Below is a conversation I had with a Christian that is representative of many similar conversations I've had over the years with other Christians who have asked me about the issue that took me out of Christianity. That issue is the dishonest use of Old Testament text by writers of the New Testament. I first noticed this in a contradiction between Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15, which is the subject of the conversation below, and which I mention in my exit story in this Scrapbook. Subsequently, I found many similar examples of what appear to me to be dishonest use of Old Testament text. No one has been able to come up with a rational explanation of this, other than, the New Testament authors lied.
I've become so tired of going over this issue again and again that I decided to post my latest conversation below, so in the future I can refer Christians to it when the subject comes up.
It opens with an email from "Jack Jones" (which isn't his real name), and contiue from there.
By the way, this conversation took place in January of 2009.
Interesting testimony. You have nice looking children. I am 30, married and I have four children. three girls and one boy. I live in XXXXX next to XXXXX. What if we discuss this further? what if I give you my word that I will not use the same excuses that you haveheard before? I know that you mentioned that you have discussed these issues before with other intelligent men, however, all I ask is that you give me a shot! I will not give you lame excuses nor will I give you ridiculous answers just for the sake of trying to justify my belief. If you think that my answers do not satisfy you then we will just go with "live and let live" as you suggested. If you are interested, I would like to know some of your concerns.
I can see that you have ran into some serious dilemmas in your quest for truth. I have gone through some of that as well, maybe just not at the same caliber. I would love to continue our discussion, I think that these matters are serious, and I plan to treat them as such.
Have you ever heard the name Walter Martin?
God Bless
Jack Jones
Jack,
If you can explain why it's okay for Matthew to take Hosea out of context then I'll engage in the discussion with you. Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 1:1 [edit: Hosea 11:1] are the passages. Matthew's use of the passage has absolutely nothing to do with the original context that Hosea made the statement within. Matthew says the son called out of Egypt is Jesus. Hosea clearly says it's Israel. Please first answer that serious discrepancy.
AFTER you have answered that question, my next one will be for you to find me ONE place in the Old Testament that speaks of Jesus without taking the passage out of context. In the last 18 years since I have been asking that question of Christians, no one (including college trained biblical scholars) has been able to find even one example that isn't taken out of context. Of course I'm well acquainted with Isaiah 53 (all of Isaiah actually. I know it like the back of my hand) and Micah chapter 5 and all the other passages that are SUPPOSED to speak of Jesus, but in every case they are taken out of context and have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus or anyone like Jesus. This left me with the conclusion that the New Testament has no more basis in fact than does the Book of Mormon, and is why I left Christianity.
Reiterating, please address the Matthew - Hosea discrepancy. If you can do what no one else has been able to do then I'll continue the discussion with you.
Jeff
On the first question, did you mean Hosea 1:1 or Hosea 11:1? -- Jack
Oops. Hosea 11:1 is what I meant. :-) Notice how 11: 1 is clearly about Israel collectively, not about any individual son or person, like Jesus. Jesus has nothing whatsoever to do with the passage, which is further born out in the context found in the rest of the chapter. It's all about Israel and only Israel.
Jeff
I can see your point:
Hosea meant Israel by the passage, and Matthew teaches us that the passage teaches that Hosea is speaking of Jesus. Do I understand correctly?
Yes, you understand correctly. It's comparable to Ezekiel 37:16 where it talks about two "sticks." Clearly that passage is talking about the tribe of Joseph and the tribe of Judah, but Joseph Smith "teaches us" that it's talking about the Book of Mormon and the Bible. In both (Matthew and Smith) cases the passages are used way out of context to promote another agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with the original passages. Why should Matthew be allowed to do what Christians won't allow Smith to do?
Jeff
Yes, I am familiar with Smith's explanation of the passage in Ezekiel and the troublesome conclusions. I am currently looking into the Hosea- Matthew dilemma and will get back to you.
Jack
I stumbled onto an old conversation I was involved in on another message board that is about what we're discussing, starting with the Matthew-Hosea issue. If you read the conversation it'll answer for you most of the questions and answers that you and I most likely will otherwise have in our conversation. Here's a link to it:
http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&id=70345&catid=11&limitstart=24#68713
Happy Holidays!
Jeff
It seems that you and the other fellow had an interesting conversation. I can see how our conversation could head in the same direction, however, I don't think it will or I hope that it does not. I will respond to your concern to the best of my ability. Hopefully my answer does satisfy you.
Have a Merry Christmas Jeff.
Jack Jones
Hello Jeff, I hope that your holidays were excellent. I enjoyed time with my wife and 4 children. God has continued to open my eyes to new things concerning my family. I have so much to be thankful for. Here is my first attempt to reconcile this bible difficulty. I am happy to know that you have the pre-supposition that the bible should not have errors of this kind to be truly reliable.
Hosea 11:1-2
"When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they called them, the more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols".
Matthew 2:15
"He remained there until death of Herod. This was to fulfill what spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON"
This issue would most likely fall under the category of Biblical Studies. This, I assume is a concern that should be dealt with by Hermeneutics and Exegesis proper. These arts and sciences are very broad and have significant value in understanding the biblical text.
There are different types of Exegesis. I believe, to understand these passages we must approach them by allegorical exegesis. What is this? Basically, reading the text at surface value while observing a "deeper" meaning. I am trying to stray away from the phrase "dual meaning" because this appears to be more than just that. One of the basic rules of interpreting scripture is to understand what is said (Content) and why something is said (Context).
Why, did Hosea write this passage?
Hosea writes a healthy amount of literature before we get to this verse. He is communicating something, but what?
He appears to be addressing the sins of Israel. He uses terms such as "you", "they", "their", in reference to Israel.
Hosea seems to be giving us the idea that God is Father, while Israel is a Son that wanders off, but that he loves. The nature of this Hosean verse appears to negate the pre-supposition that scripture can only have a literal meaning or go no deeper. It is obvious that Israel is not literally a "youth", although this is what Hosea calls Israel.
Why did Matthew use this verse as reference?
Does Matthew have the liberty to take a passage out of context to achieve his goals, of course not!
In a sense, Matthew is teaching us the context of the Hosean verse. Why did Hosea write that verse? To tell us that God is Father, while Israel is his "Son" whom he loved and whom He rescued from being killed off by the Egyptians. Matthew appears to correlate that situation to this situation by using Hosea's verse to do so. In other words, Israel's life was in jeopardy while in Egypt, so God rescued them, in this case, Jesus, God's sons' life was in jeopardy in Israel, so God sends Christ to Egypt where he will find refuge. When Matthew says "this was to fulfill what had been spoken about" he could have easily meant (and I think he did), "to make full sense of" (I addressed the Greek )in other words, "This is what Hosea meant by "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON". I think to believe that the term Israel in Hosea's passage can mean just that. However, I think that Matthew's understanding of Hosea's passage is quite brilliant. If God saved the Jewish people from death because he loved them, then ,God saved Christ's life because he loved him, and if both of these verses were written for the same reason, to show God's love for Israel and Christ, then these verses are surely not in conflict, nor is Hosea being taken out of its proper context (why it was written).
Well, I hope that this helps. I do not consider myself to be an expert or anything like that.
I thank you for allowing me to discuss this with you.
Jack
Jack,
It's an admirable attempt but I don't think you've shown how the passage is not removed from context. The NIV translates the passage as follows:
1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. 2 But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. 3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. 4 I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and Jackt down to feed them. 5 "Will they not return to Egypt and will not Assyria rule over them because they refuse to repent?
If that which is called out of Egypt in verse 1 is Jesus then in verse 5 that which returns to Egypt because of sin must be Jesus too. To claim otherwise is to remove verse 1 from its context. No matter how you try to dress it up, if the surrounding context is ignored when declaring the intended meaning of a passage, then by normal standards it's been removed from context. This is exactly what Matthew is doing. He ignores the meaning of verse 2, 3, 4, 5, and even the first half of verse 1 when he claims the last half of verse 1 speaks of Jesus. Clearly he has removed it from context by applying it to Jesus.
I also think it's a stretch to say that Israel was saved from death by being called out of Egypt. Israel was saved from bondage, not from death, when called out of Egypt. For your explanation to work you'd have to show how Jesus was likewise saved from bondage, not from death.
I also don't Matthew's application of Hosea is needed to "make full sense of" the passage because it makes full sense by itself. By itself the passage is clearly about Israel. Matthew's application of the passage takes a passage that make full sense when view in context, and actually confuses it's meaning by trying to force an application to Jesus.
Thanks for the attempt Jack, but because of the above issues I've pointed out it's just not a very compelling explanation for me.
Jeff
Well, Thank you for considering my answer to be an admirable one. I truly didn't expect that.
I am not convinced that Hosea is speaking of Jesus at Hosea 11:1-5, its absurd to think that Hosea's content is speaking of Christ in this passage, after all, the "youth" (Israel) in this passage is spoken of as a wayward Son, that keeps departing from God (nothing like Christ), It seems in verse 1 we must see the Allegorical for this reason. Its obvious that in this verse the language changes from Hosea speaking to God speaking. As Hosea writes "When Israel was a youth I loved him", its obvious that this "I" is not Hosea. It is most likely God himself. However, I don't think that Matthew is telling us this: "At verse 1, Hosea prophesied of Christ" I think what Matthew is saying is this: "At Hosea 1 we learned that God called His son out of Egypt to safety" (Exodus informs us that the Jews were under affliction, suffering and in danger ultimately.) I think that Matthew is correlating that situation (God saving Israel) to (God saving the Jesus). I don't think that he is teaching us that Hosea is speaking of Christ at Hosea 1, If Hosea did teach at verse 1 that he rescued Israel, to display His love for them, then that would seem to be the context. Therefore, verses 1,2,3,4 and 5 can still refer to Israel in its content which buttresses the context. Matthew can still use verse 1 of Hosea to correlate God's display of love for Israel and not violate the reason why Hosea wrote it. I believe that Matthew is using this verse to tell us that God is doing this again but with Jesus, not Israel.
Jack
Jack,
I understand your point of view. Essentially Matthew is showing that Jesus coming out of Egypt bears some resemblance to Israel coming out of Egypt. However, that explanation renders prophecy meaningless because anyone can find similarities to extracts of statements in prophecies and claim the similarities "fulfill" the prophecy. David Koresh claimed he fulfilled prophecy in Isaiah 45:1 where it says:
"This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus (in Hebrew Cyrus is 'Koresh'), "
Using your reasoning for Matthew's use of Hosea, Mr. Koresh is justified in making that claim.
Or the Branch Davidians are justified in their claim that they fulfilled this passage when the government attacked them and the place burned to the ground:
"4 They smashed all the carved paneling with their axes and hatchets. 7 They burned your sanctuary to the ground; they defiled the dwelling place of your Name." (Psalms 74)
Mormons can claim that the Book of Mormon fulfills the prophecy in Isaiah 29 where it mentions a sealed book. They can claim that the Book of Mormon fulfills the prophecy of the stick of Joseph in Ezekiel , and on and on. Anyone can find similarities to sections removed from context and claim fulfillment. Jack, your explanation renders prophecy completely meaningless.
But if left in context, and passages are allowed to speak for themselves, we find a consistent theme in the prophecies: Israel is brought out of captivity, returns to captivity because of their "sins" and eventually is saved forever from captivity when they quit worshipping false gods. The theme has nothing whatsoever to do with the story of David Koresh, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or Jesus and is why I left not only Mormonism but Christianity as well.
Jeff
Yes, I can understand your perspective on this. However, I did say that after a couple of attempts I would allow this discussion to go into twilight if I could not convince you. You do not seem so at this point. I would love to continue this discussion with you, but, honoring my word I believe has some validity. I am very familiar with information in Theology, Religion, Cults and Philosophy. I know of Koresh and his teachings and his movement. In fact, if you were to come over to my place and visit my family and I sometime, I could easily introduce you to an impressive selection of books on these issues. There is much more to be said about our conversation, I would love to continue on; only with your desire to do so. I am sure that you get tired or frustrated with these topics...lol. All of my Theology begins with the person, nature and work of Jesus Christ as a starting point. The only thing more that I will say is: please consider reading more in Christian Theology and Apologetics. Look into Evidential apologetics and Cumulative apologetics. If you want to chat sometime,
call me up!
God Bless,
Jack Jones
Jack,
It doesn't matter what your books, theology or apologetics say about Jesus Christ because if Matthew's use of scripture is no different than Koresh's use of scripture, then the New Testament is seriously flawed (the Matthew-Hosea issue is only one of many) and your Jesus Christ, your "starting point" has no real foundation. In other words, it's a house built on sand.
I'm more than happy to consider a fourth, fifth, or more attempts at explaining the Matthew-Hosea problem if you care to keep trying. You say if you can't convince me in a few attempts you're content to walk away from the discussion. Is your goal to "convince me" or is it to find out the truth of the matter? I've learned that until person's need to know the truth is greater than his need to justify what he already believes, no amount of reasoning will cause him to accept the truth when it contradicts his beliefs, even if it's obvious truth. It seems to me that your need to justify Christianity is greater than your need to know the truth because rather than produce a reasonable explanation for the Matthew-Hosea problem, that holds up under cross examination, you'd let the issue "go into the twilight."
Jeff
I will try again....
Jack
Hello Jeff, I hope all is well, Thank you for your patience, I've been very busy, I'm currently trying to buy a house ; )!
My books in Theology and Apologetics have been more than helpful to me, there are a great number of books that have been helpful in understanding things. I use Jesus Christ as my starting point in identifying a Christian system ;thinking as a person of Comparative Religion.
However, since this is not the case, there is no need for it. I was just explaining to you, my starting point in such endeavors. The case that you and I are in seems to be more of just understanding bible verses that appear to contradict each other or bible difficulties.
I have evaluated your response to my last posting. There seems to be a logical fallacy with in it; the straw man fallacy: I do not believe that my need to justify my belief is more important than simply knowing the truth. I could say the same thing, "your need to justify your belief is more important than simply knowing the truth": this will get us nowhere. Another problem is that you appear to assume that my argument for the Hosea-Matthew issue is settled and refuted inductively, deductively, theologically and biblically and would not stand to last in a cross-examination.
In your last response you said that, "according to my interpretation of the verses that the Prophecy of Hosea becomes meaningless," However, nowhere in my argument do I mention that I believe that Hosea is a Prophecy concerning Christ, in fact, that is one of the strengths of my position. Although, I previously stated this, I will say it again, but I will condense it to this: Hosea is speaking of Israel, not Christ. Matthew is speaking of Christ being saved by God just like Hosea said that God saved Israel. This does not appear to be that difficult to understand.
If you want to discuss the views of Joseph Smith or David Koresh, then we can surly do that, however, there still appears to be no contradiction between these two verses. I think that the argument that I sent to you on January 14 at 1:04 pm still stands. I agree with you that Hosea 11:1-5 does not have anything to do with Smith, Koresh or Christ! However, I believe that I have explained how the content of the verses remain in harmony. The point is that Hosea 11:1-5 is not a Prophecy and you think that it is, this appears to be the crux of your argument. Maybe we should discuss whether or not Hosea 11:1-5 is a prophecy? This may be quite helpful to us.
Jack
Jack,
I agree that Hosea isn't a prophecy about Christ. That is my point precisely, but Matthew uses it as if it is a prophecy about Christ. He doesn't say, as your argument asserts, that Jesus' return from Egypt is similar to the words of Hosea, he says Jesus "fulfilled" the words of the "prophet."
Read it again. Matthew 2:15 states, ".And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ."
That makes it quite clear that Matthew viewed Hosea's statement as a prophecy about Christ and that Jesus fulfilled it. Your claim that Matthew is only showing how Jesus' return from Egypt is similar to Hosea's statement has not basis in fact because it clearly contradicts what Matthew actually says.
Jeff
Hey Jeff, thank you for responding so promptly,
When we spoke a few weeks ago, and I mentioned that I addressed the Greek language, this is the part of the text that I was referring to. I was referring to verse 15 and the term "Fulfill" or in the Greek "Pleero". This simply means "To make sense of" in this particular verse. What Matthew is saying is this: "This was to fulfill or "to make sense of" or to complete what Hosea said. The term fulfill at this section does not exert the idea of a Prophecy. Matthew could have used the term "Propheteia" which means Prophecy, as he does later on in His Gospel at Chapter 13:14! I think that it is quite clear that Matthew is simply telling us what Hosea meant (As I have already explained), I think if Matthew were using it as a Prophecy he would have just said so, instead, he just explains God's great love for Christ and correlates that to how God showed his love for Israel in the past by using Hosea 11-1. A General rule of exegesis is this: A term in Scripture is always defined by its context, this will make the content more clear. Matthew is not using Hosea 11-1 as a Prophecy, if he were he would have said so, just as he has done else where.
Jack
Jack,
I'm afraid you're wrong. The Greek lexicon I use says you're pulling your definition of pleroo out of thin air. This is the definition it provides:
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4137&version=kjv
Pleroo:
1.0 to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
1.1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1.2. I abound, I am liberally supplied
2.0 to render full, i.e. to complete
2.1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
2.0 to consummate: a number
2.1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
2.2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
3.0 to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
3.1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
3.2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
3.3. to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment
Show me in that definition where it says anything even close to anything like "to make sense of." You seem to have pulled your definition out of thin air and I'm wondering if you actually did. Where's a reference I can take a look at? Pleero, in essence means "to complete, to finish, to bring to an end." Under 3.2 it even says, "of sayings, promises, prophecies." and under 3.3 it says "to cause.God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment."
It's quite clear that Matthew claims that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy BECAUSE of his choice of the word pleroo in the statement. He probably couldn't have used a better word to make that point. If he meant "to make sense of" he would have used a word that was more like gnorizo.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1107&version=kjv
gnorizo:
1.0 to make known
1.1. to become known, be recognised
2.0 to know, to gain knowledge of, have thorough knowledge of
2.1. in earlier Greek it means "to gain a knowledge of" or "have thorough knowledge of"
Or maybe suniemi.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4920&version=kjv
suniemi:
1.0 to set or bring together
1.1. in a hostile sense, of combatants
1.2. to put (as it were) the perception with the thing perceived
2.0 to set or join together in the mind
2.1. i.e. to understand: the man of understanding
3.0 idiom for: a good and upright man (having the knowledge of those things which pertain to salvation)
Again, Jack, your argument does not hold water because the actual facts don't support what you claim.
Jeff
Good Morning Jeff,
Well, this conversation is quite honestly lasting longer than I thought it would. I think that our discourse has been honest and sincere. It's been quite enjoyable, I think part of the reason for that is the fact that we are not putting each other down in our dialog .To be truthful, I do believe that you are not just being antagonistic to Christianity or to Christians, I think that you have a genuine concern and some interesting ideas. Can I ask you an honest question Jeff? Did this conversation last longer than you thought it would? I think that our [the line ended here for some reason]
Jeff, if we look at my last response, I did use the term "Complete" as part of the explanation. The reason that I used "To make sense of" is this: Strong's Concordance # 4137 offers a selection of words in reference to Matthew's term "Pleero". We have "To Make Full", "Complete", "to render full", there are other terms that the Greek offers also. However, one of the terms that it offers is to "realize". This appears to be consistent with the other terms as well.
Using "To make sense of" or to "realize" or "Complete" are all good terms to use at Matthew 2:15, they all seem to buttress the meaning of the passage, they all seem to help Matthew make his point. When it comes to engaging the Greek, I usually use the first definitions that the Greek language offers.
These terms would be them, the ones that we have been discussing. I can see that the Greek offers Prophecies as part of the solution also, however, it offers it way further down the road. This passage is most likely not speaking of a Prophecy and when we consider the entire context, we can see that Matthew surly isn't speaking of one, we also see that there is another term that could have been used; the actual term Prophecy (Propheteia). I can understand how one could think that Matthew is speaking of a Prophecy at Matthew 2:15, However, the Greek still offers the term "realize" as a solution first (and others), It appears that Matthew is simply telling us at verse 2:15 "This was to fulfill or, this was to realize, or this was to complete, or this was to render full or this was to understand what had been spoken by the Lord through the Prophet "Out of Egypt I Called My Son". There is still no real indication that Matthew is telling us "This was to fulfill Hosea's Prophecy". Therefore, Hosea's point is clear and Matthew's point is clear. There seems to be no contradiction between these two men. If Matthew had used the term Prophecy or (Propheteia) as he uses later on in reference to a Prophecy made by Isaiah, I can see a real dilemma, However, we don't see that dilemma here. Isn't this reasonable?
Jack
Jack,
I've had very long discussions with Christians over the years, so honestly I'm not surprised that this one is still continuing.
Jack, how can you make such a statement as this...
"There is still no real indication that Matthew is telling us 'This was to fulfill Hosea's Prophecy'."
...when that is precisely what Matthew says. And I quote: "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet."
Words of the Lord spoken through a prophet are widely understood to mean, a prophecy.
Of course Matthew isn't going to use something like "propheteia" in place of "pleroo" because he didn't mean "prophecy" at that place in his sentence, he meant "fulfilled." If he had used prophetia, as you claim he would have, had he meant that Hosea's passage was a prophecy, then his statement would have read, "...and so was the prophecy that was spoken by the prophet." Any version of that structure of the statement does not make sense. He used pleroo because he meant what pleroo means: "fulfilled."
Look Jack, Matthew uses the words, "what the Lord had said through the prophet," which anyone who is being honest with what the text says, would have to conclude means a prophecy. If you think it doesn't mean a prophecy then please tell me you think "...what the Lord had said through the prophet" means. The fact that Matthew uses pleroo in connection with prophetes (wich means "prophet") leaves it beyond doubt what he meant.
Jack, I'll bet if we asked 20 of your Christian friends what the passage means (without biasing them beforehand with our discussion) they would conclude that Matthew is saying that the Hosea passage is a prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. You KNOW that's what would happen, don't you Jack.
Furthermore, I still have to disagree with your "to make sense of" rendition of pleroo. In light of all the definitions of the word, I can't see how "to make sense of" is an allowable definition of the word. Your reliance on one word, "realize" to force that definition, is a stretch. In light of all the other definitions of pleroo, its seems quite clear that "realize" has nothing to do with causing something to make sense. If Strongs uses realize in his definition I'd have to see the context in which it is used because it seems his use of the word would have to be along the lines of "Joe finally realized his lifelong dream." In other words, "Joe's dream was finally fulfilled," not, "Joe's dream finally made sense."
Here's another way to evaluate the meaning word pleroo: How the translators render it in other passages. It's used 90 times in the Bible and is rendered as follows:
fulfil - 51
fill - 19
be full - 7
complete - 2
end - 2
miscellaneous - 9
Nowhere is it rendered as anything close to "to make sense of."
If you respond to nothing else in your next email, please at least explain what this means: ".what the Lord had said through the prophet" if it doesn't mean a prophecy. I think it's clear what your "20 Christian friends" would conclude from that statement too.
Jeff
Hello Jeff,
It's been a pleasure to discuss these verses with you, I would love to speak with you by phone sometime. You seem like you are most likely a very nice person. I will respond here. This will most likely be my final response, I just do not have the time to discuss this any further. I am currently working fulltime, and in school fulltime, I am also married with four children and currently trying to purchase a home. I am truly interested in this type of dialogue, I just do not have the time to engage as I would like. However, I will respond to the best of my ability at this time.
"What had been spoken by the Lord through the Prophet" (NASB) What does this mean?
Well, just as all texts that I engage in, I address the context (why it is written) to determine the content (what is written). There are other good methods of Exegesis, however, I did enjoy my training and have found it to be quite helpful. I believe that my original argument still stands for the contextual evaluation: Matthew is telling us that at Hosea 11:1 "God rescued or saved Israel" and "He's doing it once again, except this time God is rescuing or saving the baby Jesus, corresponding Israel to Jesus. Both of them (Israel and Jesus are seen as God's child in different senses. However, Matthew did say this also: "What had been spoken by the Lord through the Prophet", what did Matthew mean here? I thought that this might help us out, I will give the Greek and English together.
English
What- had been spoken -by the Lord -through -the Prophet
Greek
This- to speak or maintain -He whom a person belongs or Master -with or in-the interpreter of oracles
The Greek appears to buttress the translation, however, that is truly all I see. It seems our dilemma is more Hermeneutical than Lexical. I assume that the best way to understand that piece of Matthew is to consider more content around that verse. We have previously addressed the issue, so there is no real need to go into depth on this, however the term "fulfill" in this verse seemed to really put things in perspective for us I think. Matthew is telling us "this was to "Fulfill" or "this was to complete" or "this was to make full" or "this was to cause to abound" or "this was to supply liberally" or "this was to realize".......what had been spoken by the Lord through the Prophet (Hosea). If I were to explain this to the average Christian, I would most likely say this, as I have stated previously: Matthew is telling us that "Through the Prophet Hosea, we learned Gods love for Israel His Son. Once again we are learning of Gods love for Jesus His Son. However, Is Matthew saying that Hosea is speaking of Christ at Matthew 2:15? No, However, I can see how someone would think this. Matthew is telling us what happened at Hosea 11:1, then correlating that to this new experience with another unit called "Gods Son" (Jesus).
There still appears to be no trace that Matthew is using Hosea 11:1 to tell us that "God spoke to us through Hosea long ago and told us that He would rescue Jesus, and this is what Hosea meant". For Matthew to violate the context of Hosea 11:1, he would need to violate why Hosea wrote 11:1, surly he did not do this. Matthew's entire purpose for writing a Gospel seems to be to give the Jewish people reasons to believe that Jesus is their Messiah. He is recapitulating Jesus' life by using Old testament Theology because more than likely the Old Testament is loved by the Jewish people. Matthew being Jewish, may have come across that verse in Hosea many times before and most likely knows what those texts meant. Well, I know that you feel that my explanation violates the natural meaning of the verse. There are a lot of verses that seem to mean something naturally, However, when we consider Biblical Studies proper, our eyes, minds and hearts are opened to new perspectives. There are plenty of verses that appear to mean something naturally, but they don't, however, sometimes they do, its wise to do research and I applaud you for that.
Well, even if I went to a local evangelical Church and did a survey of what Matthew 2:15 means, and let's say 1000 people all agreed with your explanation. If I trusted that as a source of truth it would only lead me to another logical fallacy: The Ad-Populum- The fallacy of appealing to popular and fashionable ideas as determinative of a truth claim. Also, I do not approach Biblical Studies Proper in that fashion. It would seem irresponsible.
God Bless Jeff,
Jack
Jack,
I understand your reasons for holding to an interpretation that even you in a roundabout way admit is not the natural (read obvious) interpretation and understanding of the issue. I think your entire argument boils down to this statement of yours:
"For Matthew to violate the context of Hosea 11:1, he would need to violate why Hosea wrote 11:1, surly he did not do this."
"Surely he did not do this," Jack? And how do you know that surely he did not do this? Your entire belief system hinges on your trust that Matthew did not do this (in spite of the fact that the natural, more obvious, conclusion is that he did), for if Matthew surely DID do this then Jesus and everything based on Jesus totally collapses.
When I left Mormonism it taught me to recognize patterns of deception, and it has served me well. One of those patterns is when elaborate explanations are used to attempt justify a position that contradicts the more obvious explanation, regardless of what you might want to believe, you can bet that the more obvious, "natural" explanation is the correct one. If you're familiar with Occam's Razor, you're aware that it essentially means the same thing. In short, the more natural explanation is most likely the correct one. THAT is the reason I left Christianity, and it wasn't an easy thing for me to do. I struggled and fought that conclusion for years, but in the end I had to conclude that New Testament and Christianity have no more basis than does Mormonism. Both hinge on different versions of "surely he did not do this."
I invite you to read through my exit story again. Here's a quote from it:
"Finally, he [my pastor] didn't call me in to talk over the results of his 18 months search but instead sent me a page and a half letter that in essence said that it's okay for Matthew to take scripture out of context because it's Matthew doing it, implying that guys of that caliber had the right to. Guys like Gordon Hinkley or Joseph Smith don't have that right. I was so disgusted with his response that I tore it up and tossed in the trash."
Jack, my pastor's conclusion is essentially the same as yours: Surely Matthew did not take Hosea out of context even though it appears that he did.
You also said this in your last post:
"Matthew's entire purpose for writing a Gospel seems to be to give the Jewish people reasons to believe that Jesus is their Messiah. He is recapitulating Jesus' life by using Old testament Theology because more than likely the Old Testament is loved by the Jewish people."
It sounds a lot like statements Mormon leaders use to justify Mormonism:
"Joseph Smith's entire purpose for writing the Book of Mormon seems to be to give Christians reasons to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He is recapitulation his life by using Biblical theology because more than likely the Bible is loved by the Christian people"
I think now you should understand better why I left Christianity and why it rubs me wrong when Christians attack Mormonism for the same faults Christianity has. "Cast the beam out of your own eye before trying to pluck the mote out of your brother's," is good advice and I think something you should reconsider the next time you're inclined to run down Mormonism. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Mormonism, I'm simply pointing out that Christianity is no better.
Best regards,
Jeff
I can understand your position. I can understand your leeriness of any Religious group. I can understand your reasoning behind leaving the LDS Church and the Christian Church. If your pastor gave you a letter that said that its ok for Matthew to take Hosea out of context then, that would make me sick as well. It seems that at one time you may have had simple faith in Christ, then you ran into some horrible experiences. I can sort of grasp the damage that its caused. Well, it seems that you're a bit against "trying to win someone to Christ". So I will not say that, However, I will say that my attempts at explaining this Bible difficulty did not suffice this time.
Best Regards,
Jack
Jack,
Please don't insult my intelligence by blaming my leaving Christianity on a horrible experience, when I've made it very clear why I left. I had no horrible experience. I left because of the unanswered contradictions (from a Christian perspective), like the Matthew-Hosea issue, that I discovered in the Bible. I left because the only reasonable answer that has any substance to it is that Matthew lied, just like Joseph Smith lied. No, your attempts at explaining the Bible difficulty did not suffice this time, and they won't suffice another time, because you can't squeeze the truth out of a lie. Try as you might, it's impossible.
If my pastor's letter made you sick then your comment that "surely he did not do this (which implies: because it was Matthew who did it)" should make you sick as well because they mean essentially the same thing.
Jeff
I see.
God Bless
Jack
Note to the reader: Several months after this conversation took place, 'Jack' emailed me again and asked if I'd be willing to discuss the problems I have with the Bible in a debate on an internet radio station run by someone he knows. I told him I would love to, but we'd have to agree to limit the scope of the debate to one or two issues because I think the Bible has a lot of problems. A few weeks later he emailed me again and said he's still working on it. This was originally posted in January of 2009. As of September 2011 I've still not heard back from "Jack."