Just prepping for Hosea 11 and ran across the idea from Pete Enns that Mathew’s (2:15-16) quotation of Hosea 11:1 is at least not in line with what Hosea had in mind in his context. The idea that Matthew’s inspired text could be accused of mishandling scripture is a challenging and maddening thought. It’s also not a thought that will be accepted in most Christian circles as the slippery slope arguments will be galvanized by such a theory. But is that fair? Is it fair to give a pass to Matthew if better options are on the table? Does it even matter? Does Matthew’s use of Hosea depict a mode of biblical interpretation that pushes boundaries, or is Enns just wrong? Fun to discuss, and I certainly am not bothered by Matthew’s use of Hosea to describe Jesus’ abrupt departure from Egypt. I do think Hosea’s reference to this Exodus moment is a bit different than what Matthew had in mind, but given the evidence that Jesus was the true Israel, this reference by Matthew makes sense in its own right.