How on earth is Hosea 11:1 a prophecy? Have you read Hosea 11 recently? Verse two would have Jesus running away from God (sinning) and verse 3 and 4 he would be sacrificing idols to Baal and so on.
There is no prophecy here that needs to be fulfilled. Just, by modern standards, very dubious exegesis. This is a first and very obvious indication that historical concerns aren’t driving Matthew’s infancy narrative.
Kelli is having struggle with her password and log in, Vinnie, and can’t reply if you are looking for her to do so.
I do think Matthew is doing something very clever with his hyperlink to Hosea. On the one hand he reminders his Jewish audience that Israel was referred to as the son of God (figuratively speaking) yet consistently failed to a live in a way in keeping with that title and thus faced the consequences (that is the thrust of much of Hosea).
On the other hand, by hyperlinking to Hosea 11:1, Matthew places Jesus into this milieu of OT imagery. This action identifies Jesus with Israel and presents him as the true son from Egypt which the Exodus (from one perspective) points towards. And so leaves us asking ‘in what way is Jesus like Israel, the son called out of Egypt?’ Literally, in terms of the return from Egypt or something more?
In this way, Matthew, I believe, also uses the Hosea reference to foreshadow some of the themes that will appear throughout his Gospel. For example, Jesus the true and better Israel who passes through the waters (Matt 3) but does not buckle during the wilderness temptations (Matt 4).
Personally, I am coming to see that prophecy in the Gospels is often a much more nuanced word than I once thought. Some may feel this is stretching the word to much and I concede that is a danger too.
Did Jesus teach anything at all about the imminent destruction of the Jewish state through its capital, using the Flood myth as metaphor, as the story was written after the event and never discussed by Paul or Peter?
None of which I disagree with but all of which tells me historical accuracy was not Matthew’s priority. The majority of the infancy Narrative looks like this. He also patterns Jesus as a new and superior Moses. The Exodus is all over his infancy narratives. Matthew’s infancy narratives is making statements about who the sum total, post Easter, transforming and risen Jesus is, not how we was actually born.
Matthew and Luke most certainly get Jesus to Bethlehem in different, contradictory ways. Whole streams of NT thought know nothing of those. Heck, even the demons know him as being from Nazareth. Just as we can find a proper literary Genre for creation in Genesis (x2), we should do the same with both birth narratives as well. It doesn’t mean there isn’t any history in there but the majority of it is certainly lost if there is.
And yes, the NT’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures defies modern sensibilities (or is nuanced!). Another reason to move from concordist reasons.
Vinnie
Absolutely agree with 95% of what you have written above, Vinnie. And would be behind you on the fact that history in its modern sense is not the goal of the gospel writers, nor are they writing about the events as if it were CCTV camera footage.
For instance the gospel writers are happy to play fast and loose with how they arrange material to make a theological point. The cursing of the fig tree in Matthew and Mark being a prime example. But that doesn’t mean that the triumphal entry, the cursing of the fig tree, and the clearing the temple didn’t happen.
Similarly, My own view is that Luke and Matthew arrange their infancy narratives and select their material for theological reasons (Great that we agree on this). However, I don’t think that means the events didn’t happen in a way broadly described or that there are no plausible ways they may be reconciled. Though, exactly how they come together is probably not a question that can be conclusively answered this side of New Creation.
Therefore, I opt for a light-touch Concordism that says ‘Perhaps, the birth stories come together like this or maybe they happened like this’ rather than a hardline test of orthodoxy approach that can be common to concordism. That said, I also recognise that others, like yourself see the issue different - and that’s fine by me too.
Good morning Vinnie
Yes, I understand not all will agree with the meaning of scripture. That is why we have many churches throughout the world believing different things of what the Word of God says.The early disciples were of one accord and like-minded. We can side with different sects of our beliefs but more importantly, does it line up with the Lord? We are to be followers of the Lord and not of men.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
We are called to test all things according to scripture. If Answers in Genesis lines up with the Word of God then it is ministering biblical faith to biblical faith.
I’m not offended. I merely think her interpretation is wrong. God is never upset when we use our brains.
Answers in Genesis is hardly the word of God.
And yet early on Peter and Paul were duking it out.
Sorry you think that beaglelady. Our only authority is God’s Word. Not my opinion.
Can you post the scriptures verses please?
Are you sure your authority isn’t Answers in Genesis?
Galatians 2:11
Vinnie…That is not a bad question. And I see that you have several responses below that are really intriguing. I rather like the additional thoughts of moderator Liam …and also LM77.
An article, found at etsjets.org/files , cites Bloomberg as asserting that 1 Kings 11:40 is behind Matthew 2:14-15. The author of the jets article tosses around different ideas about the placement of the verses in Matthew 2, thinking they might fit better later, but ends up leaving those verses where they are. He asserts (like others do) that Jesus’ experiences involve retracing Israel’s steps, and notes a parallel as well between the last two verses of Hosea 10 (“…when mothers were dashed in pieces with their children …At dawn the king of Israel shall be utterly cut off”) and the recording of Herod’s slaughter of male children in Bethlehem in Matt 2:16. If one can stomach that thought, then I suppose the more blatant citation of Hosea is not so out of sync with the moment.
There is also a typological approach at work here with respect to the biblical account as a whole. The relationship between prophecies or statements about individuals (at times) and larger, or national, experiences seems to be accepted by most commentators and students of the text as a whole. Edersheim said that “The history, the institutions, and the predictions of Israel run up into Him [the Messiah]”. He noted, in his The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, to what he called “Jewish legend” that says that redeemed Zion ( at some future point) will experience all the miracles that God performed when Israel was in the wilderness during the Exodus. (Argue with Edersheim on this.)
See, as one example, the parallels between Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11) and Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness (Book of Exodus)
The NRSV (New Oxford Annotated Bible) points to a similar technique in Exodus 4:22, “Thus says the Lord: Israel is my firstborn son.” Israel (as a nation or people-group) is referred to as a son (individual).
An article in JETS notes the use of Genesis in Hosea with prophecies given to individuals like Adam (Genesis 5:7) or Jacob (Genesis 12:25) being seen by Hosea as applying to the nation of Israel as a whole. This somewhat fits with Edersheim’s idea…as well as Matthew’s.
JETS also sees that verse in Hosea 11 in light of its relation to the entirety of that chapter so that, after Israel’s exodus (from Egypt), they fell away from God but were judged by God, though not with an absolute judgment due to His compassion (v. 8-9) with a future restoration in verses 10-11. The footnotes of Oxford Annotated describe verses 8-9 as “perhaps the Bible’s stongest affirmation of divine mercy.”
The citation of this passage in Matthew is not to suggest Jesus’ need for divine mercy, but more in line with Edersheim’s ideas.
And I don’t know if the name of the biblical book has anything to do with Matthew’s references. But there is also something to be said here (with reference to the matter of God’s restoration and compassion) to the relation between the name Hosea (means “God, Save!” or salvation) and Yeshua/Jesus (God is salvation).
Not specifically, I don’t have enough free time at the moment.
It rules out one within human history, as evidenced by things like no biogenic sediment near me, layers with index fossils, plants with non-salt tolerant seeds, etc.
And if they were to constantly slander others and publish blatant lies, what would that suggest?
Obviously. And there are not many here who are young earth creationists.
Share please. I have seen responses here that are down right hostile.
We still have sin in the world and hope we all realize we are sinners. None of us is perfect.
The thread The Lies of AiG had extensive discussion of such things. I would note that it is mainly just people aggressively and obnoxiously promoting YEC (very much not you), that intentionally do either of those. There are certain AiG articles that really badly misrepresent sources, like the one linked in this thread Resources to further investigate the claims made in this article? (see the discussion for what problems there are).
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.