One of the perpetually difficult (and, I think, invigorating) areas of biblical studies is how the New Testament uses the Old Testament. For example, Matthew says of Joseph, “And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’” (Matthew 2:14-15).
Matthew is quoting from Hosea 11:1, which says (together with verse 2), “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.”
How did Matthew get Jesus’ relocation to Egypt out of Hosea 11:1? Well, first of all, I think it shows us a lot about who Matthew understands Jesus to be (namely, the true Israel), but I would like to bring in some helpful remarks Greg Beale has made in We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry on this issue. It’s originally one paragraph, but I’ll break it up to make it easier to read:
Thus New Testament, or Old Testament writers before them, can build on earlier Old Testament texts that they interpret and develop creatively, though the creativity is to be seen in understanding such texts in the light of the further developments of a redemptive-historical epoch in the Old Testament, or developments in the light of the later events of Christ’s coming and work.
In this respect, part of the creative development lies merely in the fact that fulfillment always fleshes out prior prophecy in a way that, to some degree, would have been unforeseen by earlier Old Testament prophets. Another way to say this is that progressive revelation always reveals things not as clearly seen earlier.
Geerhardus Vos’s metaphor for this creative development between the Testaments is that Old Testament prophecies and texts are like seeds and later Old Testament and New Testament understandings of the same texts are like plants growing from the seeds and flowering; from one angle the full-bloomed plant may not look like the seed (as in botanical comparisons), but careful exegesis of both Old and New contexts can show, at least, some of the organic connections. (pg. 29)
The issue is certainly more complex than a single paragraph can address, and there are others who have different views on this subject, but I share this excerpt in the hopes that it will be a helpful stimulus to further reflection.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 26, 2009 at 3:30 pm
tylerkenney
Thanks Johnathon. I think I agree with everything Beale says there, and I am helped by it.
I would have questions, however, if the first sentence of the second paragraph said “unintended” instead of “unforeseen”–although unforeseen is still a rather flexible word, so I may be interpreting him wrongly. As you know, I think it’s important to assume that the divinely inspired authors intended the same things that we, with the apostles, interpret from their texts.
Would he say the same things about John’s prophecies in Revelation–that is, that their fulfillment will reveal things that he didn’t foresee when he wrote? And how does Beale justify saying that fulfillment always “reveals things not as clearly seen earlier”?
January 28, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Scott
Tyler, why do you “think it’s important to assume that the divinely inspired authors intended the same things that we, with the apostles, interpret from their texts”?
What need is there for them to understand the multiple realizations of their prophecy?
What would indicate that they understood any of the realizations?
I’m remembering something in Hebrews (?) that talked about this, but can’t remember what the passage was.
Great post Johnathon!