Matthew's Use of the Old Testament: A Preliminary Analysis

Lee Campbell Ph.D.

Introduction

Some contemporary evangelical scholars suggest that Matthew's use of the Old Testament is like the way rabbis of that period used it.^[1] For example, the Qumran community contemporized the Old Testament (a.k.a. pesher) by holding that Old Testament scriptures were predictive of their own situation. Many modern scholars would argue that Matthew also interprets the Old Testament using pesher when, for example, he applies Hosea 11:1 to Christ's sojourn in Egypt. If it is true that New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament this way, then it is a little unsettling. The most pressing concern is that pesher, peshat and many later misrash techniques are fundamentally eisegetical. That is, these hermeneutical approaches are hostile to the notion of objective interpretation. If this is the case, then it brings into question the legitimacy of many critical NT uses of the OT. Ultimately, if NT authors did use rabbinical hermeneutics, then one must question the very authority of the New Testament in critical matters of faith.

A second, if lesser, concern is the contribution New Testament authors make to the study of scripture interpretation. Even if Matthew was not using pesher techniques, what interpretive approach was he taking? Can modern scholarship use his methods or was he exercising the insights of a prophet when he interpreted the Old Testament? If so, then contemporary interpreters can gain little assistance in their own hermeneutical tasks from Matthew. The purposes of this paper are twofold: to investigate whether Matthew was using pesher techniques in his use of Old Testament and, if not, to identify what interpretive approach to the Old Testament he was taking in his gospel.

What is Pesher?

Several approaches to scripture analysis may be discovered in first century Hebrew documents including literalistic, allegorical, midras and pesher. Longman doubts that these methods were distinguished from one another in the first century. Of these methods, pesher is of the greatest interest to this study, principally because Matthew does not lie under the accusation that he interprets the OT literalistically or allegorically but rather through pesher. Perhaps Matthew uses midrashic techniques, as many contend, but it can be argued that first century midrash could be very much akin to the manner in which Psalmists interpreted the Pentateuch. Early midrash, as defined by Hillel, is a fairly objective hermeneutical approach.^[2] It is the claim that Matthew is using pesher contemporization of the OT, particularly in ‘fulfillment’ citations, that provides the most serious challenge to those holding to verbal, plenary inspiration.

The term pesher means, "to explain." In fact, however, pesher is an application of OT scripture with little to no concern for the context of the passage applied. Pesher may refer either to commentaries on the OT found amongst the Dead Sea scrolls^[3] or to the interpretive technique typical of these commentaries.^[4] Pesher interpreters assume that OT authors were speaking to the contemporary audience. This form of interpretation is tied to a word, text or OT allusion, which is then related to a present person, place or thing. The interpretations are generally aloof from the source context and appear to lack any coherent methodology. According to Lundberg, "This kind of commentary (pesher) is not an attempt to explain what the Bible meant when it was originally written, but rather what it means in the day and age of the commentator, particularly for his own community."^[5]

For instance, in the pesher Habakkuk the writers simply take Habakkuk’s references to the Chaledeans and apply them to the Romans without any effort to justify the application. The context of Habakkuk seems to hold little interest for such interpreters. In the same commentary all the destructive activities described by Habakkuk are attributed to the ‘wicked priest’ while all the good things are attributed to the ‘righteous teacher’ – the antagonist and protagonist typical of Qumran pesher writing. Again, the interpreter shows little inclination to justify the wholesale substitution of the authorial intent for that of his community.

Was Matthew Using Pesher?

Clearly, Matthew is not a pesher commentary. Such texts are line-by-line analyses of an OT text and Matthew’s gospel does not conform to this format. Rather, Matthew applies OT citations to his narrative of the life of Christ.

While Matthew cannot be construed as a pesher commentary, it could still be true that Matthew is using the pesher devise of OT contemporization. Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 seems so disinterested in its plain meaning that a cursory comparison of Hosea 11:1 with Matthew 2:15 certainly leaves the impression he is using this approach.^[6] However, there are several reasons to doubt that Matthew is using pesher techniques:

• While both Matthew and pesher commentaries use citations from a variety of sources, it appears that many of Matthew’s translations are his own and Matthew’s citations do not show interpretive or selection bias typical of pesher.^[7]
• The formal features of OT quotes in Matthew do not correspond to any such features in Qumran text.^[8]
• Qumran applications were treated as identical to interpretations without regard to historic context - few such tendencies are found in NT use of the OT.^[9]
• Matthew did not use many OT passages that conform to a fulfillment motif which is unexpected if he was simply grabbing proof-texts from the OT.^[10]
• Many fulfillment passages used by Matthew do not conform to known messianic prophecy material advanced in Jewish circles. If Matthew wanted to make a case about Jesus claim to be messiah he should have taken better advantage of accepted messiah texts.
• Some citations are so surprising that it is unreasonable to expect the NT author would have bent them to conform to the life of Christ (e.g. Jeremiah 31:15 for Matthew 2:16,18)
• Even in the most radical examples of pesher used by the Qumran community, the authors do not modify their history to conform to an OT passage. Yet this is what a proponent of pesher Matthew must claim for him.
• OT quotations in NT fall under a limited set of themes. This is much different than the piecemeal treatment in the DSS and in rabbinical writings. Motifs of NT citations of OT include the following:^[11]
  1. Jesus acts as YHWH
  2. Jesus is the predicted messiah
  3. Jesus is the predicted servant of the Lord
  4. Jesus is the son of man
  5. Jesus culminates the prophetic line
  6. Jesus is in a succession of OT righteous sufferers
  7. Jesus fulfills the Davidic dynasty
  8. Jesus reverses the Adamic curse
  9. Jesus fulfills the Abrahamic covenant of universal blessing
  10. Jesus recapitulates the history of Israel
  11. The priesthood of Melchizedek & Aaron…the latter sometimes contrastingly anticipate the priesthood of Jesus
  12. The Passover lamb and other sacrifices prefigure the substitutionary atonement of Christ and Christian service
  13. Jesus & manna
  14. The rock/living water
  15. The serpent
  16. The tabernacle/temple
  17. John the Baptist & Elijah
  18. The new covenant prophecy
  19. Judas Iscariot
  20. The law of Moses prefigured grace positively and negatively
  21. The flood - last judgment/baptism
  22. Red Sea/circumcision - baptism
  23. Jerusalem - eternal city of God
  24. Taking Canaan - spiritual rest

There are many reasons for doubting that Matthew is writing like an author of Qumran-pesher materials but particular OT citations do seem as careless of context as pesher. This requires an explanation of which Stendahl’s failed pesher conclusion was an attempt to respond.^[12]

How was Matthew Interpreting the Old Testament?

Given that Matthew does not use pesher hermeneutics, what kind of interpretive approach is he applying and is it useful for contemporary interpreters?

It is important to realize that most of the time Matthew's use of the OT is so straightforward that it is not susceptible to the charge of OT misuse or misinterpretation. For instance, at times Christ utters language from the OT in ways that suggest he is calling forth the mood of the text he cites.^[13] This is entirely unsurprising for one steeped in the language and tone of the OT. At other times the OT is used by way of application. For example, Christ is recorded as using the OT for training when he frames OT narratives into question and answer sessions (e.g. 15:4; 19:4-7, 18-19). In other ways Christ draws particular applications out of OT narratives (e.g. Matthew 12:3-8, citing Isaiah 21:6; Leviticus 24:5,9; Numbers 28:9 to condemn Sabbath legalism). In these cases, however, Christ is generally using the OT the way OT authors used antecedent text. The psalmists often cited Pentateuchal narratives in order to draw out salient spiritual principles or theology.^[14] Even in those cases where Christ's application of the OT differs from the approach of OT authors, his use still is not at all like the approach seen in first century midrash because unlike much rabbinical midrash, Jesus works within the context of the citations he uses. When Jesus applies the OT differently from the psalmist application hermeneutic, he is speaking prophetically (e.g. "You've heard it said, but I say…"). In these ways he adds to earlier revelation, not in a way that disregards but rather extends the earlier revelation. This too is an interpretive role played by OT prophets in their use of antecedent and new revelation.^[15] In these uses of the Old Testament Christ, or Matthew as his biographer, are not guilty of interpreting the scripture in ways alien to how Old Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament.^[16]

Many of Matthew's citations are apologetic in nature, that is, Matthew cites the OT to show how Christ fulfilled OT scripture. It is because of this that Matthew is often charged with deriving from the OT meanings no competent OT scholar could ever develop independently. As a result of some of the more extraordinary examples of fulfillment citations Matthew is often held to be using pesher approaches to the OT. How is Matthew using the OT in these cases?^[17] How can modern interpreters make use of this approach?

As we saw earlier, a fairly common solution to this dilemma is to suggest that everybody was using the OT this way during the first century (i.e. midrash pesher). This not only appears unlikely but unsafe for the veracity of much of Matthew's gospel, to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament. Other scholars recognize the problem but suggest that careful analysis of the relevant OT citations would vindicate Matthew's interpretation.^[18] Some suggest that God's intent when he inspired the OT author was much more profound than the OT author himself realized.^[19] Still others say that Matthew was simply noting historically analogous situations for his audience with the suggestion that Christ completed the earlier motifs.^[20] Each of these attempted solutions to the problem of OT usage in NT fulfillment passages have provided some important insights into NT use of the OT but each also serves to raise critical questions about the appropriate use of the Old Testament. A few points must be considered before the question of Matthew's OT use can be fully addressed.

First, as many scholars have noted, Matthew's terminology pertaining to fulfillment is much richer than such words suggest to most readers. Matthew indicates 15 times that Christ fulfilled an OT scripture.^[21] The term pleroo and related terms have wider semantic range than simple predictive realization. These words can communicate the idea of ‘completing’, ‘establishing’ or ‘filling up’ as well as prediction-outcome. For Matthew to suggest that some aspect of the life of Christ fulfills some antecedent scripture could mean that an OT passage made a prediction and Christ expressed that precise prediction. But, fulfillment can also mean that Christ "filled to overflowing" or "completed" the antecedent scripture. This second sense is the way a reader can comprehend Christ's claim that he fulfilled the Law & Prophets in Matthew 5:17. Fulfillment quotations are infused with the concept of God's redemptive purpose in human history and so Matthew quotes texts that directly predict but also passages that have thematic significance that exceeds the OT author immediate meaning. This is different than sensus plenior because the NT author is not uncovering meaning hidden to the OT author. Instead, he is using the OT passage as an example of a broad theme of which the OT author was aware.^[22] Thus, some concerns over Matthew's use of the OT may be tempered by a better sense of what Matthew intended when he said Christ fulfilled a scripture.

Second, C. H. Dodd has shown that the NT use of the OT is not haphazard proof-texting but the use of a few text plots in the OT. For instance Isaiah 53 is cited 34 times in the NT.^[23] For the early church, it is likely that a limited citation served as a pointer to an entire theme of which the audience was well apprised:

• Apocalyptic-Eschatological Scriptures (e.g. Joel 2, 3; Zechariah 9-14; Daniel 7; Malachi 3:1-6; Daniel 12
• Scriptures about the new Israel (Hosea; Isaiah 6:1-9:7; 11:1-10; 28:16; 40:1-11; Jeremiah 31:10-34; Isaiah 29:9-14; Jeremiah 7:1-15; Habukkuk 1,2)
• Servant of the Lord scriptures (Isaiah 42:1-44:5; 49:1-13; 50:4-1; 52:13-53:12; 61; Psalms 69; 22; 31; 38; 88; 34; 118; 41; 42-43; 80; Isaiah 58; 6-10)
• Unclassified scriptures ( Psalms 8; 110; 2; Genesis 12:3; 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:15,19; Psalms 132; 16; 2 Samuel 7:13,14; Isaiah 55:3; Amos 9:11,12; Exekiel 1-4; 24; 34; Numbers 23; 24; 2Ki.1; Psalms 78; Daniel 2; Isaiah 13; 34; 35; Micah 4; 5; 7; Zechariah 1-6; the rest of Micah beyond 3:6)

Given this, it is possible to look, not merely to a limited citation used by Matthew, but to the whole theme of which Matthew's citation is simply a pointer.

Case Study: Matthew 2:15

In this citation, Matthew takes the MT approach of literally translating "son" rather than the LXX "His children." It is possible that Matthew may have intended to allude to the entire section through the use of a single citation (c.f. Hosea 11:1-11). It is difficult to concede that Matthew is using midrashic interpretive approaches for the reasons articulated above. On the other hand, efforts to find ways to argue that Matthew's use is an appropriate analysis of a prediction are also hard to concede.

Howard sees Matthew’s use of Hosea as retrospective analogical correspondence rather than an effort on God’s part to embed a projective type or prophecy about Christ in Hosea’s words. That is, Matthew noted that Jesus was like Israel in that he also went to Egypt but that, unlike Israel, he was the son obedient to the covenant. When Israel left Egypt they dropped the ball. Whereas, when Christ left Egypt he was the son, in whom God was very pleased. In this way, Christ fulfilled (i.e. competed) all that God intended for Israel.

An alternative view is that the Exodus event was a prototype that was subsequently echoed when it was recalled for the purpose of instruction^[24] and that was repeated in the coming of Joshua to Palestine & Judah from the Babylonian exile.

The approach taken to the interpretation of this passage will include the following stages: 1. Analysis of the context of Matthew's citation of Hosea; 2. Analysis of the context of Hosea 11:1; 3. Assessment of the retrospective and projective function of Hosea's citation and 4. Assessment of Matthew's use of Hosea as an example of fulfillment.

Analysis of the context of Matthew 2:13-15

The narrative passages before and after Matthew 2:13-15 appear to be arguments from the Torah that Jesus was the messiah and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.^[25] The genealogy of chapter 1:1-17 is framed at the beginning and end with the claim that Jesus was the messiah. Chapter 1:18-25 is a reference to a passage that culminates in the promise of a God/king who would rule from the throne of David (Isaiah 7:14-9:7). Chapter 2:1-12 contain a reference to a messianic scripture that contains allusions to both the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants. After 2:13-15 Matthew cites Jeremiah 31:15 which is a clear reference to the mourning associated with the Babylonian captivity but is at the beginning of a long prediction of the restoration of Israel leading to a new covenant that will result in the laws of God being internalized by his people (c.f Isaiah 31:31-34). It is difficult to make definitive statements about Matthew 2:19-23 but many scholars believe it refers to prophecies concerning the 'branch' found in Isaiah 4:2, Zechariah 3:8,9 & 6:12. Finally, Matthew's citation of Isaiah 40:3 appears to be a pointer to a lengthy passage concerned with God's redemption of Israel through Cyrus and through the Servant of YHWH (Isa.42:1-7).

The context of Matthew 2:13-15 is the correlation of Jesus with significant OT scriptures that address God's redemptive activity toward Israel and toward Gentiles - scriptures that identify Jesus as messiah and the fulfillment of the covenants of Abraham and David. It would be expected, therefore, that Matthew's citation of Hosea 11:1 would also anticipate his role as redeemer or sovereign.

Analysis of the context of Hosea 11:1

Hosea is citing the exodus in Hosea 11:1. This event was a critical one in the OT because it demonstrated God's remembrance and redemption of Israel. The expression "out of Egypt" appears several times in Hosea (e.g. 11:1; 12:9, 13; 13:4). Hosea 11:1 is in the context of God's love for Israel. Hosea 12:9 speaks of God's discipline. Chapter 12:13 talks of how God used a prophet to redeem an ungrateful people. Hosea 13:4 uses the exodus to promise God will assert his sovereign rights over Israel once again. These passages and the core narrative of Hosea's redemption of Gomer make it clear that Hosea 11:1 is intensely focused on God's once and future redemption of Israel (c.f. Hosea 2:14 - 3:4).

Assessment of the retrospective and projective function of Hosea 11:1

The exodus account is a deferred hope in critical respects. Israel could have been a nation of priests (e.g. Exodus 19:4-6) but it chose not to satisfy the terms of the covenant. In this sense the exodus was incomplete. Hosea addresses the exodus to remind Israel of God's love, power and sovereignty and to anchor his promise for future redemption both from Assyria and ultimately from their own rebelliousness.

When Matthew cites Hosea 11:1 he is citing the entire redemptive context, not only of Hosea but of the rest of the Old Testament. Citation of Hosea 11:1 reminds Israel of their double redemption from Egypt & Assyria/Babylon but also anticipates their final redemption from themselves.

Assessment of Matthew 2:15's use of Hosea 11:1 as fulfillment

When Hosea records, Out of Egypt I have called my son, he is tapping into an exodus motif that was expressed in the original event; reiterated and extended to "the king" of Israel by Balaam (Nu.24:8); reiterated when Joshua entered Palestine; reiterated when the principle of redemption was applied repeatedly in OT didactic material; that would be reiterated later when Israel was restored after her impending discipline (Hosea 6:1-3; 8:1-10:5) and again when God would permanently redeem his people. Matthew was simply noting something implicit in Hosea, namely, Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of God's promised redemption of Israel (Hosea 11:1-14:5). Hosea certainly understood that his recollection of the Exodus was anchored in God's past redemptive history as well as his future promise of final redemption. And, this is exactly what Matthew did by pointing to its manifestation in Christ. Christ returned to Israel from Egypt, as an obedient son and also as God coming again to dwell in the tents of Shem. The resonance with the exodus motif is so remarkable that Matthew could say Christ 'filled up to overflowing' the entire theme. If we were contemporaries of Matthew we too could have anticipated a final redemption of Israel and rejoiced when we saw its penultimate fulfillment in the first advent of Christ and hoped in its ultimate fulfillment in his second advent.

Interestingly, Christ’s exodus not only recapitulated the return of Israel to the land but also the advent of God dwelling with his people. For Christ's return to Israel was also the return of God dwelling in the tents of Shem. In these ways Christ filled to overflowing the exodus. And, in this sense, Hosea’s recall of the exodus has a projective role because it is connected both to the past Exodus event and to God’s redemptive commitment to Israel yet unrealized. When Matthew considers the words of Hosea he is not merely saying, "Gee, isn’t this interesting how both Israel & Christ returned to the land from Egypt." What he is communicating must not merely be analogical correspondence. Isn’t Matthew also saying, "What Hosea hoped for, the redemption of Israel from sin, was fully realized in Christ?"

Conclusion

What is clear from this preliminary study is that Matthew was not using pesher-like eisegetical techniques, when he used the Old Testament in his gospel. He apparently often used his own translations of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic sources rather than isolating extant translations that fit an interpretive agenda. Significantly, his putative interpretations are not self-serving but correspond to interpretations found in Septuigental, Masoretic, Syrian and rabbinical materials from the same era. Similarly, his applications of the Old Testament to New Testament events do not have the tortured appearance of those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even in some of the more challenging ‘fulfillment’ materials Matthew’s use of the Old Testament does not correspond with pesher techniques used by the Qumran community.

What Matthew's fulfillment citations often appear to do is often show points of resonance with well developed redemptive themes in the OT of which Christ is the consummation. If this is true, Matthew may show us how to interpret the OT by indicating that earlier scriptures have both projective and retrojective functions as they reiterate the theology of an earlier motif or prototype and yet anticipate complete realization in some future act of God.

Without prophetic authority we may have to hold conclusions drawn from such techniques more tentatively than Matthew does. Nonetheless, the use of interpretive methods consonant with those found in scripture substantially strengthens the confidence of modern interpreters who are committed to the kind of careful exegesis that honors the intent of the ultimate author.

Return to Top

NOTES

^[1] These techniques included: peshat (i.e. literalistic), midrash (i.e. there is quite a bit of variance within this tradition), pesher (i.e. complete contemporization of OT), apocalyptic (i.e. contemporization of some OT passages) & allegorical. Longman suggests that individual interpreters may have used all four methods and may not have distinguished them as distinct approaches. See Appendix E for methods of predictive prophecy interpretation. 

^[2] This is not to say that midrashic approaches to interpretation were typically objective. Most rabbinical midrash used the OT as a springboard without concern for the context of the material cited. Midrash refers to a Hebrew method of citing, interpreting and then amplifying an OT passage. The term midrash also refers to the oral and then, later, the written collections of midrash expositions and applications. Haggadah midrash refers to the ethical and expository interpretation of non-legal materials from the Hebrew Bible.Halakah midrash applied the general principles of OT laws to specific situations. This was an application of the Torah in a kind of 'case law' format. Various midrash methods are claimed to find their origin in Hillel, Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili. Hillel’s 7 methods include:

a. a fortiori arguments from OT texts (i.e. called qual yahomer).

b. When the same word is found in a proximate text then the principles of one are transferable to the other (i.e. called gezerah shawah)

c. When the same phrase is found in different texts, the principles of one context are transferable to the others (i.e. called binyan ab mikathub ‘ehad).

d. Meaning is established by its context.

e. Difficult passages are interpreted by comparison with clear passages containing similar principles (i.e. called kayoze bo bemaqom ‘aher, lit. as is found in another place).

f. A particular rule may be extended to a general principle and a general principle may justify a particular rule (i.e. called kelal upherat, the general and the particular).

g. A principle is developed by synthesis of related texts (i.e. called binyan ab mishene kethubim). Chain quotations are thought to be a form of this midrashic device.

The later methodologies of Rabbi Ishmael & Rabbi Eliezer opened the door for more eisegetical approaches to scripture. 

^[3] Pesher Habakkuk & Pesher Hosea are examples of these commentaries. See appendix C for a sample of pesher Habakkuk. 

^[4] According to Krister Stendahl (1954) The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, p.14; See also Longenecker pp.144-145 and Tracy L. Howard, The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution. 

^[5]https://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/4QpesherIsaiah.shtml. 

^[6] For specific commentary on individual passages see Appendix A. 

^[7] Gundry, Robert (1967) The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, p.174. 

^[8] The Matthean formal quotations are framed as examples of fulfillment but this is not the case with pesher text where the application is ongoing and matter-of-fact rather than apologetical. Also, in pesher Habakkuk, the formal expressions, "its prophetic interpretation" or "the interpretation of the prophetic word" are used at the start of each section of commentary. This is not at all like the formal language of Matthew. See Howard, Tracy (1986) The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution. 

^[9] Op.cit. 153ff; Fitzmyer, as cited by Tracy Howard (i.e. endnote 30), has identified only seven examples of concern for the original context of the OT passages cited in Qumran literature. 

^[10] Op.cit. 

^[11] According to Gundry op. cit. p. 9. 

^[12] Stendahl, K. (1954) The School of St. Matthew and its use of the Old Testament. 

^[13] For example, "my soul is sorrowful, even unto death," Mt.26:38 is very reminiscent and evocative of Psalms 42:5,6,11; 43:5. 

^[14] See Appendix D. 

^[15] The way that Isaiah expands what is known about the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (e.g. that a servant would sprinkle the nations and that an anointed one would rule from David's throne). 

^[16] Let's not forget that the OT cites the OT more than the NT cites the OT.

^[17] Let us not forget that Jesus himself seems to authorize this OT use, as Matthew does not suggest he fulfilled any OT prophecy or type other what he himself indicated, a point made well by Gundry. 

^[18] Walter Kaiser, for instance, but his approach while often very useful does occasionally produce interpretations that do not seem fair to OT authorial intent. 

^[19] In sensus plenior God's intention and the authors intention for the meaning of a passage may not be the same. The problem with this approach is that it redefines inspiration and it subjects interpretation of antecedent texts much more open to eisegesis. See Douglas Moo or Tracy Howard for more information. 

^[20] See Tracy Howard's excellent article for more details on historical analogy. 

^[21] Matthew 1:22; 2:15,17,23; 3:15; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14; 35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9; See Appendix F.

^[22] Hosea surely realized that the Exodus served as a prototype for God's redemptive approach to Israel. 

^[23] See Gundry, op. cit. p.10. 

^[24] e.g. Ps.66:6-12 that it refined Israel; Ps.77:10-20 that is showed God’s might as Israel’s redeemer; Ps.114 that it was the onset of God’s presence with Israel – fulfillment of the promise to Shem in Gen.9:27; Ps.136:10-22 that it showed Israel God’s lovingkindness. 

^[25] See Appendix G. 

Return to Top

Appendix A - A Summary of Matthew's Old Testament Citations and Allusions

NOTES

^[1] There are around 40 formal quotes in Matthew and over 100 allusions. 

^[2] e.g. Ps 66:6-12 that it refined Israel; Ps. 77:10-20 that is showed God's might as Israel's redeemer; Ps.114 that it was the onset of God's presence with Israel - fulfillment of the promise to Shem in Gen.9:27; Ps.136:10-22 that it showed Israel God's lovingkindness. 

Return to Top

Appendix B - A Summary of Gundry's Analysis of Matthean Citations

Mark’s formal quotations are nearly always LXX. Various sources appear to be used by other synoptic authors.

Formal quotations 40

• 16 are common to Mark & Matthew - Mark's formal quotations are almost completely from the LXX. In some cases Matthew’s formal quotations differ somewhat from both LXX & Mark (15:4a, 19:5,18,19; 22:32, 37; 26:31). In other cases Matthew’s formal quotations vary only slightly or not at all with the LXX (e.g. slight 3:3; 11:10; 15:8-9 & none 15:4b; 19:4; 21:13a & b, 42; 22:39, 44).

• 4 are common to Luke & Matthew (all associated with the temptation narrative) – two are LXX (e.g. Mt.4:6,7) and two diverge from but are related to the LXX (e.g. Mt.4:4,10)

• 20 are peculiar to Matthew – 7 are LXX (e.g. 1:23; 5:21, 27, 38, 43; 13:14f; 21:16); 7 are non-LXX (e.g. 2:6,15,18,23; 5:31; 9:13 = 12:7; 27:9f); 6 are a mixture of LXX and non-LXX (e.g. 4:15f; 5:33; 8:17 this one may be non-LXX; 12:18-21; 13:35; 21:5); 2 may be associated with the Targum (2:6 & 12:18-21); 2 are associated with the OT Peshitta^[1] (2:6; 4:15f) and 1 with the Qumran literature (2:23 the concept of the lowliness of the messiah’s origins, c.f. Gundry pp. 97-104).

Allusive references - 108

• 40 are common to Mark – 11 are LXX (e.g. 8:4; 10:21; 12:4; 21:33; 22:24; 24:6b; 26:3f, 38, 67; 27:35, 48); 12 are non-LXX (e.g. 3:17; 9:36; 14:16; 17:5; 19:7; 20:28; 24:24; 26:11, 41; 27:39, 46); 8 are a mixture of LXX and non-LXX^[3] (e.g. 19:26; 21:9; 4:6a, 7, 21, 29, 31; 26:64); 3 Matthew agrees with LXX but not with Mark (e.g. 3:16; 13:13; 17:11; 2 differ from LXX & Theodotion (e.g. 24:15b, 34); 2 appear to agree with LXX but not Theodotion in some parts and vice versa in other parts (e.g. 13:32 & 24:30); 1 appears to both agree with LXX against Theodotion and to disagree with both in other parts (e.g. 24:15); 1 appears to both agree with Theodotion^[4] against LXX and in some parts disagree with both (e.g. 24:13); 6 are similar to one or more Targums (e.g. 3:17; 17:5; 24:24, 31; 26:28); 5 are related to the OT Peshitta (e.g. The Peshitta is a Syrian version of the OT – 19:26; 24:31; 26:28; 27:39); 1 may be related to an apocryphal passage (e.g. 24:21) and 1 may be related to rabbinical tradition (e.g. 14:16).

• 26 are common to Luke – 6 are LXX; 13 are non-LXX; 4 have points of concordance & disagreement with LXX; 1 differs from Luke and agrees with LXX; 1 partially agrees with Theodotion against LXX and partially disagrees with both; 6 are related to one or more Targums; 2 are related with the OT Peshitta; 1 is related to the Qumran War Scroll; 2 are related to rabbinical tradition and 1 is related to Josephus.

• 42 are peculiar to Matthew – 15 are LXX (e.g. 2:1f, 11; 5:4,5,8; 7:22; 10:6,29; 12:40; 18:22; 21:14; 22:34; 27:34; 18:16; 27:24); 17 are non-LXX (e.g. 1:21; 2:13; 5:7, 34,35; 6:6; 11:28; 13:41; 16:27; 21:41; 23:19; 25:31; 26:15, 52; 27:43, 57; 28:10); 3 appear to be a mixture of LXX & non-LXX (e.g. 2:20f; 3:4; 11:29); 2 agree with Theodotion rather than LXX (e.g. 13:43; 24:10); 1 agrees with LXX rather than Theodotion (e.g. 28:18); 1 has points of both agreement and dissimilarity Theodotion & LXX (e.g. 28:3); 1 wholly disagrees with LXX & Theodotion (e.g. 25:46); 1 is closely correlated to a Targum (e.g. 26:52); 2 are related to Targums (e.g. 5:5; 23:19); 1 is related to the OT Peshitta (e.g. 27:43); 1 is related to apocryphal literature (e.g. 27:24) and 2 use Targum-like phrases (e.g. 25:35f & 28:10).

NOTES

^[1] This is the Syrian version of the OT. 

^[2] Gundry admits these allusive correlations are sometimes tentative (e.g. 10:32f & 14:16). 

^[3] Gundry says that non-LXX should not be construed as meaning MT because in some cases the translation is poorer and in other cases the author uses a 'Targum-like' freedom to paraphrase or expand an OT allusion. 

^[4] Theodotion refers to one of several later versions of the LXX (e.g. Aquila & Symmachus are later versions as well) that exist in fragments. There are thought to be over 300 versions of the LXX. 

Return to Top

Appendix C - A Sample of Pesher Hermeneutics

A Sample from Pesher Habakkuk^[1]

Page 1

1. ... shall I cry and not (part of verse 1:2)

2. ... this generation

3. ... oth (fem pl.) upon them

4. ... his about me

5. ... m ... iyt ... (a portion of 2 words in verse 1:3)

6. ... to (or God) by exploitation and from

7. ... (fragmented word) and many

8. ... (2 fragmented words) he

9. ... therefore the Torah fades away (portion of verse 1:4)

10 ... which is his burden in the Torah of God

11 ... (direct object) the righteous

12 ... He is the Moreh ha-tsedek

13 ... therefore the judgement goes out (part of 1:4)

14 ... and not the

Page 2

1. it be told him ... the treacherous with a man (1:5)

2. all the liars ... the Moreh Tsedek from the mouth

3. of God and concerning the trai(tors) ... the new (fragmented word)

4. our belief in the covenant of God ... those possessing ... and

5. truth. Pesher of the word ... ..gadiym to the last (aleph)

6. days. They are aro... ... ..oth which they will not believe

7 when they hear all the b... ... of the final generation from the mouth (1:5)

8. of the priest which God gives in ... to explain to all

9. the words of His servants coming ... hands God tells

10. all coming to his people and. ... (be)cause behold I am raising up (1:6)

11. the Chaldeans, the nation the bit(ter) ... ... (the has)ty (1:6)

12. Pesher about how the Romans a... ..h speedy ones and mighty men

13. in war to destroy r.. .... from the government of

14. the Romans to do evil ... ... and we do not say

15. according to their laws ...

Page 3

1. and in contending and going to strike and to loot the cities of the land

2. because as he says: to possess inhabited areas that are not theirs. (1:7) Dreadful

3. and terrible they are and their judgement and pride proceeds from themselves. (1:7)

4. Pesher about the Romans by which their fear (...) upon all

5. nations and in fact all their thoughts to do evil and (...) to defraud

6. and to come with all the peoples. Their horses are lighter than leopards and more alert (1:8)

7. than the evening wolves. Their horsemen spread themselves from afar (1:8,9)

8. and they fly as an eagle hastening to eat. (1:8) All of them coming for violence multiplying(1:9)

9. by their faces the east (wind). Pesher about the Romans who

10. possess the earth with horses and with their beasts and extend themselves

11. and they come from the isles of the sea to destroy ... and (..)iyl the peoples as an eagle

12. and they are not sated and in them and their beasts ... and even their raging

13. faces and they speak with ... ... as he

14. says: ma(gemet) ...... .... as sand the captivity (1:9)

Page 4

1. they shall mock (kings) and laugh at the princes (part of 1:10) Pesher that

2. they mock about many and despise the glorified kings

3. and rulers and they deceive and scorn many peoples. And he

4. (scorns) every fort and laughing at them he heaps up dust and captures them (part of 1:10)

5. Peshru about the rulers of the Romans who despised

6. the forts of the peoples mocking and laughing at them

7. and at many other peoples, imitating and making them foolish to hold them in fear

8. and take them in their hand to destroy them because of the sins of those dwelling

9. there. Then shall he change his spirit and he shall pass over attributing this, his power (most of 1:11)

10. to his god (end of 1:11) Peshru about the rulers of the Romans

11. who by the counsel of the house of Ishm(ael) and the servants of men

12. who rule in the presence of their neighbor ...afterward and they go

13. to slay the ..... ... ... his strength to his god. (part of 1:11)

14. Peshru about .................... .... (...)l the peoples

Page 5

1. you have set them for judgement O Rock, you have established them for correction. (You have) purer eyes( parts of 1:12 and 13)

2. than to view evil and you are not able to consider wickedness (part of 1:13)

3. Pesher about the saying that God is not able to (to save) his people from the hand of the Gentiles

4. and God gives judgement in the hand of his "Chosen one" (to) all the Gentiles and in their reproaches

5. and their guilt to all those doing evil to my people which keep my commandments.

6. in and enemy to whom because that which says you are of purer eyes to behold

7. evil (part of 1:13) Peshru that their eyes do not hunger after the evil end (time).

8. Why do the traitors look and plough evil swallowing (part of 1:13)

9. righteousness away from us. (part of 1:13) Pesher about the House of Absalom

10. and the men of their council which fall silent in reproaching of the Moreh Tsedek.

11. But they do not help him against the lying man who does violence to

12. The Torah among all the nations and makes men as the fish of the sea (part of (1:14)

13. as creeping things to watch over it. (part of 1:14) All of them take up into their net (part of 1:15)

14. and they gather them ..... in their seine. Therefore they are happy (part of 1:15)

15. .............. their portion.

Page 6

1. The Romans, the ones gathering wealth from all the spoil

2. as fish of the sea, wherefore he says: (Begin 1:16) Therefore they sacrifice to their net

3. and offer incense to their seine (end part of 1:16) Peshru about them

4. sacrificing to their symbols and all the wars they

5. are showing because in them they fatten their portion. They eat from my table

6. Pesher about their dividing of the world and

7. their violence in devouring the peoples year after year

8. destroying with the sword many lands. (begin 1:17) Therefore they draw out their sword and continue

9. to murder the nations without compassion (end 1:17)

10. Peshru about the Romans who destroy many by the sword

11. youths, mature men, old men, women, infants, and on the fruit

12. of the womb they have no mercy. (begin 2:1 Let me stand fast on my watch tower

13. and present myself on the fortress and I will keep watch to see what He will say

14. to me and w(hat ... I will answe)r when he corrects me (end part of 2:1) (begin 2:2) And YHWH answered me

15. (and said write the vision and make it clea)r on tablets so that the one runn(ing) (end part of 2:2)

Notes

^[1] Translation from Moellerhaus Publishing, https://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/peshtran.htm The bold print is text from the book of Habakkuk, the rest is commentary. The character of the "Wicked Priest." Is translated (koheyn ha-rasha') and the "Teacher of Righteousness" Moreh Tsedek. 

Return to Top

Appendix D - Psalmists Use of the Pentateuch

Covenant

• Psalm 132:10f; 89:3-4 & 19-37 recalls 2 Samuel 7:4-16, the Davidic covenant, re-affirms its validity and uses that confidence to call on God to act on his behalf.

• Psalm 104:9 recalls the Noaic covenant Gen.9:11 – God is powerful

• Psalm 105:8; 106:45 identify the theme of these historical recollections - God never has and never will default on his covenant with Abraham.

• Psalm 111:9 God is the goel for his people…God’s covenant is irrevocable

It is clear from these examples that the psalmists regard the covenants of YHWH as binding agreements that have ongoing relevance for Israel and the rest of the world. Man’s infidelity and God’s fidelity are frequent contrasting themes in these Psalms.

History

• Creation

• Ps.90:2 God-as-creator is identified for the theological purpose of affirming His eternal nature and that is contrasted with man’s brief life.

• Ps.104:1-24 God is the creator so he is wise and powerful.

• Ps.136:5-9

• The exodus & wanderings of Israel

• Psalm 66:6-12 is an apparent reference to the exodus (i.e. see vv.6, 11 & 12) but the author draws theological significance from the Egyptian exile (i.e. it served to refine Israel).

• Psalm 77:10-20 The psalmist indicates this is a meditation on God’s works and mighty deeds. He argues that the exodus showed the nations YHWH’s superiority over their so-called gods and showed Israel God’s role as their redeemer shepherd. This conclusion is not novel relative to the conclusion drawn by Moses and Miriam, however (Ex.15:11).

• Psalm 78:9-72 is a prolonged recollection of rebellious Israel and merciful God the history is not chronological and extends past the exodus to David’s monarchy. This chain reference approach to argumentation might be termed midrash by some scholars if it appeared in the New Testament and yet it predates midrash.

• Ps.81:7 Asaph indicates that Meribah was God’s test of Israel (c.f. Nu.20:1-14); Ps.95:8-11 indicates that Israel tested God at Meribah; Ps.106:32-33 indicates that Israel rebelled against God’s Spirit there. The Psalms do not add to the account in Numbers, they simply apply the lesson’s learned there to their own audience.

• Psalm 114 The exodus of Israel was the beginning of her theocracy and the onset of God’s dwelling with Israel (i.e. "Judah, God’s sanctuary"). It seem possible that this is a reference to the Noaic prophecy that God would dwell in the tents of Shem (Gen.9:27). ^[1] If so, then something new is being said here, that the onset of this promise began at the exodus.

• Psalm 136:10-22 The exodus & wilderness experience demonstrated is unchanging lovingkindness toward Israel.

• Taking the land

• Ps.80:8-11 (Ps.72:8) indicates borders for Israel that match the promise to Israel through Moses (c.f. Ex.23:31) that were realized only under Solomon (1Ki.4:21).

• Judges

• Psalm 83:9-11 the psalmist recalls God’s militant actions against enemies in the past and calls on God for protection now…as he did, so let him do.

• Kings^[2]

• Psalm 3 – This is a psalm of David when he fled from his son Absalom. There’s not a direct reference to the event in the Psalm. There is an application derived from the event – that God can be trusted. There is also a petition for deliverance.

• Psalm 7 – This is a psalm of David concerning Cush, a Benjamite. We have no references in the historical books to such an individual, so it’s impossible to observe any hermeneutical methods.

• Psalm 18 – There are some differences between this Psalm and its telling in 2 Samuel 22; all but one or two are minor.

• Psalm 34 – This is a psalm of David when he pretended to be insane before Abimelech, who drove him away and he left. There’s not a direct reference to the event in the Psalm. It is an application derived from the event – that God delivers his loved ones.

• Psalm 51 – This is a psalm of David when Nathan rebuked him after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba. There’s not a direct reference to the event in the Psalm. It does contain applications derived from the event: 1. that only God can pardon sin, 2. that all sin is, ultimately, against God, 3. that only God can restore & 4. that repentance is more important than religious activity. It also contains petitions for mercy & forgiveness. Verse 11 may be David’s application of the downfall of Saul to his own situation through historical analogy. At the rebuke of Nathan he must have thought back to Saul who was cast aside for rejecting the will of God (1Sam.13:14; 15:10,22-23; 16:14-23). Now, David had ‘despised the word of the Lord’ (2 Sam. 12:9,10,14) what would God do? Also, verse 18 seems to correlate the welfare of Israel with the moral righteousness of the king. This may be an application of 2 Sam. 24.

• Psalm 52 – This is a psalm of David when Doeg the Edomite told Saul where David had fled (c.f. 1Sam.21:7 & 22:9-19) resulting in the deaths of the priests. There’s not a direct reference to the event in the Psalm. There are some applications derived from the event – that God will destroy the wicked and deliver the righteous.

• Psalm 54 – This is a psalm of David when the Ziphites revealed David was hiding amongst the people (c.f. 1Sam.23:19 & 26:1) resulting in Saul’s effort to find & kill him. There’s not a direct reference to the event in the Psalm. There is an application derived from the event – that God is the source of help. There is also a petition – that God would deliver him.

• Psalm 57 – This psalm concerns a time when David hid from Saul in a cave.

• Psalm 59 – This psalm concerns a time when Saul set up an ambush for David at his house. The text consists of imprecations and requests for deliverance.

• Psalm 60 – This psalm concerns a time when David fought Aram Naharaim & Aram Zobah and when Joab killed 12,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt. There are discrepancies between the information in the title and the apparent synoptic information in 2 Samuel 8:13. This is a lament and a request for deliverance.

• Psalm 63 – This psalm concerns a time when David was in the desert of Judah. The title is not specific enough to glean much of value for our purposes.

• Psalm 96 – This psalm echoes David’s psalm in 1Chronicles 16:23-33 (c.d. Psalm 105). There are some minor variations between the two poems but there is no apparent interpretive activity in Ps.96 relative to the Chronicles account.

• Psalm 105:1-15 – This portion of the psalm echoes David’s psalm in 1Chronicles 16:8-22 (c.f. Psalm 96). There are some minor variations between the two poems but there is no apparent interpretive activity in Ps.105 relative to the Chronicles account.

• Psalm 106:1,47-48 – This portion of the psalm echoes David’s psalm in 1Chronicles 16:34-36

• Psalm 142 – This psalm concerns a time when David was in a cave. There’s not enough information for our purposes.

There is no evidence in these historical references that the psalmist viewed the narratives they referred to as anything other than actual history. The events cited correspond directly to the descriptions of those same events in the earlier parts of the Torah.^[3] In some cases the psalmists recount and apply the historical information. In other cases they derive deeper meaning from the text, although the deeper meaning is completely compatible with it. In a few cases the psalmists reveal something new about the historical event that was not contained in the original text.

Prophecy

• Psalm 105:17-19 God foretold the future of Joseph…this shows the truthfulness of God’s word.

Sacrificial System

• It is fairly obvious that the wording of Psalm 51, "you do not delight in sacrifice…you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings" is remarkably similar to Samuel’s question, "does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices…" Yet 1 Samuel 15:22 emphasizes that obedience is better than sacrifice whereas Psalm 51 emphasizes that contrition & repentance are better than sacrifice.

• Again, the language of 1 Samuel 15:22 is much like that of Psalm 40:6-8. In this case, both passages emphasize that obedience is better than sacrifice.^[4]

Typology^[5]

• God as the Rock

• Gen.49:24 In Jacob’s blessing of Joseph he indicates Joseph overcame his severe adversity because of the Rock of Israel.
• Deut.32:4 Moses says the God is the Rock; v.15,18 that Israel rejected the Rock his savior, his father when things were going well; v. 31 that Israel’s Rock causes them to overcome insurmountable odds
• 1Sam.2:2 Hannah indicated that Israel’s Rock is entirely unique as did David 2Sam.22:32 (c.f. Psalm 18:31).
• Psalm 18:2 The Rock is a fortress against David’s enemies
• Psalm 19:14 God is David’s Rock and goel; Psalm 78:35 couples the two in the same way;
• Ethan indicates that David called YHWH his Father, God, Rock & Savior (Ps.89:26; 92:15)
• David indicates that the Lord his Rock trains him for battle (Ps.144:1)

The psalmists certainly reiterate the Rock imagery of God as protector and redeemer found in earlier text but there is no indication of novel theological meaning for the term in the Psalms.

• Manna as God’s provision – Ps.78:25 reveals that manna is angelic food; In Ex.16:4 God simply says he will rain down bread from heaven; it does appear that this information is new in this Psalm and could not have been anticipated through study of the earlier text.
• Exodus as redemption (see the material under the exodus)

Notes

^[1]"May God extend the territory of Japheth; may he live in the tents of Shem" It is possible that Noah is claiming Japheth (i.e. who's offspring were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras; Northern Europeans?) will live in the tents of Shem but the rule of grammar is that the subject of a sentence satisfies all pronouns thus the 'he' most likely refers to God not to Japheth. 

^[2]Most of these references are to Psalms connected to particular events in the life of David. I will assume, in most cases, that the superscript or postscript information associated with a Psalm is legitimate. Some historical superscripts seem unsubstantiated by the content of the psalm that follows (e.g. 34). It's not clear whether this is because titles were speculative additions to the psalm, whether the psalms are generalized principles relevant to the historical antecedent or whether, as some argue, the superscripts are really subscripts for the previous psalm. In most cases, however, these sidebar comments are very ancient. According to Anderson these are not only found, "… in MT, Qumran, LXX, and Targums, but it ought also to be noted that even by the time of the LXX translation (2nd - 3rd century BC) the technical terms contained there were so antiquated and obscure that the translators had a fair degree of trouble interpreting them. This is true also for the Targums. Furthermore, we find similar super/postscripts in other parts of Scripture (cf. Hab 3:1, 19b; Isa 38:9). There thus seems to be no reason not to take the super/postscripts seriously." This type of material differs from other references to the Pentateuch & Former Prophets because ostensibly the author is reflecting on the meaning of the events in his own personal history. 

^[3]Excepting Psalm 60. 

^[4]Psalm 40 has some additional interpretive difficulties because of the use the author of Hebrews put to the LXX version of the passage (c.f. Heb.10:5-10). 

^[5]Typology is a sort of prefiguration of a truth through past institutions, events or persons (see Tracy L. Howard). 

Return to Top

Appendix E - Methods of Predictive Prophecy Interpretation

Relevant Interpretative Schools^[1]

Application - This refers to the use of principles derived from antecedent texts in novel situations. As defined here, this approach to scripture does not confuse application with interpretation. Rather, application arises from interpretation. Obviously then, applications are going to differ depending on the hermeneutical approach used by the interpreter. Applications were clearly derived from earlier revelation by OT authors. For example, the psalmists use of the Pentateuch is typically application oriented but the applications are context sensitive and thus objective in their use of antecedent texts.

Methods of Predictive Prophecy Interpretation Applied to Matthew 2:15

Notes

^[1]This list is not exhaustive. I have focused on methods that are friendly to the interests of authorial intent and may have been used by OT authors related to antecedent texts. Thus, I have not listed the following methods of interpretation: Allegorical, Naturalistic; Neo-Orthodox or Ideological. 

^[2]lit. to strip off (a garment) 

^[3]Around the AD 100's the halakic midrashim were written down. Around the AD 200's haggadic midrashim were recorded. 

^[4]An interpretive method is prospective if it attempts to show that a prophecy has meaning for the future. An interpretive method is retrospective if it attempts to show that a prophecy fits a subsequent event but can only do so post hoc (i.e. something unexpected before the fact but undeniable afterward). An interpretive method that tries to show a prophecy is a prediction from within its own context but also tries to show a prophecy is a prediction from the context of the putative fulfilled prediction is both prospective and retrospective. The qualifiers 'objective' and 'subjective' indicate whether the interpretations derived by a method could be produced by a neutral party using the rules of that method. Ideally a method should be objective and able to justify arguments that a prophecy is predictive from the context of the prophecy and also from the context of the event that is thought to have been predicted by the prophecy. 

^[5]Some hermeneutical schools might deny divine authorization for this use of antecedent scripture but still agree new meaning is made from the earlier text that the original author did not intend. 

Return to Top

Appendix F - Matthew's use of 'Fulfill'

Return to Top

Appendix G - The Immediate Context for Matthew 2:13-15

Return to Top