Matthew Takes Liberties With Hosea

Ever wonder what standard of interpretation most christians use when interpreting scripture?

Let’s first step back to examine how Matthew, the alleged writer of the New Testament Gospel of the same name, practiced interpretation of the Old Testament.

Consider this verse.

Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”

Now note how Matthew later unequivocally denotes this verse in Hosea as a messianic prophecy.

Matthew 2:15 “And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.'”

Now return to the very next verse in Hosea.

Hosea 11:2 “But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.”

Unless you want to say Jesus sacrificed to the Baals, you’ve got to say Matthew took this verse out of context.

And unless you want to say Matthew was a blithering idiot when it came to understanding context, you must say he intended this as a deceitful attempt to bolster claims of Jesus’ messianic status. In other words, Matthew was a liar.

I went on-line and solicited apologists’ responses to this triad of verses, and was primarily met with the usual evasive devotional commentaries on how wonderful Jesus is and how bad I was to doubt this affirmation. The closest I came to receiving a real response was the following statement. ‎

“God can bury prophecy wherever he wants in whatever he wants to say for whoever he wants to extract it later.”

Really.

Matthew had no obligation to remain faithful to the context, it seems, and could take full liberty to apply any snippet of Old Testament scriptures to bolster his claims.

Consider the following corollaries of such a claim.

  1. There is no such concept of taking a scripture “out of context” for christianity or any other faith that christians might wish to dismiss based on similar internal incoherencies. Anyone can claim that a scriptural snippet was “hidden” by god to be later “extracted” by a private individual with no need to consult hermeneutic standards limiting the interpretation to contextual considerations.
  2. Any potential hermeneutic standard for New Testament writers of Old Testament scriptures is replaced with private revelation that can repackage any scriptural snippet with a meaning completely removed from its original context. Here’s a verse that, under this hermeneutic free-for-all method, Matthew could have claimed to be messianic.

    “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker;” Jeremiah 44:13a

    Jesus was both a carpenter, and wrote lines on the ground (John 8:6)! What are the odds that Jesus would fulfill such prophecy?

  3. Just as New Testament writers can ignore Old Testament context when fingering messianic prophecies, christians today have no reason to respect context when interpreting the New Testament. And they don’t. Simply look at all the diverse interpretations of the book of Revelation.
  4. Ultimately, any potential singular truth the bible might have contained dissipates into a dark cloud private interpretations, for if interpretation has no dependence on context, then any one of the legions of snippets found in the bible can be co-opted by the interpreter to bolster whatever doctrinal predisposition they have. And do you think christian integrity and logic would keep this from happening? Review church history and the wide disparity between doctrines among those who claim the bible to be the authoritative “Word of Truth”.

I’m not actually lamenting this incoherent claim that christians can, as Matthew did, strip snippets of scripture from their context and apply them in ways that match their predispositions. The inherent absurdity of this will be unseen only by those completely disjointed from logic, reason and evidence. The example of their credulous irrationality has well served the many who are now abandoning the empty promises of faith.


For another christian perspective on these verses, read http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/11/11.pdf.
The summery reads “This view contends that Hosea 11:1 is not looking forward. Rather, Matthew is looking backward to Hosea 11:1 for the purpose of drawing analogies between Christ and Moses and Christ and Israel.” This ignores the Greek phrase (ἵνα πληρωθῇ) specific to fulfilled prophecy seen in Matthew 2:15. Arguments that ἵνα πληρωθῇ in Matthew 2:15 have a meaning other than the many times fall flat given the many other New Testament contexts in which ἵνα πληρωθῇ is unequivocally determined to refer to prophecy.

Here’s another attempt.

Matthew continues with saying that in Jesus this history is perfected. The Israelites were called out of Egypt, but were imperfect in serving Baalim. But Jesus was called out of Egypt, and was perfect in His obedience towards God. The Israelites were the sons of God. But Jesus perfected this being the Son of God. For Jesus was the Son of God in a more perfect sense, namely directly born from the Spirit.

Others suggest you can even speculatively twist the prophet’s focus to be “futuristic” in the face of the past tense of the actual context.

…when Hosea drew from the Pentateuch’s language in referencing the exodus, particularly with this phrase, it is likely that he too was thinking of the future.

Honestly is nowhere to be found among christian apologists on this issue.


Other comments on Matthew’s alleged prophecies can be found at http://www.messiahtruth.com/matthew.html.


Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Matthew Takes Liberties With Hosea

  1. Ryan Martin says:

    You are rather dismissive, and at your own peril, I am afraid.

    Read Hosea closely. See how, and how often, it talks about sonship and calling his people out of Egypt, and what it relates to in the overall context of Hosea.

    • I’ve already considered my peril, and it only exists in your imagination. Knock off the pompous inferences that speak nothing to my article.

      Now consider presenting and substantiating a real argument.

      Here’s a reminder of my argument.

      — Hosea 11:1 says “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”
      — Matthew 2:15 says “where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.'”
      — Hosea 11:2 says “But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me.They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.”

      There was nothing fulfilled as this verse is speaking of apostate Israel, and Matthew is a liar.


      Why is it that christians feel they’ve presented a counter-argument after they’ve merely warned their interlocutor of a fate that is wholly dependent upon them defeating the argument looking them in the face? This is analogous to telling me that shining a flashlight under the bed will only infuriate the boogie-man you assure me is there.

  2. Ryan Martin says:

    I was not trying to be pompous. I’m truly sorry you took it that way.

    I said that because of your scorn; I was afraid for your soul.

    I have no interest in a “debate.” I believe that, even if Matthew intends to cite Hosea (which is itself of some doubt in my mind, he may have a very similar passage from Numbers in mind), Hosea’s motif of “out of Egypt” is a repeated theme that not only refers to the past but to the future.

    I have stated my case, and I am not sure what more there is to say, Phil. Moreover, given the way you speak to visitors, I am not sure why I would want to continue this.

    • I don’t respect visitors who think my arguments can be answered with an attempt to turn the focus to the imagined peril of my soul. On this site you’re expected to provide evidence and argumentation for your position; nothing else. If you can’t do that, refrain from commenting. I think you’re wasting your life on a clear myth, but note that I would never confound that with my argument.

      You say you have stated your case. The only think you have said is that “out of Egypt” is a repeated theme in Hosea.

      My argument was that Matthew clearly took Hosea out of context when he used ἵνα πληρωθῇ in Matthew 2:15. There was nothing in Hosea 11 that was “filled” or “fulfilled” by Jesus coming out of Egypt.

      The phrase “ἵνα πληρωθῇ” invariably refers to the fulfillment of prophecy when the context invokes the Old Testament.

      Get honest.

  3. Paul, out of curiosity, do you also blast the rabbis when they write inventive midrashim? Or are you selective in your scorn?

    Matthew wasn’t writing apologetics to talk people into conversion. He was writing advanced material for the already converted. When he “fudges” Hosea, it isn’t to twist a prophecy to convince the ignorant that one has been fulfilled. He was writing, after all, to a culture that embraced memorization of all of Scripture. On the contrary, he *means* for his readers to go, “Woah, waitaminute! Why is Matthew citing this? This doesn’t look like a prophecy of the Messiah?”

    His point is actually pretty simple: He sees in the life of Yeshua the history of Israel made right. Israel went into Egypt and came out again carrying Egyptian gods (Jos. 24:14). Yeshua went down into Egypt and came out again unsullied by pagan idols. Israel was tested for forty years in the wilderness, and kept on failing. Yeshua was tested in the wilderness for forty days, and passed every test. Etc. That’s why his book is divided into five distinct sections, to mirror the Chumash.

    There are any number of times when I have seen Christians foolishly make snide remarks about something in the Talmud. In almost every case, the problem is that they do not understand the genre of Gemara. I’m afraid that you’re making the same mistake here in reverse.

    Shalom.

  4. Who is this “Paul” that you think you are responding to?

    And what is your basis for asserting against the face value of ἵνα πληρωθῇ that Matthew was playing a little game with our minds? Cite another source (extra-biblical is fine) where ἵνα πληρωθῇ is used while referencing older scriptures and means any thing other than fulfilled prophecy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s