Hosea 11

[Nickless]

drbo.org/chapter/33011.htm
Verse 1 is quoted in Matthew as refering to Christ; but the chapted refers to Israel. Some counter-missionaries use thi as to “prove” the New testament misquoted verses; how does that work?

 

[Della]

Many of the verses quoted in the NT from the OT can be applied to both Christ and to Israel. Both uses are just fine because they do apply to both. Prophecies often had more than one fulfillment since Israel was the family from which the Messiah would come. If such prophecies could only be applied to Israel, what good would that do us as Christians? And why would the authors of the NT even bother quoting them? They knew that the prophecies applied to Israel, but they also knew they applied to the Messiah, which is why they quoted them.

 

[TimothyH]

Della is correct.

Matthew has Christ recapitulating the life of Israel. Jesus retraces the actions in the life of Israel in his own life. Christ lives Israel’s life but Christ is successful where Israel had failed.

As an example, Christ enters the desert for 40 days and faces the same temptations Israel faced during their 40 years in the desert. Christ is able to resist those temptations where Israel gave in.

Luke takes up the same theme in Acts of the Apostles where everything that happened to Christ also happens to the Apostles.

Israel → Christ → Church. Each recapitulates the former.

-Tim-

 

[Hieronymi]

drbo.org/chapter/33011.htm
Verse 1 is quoted in Matthew as refering to Christ; but the chapted refers to Israel. Some counter-missionaries use thi as to “prove” the New testament misquoted verses; how does that work?

Please refer to footnote [1] from your cited wbsite:drbo.org/chapter/33011.htm Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes

[1] I called my son: Viz., Israel. But as the calling of Israel out of Egypt, was a figure of the calling of Christ from thence; therefore this text is also applicable to Christ, as we learn from Matthew 2. 15.

Also, see: Also, see: Haydock, G. L. (1859). Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary (Mt 2:15). New York: Edward Dunigan and Brother.

 

[dmar198]

drbo.org/chapter/33011.htm
Verse 1 is quoted in Matthew as refering to Christ; but the chapted refers to Israel. Some counter-missionaries use thi as to “prove” the New testament misquoted verses; how does that work?

You would answer it by saying that their argument doesn’t prove their point. They want to say, the verse refers to Israel, therefore it does not refer to Christ, therefore Matthew is wrong to apply it to him. You can respond that just because the verse refers to Israel does not mean it doesn’t refer to Christ as well.

In literature it is quite common to apply classic quotes to the subject you are dealing with. Socrates is a frequent example: he was forced to drink hemlock by a group of protesters because he kept insisting that someday after death we will be brought back to life, and they wanted to mock him (and dispense with him) by making him poison himself and die. You will often see classic literature refer to someone in their own time being forced to drink hemlock, meaning they were mocked and ridiculed until they were forced to not publish anymore.

Now anybody can see that it would not be reasonable to charge them with taking that phrase out of context, because it originally applied to Socrates and they were applying it to someone else. But that is similar to what Matthew is doing, except that the Old Testament texts are more profound and when they are referred to Christ, that reveals a deeper meaning behind them than just what the surface-level reading of the text seems to say.