Response to Apollos

As Salamu Alaikum, Islamispeace.Good job!May Allah reward you.

More evidence that Golgotha and Mount Moriah are two different places in Jerusalem.  The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is regarded by Christians to be the place where Jesus was crucified (Golgotha).  Mount Moriah, considered by Jews to be the place where Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice him, and also the site upon which the Temple was built, is the same as the Temple Mount.  The following maps prove my point:

Jerusalem in Space

Old Jerusalem

Golgotha is nowhere near Mount Moriah.

Apollos new reply in green �

 

I decided to open a new thread concerning the discussion about the apparent connection (as per the Christians) between Matthew 2 and Hosea 11, so as to not mix up with other issues. 

This is a response to Apollos:

"I realize that the followers of Jesus were Jews � that is why I said the Bible is a Jewish book."

The point I was making was that since the followers of Jesus were Jews, their use of the Old Testament would be based upon their understanding of it, the Jewish understanding, not a non-Jewish one.  The appeal to Hosea therefore is questionable since there is no Jewish claim that it was a reference to the Messiah as well as Israel.  The following is taken directly from a Jewish website:

Excuse me but Matthew was Jewish and he made the claim. Maybe it was a new claim or maybe it echoed what other Jews believed. That is a separate aspect.

"Matthew 2:13-15 makes the claim that Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fled to Egypt until recalled by an angel. This is supposedly in fulfillment of a prophecy: "Out of Egypt did I call My son." The source of the so-called prophecy is Hosea 11:1. However, in the context of the verse as found in Hosea there is no prophecy, but simply a restating of Israelite history.

What is more, the following verse in Hosea is a continuation of the prophet's statement. It says of those called out of Egypt that they sinned against God: "The more they [the prophets] called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed to Baalim, and offered to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). The application of Hosea 11:1 to Jesus would, on the basis of verse 2, describe him, as well as Mary and Joseph, as sinners. If one reads Matthew's so-called fulfillment of prophecy within the context of that "prophecy" then one must consider that Jesus was a sinner."1

So, according to this Jewish perspective, there is 1) no prophecy being made and 2) no dual meanings.  If there was a dual meaning, as you claim, and Hosea 11 is referring both to Israel and the Messiah, then the obvious conclusion would be that the Messiah, like Israel, would be sinful, even to the point of worshipping pagan gods! 

I agree that Hosea is not a reference to a literal prophecy-prediction as you keep trying to imagine. But you have ignored what I explained about prophetic patterns and types. Just as analogies and parables are limited to the aspects the speaker or writer tells us they are focusing on, so a pattern or type is limited and not to be expanded beyond the quotes parts as you have done.

"As for examples, I can give you many examples that are consistent with this perspective but the Bible doesn�t say: �pattern is prophecy�. Just as Hebrew poetry uses repetition instead of word rhymes. The Bible doesn�t say �use repetition instead of homonyms in your poetry�. These are cultural factors that existed not commandments from God. If one doesn�t keep these things in mind, they may end up reading in their own cultural perspective into the passages and it is just as reasonable to ask: Why do you think prophecy should be merely prediction and fulfillment?"

It sounds to me like you, a non-Jew, is trying to interpret the Bible, a Jewish book, through your own understanding, something you have warned me against doing. 

The aspects of Hebrew poetry I mention are obvious to anyone who studies the Bible. If you think this is interpretation, you don�t know much about Hebrew or Judaism. I caution you against reading in your non-Jewish views on the Bible for just this reason. I understand very well what past and Jewish thoughts are on much of the Bible and I don�t purport to speak for them in areas I am not studied in.

"When you claim that the mentioned verse in Hosea does not have a dual meaning, you are just stating your opinion. If one has to choose between you o Matthew, I will take Matthew�s. He at least was Jew. "

I just showed you the opinion of a Jew who disagrees with you.  Regarding Matthew (or whoever actually wrote the Gospel), he clearly did not look at the Bible from a traditional, Jewish perspective.  I may dare say that he was even unfamiliar with the scripture, since he was appealing to verses which were not even predictions and turning them into the fulfillment of his Christian understanding.

As I said before, I agree that the context of Hosea is to a past event. The question is � could it also be a pattern prophecy statement? Matthew says yes and some Jews say no.

 

"Paul explains his Jewish perspective to Gentile believers � feast, foods and Sabbath days are types or shadows of the Messiah:

 

Col 2:16  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Col 2:17  Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Paul basically annulled the law, something Jesus did not do.  Jesus kept all the commandments.  He prayed, he fasted, he kept the Sabbath.  There were things that  Paul, upon his conversion, annulled.  I fail to see the dual meaning here.  Please clarify.

It doesn�t matter what you think about Paul. He was a Jew and he documents that his view of certain OT commandments were as patterns, types or fore shadows. The dual meaning is the immediate literal meaning  and the fulfillment by Jesus � Passover for example.

 

 

"God through Isaiah speaks against the King of Babylon and the Lucifer (Satan) simultaneously (dual meanings):

I saw no dual meaning.  Isaiah first speaks about the king of Babylon and then Satan in a different verse.  This is not like Hosea, who only mentioned Israel and not the Messiah.

The context is a judgment  against the King of Babylon. It starts and concludes the passage without any transition to the verses that refer to Satan and you can�t separate which verses apply to the King of Babylon or to Satan as they all can refer to both. Some don�t make sense if they are applied to literally to Satan and some don�t make sense if they are applied to literally to the King � hence the dual meanings.

 

Of course this is different than the Hosea passage as I am trying to show you clear examples of dual meanings � where the different entities are spelled out for us. I realize they aren�t spelled out in Hosea and there are other passages where dual meanings are likely but not spelled out in the passage itself. You asked for examples of dual meanings and that is what I am showing you.

 

"God through Ezekiel speaks against the King of Tyre and Satan simultaneously (dual meanings):"

Again, I see no dual meaning.  Where is the reference to Satan.  What I took away from the verses was that the king of Tyre was being warned about his sinful ways.  I tried to look for a Jewish commentary on Ezekiel 28, but all I found were Christian ones, which I would expect would not be reliable, since we have to look at the Old Testament from the Jewish perspective, not non-Jewish ones.  Can you provide a Jewish commentary on this chapter?

I could but I am trying to show you examples that don�t need a Rabbi to explain. The �anointed cherub who covereth�, the one who �walked in the Garden of Eden� refers to Satan � certainly not the King of Tyre who is said to be addressed. It obviously refers to the King and the evil power behind the King � Satan. Two obvious meanings or applications in one passage.

 

"After Abraham performed the drama of offering his son as a sacrifice, he declares that this was a pattern or foreshadow of what God would do in the future:

Gen 22:14  And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh (Jehovah Will See): as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. "

Regarding the name of the place, what version of the Bible are you using?  According to the NIV, the place was called "The Lord will provide."2  This changes a lot of what you are claiming.  And even if there were a dual meaning here, it certainly is up to interpretation as to what the second meaning is.  You don't sound too sure.

The NIV is not as accurate � universally. This said, even the NIV version confirms that Abraham was referring to something that would happen � not the events that had happened.  A clear example of two meanings or a prophetic pattern.

 

The moral of the story was that God was testing Abraham, to see if he would do whatever was asked of him.  The angel even says "Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.'"3 

The moral of the story is a separate issue from the prophetic meaning. And if you try to reduce it to a mere moral drama, you will find bigger problems. Why would God ask Abraham to do what was immoral? Why would Abraham lie to Isaac? Why would Abraham declare that because of these things God will do something on the Mount?

"There are many other similar examples. In each case it is the prophet of God who writes the message or a later prophet who informs us what their message means. It is not for you to decide."

I think you should practice what you preach.  By the way, Matthew was not a prophet.

 

You are ignoring the fact that Jesus authorized and super-naturally empowered Matthew and the other disciples to be his witnesses. In this way Matthew is a prophet and even if he wasn�t, he records the words of Jesus who was a prophet.  It is likely that Jesus told Matthew that the passage in Hosea was a fulfillment of events in His early life so I accept Matthew�s statement as a prophet�s statement not just a scribe.  

 

 

What I believe you are missing in all this is:

 

1.    You are looking at current non-Messianic Jewish opinions to prove what you think the Jewish opinion was at the time of Jesus. This is a flawed approach since it ignores the Messianic Jews of today and it ignores the Jews who originally followed Jesus. You should be referring to Targums, etc. from before Jesus to get an unbiased Jewish opinion for this.

2.    You are ignoring the fact that Matthew was a Jew and wrote his account for Jews. If his reference to Hosea did not resonate with his Jewish readers in the way I have described � as a pattern or foreshadow � his Gospel account would have been rejected by the Jews of his time. The fact that some did proves that some Jews viewed Matthew�s reference and commentary as legitimate.

3.    You are ignoring the fact that some of the things Jesus said, some of the things He told His disciples and some of the things they said � were �new� comments or interpretations on the Old Testament (TANACH). They were �new� in that these things had been missed or misunderstood by Jews up to that time and they needed to be brought to their attention. Just because a Jew � then or now � doesn�t agree with Jesus or His disciples does not mean the Jew is automatically correct.

 

Apollos

You have clarified some things so let me do likewise.

 

I do not believe the Hosea passage � or some other passages alluded to in a similar way � can be justified by a simple literal reading of the original passage. I thought that by giving you examples of other dual meaning passages that explain themselves might help you see how there can be different meanings to TANACH passages. Apparently you only want me to �prove� this specific statement in Hosea is prophetic without any appeal to Jesus or Matthew. I will try to do this at the end of this post but I will need to appeal to Targums and multiple meanings so let me explain the basis for these first.

 

I would also like to clarify that you have misunderstood or miss-stated my comments about pre-Jesus Jewish thought. There was not complete consensus among Jews concerning TANACH during Jesus� day. Consider the Sadducees for example who did not believe in an after-life yet they claimed they believed in what TANACH said. So if we find a quote from a Sadducee on a passage in Hosea, should we treat that view as �the Jewish view�? I think not. But even that type of Jew is a better example of the Jew Matthew was writing to in his account � than the modern day Jew that you want to quote. If you want to second-guess Matthew�s statements from a Jewish perspective, you should do so based on the Jews of his time not ours. And when you decide that the Jews of that day who rejected Jesus were automatically the true Jews, on what basis do you do this? Should we automatically consider those who rejected Mohammed�s message as the true believers?

 

One of the sources we have for early and pre-Jesus Jewish thought are Targums - ancient Aramaic translations, plus comments, of the Old Testament. The older the better but even those completed after the time of Jesus generally reflect pre-Jesus Jewish beliefs. (Some think Targum Jonathan on the Prophets is pre-Christian already). In using these sources, one can make the case that the Hosea passage and others were understood by Jewish sages the same as Matthew does.

 

To substantiate the things I have said about the general Jewish interpretation of TANACH I offer you the following references from Wikipedia - so you don�t think this is a Christian notion.

 �Most Orthodox Jews study the text of the Torah on four levels as described in the Zohar:

• Peshat, the plain (simple) or literal reading;
• Remez, the allegorical reading through text's hint or allusion
• Derash, the metaphorical reading through a (rabbinic sermon's) comparison/illustration (midrash)
• Sod, the hidden meaning reading through text's secret or mystery (Kabbalah).

The initial letters of the words Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod, forming together the Hebrew word PaRDeS (also meaning "orchard"), became the designation for the four-way method of studying Torah, in which the mystical sense given in the Kabbalah was the highest point.�

Even without including Jewish Kabbalah � which many Jews hold to, it is clear that an orthodox Jewish reading of Torah includes more than simply Peshat. Do an internet search for the above words and you will confirm these things as well known Jewish interpretations of Torah.

 

For a lengthy list of passages and historical documentations for Typology, I refer you to this link: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/typol.html . It is from a Christian but I doubt a Jew would disagree with the examples from the TANACH that he lists.

 

Now for a justification on Matthew�s appeal to Hosea 11 based on Jewish thought:

 

In the Targum on Isaiah 9:5-6, the child is seen as the Messiah. It is generally agreed that the child of Isaiah 7:14 is the same child as Isaiah 9:5 and therefore not Hezekiah - or Hezekiah and the Messiah with dual meanings involved. The point is � when a prophet speaks of God saying �my son�, the ancient Jews immediately suspected a reference to the Messiah or a dual meaning including the Messiah. (There are many other examples but I am trying to be concise.)

 

It is also likely that Matthew was quoting from a Targum in his statement because the specific wording is slightly different in the Greek than the Septuagint. I offer some references on this if you want to study the details. http://www.bsw.org/project/filologia/filo12/Art05n.html

http://www.bsw.org/project/filologia/filo12/Art05.html

http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mtappa.htm

 

The Targum on Hosea does not elaborate on the meaning of the �son� in verse 11:1 but it does differ from the Septuagint translation which renders this �his children�. Matthew, the Masoretic Text and and the Targum on Hosea are all in agreement on the wording.

When one considers that it is completely proper for a Jew to read a passage with different meanings in mind (see Wikipedia and other sources above), and that a reference to �God�s son� was typically viewed as Messianic (see references to Targum on Isaiah above), it is completely reasonable for Matthew to refer to Hosea 11:1 as he does. At a minimum, there is no contrary view on this passage in the Targums. The burden of proof is therefore on the one claiming Matthew is wrong.

 Apollos