Pesher, Fulfillment, Hosea 11, Matthew 2, Exodus, Flight, Egypt, Son, Jesus, God, Joseph, Herod, Midrash, Rabbinic Interpretation, Hillel, Seven Rules
This paper will evaluate Matthew 2:13-15 analyzing Matthew’s questionable use of Hosea 11:1. Turner has noted that, “Those who think that Matthew saw a prediction of Jesus in Hos. 11:1 must either disparage Matthew’s hermeneutic . . . or attribute to Matthew revelatory insight into the sensus plenior of Hosea” (Turner, 2008). While the majority of commentators have found Matthew to be practicing typological interpretation, there has been a neglect to analyze the structure of Matthew’s particular introductory formula since Stendahl (1968), which have led many to see a pesher employment by Matthew in these formulas. This paper evaluates the form of Matthew’s quotations in light of persher forms, ultimately finding that Matthew has inverted the form. This inverted form shows that Matthew was seeking to interpret his current situation in light of the scriptures, and not to interpret scriptures at all. This difference is pivotal to see, since it validates Matthew’s use of the Old Testament in πληρόω formulas because he is giving a contemporary significance of how a text affects his current situation, and not reinterpreting meaning into that text from his new situation. This confusion between meaning and significance has proliferated interpretations, and has been a problem that Walter C. Kaiser and E. D. Hirsch have sought to remedy, but has not yet been fruitful for interpretations in Matthew’s use of the Old Testament.
McIntyre, Donald C.. 2021. "Matthew Doesn’t Mean What You Think He Means, and Why It's Significant: A Form Critical Evaluation of Plēroō’s relation to Pesher Formulas and its Solution to an Age-Old Problem." Eleutheria 5, (2). https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/eleu/vol5/iss2/11