WM 206: Is Hosea 6:2 a prophecy of the third day resurrection?

Some notes for WM 206:

After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight (Hosea 6:2).

What is the issue?

As I’ve been preaching through Hosea, I have tried to call attention to places where there are “messianic” prophecies (e.g., Hosea 3:5) and I know there are more of these to come (cf Hosea 11:1//Matt 2:15).

Sunday before last, I was preaching through Hosea 6 and pondered the meaning of v. 2.

Is this a prophecy of an experience of the historical Israel or it is a prophecy of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

As I looked at a couple of commentaries I was struck by a stark difference in interpretation.

One hand, the MacArthur Study Bible comment on v. 2 flatly rejects this verse as relating to the resurrection: “Not a reference to the resurrection of Christ…”

On the other hand, there was Matthew Poole, who distinguishes between the historical and the “mystical” interpretation, but clearly affirms the latter.

This sent me on a survey of Study Bibles and commentaries:

Survey of commentaries:

Orthodox Study Bible: “The Church understands this text as a messianic prophecy regarding Christ’s resurrection….”

Calvin’s commentary: “We must always mind this, that we fly not in the air….”

Matthew Henry: “But this seems to have a further reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

ESV Study Bible: Acknowledges that this verse is behind the notion of Christ rising on the third day, but it suggests it does not speak of Christ “directly.”

Key NT passages:

Luke 24:46: And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Also:

Luke 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

Cf. Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34.

Note also the charge of the chief priests and Pharisees to Pilate, “Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again” (Matt 27:63; cf. Matt 28:6).

1 Corinthians 15:3 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Citing:

Jonah 1:17 Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Hosea 6:2 and Jonah 1:17 would appear to be two of the key prooftexts for the OT prophecy of the third day resurrection of Christ.

This recalls G. K. Beale’s classic 1989 article “Did Jesus and his followers preach the right doctrine from the wrong texts?”

The MacArthur Study Bible note is then potentially dangerous.

We see the start of a more rationalistic interpretation in Calvin, but it is not followed in the Protestant orthodox Poole and Henry, but revived in the modern era.

We might also ask what further implications Hosea 6:2 has for the doctrine of the descent (Note: It is not listed in the Scriptural index for either Matthew Emerson’s He Descended to the Dead or Samuel Renihan’s Crux, Mors, Inferi; both, however, have an entry for Hosea 13:14).

Conclusion:

There is good reason to defend the traditional, pre-critical view that sees Hosea 6:2 as a Scriptural proof text for the third day resurrection of Christ.

We can trace rationalistic interpretation of Hosea 6:2 to the very early modern period (as in Calvin), but it seems that later Protestant Orthodox (like Poole, Henry) continued to defend the pre-critical view.

We should also note that Hosea 6:2, if related to the resurrection, stresses the benefits of the resurrection for believers. Compare:

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

JTR

Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 4 of 8)

 

 JTR

Theological Schizophrenia

At the close of WM 98 I offered two conflicting quotes from the Preface and Acknowledgements to Craig A Carter’s Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis (Baker, 2018), a book I have just begun to read.

First, in the Preface Carter says,

My hope is to overcome the Enlightenment by showing that the Enlightenment movement of “higher criticism” is a dead end, a sideshow, a deviation from orthodoxy, and a movement that is now in the late stages of self-destruction (xviii).

Then, in the Acknowledgements, Carter says,

All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible, unless otherwise noted. I use, recommend, and thank God for the ESV Study Bible, which is a marvelous tool for anyone wanting to study God’s Word today (xx).

The contradiction: On one hand Carter (rightly) challenges the Enlightenment influenced modern historical-critical method. On the other hand, however, he chooses to make use of a translation that is the fruit of the Enlightenment deconstruction of the Biblical text (the ESV coming in a direct line from the English Revised Version of 1885, based on Wescott and Hort’s 1881 Greek NT). How is it that conservative and orthodox men can rightly critique the problems with modern theology in areas like the classical theism, but neglect to see those same problems in text criticism?

JTR

Paul, the historical Jesus, and 1 Corinthians 7

Image:  Modern statue of Paul's conversion at the Chapel of St. Paul in Damascus, Syria

What did Paul know about the historical Jesus?  This is a question still asked in NT scholarship.  Liberal scholars have suggested that Paul knew little about the historical Jesus. They even suggest that Paul distorted the message of Jesus, whom they see as having taught a simple ethical message about the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.  It is also said that in keeping with the free and charismatic nature of the early Christian movement, Paul’s knowledge of Jesus came from his own ecstatic experience rather than from reliable written and oral tradition.

Conservative scholars, of course, defend Paul’s knowledge of the historical Jesus and affirm that his teaching was in line with that of Jesus and his original disciples. Though Paul did have ecstatic experiences (cf. his meeting the risen Jesus on the Damascus Road in Acts 9 and other ecstatic experiences; cf. Gal :11-12; 2 Cor 12:1-4), this does not exclude his learning of Jesus through more ordinary means (cf. e.g.,  his consultation with the “pillars” in Jerusalem in Galatians 2).  There also seems to be some evidence that Paul knew of the Gospels or of the traditions incorporated in them.  Tradition held Luke to have been Paul’s companion.  If so, it would make sense that Paul might have known Luke’s Gospel and commended its use among the churches over which he had influence.  In 1 Timothy 5:18 we have what seems to be a quotation from Luke 10:17 (“And, The laborer is worthy of his reward.”) laid alongside a quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4 and mutually introduced, “For the scripture saith….”.  Many in the early church took Paul’s mention in 2 Corinthians 8:18 of “the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches” as a reference to Luke.

Some of this discussion has centered on how to interpret several of Paul’s statement in his teaching in 1 Corinthians 7.  Here are some comments on a few of these passages (and two others from 1 Corinthians):

1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

Here Paul says this command does not come only from him but also from the Lord.  Did he mean he got this from experience?  Is he saying that Jesus gave him a special revelation of this teaching?  Or, is he simply using spiritual language to describe having learned this teaching from settled Christian tradition or even from the written Gospels? Most likely he knows of a tradition where Jesus specifically forbade the abandonment of a spouse (cf. Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:3-12; Luke 16:18).

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

Is Paul saying that this counsel is on a lower level of authority since it comes from him and not directly from the Lord (Jesus)?  Probably not.  Paul speaks as an apostle, and so he necessarily speaks with authority (cf. Galatians 1; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).  Perhaps he simply means he know of no place where Jesus directly addressed this particular situation, so he can only offer his authority as an apostle apart from supporting authority that might have come from a direct teaching of Jesus during his earthly ministry.

1 Corinthians 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Is Paul speaking tentatively here?  Probably not.  He is affirming that he thinks (dokeo) he has the Spirit of God.  The verb could also be rendered:  I assume, or I judge, or I determine.  All these sound much less tentative.  The teaching has authority in that it comes from Paul as an apostle and that it appears in an inspired letter.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

How did Paul receive this from the Lord?  Did it come through a vision?  Possibly, but more likely it is spiritual language for Paul having received reliable Christian tradition in oral or written form.  Compare Paul’s teaching here on the Last Supper and the institution of the Lord’s Supper with Luke 22:19-20.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Here Paul speaks of Christian tradition (paradosis) he is conveying which was handed down to him regarding the central facts of the gospel:  the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus.

Conclusion:  Paul had received and knew faithful traditions about Jesus handed down to him by those who were Christians before him, especially from the original disciples of Jesus.  He may have known the canonical Gospels, especially Luke.  His knowledge of Jesus did not depend on ecstatic experience.   Paul drew instead on the traditions he received in his teaching, but when he did not have this direct guidance he could still assert his teaching authority as an apostle.

John Owen on Apparent Contradictions in Scripture

When preaching last Sunday afternoon on “Stephen’s Final Sermon” in Acts 7 I spent a bit of time addressing Stephen’s mention of 75 Israelite souls who came to Egypt at the time of Joseph (Acts 7:14) in comparison to 70 as mentioned elsewhere in the OT (cf. Gen 46:26-27; Exod 1;5; Deut 10:22).  One solution I suggested was that Stephen's number included the offspring of Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh.  If so, here is a place where the NT supplements information from the OT.  I also noted that given enough time, light, reason, and information solutions can be reached for all apparent tensions that arise in Biblical hermeneutics.  Along the way I also shared this quotation from John Owen:

 

We have seen that there are some difficult passages in the Bible, occurring frequently but irregularly throughout the Scriptures, and so there are some apparent contradictions scattered therein which are to be diligently searched into and reconciled—something which can only be achieved by legitimate interpretation (Biblical Theology, p. 814).

Indeed, the path of pre-critical interpreters was to seek rationally satisfying harmonization in the face of “apparent contradictions.”  For Owen solutions can only come through diligent and faithful interpretation.  In the quote above from Adversus Fanaticos, Owen’s point was that solutions to such tensions did not come from seeking mystical experiential insight but from soundly and soberly dividing the word.

JTR