Paradigm Exegesis

Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:  “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, . . .    Matthew 2:17-18a  NASB

Jeremiah – Anyone who bothers to check the reference provided by Matthew will quickly conclude that Jeremiah’s statement has nothing to do with the death of children in Bethlehem.  Jeremiah is speaking about the Captivity, not Herod’s brutality.  No one dies in Jeremiah’s vision.  Certainly the Jews in Matthew’s audience knew this. Why didn’t they object?  “Matthew, you’ve made an exegetical mistake.  You can’t apply this statement to some event that happened hundreds of years later.  Jeremiah’s prophecy isn’t Messianic at all!”  We could raise the same objection from a Christian perspective.  This just isn’t Messianic prophecy.  In fact, nearly all the so-called biblical prophecies about the Messiah in the Tanakh fall to this same sort of objection.  But we allow this sloppy exegesis because we want Old Testament proof texts about the Messiah.  So, both Jews and Christians play fast and loose with the actual historical events and statements.  If we’re going to be rigidly consistent, we should reject all this spurious prophetic application.

Except . . . except for the fact that no one, Christian or Jew, actually claims to be rigidly consistent.  Other factors enter the picture, and those other factors actually set the foundation for interpretation of the text.  Consider Brandes’ comments about the interplay between peshat and derash:

To conclude, the fundamental difference between the peshat exegetes, scholars, and Bible critics on the one hand, and the sages on the other, is the level of “sincerity” with which they relate to the peshat. The peshat exegetes regard this as the primary and fundamental way of interpreting the Bible, and ascribe enormous significance to its role in the formation of the believer’s worldview and perception of reality. The derash exegetes, in contrast, derive their worldview and perception of reality from the Oral Law, and regard the peshat as an additional exegetical option that can never take precedence, either in understanding the Bible or in the formation of the believer’s worldview.  Principles of faith and the finer points of halakhah are not determined by their conformity to the plain meaning of the biblical text. On the contrary, by means of derash, the verses are made to conform to the beliefs and opinions, and laws and customs of the Oral Law. This approach allows the sages and those following in their path to relate freely to the peshat and accept the possibility that it contains contradictions and difficulties, both intrinsic and theological.[1]

Brandes helps us understand that strict exegesis is not the way the sages treated the text.  They were well aware of their modifications, but the goal was not literal interpretation.  The goal was theological application.  That’s why Matthew can claim a text from Jeremiah is fulfilled in an event that is otherwise completely unrelated.  The application is theological, not exegetical.  The same can be said for other “Messianic” prophecies.

Christian exegetes use the same technique as the sages when it comes to proof texts about the Messiah.  But they usually stop there.  Sages, on the other hand, apply this technique to most of the Tanakh—and legitimately so since it is well within the paradigm of Jewish biblical interpretation.  When we pause over some rabbinic claim about a particular text and feel as if the rabbis have just “gone too far,” we’re attempting to hold them to our standard of exegesis, which, by the way, isn’t so consistent either.  If we really want to understand how the orthodox Jewish community thinks, we’ll have to set aside our paradigm and enter theirs.

Topical Index: Messianic prophecy, peshat, derash, Sages, exegesis, Matthew 2:17-18a

[1] Yehuda Brandes, “The Sages as Bible Critics,” in The Believer and the Modern Study of the Bible (Academic Studies Press, 2019), p. 212.