Is the Gospel of Matthew lying here?

[Sheepdog11]

(I'm not asserting this for certain; I'd merely like to see some responses that can shed some light on this matter.)

The Gospel of Matthew says:

============================================================================================================================
Matthew 2:13-15 (NIV)
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 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."
============================================================================================================================

The passage Matthew is referring to is Hosea 11:1, and every Bible with annotations that I've checked adds a "Hosea 11:1" citation in association with Matthew 2:15.

So, Matthew is saying that Hosea 11:1 is a prophecy of God calling Jesus and his family out of Egypt after Herod's death (which is done by God through Joseph's dream in Matthew 2:19-20). That's clear enough. But if we actually read Hosea 11:1, we notice that it is a lot longer than what Matthew quoted. And if we read it in context, we find something a bit odd:

==============================
Hosea 11:1-2 (NIV)
"When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

But the more I called Israel,
the further they went from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
and they burned incense to images.
==============================

In Hosea 11:1, it is obvious God is calling Israel out of Egypt, not Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus never "sacrificed to the Baals" or "burned incense to images", due to his sinless nature. So, Hosea 11:1 CANNOT be referring to Jesus.

So my question is simple - Is Matthew taking Hosea out of context in order to make it look like Jesus fulfilled prophecy?

Or am I missing something?


I'm interested in seeing responses.

Peace.

 

[Dr.3D]

The reference in Hosea is an analogy with a double meaning.

You have selected an interesting question.

I'll pass to Matthew Henry for the answer.

Here is a quote from the Matthew Henry Notes on the Matthew passage:

The fulfilling of the scripture in a this-that scripture (Hos. 11:1), Out of Egypt have I called my son. Of all the evangelists, Matthew takes most notice of the fulfilling of the scripture in what concerned Christ, because his gospel was first published among the Jews, with whom that would add much strength and lustre to it. Now this word of the prophet undoubtedly referred to the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, in which God owned them for his son, his first-born (Ex. 4:22); but it is here applied, by way of analogy, to Christ, the Head of the church. Note, The scripture has many accomplishments, so full and copious is it, and so well ordered in all things. God is every day fulfilling the scripture. Scripture is not of private interpretation: we must give it its full latitude. "When Israel was a child, then I loved him; and, though I loved him, I suffered him to be a great while in Egypt; but, because I loved him, in due time I called him out of Egypt.'' They that read this must, in their thoughts, not only look back, but look forward; that which has been shall be again (Eccl. 1:9); and the manner of expression intimates this; for it is not said, I called him, but I called my son, out of Egypt. Note, It is no new thing for God's sons to be in Egypt, in a strange land, in a house of bondage; but they shall be fetched out. They may be hid in Egypt, but they shall not be left there. All the elect of God, being by nature children of wrath, are born in a spiritual Egypt, and in conversion are effectually called out. It might be objected against Christ that he had been in Egypt. Must the Sun of righteousness arise out of that land of darkness! But this shows that to be no strange thing; Israel was brought out of Egypt, to be advanced to the highest honours; and this is but doing the same thing. [added emphasis is mine]

Here are the Matthew Henry Notes for the Hosea passage.

These words are said to have been fulfilled in Christ, when, upon the death of Herod, he and his parents were called out of Egypt (Mt. 2:15), so that the words have a double aspect, speaking historically of the calling of Israel out of Egypt and prophetically of the bringing of Christ thence; and the former was a type of the latter, and a pledge and earnest of the many and great favours God had in reserve for that people, especially the sending of his Son into the world, and the bringing him again into the land of Israel when they had unkindly driven him out, and he might justly never have returned.[added emphasis is mine]

Does this help any?

 

[TurtleBurger]

The Jews had a very intricate view of prophecy, with prophecies having many interwoven meanings. Events in the Old Testament were foreshadows of greater messianic events that were to happen later. The foreshadows were mere shadows, so had imperfections that would not reoccur when the true Light came; for example, the epistles refer to Christ as the "new Adam", who reprised the role of Adam in a greater manner without repeating Adam's error. Obviously Matthew was not trying to "pull the wool over" his readers' eyes, since he was writing to Jews who were intimately familiar with the writings of the Hebrew prophets.

 

[jsu718]

So you are comparing a translation from a hebrew text to a translation of a greek/aramaic tranlation of a hebrew text... obviously there are going to be differences in the expressions.

 

[Sheepdog11]

Thank you for the replies.

So, what I'm understanding so far is that Matthew was using Hosea 11 as a prophetic metaphor for Jesus, and it serves as a double prophecy.

I'm still confused as to what qualifies it as a prophecy in the first place though. If I was, for example, a Jew reading Hosea 11:1 before Jesus came along, it would look like God is merely explaining that he loved the people Israel, called them out of captivity in Egypt, and that they strayed from him. This just seems past-tense to me, with no indication of prediction anywhere.

Even if it was a prophecy, though, of Israel the first time, I don't see why using it as an analogy of Jesus also causes it to be a prophecy of Jesus.

If I said "the death of Michael Jackson fulfilled what was said: 'the people of the world were shocked by the death of a legend'", and I'm referring to an old newspaper article on the death of Elvis, I don't see why using the quote about Elvis' death (as, say, an analogy) suddenly makes it a "double" prophecy of Michael Jackson's death. However, using "that which has been shall be again" (Eccl. 1:9), I COULD say that the newspaper about Elvis was a prediction of Michael Jackson's death with 100% justification. The types of standards Matthew Henry is proposing could thus be used to draw prophetic connections where none are.

Furthermore, even if we establish that it IS a double prophecy which in some way refers to Jesus, only the tiny part "out of Egypt I called my son" can be used a such, and only in a way that takes away the original context and meaning.

In this way, I could take Old Testament writings, take fragments of phrases out of context and make it look like they predicted anything. Especially in the understanding of "The foreshadows were mere shadows, so had imperfections that would not reoccur when the true Light came". To me this almost reads as an excuse to justify taking words that sound like they predict something out of context with their surrounding texts, which otherwise would disqualify the prophecy.

I'm just not sure what the point of a prophecy is if the meaning of it can only be understood in hindsight of the fulfilled event, and then only if the context of the prophetic text is ignored.

 

[Dr.3D]

Not all phrases in the Bible are considered prophetic.

Thank you for the replies.

So, what I'm understanding so far is that Matthew was using Hosea 11 as a prophetic metaphor for Jesus, and it serves as a double prophecy.

Yes, that seems like a pretty fair understanding of the subject.

I'm still confused as to what qualifies it as a prophecy in the first place though.

Hosea was considered a prophet by the Jews.
The book of Hosea is a record of his prophecies.

If I was, for example, a Jew reading Hosea 11:1 before Jesus came along, it would look like God is merely explaining that he loved the people Israel, called them out of captivity in Egypt, and that they strayed from him. This just seems past-tense to me, with no indication of prediction anywhere.

Well again, the book is considered to be a record of his prophecies.

Even if it was a prophecy, though, of Israel the first time, I don't see why using it as an analogy of Jesus also causes it to be a prophecy of Jesus.

The wording in that particular verse says son, not him. This would indicate God was talking about His son.

If I said "the death of Michael Jackson fulfilled what was said: 'the people of the world were shocked by the death of a legend'", and I'm referring to an old newspaper article on the death of Elvis, I don't see why using the quote about Elvis' death (as, say, an analogy) suddenly makes it a "double" prophecy of Michael Jackson's death. However, using "that which has been shall be again" (Eccl. 1:9), I COULD say that the newspaper about Elvis was a prediction of Michael Jackson's death with 100% justification. The types of standards Matthew Henry is proposing could thus be used to draw prophetic connections where none are.

Unlike the book of Hosea ,a newspaper article is not usually considered to be prophecy.

Furthermore, even if we establish that it IS a double prophecy which in some way refers to Jesus, only the tiny part "out of Egypt I called my son" can be used a such, and only in a way that takes away the original context and meaning.

Biblical prophecy is often somewhat cryptic in the way is it presented. Quite often people had a hard time understanding what was being said in the context it was delivered.

In this way, I could take Old Testament writings, take fragments of phrases out of context and make it look like they predicted anything. Especially in the understanding of "The foreshadows were mere shadows, so had imperfections that would not reoccur when the true Light came". To me this almost reads as an excuse to justify taking words that sound like they predict something out of context with their surrounding texts, which otherwise would disqualify the prophecy.

Only if you were taking Old Testament writings from books considered to be prophetic. Not all writings in the Old Testament are considered prophetic. You couldn't take phrases out of non prophetic books and expect people to believe those phrases were prophetic.

I'm just not sure what the point of a prophecy is if the meaning of it can only be understood in hindsight of the fulfilled event, and then only if the context of the prophetic text is ignored.

There are many phrases in the texts of the prophetic books of the bible that have more than one meaning.

Here is a partial list of the prophetic books of the Old Testament.

Books of the "Former Prophets":
Joshua
Judges
Samuel
Kings

Books of the "Latter Prophets":
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Johah
Micah
Nahurn
Habakkuk
Zephanriah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Not all of these books are considered to be prophetic by all churches. There is some disagreement between the churches. If one were to ask an Orthodox Jew, he would probably claim that all of those books are prophetic.

 

[Sheepdog11]

Alright, Dr.3D, your basic reply can be summarized as:

"Hosea was considered prophetic".

Alright, let's work with that idea. Just because something is considered prophetic text doesn't mean that every association that can be drawn from it was actually part of the prophecy in the first place.

For example, take Isaiah 1:7
Your country is desolate,
your cities burned with fire;
your fields are being stripped by foreigners
right before you,
laid waste as when overthrown by strangers.

And Isaiah 30:25
In the day of great slaughter, when the towers fall, streams of water will flow on every high mountain and every lofty hill.


Wow, cities burning with fire, overthrown by strangers, day of great slaughter, when the towers fall... 9/11 fulfilled these prophecies of Isaiah! After all, we consider Isaiah prophetic.

...But of course we don't really consider these things prophecies of 9/11. We realize that stripping away the context of these verses also strips away all credibility of their prophetic power. We realize that if we are using these standards, these same verses could refer to thousands of different events through history. So is this in fact a many-faced prediction? Or is it just a vague collection of words that, when ignoring the context, can be made to describe almost anything?

 

[Dr.3D]

So is this in fact a many-faced prediction? Or is it just a vague collection of words that, when ignoring the context, can be made to describe almost anything?

Well, you can take it any way you wish. It would seem Matthew decided to take that particular phrase as being a prophecy. Had he not taken that phrase to be prophecy, then he would have been lying when he wrote what he wrote.

I guess you will have to decide if Matthew was purposefully being deceptive about his belief that the Hosea phrase was prophecy. If he was being deceptive, then he was lying.

Seem this pretty much answers the question posed in the original post.

 

[Sheepdog11]

Well, you can take if any way you wish. It would seem Matthew decided to take that particular phrase as being a prophecy. Had he not taken that phrase to be prophecy, then he would have been lying when he wrote what he wrote.

I guess you will have to decide if Matthew was purposefully being deceptive about his belief that the Hosea phrase was prophecy. If he was being deceptive, then he was lying.

Seem this pretty much answers the question posed in the original post.

I probably should have worded my original post better, I wouldn't say he was lying necessarily. My problem was more with the actual validity of the way he was using the prophecy. Obviously if he believed his use was valid, then it wasn't lying.

 

[Dr.3D]

Seems Matthew translated the first word differently.

I probably should have worded my original post better, I wouldn't say he was lying necessarily. My problem was more with the actual validity of the way he was using the prophecy. Obviously if he believed his use was valid, then it wasn't lying.

Here is a quote from the Young's Literal Translation of the Hosea phrase that might shed a little more light on this subject.

Hosea 11:1-2 Because Israel is a youth, and I love him, Out of Egypt I have called for My Son. 2 They have called to them rightly, They have gone from before them, To lords they do sacrifice, And to graven images they make perfume. [YLT]

Notice how it reads in context.
It appears God is talking about Israel being a child He loves and because of that love, He has called His Son out of Egypt.
Seems the context works pretty well for what Matthew would have considered prophecy.

The first word in the sentence seems to be the key to this misunderstanding.
Here is a quote from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary showing how that word can be translated.

H3588

kiy: A demonstrative particle meaning because, for, that, when, whenever; indeed, even; if; even when, even though. It is used in various ways and must be translated accordingly. In every case, the context in which the word functions will be the key to translating correctly. Here is a listing of the major ways it is used: as a conjunction meaning because (Gen_3:14); for (Psa_6:2, Psa_6:5); that (Gen_1:10; 1Ki_21:15); as a conjunctive time or condition indicator, when or if (Gen_4:12); in a clause of condition, it means if, in fact, or in case (Job_7:13); as a demonstrative particle translated as yes, indeed, surely (Gen_18:20; 1Sa_14:44); truly, especially found in oaths (Gen_42:16); used with ’im (H518) . . . kî . . . , it means if . . . then (Isa_7:9); in combination with kî ’az, it is best rendered as then; kî ‛attāh usually means for them (Job_3:13). After a negative clause, kî is best rendered as rather (Gen_3:6; Gen_17:5; Gen_24:4); preceded by the negative lō’, it is "no, but . . ." In clauses that concede something, it has the sense of even though, although, even when (Ecc_4:14). It is used to show comparison when used in the construction kî . . . kēn, as . . . so (Isa_55:9).[Emphasis mine]

It now would seem Matthew considered the context to call for the meaning of that word to be "Because" rather than "When".

 

[Freedom 4 all]

Vague statements are extremely good at predicting the future.

 

[Dr.3D]

Vague statements are extremely good at predicting the future.

So what is so vague about the Hosea 11:1-2 prophecy?

 

[PaulaGem]

The secret Matthew - Matthew's lost Hebrew version...

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/shemtovweb.html


Certainally this must be considered when you study the Bible. Yeshua was a Jew who taught to Jews, but the earliest copies of the gospels have been destroyed. (Some theorize that that was why the great Library of Alexandria was burned).

Why and by whom?

What has been lost?

 

[Objectivist]

SHouldn't you just ask Jesus this question?

 

[TortoiseDream]

SHouldn't you just ask Jesus this question?

Alternatively you could just sit by a bush and pray.

 

[Dr.3D]

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/shemtovweb.htmlhttp://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/shemtovweb.html


Certainally this must be considered when you study the Bible. Yeshua was a Jew who taught to Jews, but the earliest copies of the gospels have been destroyed. (Some theorize that that was why the great Library of Alexandria was burned).

Why and by whom?

What has been lost?

Yeah, I have a copy of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by George Howard.
ISBN 0-86554-442-5

It is pretty interesting, but it isn't much different than the other translations from the Greek. One thing I did notice though is:

Matthew 28:19-20 Go 20 and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever. [HGM]

Versus what is in the King James Version.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.[KJV]

Notice there is no mention of Father, Son or Holy Ghost in the Hebrew Gospel?

Another thing of note:

Matthew 1:23 Behold the young woman is concieiving and will bear a son and you will call his name Emmanuel, that is, God with us.[HGM]

If you read the original Hebrew, it pretty much says, "call his name God with us, that is, God with us". Now that would seem to indicate that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew must have been translated from a language other than Hebrew or the writer would not have found it necessary to translate the Hebrew word Emmanuel to show it meant God with us.

 

[TER]

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mtmain.htm#CASE

 

[TER]

Hosea prophesying about the Lord's descent into Hades when He died (the Harrowing) and the preaching of the Gospel to the dead there:

(Hosea 6:1-2) Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

 

[PaulaGem]

Hosea prophesying about the Lord's descent into Hades when He died (the Harrowing) and the preaching of the Gospel to the dead there:

(Hosea 6:1-2) Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

Note - this is contained nowhere in the Gospels.

I believe it is clear evidence of pagan traditions grafted onto the teachings of the Hebrew Rabbi Yeshua.

http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/no_10_descent_into_hell.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell

 

[Sheepdog11]

So what is so vague about the Hosea 11:1-2 prophecy?

What part is vague...

"When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.

But the more I called Israel,
the further they went from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
and they burned incense to images.

I think the more appropriate question is "what isn't vague about it?" It's all vague; it says nothing about Jesus and doesn't even look like a prophecy. If you were a Jew living before Jesus' time, you'd have absolutely no idea what it was supposed to be prophesying. Even Nostradamus is more clear than this.

On the other hand, THIS is what a clear, non-vague prophecy would look like:

Hosea 11:1
I, God, will call my beloved son, the Messiah, out of Egypt when it is safe - that is, after the death of the dangerous king.