Essences, Properties and Apophaticism

0. Introduction

Apophatic theology is perhaps most closely associated with the Eastern Fathers and it is the view that the divine essence is utterly transcendent, ineffable, infinite and incomprehensible. As a consequence, one must use negative speech or apophatic language concerning God, saying what he is not rather than what he is. I shall discuss the distinction between essences and properties that this doctrine implies and I will argue it entails a denial of any sort of essentialism, and makes it impossible to make coherent claims about the essence of any particular. 

1. The Divine Essence

The New Testament authors say that “no one has seen God at any time,” (Joh. 1:18; 6:46; 1 Joh. 4:12) and even declare that it is impossible for him to be seen, “who alone has immortality and dwells in approachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see.” (1 Tim. 6:16) The epistles of Paul give the title “the invisible God.” (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; cf. Rom. 1:20) Paul describes the transcendence of God this way: 

“O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom. 11:33-36) 

These statements express a great distance between God and the created order, in terms of nature and comprehension. But there are also claims to the opposite effect, that God is close to the world and all of creation, “in him we live, and move, and have our existence.” (Acts 17:28) The saints have a special closeness with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Paul says to the Corinthians, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (2 Cor. 13:14) They are baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. 28:19) The Johannine writings claim the saints will see God, as he is, and will “be one” with the Father in a similar manner to how Christ is one with the Father. (1 Joh. 3:1-2; Joh. 17:21-24) The eastern fathers often claimed that God’s essence was infinite and transcended all comprehension and is therefore inaccessible to all creatures. As in John of Damascus, “As regards what God is, it is impossible to say what he is in his essence, so it is better to discuss him by abstraction from all things.” (Expos. Fidei 1.4) Dionysius the Areopagite tells us, “He cannot be known by the senses, nor in an image, nor by opinion, nor by reason, nor by knowledge.” (De divinis nominibus 1.5) Dionysius explains that the divine essence is not on our plane of existence or in any way analogous to existing things in our sense-experience, and is forever beyond our reach, “He is neither conceived, nor expressed, nor named. And He is not any of existing things, nor is He known in any one of existing things. And He is all in all, and nothing in none. And He is known to all, from all, and to none from none.” (De div. nom. 7.3.) Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) admitted that when taken together all of these statements appear contradictory, but he claims they are both true. 

“It is right for all theology which wishes to respect piety to affirm sometimes one and sometimes the other, when both affirmations are true.” (Physical and Theological Chapters, 121.) 

Gregory Palamas is most famous for articulating and defending a distinction between the divine essence and the uncreated energies of God which was affirmed by the orthodox Councils of Constantinople of 1341, 1351 and 1368 which are sometimes called the Palamite councils. Palamas says the divine essence “exceeds even His uncreated energies, since this essence transcends all affirmation and all negation." (Triads, 2.3.8) The saints participate in the energies or operations of God, and thereby in the life of God and become deified (theosis) but they do not participate in the essence of God, “Illumination or divine and deifying grace is not the essence but the energy of God.” (Physical and Theological Chapters, 69.) 

2. Apophaticism and Divine Properties

In conciliar formulations of the Trinity doctrine, the three divine persons are the “one God,” hence, the only true God is the Trinity. There are not three Gods because the divine persons are identical with the divine essence, and yet there are three distinct persons because the persons are not identical with one another. Cyril of Alexandria says in the Council of Ephesus (431) the Son “is One with his Father through the identity of essence.” (Cum salvator noster, 12.) The Second Council of Constantinople (553) likewise, "the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one." The Father is unbegotten, while the Son is begotten, and the Holy Ghost proceeds, therefore, the conciliar definitions claim a real difference exists between the persons. As Gregory of Nyssa says, “the idea of cause differentiates the Persons of the Holy Trinity.” (Not Three Gods, 18.) 

The divine essence is incomprehensible so must be talked about only in a negative manner, saying what it is not. Even here our language is not perfect, says Dionysius, “when pursuing the negative method to reach That which is beyond all abstraction, we must begin by applying our negations to things which are most remote from It.” (De Theologia Mystica, 3.) The Synodical Tome (1341) of the first Palamite council affirmed “the blessed and holy Godhead in its essence is beyond ineffable and beyond unknowable and infinitely removed from all unlimitedness.” (par. 28.) If the persons of the Trinity are identical with the essence, then it follows that the Trinity is likewise incomprehensible and must be described only “by abstraction” which is to say negatively, or apophatically. Therefore, Augustine says “If we are asked to define the Trinity, we can only say, it is not this or that.” (De Trin. 4.100.1) Evagrius Ponticus similarly says “remember the true faith and know that the Holy Trinity does not make himself known.” (Epistle 29.) And Dionysius again, "The Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness." (De Theologia Mystica, 1.1) However, if someone were to ask for a definition of the Trinity and I were to answer, “the Trinity is not a book nor is it a color.” This would not be an insightful or satisfying answer. It would be an answer only of negation, saying what the Trinity is not. It would also seem to make any systematic theology impossible if God could not be described positively whatsoever. But both Augustine, Dionysius and Evagrius offer many positive descriptions of the Trinity in their writings, saying that there are three persons, and describing their relations and so on. This seems like a contradiction. To say that the divine essence is utterly unknowable, while simultaneously making claims about God, his properties, and how many persons God is. This apparent contradiction is addressed by making a distinction between God’s properties and his essence. 

"It is necessary to distinguish this negative method of abstraction from the positive method of affirmation, in which we deal with the Divine Attributes." (De mystica theologia 2.2) 

For Dionysius, one might know everything about the attributes of God and still know nothing about his essence. Borrowing somewhat from the tools of Aristotelian metaphysics, the eastern made a distinction between the unknowable essence of God and his properties. Aristotle made a distinction between essences and properties or accidents. Though modern interpreters disagree over precisely what Aristotle means by an essence in distinction to a form, the details are somewhat inconsistent, “the substance (ούσια) is the form (μορφή)” of a thing, and yet he also says, “By the substance without matter I mean essence,” λέγω δὲ οὐσίαν ἄνευ ὕλης τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι. (Met. 1032b14) Aristotle also discusses four different sorts of causes or explanations, αίτια, a term which the Cappadocians would later borrow to describe trinitarian processions. (Phys. ii. 2; Met.  5.1013a cf. Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto 6; Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 2.3; Gregory of Nyssa, Adv. Eun. 1.28.1, et al.) 

Which is to say, in the traditional view, it is possible to make many statements about the properties of God, to assert that he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent,  necessarily existent, etc. without having said anything about the divine essence itself directly. The essence remains “neither an object of intellectual nor of sensible perception, nor is absolutely anything of things existing,” but God may positively be described as “almighty” and “the Cause formative of all.” (De divinis nominibus, 7.3.) But it is not the view of the eastern fathers that God has no properties.

3. Properties and Essences

For Dionysius, one can only speak negatively about the divine essence but it is possible to make positive affirmations about the properties of God. An illustration of this distinction may be found in the mystery of the eucharist, which asserts that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. (cf. Mk. 14:22–24) Early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch took this literally, condemning the Docetae for denying that "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." (Smyrnaeans 6:2) And of course, the other fathers aforementioned would not deny ex professio the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. Though the bread and wine retain their original properties, they are believed to transform in essence, becoming Christ's body and blood while still appearing as bread and wine. This view seems to entail a denial of any sort of essentialism, because all of the properties of the bread and wine remain the same although there is a change of essence. Likewise, whatever knowledge one has about the properties of God, it remains impossible to know anything about his essence. The metaphysical claims made by the fathers seem to necessitate the following claims: 

1. For any entity a it has an essence e and instantiates a set of properties.

2. For any a it is the e of a that determines what sort of thing it is, not whatever properties it has. 

3. For any e it is ineffable iff it is impossible for any created intellect (νοὸς) to define or comprehend it.

4. For any e it is transcendent iff it is not spatially circumscribed, and transcends all categories of existence (ὑπεροὐσία).

It seems the most problematic claim is 2, but this claim is necessary for the sort of distinction that must be made for apophaticism to be sensible. As in the case of the eucharist, the flesh of Christ can have all of the properties of bread and yet still not be bread. The eucharistic offering is the flesh of Christ because that is its essence, even if it has none of the properties which are associated with flesh rather than bread. If situations like this can occur then the properties a thing has do not give us insights into what their essences could be. The essences of any particular object remain epistemically inaccessible to us. The only reason anybody thinks that bread becomes flesh in the eucharistic ceremony is that they believe God has revealed that this takes place, but in the absence of a divine revelation there would not be any method to tell that the bread has become flesh. There are no set of scientific experiments that would be possible, because the physical properties of the sacramental bread do not change after the consecration. There just is no way to know what essence anything would have in the absence of a divine revelation. It might be that my chair really has the essence of Julius Caesar, even though it has all of the properties of being a chair and I could never be made privy to this fact. What is an essence supposed to be if not the essential properties that a thing has? It seems that “essence” is a meaningless word if it is divorced from the properties of a thing in the way these mystics wish to. If it is not the case that the essence of a thing determines what it is irrespective of what properties it has, then apophatic theologians are simply contradicting themselves when making claims about divine properties while simultaneously saying that the divine essence is indefinable and unknowable. If their claims about his properties are in fact true, then they are defining the divine essence to some extent when talking about God’s properties—unless a strict separation is made between essences and properties in the way in which I have spelled out. 

Origins of Divine Ineffability

0. Introduction

To varying degrees, Jewish and Christian theologians have traditionally affirmed the doctrine that God is ineffable, which is to say, that God is beyond our rational comprehension to some extent. Maimonides begins his definition of divine ineffability by saying, "We are only able to apprehend the fact that He is and cannot apprehend his quiddity." (Guide to the Perplexed, 1190b) One practical definition of ineffability is to say that some entity a is ineffable iff it is impossible for any intellect to comprehend what sort of thing it is or to define it. Here, I talk about the doctrine and how it develops in the eastern patristic tradition somewhat. 

1. Biblical Opinions

In the book of Exodus (33:20), God says to the prophet Moses “you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.  These words are taken in the plain sense by the author of the J source, God has a corporeal form and Moses is permitted to see the back of God but not his face. God tells Moses that he shall stand upon a rock, “and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back but my face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:21-23) These words are fulfilled literally in the story that follows, Moses stands upon the rock and God descends from heaven—his back is seen but his face is not. (Exodus 33:20–34:35) Elsewhere in the J material, God is as an embodied being who occasionally descends to earth, even eating meals on occasion, and who dwelled in the tabernacle with Israel in the wilderness. (Genesis 3:8; 11:5; 18:8; Exodus 17:1; 25:9-11) But this vision of God as an embodied being who occasionally descends to earth especially when evoked by Moses) is not shared by all of the Pentateuchal authors. 

“As noted, in J, Yahweh accompanies the Israelites, in the form of the pillar of cloud (by day) and fire (by night) introduced already in Exodus 13:21–22 and mentioned again in Exodus 14:19–20, 24 and Numbers 14:14. In P, the divine presence dwells in the Tabernacle at all times, as indicated by the cloud that sits in the Tent of Meeting. In E, however, the cloud that signifies the presence of the deity is not constantly present as in J and P; it appears only when Moses goes into the Tent of Meeting to communicate with Yahweh (Exod 33:9–10). It is thus a distinctive feature of E’s historical presentation that Yahweh is not present among the people but appears only when called upon by Moses.” [Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2012, p. 98.] 

The views of the New Testament authors are more sophisticated, rather than an embodied God whose face is too glorious to be seen, the Johannine works teach that “God is a spirit.” (Joh. 4:24) Because God is a spirit, the Evangelist presents Jesus of Nazareth as saying it matters not whether men worship him at Mount Sinai or Mount Gerizim, or any other place. (Joh. 4:19-24; cf. De Principiis, 1.1.4.) In other words, God is not physical, so any place is as good as another to worship him. A radical departure from the Old Testament passages which claim that he must be worshiped in Zion, because “this is my resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.” (Psa. 132:13-14; Deut. 12:5-6; 1 Sam. 8:29-30; 2 Chron. 7:12, 16) [The Samaritan Pentateuch replaces Zion and Sinai with Gerizim in the relevant places.] While the Pentateuch says only that the face of God may not be seen, there are more absolute statements in the New Testament, where it is denied that God has been seen at all. The gospel of John (1:18) says “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him,”  And again, “Not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father." (Joh. 6:46) The first epistle of John (4:12) likewise, “No one has ever seen God.” But in the same epistle it is claimed, “we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” (1 Joh. 3:2) Likewise, the third epistle of John (1:11) claims that “the one who does evil has not seen God.” Hence, even within the same epistle God is depicted as unseen and yet one who will be seen by the blessed in heaven. The pastoral epistles not only say that he is “invisible” but that “no one has ever seen or can see him.” (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16) Paul gives him the title “the invisible God.” (Col. 1:15; cf. Rom. 1:20; Heb. 11:27) But in the gospel of Matthew (18:10) we find the saying “angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” From these passages there is depicted a God who is both seen and unseen, familiar and yet distant. 

2. The Eastern Fathers

The Eastern Fathers sought to explain how it is true that “no one has ever seen God” and yet that the saints “shall see him as he is” in the blessedness of the beatific vision. (1 Joh. 3:2; 4:12) They claimed that the divine essence is utterly ineffable, incomprehensible and unknowable by any created intellect. The founder of the Alexandrian school, Origen, taught that it is absurd to “think of God as in any degree corporeal [or embodied], we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible and incapable of being measured.” (De Principiis 1.1.5.)  Dionysius the Areopagite tells us, “He cannot be known by the senses, nor in an image, nor by opinion, nor by reason, nor by knowledge.” (De divinis nominibus 1.5) As in John of Damascus, “As regards what God is, it is impossible to say what he is in his essence, so it is better to discuss him by abstraction from all things.” (Expos. Fidei 1.4) The divine essence is transcendent and must be discussed by “abstraction” as John explains, which is to say, negatively. When Scripture says “God is light,” (1 Joh. 1:5) the meaning is explained this way, “He is not light but above light: and when we speak of Him as light, we mean that He is not darkness.” (Expos. Fidei 1.4) Elsewhere, using semi-paradoxical language he describes the divine essence as super-essential or beyond existence, ὑπεροὐσία, “because he transcends all existing things, even existence itself.” (Ibid.) As Dionysius also says, “He is neither conceived, nor expressed, nor named. And He is not any of existing things, nor is He known in any one of existing things. And He is all in all, and nothing in none. And He is known to all, from all, and to none from none.” (De divinis nominibus, 7.3.) 

Undoubtedly inspired by Plotinus who says of the absolute One, that it is “beyond being,” ὑπερόντως and transcended the intellect. (Ennead 6.8.14) For Plotinus it is impossible entirely to comprehend the absolute One with the intellect, “Mind [νοὸς] enhances the divine quality of the Soul [ψυχή], as father and as immanent presence; nothing separates them but the fact that they are not one and the same, that there is succession… What the Mind must be is carried in the single word that Soul, itself so great, is still inferior." (Ennead 5.3.3) Mind must be inferior to the One because it is compounded for it contains a multiplicity of Ideas and the One is free of composition, “Mind stands as the image of the One.” (Ennead 5.1.7.) As Clark explained, 

“These Ideas, however, this Divine Mind, is still not the highest principle of all. For in this realm duality remains. Since the Ideas are distinct from each other, there is multiplicity. In knowledge there is always a subject and a predicate, a knower and an object known, and hence duality. But duality is secondary to unity. Therefore it still remains to climb the steep ascent of heaven to the source, the One.” [Gordon Clark, Hellenistic Philosophy. Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York, 1940, pp. 229, 230.]

For the Neo-Platonist, composition implies contingency, and imperfection, because the One is the Good and the Beautiful, the first principle. (Ennead 5.1.1.) Clement of Alexandria seeks to go further than Plotinus, and says God is “above unity and surpasses the One,” δὲ θεὸς καὶ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ ὑπὲρ αὐτὴν μονάδα. (Paidagogos, 1.8.) As Clement says elsewhere, “God is not in darkness or in place, but above both space and time, and qualities and objects. Wherefore, neither is he at any time in a part, either as containing or contained, either by limitation or by sections.” (Stromata 2.2) God may be known by direct experience through participation in his energies but his essence remains foreign to us. This is a participation in the life of God, not an intellectual affirmation of some set of propositions, Basil of Caesarea explained, 

“The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to his essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.” (Epistle 234)

The incomprehensibility of the divine essence would mean that it is absurd to try and comprehend the essence of God by the intellect, therefore, Gregory Nazianzen says “reasoning counts for little in knowledge of God,” οί μέν λογισμοί μικρόν είς γνώσιν θεού. (Carmina Moralia, 37.) Because no created intellect can comprehend the divine essence, those passages which ascribe a unique knowledge of God to Christ were used as evidence of the deity of Christ. John Chrysostom says, 

“As then many have seen Him in the mode of vision permitted to them, but no one has beheld His Essence, so many of us know God, but what His substance can be none knows, save only He that was begotten of Him. For by knowledge He here means an exact idea and comprehension, such as the Father has of the Son. For he says, “As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father” [John 10:15] and in another place, “Not that any man has seen the Father, save He which is of God.” [John 6:46] Wherefore, as I said, the Evangelist mentions the bosom, to show all this to us by that one word; that great is the affinity and nearness of the Essence, that the knowledge is nowise different, that the power is equal. For the Father would not have in His bosom one of another essence, nor would He have dared, had He been one among many servants, to live in the bosom of his Lord, for this belongs only to a true Son, to one who has much confidence towards His Father, and who is in nothing inferior to Him.” (Homiliae in Evangelium Ioannis, 15.2) 

To any created intellect the divine essence is totally invisible, and unknowable, even to the holy angels Chrysostom says “to them His essence is invisible.” (Ibid.) Christ says in John 5:37 “And And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form (είδος) you have never seen.” Of this passage Theophilus of Antioch says, “His form (είδος) is unspeakable, expressible, since it is invisible to human eyes.” (Ad Autolychum 1.1-17) Likewise, John of Damascus says after quoting John 1:18, 

“The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father.” [Matthew 11:27] And the Holy Spirit, too, “so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him.” [1 Corinthians 2:11] Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.” (Expos. Fidei 1.1) 

The appearances of God in the Old Testament were harmonized as visions of the pre-incarnate Christ temporarily taking a visible form, or as appearances of angelic beings, Chrysostom again says. 

“It is to declare that all these were instances of (His) condescension, not the vision of the Essence itself unveiled… He prepared them from old time to behold the substance of God, as far as it was possible for them to see It; but what God really is, not only have not the prophets seen, but not even angels nor archangels. If you ask them, you shall not hear them answering anything concerning His Essence.” (Homily 15.1)

Therefore, on the traditional eastern model, the persons of the Trinity have full knowledge of the essence, because the Trinity knows himself. But for the created intellect, it is impossible for God’s essence to be known directly, His properties may be known but his essence may not, hence knowledge of God can be obtained indirectly by two general methods. 

1. By contemplation of the λόγοι of the creation which manifests him. 

2. By direct experience of his uncreated energies (ενεργεία) which means to participate in the life (ζωή και βίος) of God. 

The distinction between the essence of God and his properties, commonly called the Essence and Energies Distinction (EED) became a standard feature of Eastern Orthodoxy after the Palamite Controversy. These ideas were given formal exposition in the Councils of Constantinople of 1342, 1351, and 1368. But if I were to talk about the syntheses of Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas directly, this would become a very lengthy discussion indeed. 

Bethlehem as the Messianic Birthplace

0. Introduction

Bethlehem is where King David was born and it is fitting that the King Messiah should have the same birthplace as David. (1 Sam. 17:12) Matthew 2:1-6 claims that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah 5:2 which prophesied the birth of a certain king in this city. The particular place in question is Ephrathah, five miles south of Jerusalem, not the city of the same name in Galilee. (Joh. 7:41-43) 

1. History of Interpretation

Targum Jonathan acknowledges the birth place of Messiah was to be in this Bethlehem because it renders Gen. 35:21, "And Jacob proceeded and spread his tent beyond the tower of Eder (Heb. Migdal-eder, לְמִגְדַּל־עֵֽדֶר׃) the place from whence, it is to be, the King Messiah will be revealed at the end of the days." One may recall this tower because Rachel was buried on the way to Bethlehem and this is where the tower of Eder was constructed. (Gen. 35:19-21) This is where Jonathan ben Uziel declares the Messiah will be born, if we can accredit this Targum to him properly.

The Sibylline Oracles 8:479 record that "Bethlehem was said to be the divinely named homeland of the Logos." It was prophesied in Micah chapter 5 that the King Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, the city of David. Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 3:4, applies Micah 5:3 to the Messiah, 

"That was also taught in a baraita: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. One reason is that they destroyed synagogues. And furthermore, it is the King’s decree that the builders will fall into the hands of the destroyers, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The son of David will come only when the wicked kingdom of Rome spreads its dominance throughout the world for nine months, as it is stated: "Therefore He will give them up until she who is to bear has borne; then the remnants of his brethren will return with the children of Israel." [Micah 5:3]. The duration of Rome’s rule over the world will be the duration of a pregnancy, nine months." (Yoma 10a)

Although much of this prediction failed, it suffices to show that Micah chapter 5 was applied Messianically. by the author. It is claimed by Matthew 2:23 that the Messiah is prophesied to have been born not only in Bethlehem of Ephrathah, but raised specifically in the small town of Nazareth. 

"And [Jesus and his family] came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene.""

But to which of the prophets does he refer? It does not seem as though Matthew necessarily has in mind a particular passage of the Hebrew Bible or a specific author for he says "spoken through the prophets," in the plural as if to say, ‘the teaching of the prophets on this matter summarized together.’ The small town of Nazareth did not exist during the days of the prophets who wrote the Tanakh however God is Omniscient and knows all present and future truths. Recall that God prophesied that Cyrus would conquer Babylon before Cyrus was ever born. (Isa. 45:1-3) Therefore, on the same grounds, God could have prophesied regarding a city that does not yet exist. Gill suggested that Matthew likely had Isaiah 11:1 in mind, "a branch shall grow out of his roots," which uses netzer (וְנֵ֖צֶר) from which the name of the city "Nazareth" is derived, Natzrat (נָצְרַת) and may be taken to mean "city of the root." An angel of the Lord was sent to warn Joseph and Mary to flee the slaughter commanded by King Herod. They fled to Egypt and waited there until the death of Herod. Matthew sees a fulfillment of prophecy in their choice to flee to Egypt and later to depart from there. 

"Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him." So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called My Son."" (Matt. 2:13-15)

Matthew makes a quotation from Hosea 11:1 which was not directly a Messianic prophecy but a reference to the flight of Egypt from Israel. This is a typological interpretation, Matthew understands the Messiah as a representative of Israel as a whole and sees parallels between his life and the event of the exodus. We should not be harsh with St. Matthew because of his use of this sort of typology because it is thoroughly Jewish. In Exod. 4:22 we read,

 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, "Israel is My son, My first-born." 

This verse is applied to the king Messiah in Midrash Tehillim 2:9 because he represents the nation of Israel in an antitypical sense. This is the same sort of interpretation given by Matthew, where Israel and the Messiah are conflated. The flight of the Messiah from Egypt so closely paralleled the exodus from Egypt in the mind of Matthew that it could be no mere coincidence but a matter of divine providence. There is another prophecy in the Torah which may be understood as prophesying that the Messiah will be brought out of Egypt just as Israel was. In the oracles of Balaam we read, 

"Water will flow from his buckets, and his seed will be by many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag. And his kingdom shall be exalted. God brings him out of Egypt. He is for him like the horns of the wild ox. He will devour the nations who are his adversaries, And will crush their bones in pieces, And shatter them with his arrows." (Num. 24:7, 8) 

In Targum Jonathan, Num. 24:7 is applied to the ‘King Redeemer’ but what follows in verse 8 is referred again to Israel. It would be equally natural to refer all of Num. 24:7-8 to the Messiah himself and then we would have a direct prophecy of a flight out of Egypt. In either case we have the advent of the Messiah closely associated with the flight out of Egypt in this passage and Matthew does no injustice to Hosea 11:1. 

"When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she refused to be comforted, Because they were no more." (Matt. 2:16-18) 

The quotation here is from Jeremiah 31:15 and Rashi rightly recognizes these words as a reference to the suffering of Israel during the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles. The Jewish mothers who suffered the loss of their children are personified as Rachel. The warfare of heathen nations against Israel was barbarous and merciless. Often children were slaughtered rather than taken into slavery. It is fitting that Rachel should personify the suffering of Jewish mothers because her grave was in between Bethlehem and Ramah. This event resembles the needless massacre of Jewish boys conducted by King Herod and so Matthew makes reference to it. The original text in Jeremiah is not a prediction nor is it in the future tense but the resemblance between these two events is too close to be a mere coincidence. Matthew’s reasoning is that God providentially referenced the slaughter of children during the exiles before promising a New Covenant because a similar massacre would occur before the messianic age. The context of the latter part of Jeremiah chapter 31 is the Messianic age when a New Covenant is established between God and Judah. We read of the promise of a new covenant with Israel and Judah. 

""Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord, "I will put My law within them and in their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."" (Jer. 31:31-34) 

This passage is applied to the Messianic age in Yalkut Shimoni 1:78; 1:196; 2:54; 2:66 and signifies the new covenant which the Messiah must establish. [Although Yalkut was compiled in the middle ages it preserves very ancient traditions, many of which span to the time of the Second Temple period if not before.] The Jesus quoted from Jeremiah 31:31 at his last supper and proclaimed that he was about to establish a New Covenant in his own blood. (Matt. 26; Mk. 14; Lk. 22:20; 1Cor. 11:25) It seems Matthew constructed his narrative with this passage in mind, improving upon Mark, and perhaps Luke did the same independently if the Two-Document hypothesis is to be believed.