How do you know that God did not intend that as a prophecy about Jesus from the beginning, but that the people of Hosea's time just didn't understand the prophetic nature of the statement?
I believe that I mentioned above that the text was used for prophetic purposes. But that doesn't mean that Hosea intended to speak about Jesus. He wouldn't have known who Jesus was.
You cannot claim that what they understood was the full intent of God's statement just because that was all they understood.
The point is that, Hosea had a meaning and intent in mind, and it didn't have anything to do with Jesus. It's not like Hosea was like "I don't know what I'm writing about, but some day some people 1,000 years in the future will know!"
No. Hosea would have had his own meaning in mind. Complete and full.
God didn't write Hosea. Hosea wrote Hosea. And it's ok for Hosea not to have known about Jesus and not to have intended to write about Jesus.
In case you didn't know, Jesus is not ever named in the OT. Why? Because the OT authors didn't know who he was. He hadn't been born yet. It's that simple.
Paul is telling us that there was more to understand in what Hosea had to say, and we just didn't have the frame of reference to understand or even conceive of the implications.
Sure. And again, Hosea would have had his own original meaning in mind that wouldn't have had anything to do with Jesus.
Yes, both MUST correspond, because both are the inspired Word of God. It does not matter what the ancient Israelite cosmology was at the time of the writing of Genesis. If their cosmology was incorrect before the Word of God was given to Moses, then their cosmology was corrected by God through Moses at that time. The revelation of truth changes the incorrect "knowledge" that preexisted that revelation.
There is no evidence in the Bible that God corrected the ANE cosmology of Genesis. In fact, it's quite obvious that God allowed it to remain. Hence why the Bible speaks about the raqia and the waters above, sheol and things of this nature.
There is no sheol in the new testament for example. But it is common in the OT. God allowed this ancient cosmological perspective to remain.
Yes, and no. Certainly the originally understood meaning is relevant. But the updated usage is also relevant. But the language from John about creation does not change the meaning we had in Genesis. It confirms the understanding that was already there in Genesis.
I never said that the updated usage was not relevant.
And the original authors would not have had that updated understanding. Just as Hosea would not have known about Jesus. So for the purposes of understanding Genesis, we have to start with the original understanding.
The understanding was not already there in Genesis. Just as Hosea did not write about Jesus. He didn't know who Jesus was.
Your understanding of the Genesis text does not mean that the ancient Israelites had that same understanding. It is very clear from the text that the ancient Israelite understanding was that God started with nothing, and created the heavens and the Earth from that "nothing".
That's obviously not true:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
There is no evidence that ancient Israelites viewed creation in ex nihilo terms. Such ideas are not found in scripture, nor are they found in any recorded history until several centuries later. There is no ancient literature suggesting such a thing that far back in history.
They did not believe that He started with some preexisting material and then shape it to His liking. He started with NOTHING, and from that NOTHING He created everything that we see today.
Yes, they did believe that he started with pre existing material. That's what the text says and that's what all of our historical records show.
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. All of Scripture is equally valid. We are not discussing the truth of Genesis outside of the rest of Scripture.
I never said that all of scripture was not equally valid.
We are discussing the truth that is in Scripture, period. It does not matter what the original hearer of God's Word understood or believed. What matters is what God understood when He caused His Word to be written. If we were to let ancient understanding of Scripture dictate what Scripture means, then we would have to accept that the Pharisee's understanding of the Scriptures was correct and that Jesus was wrong to correct them. But that is not the truth.
It does matter what the original authors and the original audience would have understood from the text. It is their context in which the text is based.
And there's nothing wrong with letting the old testament remain in its original context. Just because Hosea didn't know who Jesus was, that doesn't somehow make it a problem that he didn't speak of Jesus. It's ok for Hosea not to speak of Jesus. It doesn't detract from the meaning of scripture. It's just part of scripture that has a different context.
I've heard your position once referred to as "narcigesis". This idea that, the truth of scripture is "hidden in there" between the lines, like Hosea wrote the text down and said "I have no idea what this is talking about, but I'm going to write it down anyway in hopes that people in the 21st century will figure it out".
As if we now understand the old testament meaning better than the old testament authors themselves, because we know about Jesus, or about science of the big bang, or something like this.
It's not that Mathew knew Hosea's writings better than Hosea knew it himself. Rather, Mathew simply uses Hosea to prophecy or to point to Jesus. And that's ok. Mathew is not changing scripture. He's just referencing it. And Mathew likewise is not overwriting the meaning of Hosea. Hosea's meaning remains as it is. Uncorrected.
