Matthew is the only place in the Bible were we read that Jesus and his family traveled to Egypt. They traveled to Egypt because Herod was told by ‘wise men from the east’ that a king was to be born in Bethlehem. Matthew is, again, the only place in the Bible where this is mentioned. According to our Christmas plays and Nativity scenes there were three wise men, but this is found no where in the text. Do you ever wonder why Matthew is the only Gospel that includes these narratives?
I do. According the the narrative in Luke, after the birth of Jesus they returned to Nazareth. There is no mention of Egypt, Herod, or wise men. And this is from an author who is making it explicitly known that he is writing so that those who love God will have an orderly account of the life of Christ.
The reason I bring this up is because I think that Matthew is artistically shaping history according to his theological purpose. Matthew seems to have been written to a primarily Jewish audience and his theological goals center around that audience. He is not just presenting Jesus as king, but presenting Jesus as the new Israel.
I say this because there are a few instances in Matthew’s gospel where he locates Jesus in a specific geographical location and then follows it with an OT quotation. In this case, Matthew locates Jesus in Egypt with his family. When Herod dies, they return to “the land of Israel” and finally, because of a dream, they end up in Nazareth.
The theological significance of Matthew placing Jesus and his family in Egypt is brought out by the OT quotation that Matthew uses from Hosea 11.1b: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew places Jesus in a geographic location and then explains the significance by an OT quotation.
When you go back and look at Hosea 11.1 in its context, it is in the midst of YHWH proclaiming his love for Israel. The entire verse reads: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Based on this quotation, it seems that Matthew, in his theologically charged narrative, has placed Jesus in Egypt in order to quote this verse and make his HUGE theological point: Jesus is not just a member of Israel, but he has become Israel for Israel’s own sake.
Question: does Matthew’s theological and narratival “art” make Jesus’ trip to Egypt just a ’story’ and not historical fact? Would it really matter if it was just a ’story’ and not historical fact?
I’m looking forward to your answers.
17 October 2007 at 10.24 am
I think your question itself assumes that there is such a thing as historical fact that we can get to. I think a basic historicity is important but everyone is going to shape their story to support their conclusions. Lucky for us, we believe our Scriptures to be inspired.
26 October 2007 at 4.00 pm
[...] Boulet’s been doing an interesting series on Matthew’s use of the Prophets (01; o2; [...]
24 November 2007 at 12.29 pm
Just because Luke doesn’t mention Egypt, the Herodian slaughter of the innocents, or the Magi, it doesn’t necessarily follow that those things didn’t happen, even if Luke claims to have published an orderly account without mentioning Matthew’s
“big three.” If we followed your lead, we’d have to throw out the entirety of Matthew, Mark, and John except for the parts that find their parallel in Luke. I don’t think you’re willing to go that far, of course.
Placement of certain events within the gospel itself to draw a particular theological point, yes; creating certain non-factual events to do the same, I’m not so willing to travel that road … yet. At the same time one chooses to wonder why Matthew may have included (invented?) those events, maybe one should attempt to discover why Luke didn’t.