- I think that salt makes food extra addictive.
- I think that Hosea has been one of the more fruitful devotional Scriptures I've used recently.
- I think that there may be a reference to the resurrection in Hosea.
- I think I want to challenge you find it.
- I think that dogs really are man's best friend.
- I think that my body is ready for warmer weather. I have started to crave grilled food, fresh fruit, and baseball.
- I really want to go to the mountains, but I still haven't found the right weekend.
- I love the introduction to Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Timothy. He presents the argument for Pauline authorship without wasting too much paper.
- I think movies are becoming a thing of my past. I can't trust any new movies being released to be quality productions and Christian in content. Just read a review for Watchmen for an example of the licentiousness in film today.
- Shaun Groves is quickly becoming one of my favorite worship leaders.
- Is it better to be mentally or emotionally stimulating as a teacher?
- What theme should I use for Wilderness camp 2009?
- What is fact and what is fiction within our typical understanding of Satan?
- Which book should be my next book to read (this list doesn't include the commentaries that never leave my side)--Comeback Churches by Stetzer, Getting Fired for the Glory of God by Mike Yaconelli, The Mystery of Marriage by Mike Mason, or Pushing the Limits by Calhoun?
- Why is it that the sins we consider "little" are also the ones that are hardest to shake (think lying, obeying parents, etc)?
"Men are we, and must grieve when even the Shade
Of that which once was great, is passed away."--William Wordsworth
7 comments:
Hosea 6:2
Although I do not think this is a direct reference to the resurrection, it's most likely a messianic overtune that was recognized by the early church post-resurrection.
In support of this claim, Matthew picks up on a messianic overtone in Hosea 11 in reference to Jesus. Although not referenced to in the New Testament (from my knowledge at least), I have no doubt that the early church would have read Hosea 6:2 and said, "yes, that's Jesus right there".
And dogs are more than man's best friend. They're man's bff ae ae ae.
P.S. I heart Gordon Fee.
I would tend toward Hosea 6:2 being a direct reference for one simple reason: What else is it referencing?
Perhaps I mislead you by saying that Hosea was not directly referencing Christ. Prophetic literature is an oddity.
All of our Messianic literature originated and had its roots in a historical setting (sometimes unknown to us). However, soon after composition a lot of the literature began to pick up Messianic overtones.
Take for instance Psalms 2. In its historical setting, it was written to celebrate the inauguration and arrival of some new king (due to the unknown date of writing and other issues scholars aren't for sure which king). However, soon the Psalms began to pick of Messianic tones. The audience began to realize that the prophet was talking about more than what was just going on in their circumstances.
On the other hand, a lot of our Messianic literature was not immediately held as "messianic". Take for instance the suffering servant passages in Isaiah. No one thought that was talking about the Messiah for no one thought the Messiah would be slaughtered.
Thus, after the resurrection, the church started to realize that the prophets had a lot more to say than what was already presumed. We now realize that a butt-load of prophetic literature has multiple fulfilment and was speaking of multiple things.
In my opinion, the prophets were not exclusively talking (in contrast to what I think you were saying) about Christ, although he was the fulfilment of what they were saying. But, I wouldn't say he was the direct reference because what the prophets said had historical significance in its original setting as well.
So, here's my question(s): How much did the prophets know about the Christ? Did they understand fully what they were prophesying? Did they know more about what they were originally saying than what people realized? Or is it non-absolute--that is, were they sometimes withheld from knowing the full implications of their words?
What I'm saying is this:
In my opinion, I think Hosea 6:2 had its direct roots in some historical circumstance and that Hosea was NOT EXCLUSIVELY TALKING ABOUT JESUS AND JESUS ONLY. But I don't think that it was immediately recognized as messianic until post-resurrection (like a lot of messianic literature, as aforementioned).
However, I do not know what its original historical significance was. But is it messianic? Of course, in some sly-direct way (though I wouldn't even say indirect way) that was not at first recognized.
I'm being too repetitive.
Nathan Shedd
Sorry that I had to post this an anonymous. It's not letting me post for some reason under my blogger id.
until now of course
I think a key to what you are saying as opposed to my view is in your use of the word "recognized." This suggests that you are looking at whether the reference originally appeared as messianic to the audience. However, I am trying to ask if God's Primary purpose was to convey a truth about the future Messiah, even if there was a purpose within the immediate history.
I also question whether Hosea 6:2 had a significance in the time of Hosea, because the specific reference to the third day being the day of rescue. Nothing in the bible or elsewhere tells of Israel being rescued on the third day from either Assyria or Egypt.
I don't want to ramble, so I'm going to shut up now.
I did touch on that previously, by saying I'm unsure what the historical implications of the phrase was, but nonetheless, I believe there was one. There's no reference to them being rescued on the third day simply because we do not know what happened to the majority of the population of Israel because they NEVER RETURNED from Exile. The Northern Kingdom of Israel is known as the "10 lost tribes of Israel". We simply don't know, specifically-historically what happened to them. However, just because they never returned from exile, does not mean that the Hosea text did not speak to them in some way. That's my bias at least.
On the other hand, I agree with you that the texts' most important aspect is its messianic qualities which God through inspiration put into the text.
I was mostly being picky on your choice of using the word "direct."
Post a Comment