Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 2:15

Charles Ellicott Commentary

Matthew 2:15

1819–1905
Anglican
Charles Ellicott
Charles Ellicott

Charles Ellicott Commentary

Matthew 2:15

1819–1905
Anglican
SCRIPTURE

"and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son." — Matthew 2:15 (ASV)

Until the death of Herod — The uncertainty surrounding the exact date of the Nativity makes it difficult to determine a precise statement about the length of this period. Since Herod's death occurred shortly before the Passover in 4 B.C. (according to the common but erroneous reckoning), the interval could not have been more than a few months, even if we place the Nativity in the previous year.

Out of Egypt have I called my son — As the words stand in Hosea 11:1, When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt, they refer, without a doubt, to the history of Israel. In a special sense, Israel was the chosen son of Jehovah among all the nations of the world (Exodus 4:22–23). It is hard to imagine any reader of the prophecy not seeing that this was what we would call the meaning.

However, the Evangelist's train of thought in applying this to Christ follows its own distinct method. A coincidence in what seems to be a minor detail—a mere circumstance of the story—leads his mind to deeper analogies. In the days of the Exodus, Israel was the primary example of God's fatherhood manifested in protecting and delivering His people. Now, there was a higher representative in the person of the only-begotten Son. When the words Out of Egypt did I call my Son came to his mind (which he translated from the Hebrew instead of the Greek Septuagint), what could be more natural than for him to look past the immediate historical context and note with wonder the fulfillment these words found in the circumstances he had just narrated?

Here, as before, the apparent strain on the words' literal meaning is strong evidence that the writer had a known fact before him to which the prophecy was adapted. This stands in contrast to the suggestion, as some have thought, that the narrative was constructed simply to support a strained interpretation of the prophecy.