New Testament Use & Interpretation of the Old Testament
Hosea 11:1 & Matthew 2:14-15
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols. Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I took them up by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of kindness, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them.
(Hos. 11:1-4)
There is nothing in this passage to indicate that the first verse is a prophecy of a future event. Neither the broader context nor the quoted verses contain any indication that anything is happening here other than God relating what has already occurred in the past; he called Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus. But when the New Testament speaks of this, it says that God was speaking of the future–
“and he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.'”.
Matt. 2:14-15
Matthew has here done what both Ryrie and Vlach insist the New Testament never does, even cannot do; he understands this Old Testament passage in a non-literal, non-normal way. He does not understand Hosea 11:1 in a way an Israelite living just 100 years prior to Christ could possibly have understood it but sees in it something more than the words, as given in the Old Testament, convey. Matthew takes Hosea’s words as a prediction of the return of Christ from Egypt. In fact, he sees two things here that are not possible to perceive solely from Hosea’s words: the future reference of the passage and the subject of the prophecy. Hosea is quite clear that the people who are Israel are the son whom God called out of Egypt but Matthew does not interpret Hosea 11:1 according to that passage’s plain, grammatical-historical sense. Instead Matthew tells us that Hosea was speaking of the future when Christ would return to Palestine from Egypt.
The only Dispensational response to this passage I have seen is that of Mark Snoeberger who argues that the Greek word translated fulfill can carry a meaning other than what is conveyed by the English word but can also mean something like a literary reference or analogy (https://dbts.edu/2015/06/18/whatever-happened-to-literal-hermeneutics-part-5/). If this is the case then Matthew could (but does not have to) be saying that Jesus’ return from Egypt is similar to what Hosea wrote happened to Israel. I am not a Greek scholar nor can I read Greek so I cannot engage directly with this argument. What I can do, however, is examine various translations, Greek lexicons, and dictionaries to see what those who are scholars have to say. Of the forty-five translations shown here–https://biblehub.com/parallel/matthew/2-15.htm, only four use any English word other than fulfull to translate the Greek word in question. Of the four that do not use fulfill, all of them actually use stronger language. One says “the Lord’s promise came true,” two say what happened was to make “come true” what God has said, and one says “that it might be completed having been spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines the word this way:
to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.
Again, there is no hint here of anything like a literary reference or an analogy. The only example in this definition that could be argued as meaning something less than fulfilling a prophecy is verify but even that is coupled with the parenthetical which makes quite clear that a prediction or something future is what is in view by even this definition. Other lexicons and dictionaries give very similar definitions.
Similarly, the context does not favor Snoeberger’s claim. Even if fulfill could refer to a merely literary reference, Matthew does not use the word in that manner. Other translations than the ESV are more clear here–“. . . this happened so that what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled. . .” (Matt. 2:15 NASB)–but even the ESV shows that Matthew viewed this event as necessary because of Hosea’s words; Matthew’s language does not allow for a merely literary reference. He understood Hosea to be giving an actual prophecy that referred to the return of the Messiah from Egypt.
Isaiah 7:14 & Matt 1:22-23
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Isa. 7:14
“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel.’”
Matt. 1:22-23
There are two things in these verses that are troublesome for the Dispensational hermeneutic; first, our English translations often obscure a significant feature of these two verses; the Hebrew word translated virgin (almah) in Isaiah does not usually carry the meaning of a woman who has never had sex but rather just of a young woman. The word can be used to indicate virginity, but that is usually not its meaning. In context, the sign which Isaiah prophesies is not the conception of a child, but rather the complete destruction of Syria and Israel before said child is old enough to know “how to refuse the evil and choose the good.” (Isa 7:16) There is nothing in the context to suggest that Isaiah intended to communicate that a virgin would conceive. If you look at the NET translation, it does not use the word virgin but rather young woman, a more accurate, “literal” translation. I highly encourage you to read the NET translation note on this (https://netbible.org/bible/Isaiah+7:14 – see note #25). When we come to Matthew’s quotation of this verse, the Greek word he uses does actually mean virgin. Matthew has “reinterpreted” Isaiah’s prophecy. This wording change is not quite as problematic as Matthews interpretation of Hosea 11:1 for the Dispensational view as here Matthew restricts the meaning of the original passage rather than sees something in it that the original hearers could never have expected, but he still does not understand Isaiah 7:14 exclusively according to that passage’s grammatical-historical meaning.
Second, in context, Isaiah is speaking of something that will happen in the lifetime of King Ahaz. As stated by its leading proponents, the hermeneutic of Dispensationalism requires that the the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 be found in that passage using only the plain/normal interpretive method. Therefore, to consistently apply that hermeneutic, we must say that Isaiah’s primary meaning is solely limited to something that happened during the life of Ahaz. Isaiah 7:14 does not by itself give any indication that what is being prophesied will not be fulfilled until hundreds of years later when Messiah comes; the passage itself speaks directly of, even requires, a near-term fulfillment. Yet Matthew understands Isaiah to be speaking of the Christ.
Let me briefly pause here to point out that, according to Ryrie, the Dispensational hermeneutic must be the correct hermeneutic, in part, because “the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ–His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection–were all fulfilled literally.” (92) Do either of these New Testament passages, according to the stipulations laid out by Ryrie and Vlach which we looked at in the previous post, proclaim literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy? Do they restrict prophetic fulfillment of prophecy regarding Christ’s first advent to only that which could be understood from the Old Testament texts solely by the use of the literal interpretation?
Amos 9:11-12 & Acts 15:13-18
Amos 9 is a prophecy primarily concerning Israel, her judgment, and her restoration. Verses 11 & 12 begin the change from judgment to restoration.
“In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the Lord who does this.
Amos speaks of a day when David’s house will be restored to its former glory; he appears to be using the royal family of Israel to speak of the entire nation, especially as the they of “that they may possess the remnant of Edom” appears, in context, to be Israel, though that point is not critical here. According to the Dispensational, plain hermeneutic, Amos foretells Israel’s restoration, part of which includes Israel achieving military victories over the Gentile nations, Edom in particular. But James refuses to understand Amos this way. Speaking at the Jerusalem council regarding the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church and what requirements to hold them to, James says:
Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”
First, James says that Amos’ words “agree” with Gentiles being taken as a people for God’s name. This is surprising since what Amos plainly says about the Gentiles is that they were under God’s rule and would be conquered by Israel. Then James states “just as it is written.” While James does not explicitly say “Amos predicted this,” that is exactly what he means. That is the normal interpretation of his words. He is not quoting Amos as secondary, indirect support of the Gentile inclusion, as some kind of literary device that resembles what was occurring in the New Testament era, but as the Old Testament’s prediction of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church. He is saying that what Paul & Barnabas have been describing (the salvation of the Gentiles) is the fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy. Clearly, James has committed the cardinal error of “spiritualizing” an Old Testament prophecy and should be dropped from our Bibles for not interpreting God’s Word as he intended us to (yes, this is sarcasm).
Secondly, and perhaps more clearly, James’ quotation of Amos differs significantly from the original. James’ rendering contains nothing of conquest of Edom or other nations but only of mankind generally and Gentiles specifically seeking God. This wording is probably derived from the Septuagint’s translation but that doesn’t change the fact that James considers this rendering to be authoritative; and this reading does not say what the Hebrew prophecy said, at least if your hermeneutic is one of plain, grammatical-historical sense. This is a case of the New Testament not only determining our interpretation of the Old Testament but actually changing its words to make the proper interpretation clear.
Surprisingly, Vlach references Amos 9:11-12 as evidence of the Old Testament predicting Gentile inclusion into the people of God (but not into Israel) and he sees James’ words as evidence that this prophecy has been fulfilled. (78) The problem for Vlach is that, interpreted according to the grammatical-historical method, Amos did not say that Gentiles would be added to or become the people of God. Because this could be one of the “challenging cases” Vlach mentions (79), I will briefly examine what Amos meant when he gave his prophecy.
The words James quotes fall in the middle of a larger prophecy regarding Israel; it involves both judgment (Amos 9:7-10) and restoration (9:11-15). James’ quote is the beginning of the transition from judgement to restoration and it is in the immediate context of that renewal that Amos says Israel will “posses the remnant of Edom.”
The only other place Amos uses the word possess (in either English or Hebrew) is in chapter 2–
Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath. Also it was I who brought you up out of the land of Egypt and led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.
Amos 2:9-10
Here it is very clear that by possess Amos means to conquer militarily. He is not speaking of the Amorites becoming Israel, befriending Israel, or even gifting their land to Israel but rather of Israel taking their land by force. Another account of Israel taking this land is equally clear that Amos is referencing military conquest; Numbers 21:21-31 recounts the story of the king of the Amorites refusing passage to the Israelites and then attacking the Israelites who enjoyed a complete victory over him. Israel “took possession of his land” (Num. 21:24). A quick search of the rest of the Old Testament will show that to take possession of something you do not own means to take it by military conquest. Other references to Israel taking possession of Edom and other nations also show the military connotations (e.g. Num. 24:17-19, Josh. 1:11, Is. 11:14, Obad. 17-19). Similarly, Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary shows that the Hebrew word translated possess has strong implications of taking something by force; though Strong’s does include a meaning involving inheritance, even this definition does not match James’ understanding. Ownership, almost certainly through conquest, is what Amos references in 2:10 and what he would have expected “possess the remnant of Edom” to mean in 9:11; it is what he meant when he relayed God’s message that Israel would possess the Edomites. To say otherwise, Vlach must bend both James’ and Amos’ words so that James cannot be saying something that contradicts Vlach’s Dispensational essential.
There are more examples of the New Testament using the Old Testament in ways that contradict Ryrie’s and Vlach’s hermeneutic that you can look at on your own if you want (Matt. 12:15-21 & Is. 42:1-4; Matt. 8:14-17 & Is. 53:4; Acts 2:14-21 & Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:29-36 & 2 Sam. 7:12-13; 1 Cor. 10:4, Exod. 17:5-6 & Num. 20:7-11; 1 Pet. 2:9-10 & Hos. 1:6-9, 2:23). In the next post, I will look at passages that say the Church is Israel and is not distinct from it.