That's fascinating! I'd be very interested to hear (or read) a similar analysis of Matthew's use of Hosea 1:11 in Matthew 2:15. This came up in last Friday's episode of Albert Mohler's podcast (Part II of The Briefing on Friday, December 20, 2024), and I'm not sure what the correct answer would be. To say the least, double fulfillment seems like a convenient tool to make prophetic passages say whatever you want them to say, but I don't know enough to know how to demonstrate Matthew 2:15 isn't an example of it.
@MrChemenger It sounds like you're presupposing that the New Testament writers were describing the double fulfillment of prophecy. Methinks you should provide some evidence of that before jumping to conclusions, especially in the comments of a video demonstrating that to be a false conclusion of a similar passage.
@tlewis3348 oh no you misunderstand. Maybe I was not being clear. I am saying the New Testament writers were taught by Jesus how to read the OT. Messianically !!. Their method is the correct method whatever it is. Example, John's use of Zech 12 vs 10 in his gospel and the Revelation. We need to study the way the NT writers read the OT is all I am saying
@@MrChemenger Yes. I agree to some extent. However, I think it is at least possible that there are places where the writers are able to make applications that we would not be able to make today because they were inspired, and we aren't. I say that to say, even if it could be demonstrated that, in some cases, the writers were not using a strictly grammatical-historical hermeneutic, I don't think that would justify our abandonment of the hermeneutic.
That's fascinating! I'd be very interested to hear (or read) a similar analysis of Matthew's use of Hosea 1:11 in Matthew 2:15. This came up in last Friday's episode of Albert Mohler's podcast (Part II of The Briefing on Friday, December 20, 2024), and I'm not sure what the correct answer would be. To say the least, double fulfillment seems like a convenient tool to make prophetic passages say whatever you want them to say, but I don't know enough to know how to demonstrate Matthew 2:15 isn't an example of it.
Methinks the new testament writers were taught by the Master himself. We should be learning from them how to read the old testament.
@MrChemenger It sounds like you're presupposing that the New Testament writers were describing the double fulfillment of prophecy. Methinks you should provide some evidence of that before jumping to conclusions, especially in the comments of a video demonstrating that to be a false conclusion of a similar passage.
@tlewis3348 oh no you misunderstand. Maybe I was not being clear. I am saying the New Testament writers were taught by Jesus how to read the OT. Messianically !!. Their method is the correct method whatever it is. Example, John's use of Zech 12 vs 10 in his gospel and the Revelation. We need to study the way the NT writers read the OT is all I am saying
@@MrChemenger Yes. I agree to some extent. However, I think it is at least possible that there are places where the writers are able to make applications that we would not be able to make today because they were inspired, and we aren't.
I say that to say, even if it could be demonstrated that, in some cases, the writers were not using a strictly grammatical-historical hermeneutic, I don't think that would justify our abandonment of the hermeneutic.