’) what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”.’ Here Matthew is undoubtedly referring to the fact that Jesus had been taken to Egypt, and would therefore return from there as the representative of Israel in accordance with God’s calling and purpose. But while at first it might seem as though Matthew has simply done this, he did not in fact do it by simply selecting a convenient prophecy, and then giving it a new meaning on the basis of the ideas described above. He did it as something which was to be seen as genuinely ‘completing’ the original prophecy.
Many fail to see this because they do not sufficiently consider the context in Hosea. They suggest that here Matthew (or whoever previously brought this citation to notice in connection with the coming of Jesus) has merely taken the words of Hos 11:1 out of context, and has given them a meaning which has little to do with what Hosea prophesied or meant, and that he (or they) have done this in order to give the impression (to ignoramuses?) of ‘fulfilled prophecy’. They then speak of a list of such ‘prophecies’ as occurring in Matthew, which are all treated in the same way, that is simply as proof texts wrenched out of context, and they therefore look on Matthew also as naive. But the question that must be asked is, ‘is that really what Matthew was doing? Is that really what he saw himself as signifying?’
Having this in mind let us first consider the words of Hos 11:1, and see them in context so as to understand what their significance was to Hosea. Hos 11:1 reads, ‘when Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son’. Now it cannot be doubted that this was in a sense a clear ‘prophecy’ about the past. That is, that initially it was looking back to the original calling of Israel out of Egypt. Hosea is here declaring that God had said that He had set His love on Israel, had seen them as His son and had ‘called them out of Egypt’ (see Exo 4:22-23), and this with the purpose of delivering them from Egypt and all that it stood for. And not only was this so, but we should also note that the events that appear to demonstrate this are themselves recorded in Israel’s history, as Hosea was well aware. At first sight then it seems clear that this prophecy cannot strictly be applied to Jesus because it had already been fulfilled.
But before we come to too hasty a decision on that question there is something else that we ought to do. We ought to ask ourselves why Hosea said this? For when we do we will see that he makes it clear that it was not in fact just his intention to speak about something that happened in the past. He had a specific reason for saying it, a reason that applied to the future. And the reason for his declaration is in fact then made crystal clear. For these words are spoken in a context in which we discover that in Hosea’s eyes that ‘calling’ failed, it did not happen. For to him the problem was that although bodily the people of Israel had moved from Egypt, in their minds they had brought Egypt with them. Mentally and spiritually they were still in Egypt. Thus the point was that they had not truly responded to God’s call. God’s call had not been effective. It had not been fulfilled. Yes, he said, they had left Egypt in their bodies. But the problem was that they had brought Egypt with them. They were still indulging in the same old idolatries and spurning God’s love in the same old way. And thus, because he knew that God could not in the end fail in His calling, he recognised that that calling which had been made had not been fulfilled, and that as yet that calling had not proved effective. He saw that that calling was in fact still a continuous process, which was in process of fulfilment. It was something that went on and on, and would go on and on, until it was finally achieved. God had called His people out of Egypt, and out of Egypt therefore they would surely have to come, even though as yet they had not done so.
This is made clear in the verses which follow, for if we follow texts on which the Septuagint was probably based, he then says, ‘The more I called them the more they went from Me’ (Mat 11:2 RSV, which takes into account LXX. LXX has here the 1st person singular). There the idea is quite clearly that up to this point the calling of God had been ineffective because their hearts had remained in Egypt. They had brought Egypt with them. He continued to call them, but the more He did so the more they rejected Him. They had not really been delivered from Egypt at all, because they still continued with the same old idolatry as they always had, and looked to other gods, spurning the love of the Lord (Mat 11:2-4). They were still refusing to listen to His calling. It was a calling that had as yet not been made effective. Thus while He had called them out of Egypt, with the intention that they leave Egypt behind, they had not truly come. In their hearts ‘His son’ was still in Egypt.
Alternately if we go by the MT it says, ‘as they called them, so they went from them’. In this case there are two possibilities.
One is that ‘they’ here must refer to Moses, Aaron and Joshua and ultimately the later prophets. In that case it is saying that those who were appointed by God had continually called on them to truly fulfil God’s call out of Egypt, but that the people had turned away from them. They had continually refused in their hearts to obey ‘the call of God out of Egypt’. Here then this ‘they’ must seen as referring to the prophets as the voice of God, commencing with Moses.
Alternately it may be seen as referring to God Himself in an intensive plural (thus, ‘as He called them so they went from Him’). This might be seen as being made clear from the whole context which is largely in the first person singular. In this case it is saying the same as LXX.
So whichever way we take it Matthew here saw Hosea as declaring that God’s call from Egypt was a continuing process that had not yet been completed. God had called but as yet His people had not truly responded. And then he saw Hosea as going on to describe the continuation of that call as outlined in the following verses. For the idea all the way through Hosea 11 is that while Israel may have left Egypt physically, they had not done so spiritually. In their hearts they were still in Egypt, as was evidenced by their idolatry and lack of love for the Lord. And thus the call of God had not been inwardly effective. Their hearts still needed to be ‘called out of Egypt’. But because the call was the call of God it was still active, and would have to remain active until it came about.
Thus Hosea sees that there is only one solution to this problem. In order to achieve His purpose God would have to return His people to Egypt so that He might be able to call them out again, so that this time, hopefully, having learned their lesson, His previous call might be made effective, with the result that they would be wholly delivered from Egypt. Thus, (following RSV, again translated with LXX in mind), he says in Mat 2:5, ‘they will return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria will be their king, because they refused to return to Me’. In other words, God is saying, the initial result of their calling out of Egypt will have to be temporarily reversed by their being returned to Egypt (and to Assyria) to await another deliverance. And that theologically there must be another deliverance comes out in the fact that, although the calling of God may be delayed, it cannot be cancelled. ‘The gifts and calling of God are without repentance’ (Rom 11:29). For the promises to Abraham must be fulfilled.
Alternatively, if we read in the text the negative as in MT, we must translate as, ‘Shall they not return to Egypt, and Assyria be their king, because they would not return to Me?’. (This is an equally possible translation of MT). That this translation is required is evidenced in Mat 2:11 which again shows them as later being in both Egypt and Assyria. So whichever way the text is taken, whether as in LXX or as in MT, the same thing is in mind. The idea basically is that their particular calling has been reversed because of their disobedience, so that they are being returned to Egypt, and to its equivalent Assyria, but that that calling will then need to be ‘fulfilled’ or brought to completion at a later time. God had indeed called His son out of Egypt, but because as yet ‘he’ had not fully and completely come out, God will repeat His call, or ‘make it full’. For as God’s original call must finally be effective because of Who He is, there will have to be a further re-calling out so that His purposes are really fulfilled.
That this is so comes out in that in Mat 2:11 Hosea once more sees Israel as again coming out of Egypt. ‘They will come trembling like birds from Egypt and like doves from the land of Assyria, and I will return them to their homes (or ‘make them dwell in their houses’)’. The idea here is that God, having first removed them from their homes and having taken them back to Egypt and Assyria because their hearts had proved to be still there, would once again ‘bring them out of Egypt’, and this time would bring ‘home’ not only their bodies but their hearts, so that they would worship and serve Him only. His call out of Egypt would therefore at last be fully effective, it would be carried out to the full. It would be ‘fulfilled’.
So, to Hosea, God’s original call was seen to have failed, and was seen as something still in process of completion, and ‘out of Israel have I called My son’ was thus to be seen as still having to be fulfilled. This is not just Matthew’s view. This is Hosea’s view which Matthew accepts. But even then, as always, we must assume that its completion will depend on their final obedient response to Him. For if the calling is really God’s it must finally be effective. Until that was so the call of God could not be said to have been ‘fulfilled’. And the problem was, as Matthew saw clearly, that that kind of obedience had never really happened. Even in his own time he recognised that their hearts were still ‘in Egypt’, and that in fact over a million Jews literally were still there, largely in Alexandria..
So when Matthew cites this verse in respect of Jesus coming out of Egypt, having first represented Jesus as the expected seed of Abraham, and as thus the representative of Israel; as David’s son, the Messiah who was to be Israel’s representative before God (for the king always represented his people); and as the One who had in His ancestors previously been in Exile (Mat 1:12), it is with these factors in mind. Matthew is saying, ‘as yet, while it is true that God did call His son Israel out of Egypt, this calling of Israel out of Egypt has not yet been fully consummated’, and we should note that this is not just what Matthew says, it is what Hosea had also declared. Indeed it was the whole point of what Hosea was saying. God did call with a call which must eventually be effective because it was His, but the problem was that in their hearts Israel had up to this point not fully responded to the call. So at the time of the birth of Jesus Israel was therefore still to be seen as ‘in Egypt’ in their hearts. And this could not have been more emphasised than by the fact that in the time of Jesus there were over a million Jews in Egypt just as Hosea had said.
‘And thus,’ says Matthew, ‘God has now acted in Jesus in such a way as to commence the final deliverance from Egypt that Hosea had spoken of so long ago.’ He has now brought out of Egypt the One Who represents in Himself the seed of Abraham, the son of David, and the children of the Exile, He Who is the new Israel, the Messiah, the Servant, the One Who embodies in Himself the whole of Israel, so as to bring back Israel to Him and also in order to be a light to the Gentiles (Isa 49:3; Isa 49:6). His heart will not be left in Egypt. He will come out totally, in body, soul and spirit. Nor will the hearts of those who follow Him remain in Egypt.
Through Jesus therefore this ‘prophecy’, says Matthew, which had never been fully completed, will come to its final consummation, so that the true Israel might finally be delivered from ‘Egypt’. By this means the prophecy is being ‘brought to completion’, it is ‘being filled full’. His return from exile is the beginning of a genuine ‘coming out of Egypt’ for the true Israel. In Jesus God’s purposes for Israel will now come into fulfilment. Thus far from Matthew’s quotation being naive, it is full of deep significance, and that by taking it in its true context. (Some may not like Matthew’s interpretation, but they have no right to despise it, for it is based firmly on what Hosea was saying, and it was an interpretation that would certainly have spoken quite clearly to his Jewish readers. They still very much saw Israel as not fully established in Palestine. This is a further indication of how much Matthew, in his Gospel, has in mind the Jews, both Christian and otherwise).
That Jesus did in fact see Himself as Israel in this way comes out in His description of Himself as the Son of Man (which in Daniel 7 represented both Israel and their king) and especially in Joh 15:1-6, where He depicts Himself as the true Vine. It is also found in His recognition that He Himself would need to found a new nation (‘My congregation’). This last comes out clearly later on in Matthew, for there He speaks of founding ‘My congregation’ (the new congregation of Israel – Mat 16:18; Mat 18:17-18) on the rock of His Messiahship. Furthermore He also speaks of the ‘bringing forth of a new nation’ in Mat 21:43, which will replace the old. So the thought in Matthew’s words in Mat 2:15 is to be seen as far more complicated than just a simplistic ‘fulfilling’ of some convenient words which have been misapplied. It is not an attempt to ‘prove’ anything by a rather conveniently worded prophecy. Rather it is indicating that Jesus is an essential part of Israel’s ongoing history and promised deliverance, and is evidence of the fact that the final fulfilling of that first call of God to His people is about to take place. God had called them out of Egypt, but the calling had not succeeded, and now therefore He will finally make that call effective so that they will never yearn to return there again, but will at last respond to God’s cords of love (Hos 11:4), and this will be through Jesus Christ, just as Isaiah had in his own way promised (Mat 19:23-25).
Rather therefore than being a naive claim to be a successful piece of fortune-telling, this is a declaration that God’s calling is always finally effective, even though its fulfilment might take over a thousand years.
End of EXCURSUS.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 2:15. That it might be fulfilled, &c. So that what the Lord had spoken by the prophet was verified. Campbell. The reader will remember the general observation which has been made on Mat 1:22 respecting the phrase, that it might be fulfilled, and will refer to Hos 11:1 concerning this text; which Grotius, Heinsius, and many of the best critics, both ancient and modern, understand asa mere allusion. SeeCalmet on the verse. The editors of the Prussian Testament observe, that the words out of Egypt, &c. belong, in their proper and literal sense, to the people of Israel, as appears from the beginning of the verse in Hosea. Compare Exo 4:22-23. Num 24:8. St. Matthew applies them to the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the method of the Jewish doctors, who considered several particulars in the Old Testament as relating to the Messiah typically, though, in a literal sense, they referred to other matters.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 2:15 . ] refers in Hos 11:1 (quoted according to the original text) to the people of Israel (Exo 4:22 ; Jer 31:9 ). The Septuagint has (Israelis). Upon the , see on Mat 1:22 . Here it refers to the arrival of Jesus in Egypt and His residence there , which could not but take place as an antitype to the historical meaning of Hos 11:1 , in order that that declaration of the prophet might receive its Messianic fulfilment.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Ver. 15. And was there till the death of Herod ] Which was a matter of two or three years at least a For Christ was born in 32 of Herod’s reign, fled when he was about two years old, or soon after his birth (as others are of the opinion), and returned not till Herod was dead, after he had reigned seven and thirty years.
That it might be fulfilled that was spoken, &c. ] When the Old Testament is cited in the New, it is not only by way of accommodation, but because it is the proper meaning of the places both in the type and in the truth.
a Epiphanius vult haec biennio post natum Christum conligisse.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
15. ] This citation shews the almost universal application in the N.T. of the prophetic writings to the expected Messiah, as the general antitype of all the events of the typical dispensation. We shall have occasion to remark the same again and again in the course of the Gospels. It seems to have been a received axiom of interpretation (which has, by its adoption in the N.T., received the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself, and now stands for our guidance), that the subject of all allusions, the represented in all parables and dark sayings, was He who was to come, or the circumstances attendant on His advent and reign.
The words are written in Hosea of the children of Israel , and are rendered from the Hebrew.
A similar expression with regard to Israel is found in Exo 4:22-23 .
must not be explained away; it never denotes the event or mere result, but always the purpose .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 2:15 . , etc.: the stay in Egypt cannot have been long, only a few months, prohably, before the death of Herod (Nsgen). : another prophetic reference, this time proceeding directly from the evangelist; Hos 11:1 , given after the Hebrew, not the Sept [8] , which for has . The oracle states a historical fact, and can therefore only be a typical prophecy. The event in the life of the infant Jesus may seem an insignificant fulfilment. Not so did it appear to the evangelist. For him all events in the life of the Christ possessed transcendent significance. Was it an event at all? criticism asks. Did the fact suggest the prophetic reference, or did the prophecy create the fact? In reply, be it said that the narratives in this chapter of the Infancy all hang together. If any one of them occurred, all might occur. The main question is, is Herod’s solicitude credible? If so, then the caution of the Magi, the flight to Egypt, the massacre at Bethlehem, the return at the tyrant’s death to Nazareth, are all equally credible.
[8] Septuagint.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
death = end. Greek. teleute. Occurs only here.
that = in order that.
spoken. As well as written. Compare Mat 2:5 and Mat 2:23.
of = by. Greek. hupo. See App-104.
Out of Egypt, &c. Quoted from Hos 11:1. See App-107.
have I called = did I call.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
15. ] This citation shews the almost universal application in the N.T. of the prophetic writings to the expected Messiah, as the general antitype of all the events of the typical dispensation. We shall have occasion to remark the same again and again in the course of the Gospels. It seems to have been a received axiom of interpretation (which has, by its adoption in the N.T., received the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself, and now stands for our guidance), that the subject of all allusions, the represented in all parables and dark sayings, was He who was to come, or the circumstances attendant on His advent and reign.
The words are written in Hosea of the children of Israel, and are rendered from the Hebrew.
A similar expression with regard to Israel is found in Exo 4:22-23.
must not be explained away; it never denotes the event or mere result, but always the purpose.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 2:15. , saying) This must be construed with , the prophet, and so also in Mat 2:17.- , out of Egypt have I called my Son) Thus Hos 11:1, in the original Hebrew, though the LXX. render it, , out of Egypt have I called for (summoned) his children. Aquila,[96] however, renders it , From Egypt have I called [him] My son. The meaning of the passage in Hosea is, Then when Israel was a child, I loved him: and from the time that he was in Egypt, I called him my son. This is evident from the parallelism of either clause. And the expression, from the land of Egypt, occurs in the same sense in Hos 12:9; Hos 13:4; and from the Egyptian era, Israel began to be called the son of God; see Exo 4:22, etc. And God is always said to have led forth, never to have called, His people out of Egypt. In like manner, St Matthew also. when interpreting the passage of the Messiah, and that, too, of Him when a child, connects the quotation with His sojourn in, rather than His return from, Egypt.-Cf. Isa 19:19. Jesus, from His birth, was the Son of God; and immediately after His nativity, He dwelt in Egypt. It behoved, however, that the Messiah, as well as the people, should return from Egypt into the land of promise, for the same reason, viz., because God loved each of them, and called him His Son. The sojourn of Christ in Egypt was the prelude to the Christianization of that country; see Deu 23:7. In the first ages of Christianity, the Egyptian Church was greatly distinguished: perhaps it will be so again hereafter: cf. Isa 19:24-25. Concerning the double fulfilment of the single meaning of a single prophecy, cf. Gnomon on ch. Mat 1:22. In short, God embraced in one address, as with one love, both the Messiah Himself, in whom is all His good pleasure, and His people for His sake. The Messiah resembles His people in His adversity; His people resembles the Messiah in its prosperity. The head and the body are the whole Christ. Moreover, when His people was in Egypt, Jesus Christ was there also in one of those patriarchs who are enumerated in ch. Mat 1:4.-Cf. Heb 7:10.
[96] A native of Sinope, in Pontus, of Jewish descent, who flourished in the second century of the Christian ra. Having renounced Christianity, he undertook to execute a new translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Out of Egypt
The words quoted are in Hos 11:1 and the passage illustrates the truth that prophetic utterances often have a latent and deeper meaning than at first appears. Israel, nationally, was a “Son 1:1” Exo 4:22 but Christ was the greater “Son 1:1”; Rom 9:4; Rom 9:5; Isa 41:8; Isa 42:1-4; Isa 52:13; Isa 52:14 where the servant-nation and the Servant-Son are both in view.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
until: Mat 2:19, Act 12:1-4, Act 12:23, Act 12:24
that: Mat 2:17, Mat 2:23, Mat 1:22, Mat 4:14, Mat 4:15, Mat 8:17, Mat 12:16-18, Mat 21:4, Mat 26:54, Mat 26:56, Mat 27:35, Luk 24:44, Joh 19:28, Joh 19:36, Act 1:16
Out: Exo 4:22, Num 24:8, Hos 11:1
Reciprocal: Mat 27:9 – Jeremy Act 2:10 – Egypt
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
CALLED OUT OF EGYPT
Out of Egypt have I called My Son.
Mat 2:15
At first we are surprised at the use to which the Evangelist puts these words of the prophet. We turn to Hos 2:1, and it is evident that in their primary intention they do not refer to the child Jesus, but to the children of Israel collectively regarded as Gods dear Son; and the calling out of Egypt is their deliverance by the mighty power of God from their house of bondage there, and from the yoke of their Egyptian taskmasters.
I. Prophecy and Christ.Yet when Matthew speaks of the infant Christs return out of Egypt as the fulfilment of a prophecy, we ought not so to interpret his words as to find in them merely the adaptation or accommodation of a prophecy, and of one spoken originally in quite another sense, and having properly no allusion to Him at all. What then? Words of Scripture being the words of God look many ways, have many aspects, may have one fulfilment, then another, and another, and at last a crowning fulfilment. No doubt the words of Hosea did look back to the calling of the children of Israel; but they were so overruled by the Holy Ghost that, while they thus looked back to one signal mercy of God to His Church, they looked on to a far greater mercy, but one of exactly the same kind.
II. The reason of the call.Why were the children of Israel called out of Egypt? That they might be bearers of Gods Word, witnesses of Gods truth to the nations, that they might declare His name to the world, that they might be a light to lighten the Gentiles. And why was Christ preserved from Herods sword and all the perils of His infancy, sheltered for a while in Egypt, and brought back again to the Holy Land? Why, but for this same reasonthat, growing in grace and favour with God and man, He might indeed be that which the natural Israel ought to have been and was not,the Light of the World, the true and faithful Witness, Who should declare the name and worship of the true God to the ends of the earth. In Christ were gathered up and fulfilled all the purposes of God, all the intentions with which the Jewish people were constituted from the beginning.
III. Yet a further fulfilment.The words had thus a double fulfilment, the second more glorious than the first. There is yet one fulfilment more. That which was on these two occasions literally fulfilled, Out of Egypt have I called My Son, is evermore finding its spiritual fulfilment in the Church of the redeemed. It collectively is Gods Son. Egypt is always represented to us in Scripture as a land of darkness, a land of superstition, of low grovelling idolatry, of slavery and oppression at once for the bodies and the spirits of men. What wonder, then, that when God calls us with a holy calling, from darkness to light, from slavery to freedom, from the worship of the idols of sense to the worship of Himself, it should be styled a calling out of Egypt! Such, indeed, it is. It is a coming out of Egypt; and it is a coming out in obedience to a heavenly calling. We shall never leave our Egypt, if God did not quicken our spirits, did not summon us to a nobler life, to something better than a slavish bondage to our fleshly appetites and grovelling desires. And God calls us as His sons.
Archbishop Trench.
Illustration
We might not unfitly compare that people to the aloe-plant, which is said, and I believe rightly, to flower once during its lifetime, and that after a long lapse of years; and having put forth its single flower once for all, that indeed a flower of exquisite beauty and richness, then, as having lived but for this, to droop and wither and die. Christ, the fairer than the children of men, the One among ten thousand, the Virgin-born, was in some sort the one glorious and perfect flower which the rough and hard aloe-stem of the Jewish Church and nation, barren so long, at length bore; and, having borne thus, having fulfilled the purpose of its existence in that wondrous birth, it also drooped and died. Thus, as gathering up and concentrating all the life, strength, beauty of that stalk and stem in Himself, as the consummation of all that went before, Christ was Israel; He is often so called the Prophets. He, a Jew, at once embodied and represented the Jewish nation before His heavenly Father in their noblest aspect, in their highest fulfilment of that great mission which was theirs, namely, to declare the name of the Lord to the world; and every gracious dealing of God with His people had reference and respect to that one crowning act for which the nation existed, namely, that a child might be born out of the bosom of the people, a son of Abraham, a son of David, in whom all the nations of the world should be blest. With good right, therefore, could Matthew claim all the promises which were made to Israel, as having been made to Him Who by best right was Israel, all past deliverance of the people as typical and prophetical of that mightier deliverance with which God would deliver His elect, in whom His soul delighted, from every danger and from every fear, saying to Him, Thou art My servant, O Israel, by whom I will be glorified.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
2:15
Verse 15. The writer completes the part of his story that pertained to Egypt in order not to break into the line of thought, and he will resume it a little later on. In giving instructions for Joseph to come with his son out of Egypt, the prophecy in Hos 11:1 was fulfilled the second time; first time was tn the days of Moses.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 2:15. The prophet. Hosea (Mat 11:1). A prophecy referring first to the children of Israel, then typical of Christ. Alford: It seems to have been a settled axiom of interpretation (which has, by its adoption in the New Testament, received the sanction of the Holy Ghost Himself, and now stands for our guidance), that the subject of all allusions, the represented in all parables and dark sayings, was He who was to come, or the circumstances attendant on His advent or reign.The place of Egypt in history should not be forgotten. Thence came the children of Israel and He whom they typified; but thence, too, ancient civilization and the influence which prepared the wav for the spread of the gospel. God did not forsake the Gentile world, though it forsook Him. His providential care was as really present in the formation of that civilization which issued from Egypt, as in the occurrences which led Israel and Jesus thither.The place of sojourn is unknown, though tradition points to a village called Metariyeh, not far from the city of Heliopolis, and near the site of the temple erected in Egypt for the Jews under the priesthood of Onias.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 15
And was there, &c. The death of Herod took place two or three years after the birth of Christ.–By the prophet. (Hosea 11:1.) The declaration of God, in Hosea, was strikingly applicable to this event. The sacred writers quote from the Old Testament, not only those passages which predict the events at they are recording, but those also which may be aptly applied to them, though originally used with reference to other occurrences.