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.
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.
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)
It is obvious. Heck, probably every ancient Jew who traveled to Egypt and came back probably heard the neighbors teasing him about being like Joseph or Moses. Given that Jesus’ mother was named Miriam, after Moses’ sister, and that she was married to Joseph, you have to imagine that Jesus heard jokes, too.
If you are a Gospel writer and you actually believe that Jesus is God’s literal Son (as well as the Son of David, son of Jacob, son of Abraham, son of Adam, etc.), how could you tell the Egypt story and not quote it? You would give the,appearance of denying any connection to the history of Israel, as if God had forgotten His Covenant or as if Jesus were born a Gentile to show His contempt for the Jews. Matthew is specifically writing to connect Jesus to His people’s story. He would be an idiot to leave out the quotes.
But all the Gospels are full of “New Exodus” imagery. Obviously Jesus is the Passover Lamb, as Paul explicates, as well as the Gospels. The Jesus of Nazareth trilogy by Pope B16 talks about Christ as the New Moses, and Brant Pitre has a lot of material on this. Even the Lord’s Prayer includes such imagery.
So no, it isn’t weak. It is part of a motif that had already started, and which continues until the end of Matthew.
…heard of the parting of the sea? …or Jesus learning from great sages from the east?
“Scholars” are always spinning their wheels… though they swear they actually invented it.
…as I understand it, the notion of record keeping did not include the poor and powerless; in our modern era logistics (US) only a natural-born citizen can aspire to the Presidency… yet, all “naturalized” citizens are called “Americans.” (I hope you can follow…)
…as for Biblical take on the Nazareth issue:
29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”30 The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. 32 Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34 To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out. (St. John 9:29-34)
3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith. (St. Mark 6:3-4)
Jesus’s contemporaries did not believe that he was not from Nazareth–the concern with the religious was not His place of birth but His Origin… they rejected the Word (St. John 1) and they dismissed the man (St. John 1:45-46).
Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets. Many things happened to the patriarchs and the chosen people, i.e., the Israelites in figure of what was to be fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament cannot be properly understood and interpreted without Jesus Christ. In God’s plan for the redemption of the human race, the Old Testament is moving forward to the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the God-Man.
The bible is the word of God, the Holy Spirit is the principle author of the Bible. We also know the bible can have various senses beyond the literal sense such as the allegorical or figurative sense. Being that the Holy Spirit is the principle author of the Bible, the word of God possesses we might say an infinite wealth and depth of meaning of which the Holy Spirit only can search out and those who are inspired by the Holy Spirit as St Paul says
“For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” ( 1 Cor. 2: 11). The apostles themselves did not understand the prophetic writings concerning the coming Messiah. They thought Jesus was going to establish a political kingdom whereas Jesus established a spiritual kingdom of God on earth which is his Church.
Now, if the Holy Spirit speaking through Matthew says "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” (Matt. 2:15) than we cannot doubt for a moment the truth of this or we would be doubting God himself and his word. We need to conform our mind to the mind of God if we want to understand the scriptures properly. The prophet Matthew is speaking of here is probably Hosea 11:1 which says “When Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” Exodus 4:22 is another text Matthew could be alluding too. As I said above, Holy Scripture can have various senses and many of the events which happened to the chosen people where prophetic and figurative of what was going to be fulfilled in Christ and the kingdom of God which is his Church he established on earth. Accordingly, Hosea 11:1 refers to both God delivering the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt, and it was prophetic of the Holy Family’s stay in Egypt. It is not necessary that God would have revealed precisely to the prophet Hosea the Messiah coming out of Egypt as Jesus did when he wrote down those inspired words in 11:1. The fact is if Matthew is alluding to this passage of scripture which seems probable although he may have had other passages of scripture in mind too, it is prophetic of Jesus’ stay in Egypt. Indeed, Jesus is the literal and only begotten Son of the Father. The point is if Matthew says “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet” than that is the truth of the matter. The same goes for the other passages of scripture you mention such as about Rahab. The best interpretation and understanding of Holy Scripture is when Holy Scripture interprets itself. St Peter says “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20).