Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament—- Lee Campbell

This genealogy of Christ tracing his lineage back to Abraham establishes his racial, tribal and Davidic identity through adoption by Joseph (v.20 Joseph son of David). Official genealogies always moved from the oldest to the most recent..

A term used in the OT in several passages that were understood to apply to a single individual by later interpreters, leading to its use as a title. Matthew’s titular use of Christ serves as a reference back to all the recognized messianic OT texts.

The genealogy of Christ traces his lineage back to David through adoption by Joseph (v.20 Joseph son of David). This is significant because of the Davidic covenant that an anointed one from the line of David would sit on his throne to rule the world for all time.

v.21 The messiah’s name Jesus (i.e. Joshua – means the Lord is salvation) is significant because is connects Jesus with the suffering servant narratives of Isaiah (i.e. the one who would bear the sins of Israel).

Formal quote[1] v.23

vv.22-23 Isa.7:14 (8:8-10) – this seemed to have contemporary meaning to Isaiah and yet Matthew indicates it is fulfilled in Christ.

Formal quote possibly taken from a Targum or Peshitta

Micah 5:2 – a clear prophecy that a ruler born in Bethlehem, whose origins are from (i.e. literally) days of eternity will arise from Judah to rule the whole earth. There is even a preceding prophecy that the ruler of Israel would be struck down.

Formal quote possibly taken from the Peshitta

Matthew takes the MT approach of literally translating “son” rather than the LXX “His children”

Matthew may have intended to allude to the entire section through the use of a single citation (c.f. Hosea 11:1-11).

The Exodus type produced an exodus motif with its associated terminology that was recalled for the purpose of instruction [2] and that was repeated in the return of Joshua to Palestine & Judah from the Babylonian exile.

Jer.31:15 – this is clearly a prophecy of the Babylonian captivity of Israel so in what sense does it get fulfilled in Christ’s day?

Formal quote v.18

Formal quote like the way the Qumran community translates it, emphasizing the lowliness of the messiah’s origins (Gundry, ppl97-104)

Zech.3:8; 6:12; Isa.4:2 – This may be a play on words by Matthew since the term for branch nezer has the same sound as the root for the name Nazarene; alternatively Matthew may have a scripture in mind that is not part of the canon known to us.

differs only slightly from the LXX.

Matthew’s citation is compatible with the MT

Concerning the OT language of John the Baptist see Hosea 9:13. Did John intend a reference to this prophet?

2 Ki.1:8 – the garb and behavior of Elijah and John are remarkably similar…too much so to reject as coincidence. Both had ministries to believing Israel and against apostate Israel as well.

Winnowing fork allusion Hos.6:13

Separation of righteous/unrighteous motif in prophecies of the kingdom of God (Dan.12:1-3).

The 40 days/nights allusion here is a motif echoed from the flood judgment, from Moses fasting before the Lord on Sinai and Elijah’s fasting as he traveled to Horeb to receive a commission and reassurance from the Lord.

This also corresponds to the 40 years wilderness experience of Israel.

Formal quote 4:6,7 shared with Luke; LXX

Formal quote 4:4,10 shared with Luke; different from but related to LXX

This messianic prophecy follows directly on the heels of a description of profound rebellion in Israel that will lead it to the judgment of God. The imprisonment of John and the subsequent preaching of repentance by Christ, because of the imminent onset of the kingdom, fits that motif nicely.

Notice the Gentile connections.

Citation and expansion of the meaning of the Law

Citation and expansion of the meaning of the Law

Citation and expansion of the meaning of the Law

Citation and expansion of the meaning of the Law

An application of Lev.19:2 to Lev.19:18 to refute the rabbinical interpretation of Lev.19:18 that they could hate their enemies…meaning is established by context is the hermeneutical principle used by Christ here.

vv.11-12 Ps.107:3; Isa.49:12; 59:19; Mal.1:11 – the separation of righteous and wicked motif as well as allusions to the Abrahamic covenant of blessing to Gentiles.

Correlation of the ministry of Christ with the predicted ministry of the servant of the Lord.

31x in Matthew; Jeremiah takes the title as a reference to humans. God repeatedly addresses Ezekiel as ‘son of man.’ Dan 7:13 identifies the ‘Son of man’ with the messiah.

God is expressing his disgust that Israel would offer gifts instead of fidelity to Him (i.e. hesed, translated mercy, means faithful love). In Hosea, even the priests are wicked (6:9)

Allusion to Elijah & Elisha in the inauguration of these ministries.

c.f. 1:20

12 disciples correspond to the 12 tribes to whom the disciples were commanded to go; win the lost sheep of Israel.

On the face of it this doesn’t seem to fit b/c Micah describes a depraved situation of familial disintegration but the Micah prophecy does mention a watchman who warns of impending danger (Isa.10:3; Hos.9:7) coming to Israel at the time of their worst sin to warn them of judgment where the most upright are no better than amesuka (thorny hedge) and so it would be come a time of their mebuka(confusion) (note the alliteration and assonance used by Micah). Perhaps this is an example of the use of OT language rather than prophecy.

This is a composite quotation. The first part is compatible with LXX of Ex.23:20. The second part has some similarity with the MT of Mal.3:1.

This melding of Ex.23:20 & Mal.3:1 may precede the NT use of it since it is found in Jewish literature as well.

Christ’s a fortiori argument challenges the hollow, literalistic way that the spiritual leaders interpreted the Torah. The priests work on the Sabbath, David ate the consecrated bread why shouldn’t he who can heal the crippled work on the Sabbath.

Formal quote v.18-21 possibly associated with a Targum

A historical analogy between Christ and Jonah shows correlation between the ministry of both to those outside of Israel as well as the intended analogy of a 3 day judgment. It also contrasts the interest of a gentile with the disinterest of Jews.

c.f. 1:20

Queen of Sheba – an application from the intense curiosity of the queen contrasted with the lack of interest shown by the Pharisees/Sadducees/scribes of Christ’s day. It also contrasts the interest of a gentile with the disinterest of Jews.

Formal quote v.35

This had clear application to Israel in Isaiah’s day and so either God intended the saying to be a prediction or a historical analogy. Seed > Branch > Tree ?

Mk.7:10; Lk.18:20; Ex.20:12

The form is akin to the LXX but it is different than LXX, MT or Mark in its omission of a possessive pronoun but the following reasons offered by Gundry may explain the departure from the LXX: 1. The citation is used as an oral instruction, this may justify the authorial drop of the possessive pronoun 2. The LXX frequently drops possessive pronouns 3. Hebrew texts sometimes let suffixes be implied 4. The omission may be stylistic, letting the definite articles play a partial role in showing the possessives 5. Galilean Aramaic tends to use emphatic nouns

Formal quote v. 4b

Mk.7:10; Ex21:17…this is probably an LXX quote

Similar to Mk.7:6-7

Both are shortened renderings of the LXX

c.f. 1:20

Ps.2:7 This is my beloved son

Isa. 42:1…with whom I am well pleased

Deut.18:15…listen to him

c.f. 8:20

Mk.10:7; Eph.5:31 – Mark’s citation is LXX. Matthew differs from Mark & LXX: 1. Matthew’s use of duo shows a Hebrew variant 2. Eis sarxa mian contains an over literal rendering of the Hebrew character (p.17 Gundry) 3. Xai eipen is inserted between verses 4 & 5 which is a Targum-like difference between Matthew & Mark.

Mk.10:19; Lk.18:20 – since it serves as an oral instruction in the Q&A format it is difficult to correlate with any OT translations; some think it correlates with Lev.19:13 since that is a precept derived from the earlier material (i.e. rather than Dt.24:14 or Ex.21:10); Matthew here seems to be interacting with the MT

Jn.12:15; According to Gundry, “Ambiguity in the gender of onos, however, gave him opportunity to make a distinction. That the male colt had not been ridden opens the possibility of a historical reminiscence in the mention of the two animals. For the sight of an unridden donkey colt accompanying its mother has remained common in Palestine up to modern times.”

c.f. 1:20

Formal quote 13b – Mk.11:17; Lk.19:46; Jer.7:11…dependent on LXX lhston (robbers) is used for the Hebrew (violent men)

not LXX; peculiar to Matthew

differs from LXX and Mark.

differs from LXX and Mark.

c.f. 1:20

Gundry sees the desolation in terms of Jesus’ absence.

differs from LXX and Mark.

Matthew attributes this prophecy to Jeremiah suggesting either that he got it wrong or that he was simultaneously alluding to Jeremiah 19, the potter’s field (i.e. a similar thing is done in 2 Chron.36:21 in relation to Lev.26:34f & Jer.25:12; 29:10)