In Matthew 13:15 ‘out of Egypt I have called my son’. This always seems to me to be a rather superficial connection and is used by the likes of Tovia Singer to ridicule the Gospel. The other two claims of prophecy fulfilment around that verse, that of Rahab calling out because of her lost children and Joseph’s dwelling in Narareth so that Jesus will be called a Nazorean also seem not strong and many I have heard claim that Jesus would not have been known as ‘of Nazareth’ had he not been born there.
Any thoughts or opinions?
Bethlehem was Jesus’ birth place but Nazareth was the place where Jesus lived until His public ministry,
Matthew 2:15. Haydock Commentary
Ver. 15. Out of Egypt have I called my son.[3]
St. Jerome understands these words to be taken out of the prophet Osee, (Chap. xi. 2.) and granted they might be literally spoken of the people Israel: yet as their captivity in Egypt was a figure of the slavery of sin, under which all mankind groaned, and as their delivery by Moses was a figure of man’s redemption by our Saviour Christ, so these words in a mystical and spiritual sense apply to our Saviour, who in a more proper sense was the Son of God, than was the people of Israel. (Witham)
— The application of this passage of the prophet to Christ, whereas in the simple letter it might appear otherwise, teaches us how to interpret the Old Testament; and that the principal sense is of Christ and his Church. (Bristow)
Osee Ch. xi 1 As the morning passeth, so hath the king of Israel passed away. Because Israel was a child, and *I loved him: and I called my son out of Egypt.
Ver. 1. Away.
The last kings of Israel lived in the midst of troubles. (Haydock)
— Osee, though one of the best, brought ruin on the nation. (Calmet)
— Son: Israel. But as the calling of Israel out of Egypt was a figure of the calling of Christ from thence; therefore this text is also applicable to Christ, as we learn from St. Matthew ii. 15. (Challoner) Julian pretends that the apostle has abused this text. But it speaks of both events. (St. Jerome)
— Eusebius (Dem. ix. 3.) thinks that St. Matthew refers to Balaam; (Numbers xxiv. 8.) and St. Jerome does not reject this opinion, (in Matthew ii.; Calmet) to avoid “wrangling,” though he repeatedly alleges this text as a proof his version being more accurate than that of the Septuagint, which has his children. This reading the best editions retain; so that it may seem a matter of surprise, that Fabricius should give this verse as a specimen of Origen’s Hexapla, and still print my son, taking it, as he says, from the Barbarini copy, the London Polyglot, and Cave. Bib. Gr. iii. 12. The first column has the Hebrew text, and the second the same in Greek characters, &c. The reader may form a judgment of this work from the following specimen: 1. Hebrew (which we shall express) karathi bani. 2. Greek karathi bani. 3. Aquila ekalesa ton uion mou. 4. Symmachus kekletai uios mou. 5. Septuagint kekletai uios mou. 6. Theodotion kai ekalesa uion mou. If any other versions were added, to form Octapla, &c., they were placed after Theodotion, who, though prior to Symmachus, is placed after him, because his version was not so unlike that of the Septuagint, and the deficiencies were chiefly supplied from him. In the Roman and Alexandrian editions, instead of the above we find, metekalesa ta tekna autou. “I have recalled his children.” (Haydock)
— This is literally spoken of Israel, (styled God’s son, Exodus iv 23.) and mystically, (Worthington) though no less (Haydock) truly, of Jesus Christ, as the inspired evangelist shews. (Worthington)
