Dispensationalism Then & Now, Part 2

Image

(From Dispensational Publishing House; used by permission. Read Part 1.)

A Renewed Understanding of Hermeneutics

My personal concerns have to do with some of the new proposals for a dispensational approach to the Bible, i.e., a critique of some of the structural points that hitherto were not characteristic of dispensational thought. One major principle will be discussed here—biblical hermeneutics. There are other factors that could be dealt with profitably as well.

Principles of Biblical interpretation are the first order of concerns in structuring a doctrine or a comprehensive method of interpreting the Bible, foundational to correct exegesis itself. Often the order is reversed. It is often asserted with vigor that Biblical hermeneutics must come from interpreting the Bible itself, i.e., a simple matter of exegesis. But this appears to be a circular procedure, i.e., using hermeneutical principles on the Bible in order to find the Bible’s hermeutical principles (to be used on the Bible).

But I would argue for a Biblical first principle or a presupposition regarding human language in the first place. This is drawn theologically from the Bible’s own use of language by human beings who possess rationality via the image of God in order to fulfill the dominion to rule the earth (cf. Gen. 1:26).

This methodology would then assert several principles for linguistic hermeneutics, Biblical or otherwise. One is that a word can only have one meaning in a usage, or in one and the same connection. Another is that words do not carry meaning autonomously but in combination with other words, i.e, a sentence. A third principle is that this selfsame word and its meaning cannot accrue or develop an expanding afterlife of changing meaning. A fourth factor is that the sentences thus constructed mean only what the author intended the words to mean. This is to say that language is univocal; it speaks with “one voice.”

A rule of thumb here is that “a text cannot mean what it never meant.” If words were equivocal in the same usage or connection, communication would be impossible. A language system then would need only one word, because that word would mean anything and everything, which is to say it means nothing—total irrationality.

This leads to the conclusion that the words of the Bible are not malleable in meaning because the authorship of Scripture is theologically unified. The miracle of Biblical inspiration guarantees a confluence between God and the human author, that what the human author wrote is what God wrote, and what the human author intended, God intended. And more importantly for Biblical studies, what the human author meant is exactly what God meant, no more and no less (cf. 1 Cor. 2:9-13). The dictum of non-dispensational hermeneutics is that “God could mean more but never less than what the human author meant.” This assumes that words can take on enlarged meaning(s) once they leave the human author, or that some of the Old Testament words, propositions and prophecies cannot be interpreted simply as given because there is always some possible hidden freight of meaning yet to be found in them. This would abandon the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture.

This approach then calls for another authority, outside the text being interpreted, to extract the “real” meaning that God intended but of which the human author and his first readers/hearers were oblivious. Various interpretive methods external from the Old Testament, in this case, have been proposed to prevent the Old Testament author from being banished from his own writing. Basically these methods appeal to later written revelation to round out the Old Testament propositions. But in truth this only worsens the problem. Who or what is going to unpack the hidden meanings of the later revelation? Or is it simply presupposed that it is somehow exempt from all occult meanings whereas the earlier revelation is not? The danger here is that this methodology will (logically) land us in the morass of linguistic relativism that has plagued the hermeneutics of rational thought for millennia, including theology and Biblical exegesis. Call this complementing, spiritualizing, allegorizing or resignifying the earlier words, the overriding note of it all is the replacement of the original authorially-intended meaning, a fatal disease of hermeneutics.

It may be postulated that God’s infinite otherness and power remove Him completely from this mundane discussion of the relationship between the Bible and its human languages because “God can do anything.” Problem solved. But be reminded that this does not mean that “anything can happen.” My proposed understanding of this relationship yields a unified approach to the whole of the Bible. The truth-intentions of both the Old and New Testament authors are harmonized and correlated. Both therefore are mutually helpful and necessary for the consistency of the whole.

Discussion

Ed:

John’s quote of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37 is a good test case of the use of human language in a univocal manner. Unmistakably Zecharia’s intended meaning is the “look” of redeeming faith to Messiah by the remnant of Jews at His return to earth at the end of the Tribulation Period. John does appear to resignify the prophet’s eschatological scene into the crucifixion of Christ in the 1st century AD, changing both the time and people.

I note that John’s immediate context emphasizes, not the spectators’ gaze (“look”) which was not a look of repentant faith, but the piercing by the soldier’s spear (v. 34). So I understand and would argue that John is indicating that the “piercing” was the literal fulfillment of an element of the prophecy’s intended meaning of Zech 12:10.

Rolland McCune

[Rolland McCune]

1. Correct biblical interpretation conveys the same meaning today that the Bible writers intended when they wrote. Thus “a text cannot mean what it never meant.” This identity of meaning prevents one from saying that the human author meant one thing but God meant another, or that God could mean more but never less than the human author. Word univocality also serves as a limiting notion as to what a text can or cannot mean. This does not tie God’s hands, making Him less than omnipotent and subjecting the Creator to the creature’s logic. It is simply not true that “anything can happen” in God’s universe. Can He create white blackbirds and square circles? Make a stone He cannot move? A shorter than a straight line between two points? Or, in Dr. Ryrie’s words, cause an atomic explosion to make 2+2=6? No. These are intellectual asininities and not objects of divine power.

2. Does God’s omniscience dictate everything he intends and means in a given proposition? If it does, would this destroy univocal communication from God to man, especially in prophecy and fulfillment type of contexts or any verbal communication to His language-users? I.e., does God therefore always mean more than man does, and can therefore actually change the original truth-intention of a prior statement, promise or prophecy by adding details of information? I think not. Did God personally intend and mean Mary as the referent in the case of Gen 3:15 as the seed of the woman, of which every human author and reader/hearer, say in the time between the serpent (Satan), Eve and Adam, until Joseph, Mary and the crucifixion and ascension of Christ, and a whole lot more, were oblivious? I do not mean or intend such a conclusion to the phrase “enlarged meaning.” Further, there are interlocking, interconnecting components of God’s knowledge, plan, purposes and actions in connection with Eve’s “seed,” including His sustaining and controlling every molecule and atom in the universe going back to the simple proposition of Gen 1:1. That would seem to be necessarily included in what God meant in His promise because He knew it all.

3. I can’t quite grasp the enormity of that scenario. All I see in the promise here is someone of the human race—a descendant of Eve—who sometime, somewhere and somehow will deliver a fatal blow to Satan the archenemy of Eve, Adam, all people and Almighty God Himself. Therefore the bulk of questions asked about Gen 3:15 concerning what information and who knew it and meant it, is not hermeneutically relevant. This is to say nothing of the role, if any, of the near-infinite amount of implications in all this. And I have only bumped the innards of the sensus plenior issue.

By numbering these paragraphs identifies my response.

1. What if the human author thought he knew what it meant but was wrong? What I mean is they received the revelation but didn’t get it in many cases. I will hold closer to Scott’s and Ed’s position. Of course I am not saying white blackbirds or “anything can happen.” This is not my position at all. We are limited in our understanding but God’s hands are not tied in His revealing truth.

2. God doesn’t tell everything to fallen man for certain reasons. Dr. McCune, could you please clarify what you are saying in #2. Did you leave some word’s out? (after “oblivious?”-could you answer your own question for clarity?)

3. It sounds like you don’t believe Christ was judging in Gen. 3.15 and seeing everyone in Adam as the two “seeds.” It sounds like that Christ did not ordain all history by the statement, or did I misunderstand? Was Mary “the woman?”

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

[Rolland McCune]

Ed:

John’s quote of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37 is a good test case of the use of human language in a univocal manner. Unmistakably Zecharia’s intended meaning is the “look” of redeeming faith to Messiah by the remnant of Jews at His return to earth at the end of the Tribulation Period. John does appear to resignify the prophet’s eschatological scene into the crucifixion of Christ in the 1st century AD, changing both the time and people.

I note that John’s immediate context emphasizes, not the spectators’ gaze (“look”) which was not a look of repentant faith, but the piercing by the soldier’s spear (v. 34). So I understand and would argue that John is indicating that the “piercing” was the literal fulfillment of an element of the prophecy’s intended meaning of Zech 12:10.

Seeing how you explained this I get what you are saying between these two passages. I really don’t see a problem with your explanation. That is how God fulfills sometimes and He is free to do it. I agreed with the number of virgins (one) in the Is. 7.14 passage earlier mentioned. I still think that redemption is the theme of the bible in practical purposes though and hold the accounts before and after as “secret things” (not revealed fully). D.T. and C.T. just don’t measure up. One because it includes too much (over analysis) and the other because it adds too much that isn’t explicit.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

Good discussion, all. You guys float my boat.

Rolland wrote: can therefore actually change the original
truth-intention of a prior statement, promise or prophecy by adding details
of information? I think not.

Rolland, if you used the word “detract from” rather than change, I would agree.

But change can be an addition, too. So, if that is what you mean, I do not agree. God cannot reduce the nature of the contents of His promises or prophecies, but He can expand them. Unless He so limits things (e.g., no one comes to the Father except through Me), He is free to add. In the parable of the laborers (Matthew 20:1-16), the point of the parable is made: “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’”

Here is my opinion: In the case of Israel, God has promised to exalt her ABOVE the other nations. Israel, therefore, receives privileges that the other nations do not. That is a limiting factor. Yet, in other ways, other types of God’s blessing (individual status and privileges before God) will incorporate both Jew and gentile believers, a mystery (hinted at/not clearly revealed) in the Old Testament but expanded upon n the New. That aspect of the Kingdom we enjoy now, which includes no distinction between gender, ethnicity, or social status. But God’s promises to Israel stand as originally understood.

Regarding the use of words, I think we agree all good interpretation begins with asking: What was in the mind of the speaker/author? And, second, how would the ORIGINAL audience have understood it.

But when it comes to prophecy, the original author/speaker is more of a mouthpiece (I Peter 1:10-12). I would argue that, while God guided the apostles when they wrote their epistles so that every Word was inspired and inerrant, the composition of the epistles required hard exposition of Old Testament texts and sometimes great effort on the part of the authors. This does not seem to be the case with prophecy in general (2 Peter 1:21).

If I am correct, the issue of “what was in the mind of the prophet” might include a sense of mystery and uncertainty, at least at times. Now as to how the original audience understood things, they certainly understood pieces. And the words themselves were defined based upon the current definition of the time. Those definitions cannot be negated. But God can add or “unlock” the mysteries already present.

For example, when Moses heard God say, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” Moses would have understood this as identifying Who God is — the One true God in Whom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had a faith relationship. Moses would NOT have understood this, IMO, as a teaching of the resurrection of the dead. Yet, in Matthew 22:32, Jesus unlocks a mystery, already present (not added to the verse), that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive.

Again, as others have pointed out, this might not so much be about the nature of the words, but rather the meaning of a verse.

"The Midrash Detective"

[Ed Vasicek]

For example, when Moses heard God say, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” Moses would have understood this as identifying Who God is — the One true God in Whom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had a faith relationship. Moses would NOT have understood this, IMO, as a teaching of the resurrection of the dead. Yet, in Matthew 22:32, Jesus unlocks a mystery, already present (not added to the verse), that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive.

Moses would have understood the resurrection as a side note, a facet of relating to God. Paul said God promised eternal life from the beginning, so I think Moses knew this aspect and looked forward to it himself. Moses was tired at the end of Israel’s wanderings and he didn’t shrink at all from “being gathered to his people.” yet Moses knew he had to solemnly charge Israel and transfer “the Spirit” to Joshua. I believe Moses understood the promise of life and that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were with God and the chosen would be with Him after death. The Sadducees had gotten this wrong and Jesus used the only scripture that they accepted, The Torah, to show that the dead rise.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

It has been noted, rightfully I fear, that parts of my posts are a tad shy of acceptable perspicuity. This shortfall probably comes from my reading so much of Cornelius Van Til who had a generous portion of the very unique gift of abstruseness, and he exercised it faithfully. I will try to crisply address many lingering questions that have been asked me on this important subject before us. These notes are predicated on the ideas that human language is univocal, that I am fully clothed and in my right mind, and am knowingly attempting to use correctly the univocal principles as applied to the Bible.

1. The perspicuity of Scripture. This means that all the bible is essentially clear although not all is equally clear; the bible is not inherently opaque. But one surely could not equate, for applicable clarity, the incident of Benaiah and the lion in 2 Sam 23:20-22 with John 3:16. On the other hand, what is required for salvation and an obedient spiritual life is unmistakably clear.

2. God’s omniscience and what it means in biblical authorship. This understands that God consciously knows everything, simultaneously and eternally, including all possibilities, in one indivisible instant of eternal intuition. This does not dictate that all He knows, i.e., His omniscience, is packed into the intent and meaning of His verbal disclosures to human beings. This would result in an infinite disjunction between God and the human author in every case, destroying the organic/confluent relationship between the two via inspiration. E.g., I don’t think that God meant the virgin Mary in the context of Gen 3:15, and that everyone else until the time of Matthew had no clue it was she. Nor did they know all that God knew it would take to get to her. Therefore, I conclude that by equating God’s omniscience with His intended meaning no one in the Garden actually even began to know what God meant in the Garden. Later, supplemental revelation does not change the meaning of His original words. The virgin in the NT is the same “woman” as in Genesis; the word “woman” has not changed its meaning in the NT, nor has it morphed into something else.

3. Daniel didn’t understand his prophecies: 12:8-13 Daniel is not saying his own prophecies were unintelligible. He wanted to know the “outcome” of them (v. 8). He and his first hearers knew what they meant. Here the prophet wanted more details, i.e., supplemental revelation, to give further understanding. A rule of OT prophetism is that a true prophet had a conviction that he knew when was delivering a message from Yahweh and what that message meant. A Yahweh prophet was liable to execution if he falsified or disobeyed his message in any way (1 Kgs 24:1-32). Unlike pagan prophets, Yahweh prophets were not out of their minds; they were in control of their mental capacities. Details often came in later (enlarged if you wish) revelation, and Daniel wanted some of it right then. But he was instructed to seal his prophecies and thereby issue a certified document that others will read and increase their knowledge (v. 4). Meanwhile he himself was given a few more details but basically told to die and rest in Sheol until the eschaton (v. 13).

4. Is a pretrib rapture essential to dispensationalism? To be consistent with the 3-fold sine qua non, yes. This is why, IMO, progressive dispensationalism with its rejection of essentialist dispensationalism can’t agree on the pretrib issue. One can’t disagree with the theological/political/ethnic difference between Israel and the church and be a futurist pretrib premillennialist. To me a premillennial posttribulational dispensationalist is a white blackbird, a total anomaly. I’ve never accused a “historic premillennialist,” such as J. Barton Payne, George E. Ladd and Clarence Bass, of being a dispensationalist.

5. A word’s range of meaning. Nearly all words have a semantic range of meaning. This comprises the possible meanings that arise through lengthy usage and are currently available to an author. An author normally uses a synonym for the word to avoid misunderstanding or monotony. Fortunately semantic ranges are usually small; rarely has a word been known to have a 180 degree range, but not impossible, even in the bible. Hermeneutically, only one of the possibilities must be chosen to convey an author’s intent, and its meaning accompanies the word in the same connections later in its usage. One cannot load a word with its semantic range and thus expound it. (I’ve heard the word logos in John 1:1-4 expounded as meaning every word within its semantic range.) Nor can another word within the range be used as a substitute if it will change the original meaning. E.g., one can legitimately use the word “female” for woman in Gen 3:15, but the “virgin Mary” violates the unified authorial intent. The authorship of Hos 11:1 had no other intent, meaning or referent than the Exodus from Egypt. Whatever application that God and Matthew were making in Matt 2:15, it was not to resignify Hosea into two flights from Egypt—a near and a far fulfillment and the like. Language will not bear that much semantic weight.

Rolland McCune

For what it’s worth it’s all clear to me…

The only point I wrestle a bit with is Daniel’s understanding. It’s possible to interpret Daniel’s behavior and statements as meaning he got a chunk of revelation he didn’t comprehend yet still fully embrace the fact that language, including biblical language, is univocal. Some have extracted too much from the premise that prophets might have occasionally missed the meaning of some aspects of their own visions.

To me, an important distinction is that a prophet who says “I had this vision, and here’s what was in it” speaks univocally in reference to what’s in the vision though he does not have to fully understand the vision. This is not the same thing as a prophet speaking as himself, but in an inspired capacity, and “not knowing the real meaning of what he was saying.” I don’t think that ever happened.

So maybe I’m trying to have my cake and eat it too, but I see a major difference between how prophets speak when revealing the meaning of visions and preaching etc. vs. how they speak when describing visions and reporting their own state of incomplete understanding.

The problem with the way some talk about double and triple meanings in OT prophets is that what are we then going to do with the writings of the apostles? Why should the rules be different for them? So if OT prophet A meant more than he meant, why don’t Peter and Paul have lots of hidden meanings as well? Consistency on this point would lead to something toxic like Webb’s “redemptive trajectory” hermeneutic.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron:

What you say is very clear to me, and I agree. This was a very interesting and informative thread, a univocal “afterlife” that exceeded all expectations.

Rolland McCune

Aaron, the idea of possible double/triple meanings and fulfillment is not so much a matter of meanings but APPLICATIONS and EXTENT. For example, the furniture in the Tabernacle had one literal meaning, but also a spiritual application as a shadow of things to come (Hebrews 10:1). The same is true with the feasts, etc. The Day of the Lord is a time of wrath that showed itself in a locust plague but more fully in the Tribulaiton. Jesus was recognized as King by only the Palm Sunday crowd, but one day the entire world will recognize Him. Elijah came, according to Jesus (Matthew 11:14), as John the Baptist. If you believe this fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi 4:5-6 then you are done. If you agree that (John 1:21) John is not Elijah, then you must harmonize it as the angel in Luke does (Luke 1:17), and, like me, you are expecting his return, perhaps as one of the two witnesses.

Prophecy is distinct from all other genres, especially the epistles. As I mentioned before — and I think we need to take note of this — prophetic utterance is generally given in poetry. By nature, poetry is less literal. Visions report what is seen, as in Revelation. These genres —poetry and apocalyptic — are intentionally more tenuous. The prophets understood what the vision they saw looked like, and the prophets understood the meaning of the individual words they used — and, I think, very often, understood their significance. But not always. Not only did John not understand all the symbolism of Revelation, we still don’t — not for sure. Ezekiel understood He saw wheels within wheels, but did he understand the significance of it all? Do we understand it all with complete confidence?

My challenge is to examine how the Scriptures use the Scriptures, not the western-style approach we seem to be taking.

Rolland, I really appreciate your article. You are a man of the Word and I recognize that I might be wrong and you might be right on these matters. Still, I want to express my take on things. I hope you find this a good exercise for yourself as you hone your skills in dealing with a Progressive Dispensationalist of sorts (me). I find this a sharpening in my thinking, too, which is the point of Sharper Iron!

Anyhow, I understand your concern that many Progressives are not Pretrib, although many are (like mystelf). It is true that Progressive Dispensationalism accommodates a variety of positions relating to the timing of the rapture. But a point I would make is that God’s faithfulness and hesed (steadfast love) to Israel is very clear and obvious in Scripture (Jeremiah 31:35-36). The Rapture, on the other hand, is much more ambiguous as to its timing (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, fore example, could easily be understood to suggest that believers will see the rise of the antichrist before the rapture; I don’t agree with that view, but can understand how some would see it otherwise).

In essence, your approach — bundling dispensationalism with the pretrib rapture — is perhaps one of the reasons some have abandoned any form of dispensationalism. Historically, the church’s refusal to recognize God’s faithfulness to Israel can readily be explained by the strong Anti-Semitism in the church in even the early second century. I believe this is, in fact, what happened. But there is no such historical explanation for the rarity of a pre-trib rapture view. Unfortunately, the trend today is to weigh history too heavily and the Bible not heavily enough. [ IMO, the evangelical world has moved from a passion to reclaim the original intent of the New Testament to, instead, reclaim the original beliefs of the Reformers with a few modifications (not many Calvinists today, for example, want to only sing Psalms non-instrumental). But they want the Reformer’s theological systems and are not longer challenging them with an openness to the Scriptures, but, instead, are defending them. from a deductive method. The inductive is out That’s my take.]

So when people question the pretrib rapture, they feel they have to also question God’s (hesed) faithful- love commitment to Israel. Covenant theology is the newly returned fad du jour in the evangelical world, and there you have it.

"The Midrash Detective"

Thanks Dr. McCune and Aaron for the comments on Daniel. That is helpful.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Rolland McCune]

It has been noted, rightfully I fear, that parts of my posts are a tad shy of acceptable perspicuity. This shortfall probably comes from my reading so much of Cornelius Van Til who had a generous portion of the very unique gift of abstruseness, and he exercised it faithfully. I will try to crisply address many lingering questions that have been asked me on this important subject before us. These notes are predicated on the ideas that human language is univocal, that I am fully clothed and in my right mind, and am knowingly attempting to use correctly the univocal principles as applied to the Bible.

1. The perspicuity of Scripture. This means that all the bible is essentially clear although not all is equally clear; the bible is not inherently opaque. But one surely could not equate, for applicable clarity, the incident of Benaiah and the lion in 2 Sam 23:20-22 with John 3:16. On the other hand, what is required for salvation and an obedient spiritual life is unmistakably clear.

2. God’s omniscience and what it means in biblical authorship. This understands that God consciously knows everything, simultaneously and eternally, including all possibilities, in one indivisible instant of eternal intuition. This does not dictate that all He knows, i.e., His omniscience, is packed into the intent and meaning of His verbal disclosures to human beings. This would result in an infinite disjunction between God and the human author in every case, destroying the organic/confluent relationship between the two via inspiration. E.g., I don’t think that God meant the virgin Mary in the context of Gen 3:15, and that everyone else until the time of Matthew had no clue it was she. Nor did they know all that God knew it would take to get to her. Therefore, I conclude that by equating God’s omniscience with His intended meaning no one in the Garden actually even began to know what God meant in the Garden. Later, supplemental revelation does not change the meaning of His original words. The virgin in the NT is the same “woman” as in Genesis; the word “woman” has not changed its meaning in the NT, nor has it morphed into something else.

3. Daniel didn’t understand his prophecies: 12:8-13 Daniel is not saying his own prophecies were unintelligible. He wanted to know the “outcome” of them (v. 8). He and his first hearers knew what they meant. Here the prophet wanted more details, i.e., supplemental revelation, to give further understanding. A rule of OT prophetism is that a true prophet had a conviction that he knew when was delivering a message from Yahweh and what that message meant. A Yahweh prophet was liable to execution if he falsified or disobeyed his message in any way (1 Kgs 24:1-32). Unlike pagan prophets, Yahweh prophets were not out of their minds; they were in control of their mental capacities. Details often came in later (enlarged if you wish) revelation, and Daniel wanted some of it right then. But he was instructed to seal his prophecies and thereby issue a certified document that others will read and increase their knowledge (v. 4). Meanwhile he himself was given a few more details but basically told to die and rest in Sheol until the eschaton (v. 13).

4. Is a pretrib rapture essential to dispensationalism? To be consistent with the 3-fold sine qua non, yes. This is why, IMO, progressive dispensationalism with its rejection of essentialist dispensationalism can’t agree on the pretrib issue. One can’t disagree with the theological/political/ethnic difference between Israel and the church and be a futurist pretrib premillennialist. To me a premillennial posttribulational dispensationalist is a white blackbird, a total anomaly. I’ve never accused a “historic premillennialist,” such as J. Barton Payne, George E. Ladd and Clarence Bass, of being a dispensationalist.

5. A word’s range of meaning. Nearly all words have a semantic range of meaning. This comprises the possible meanings that arise through lengthy usage and are currently available to an author. An author normally uses a synonym for the word to avoid misunderstanding or monotony. Fortunately semantic ranges are usually small; rarely has a word been known to have a 180 degree range, but not impossible, even in the bible. Hermeneutically, only one of the possibilities must be chosen to convey an author’s intent, and its meaning accompanies the word in the same connections later in its usage. One cannot load a word with its semantic range and thus expound it. (I’ve heard the word logos in John 1:1-4 expounded as meaning every word within its semantic range.) Nor can another word within the range be used as a substitute if it will change the original meaning. E.g., one can legitimately use the word “female” for woman in Gen 3:15, but the “virgin Mary” violates the unified authorial intent. The authorship of Hos 11:1 had no other intent, meaning or referent than the Exodus from Egypt. Whatever application that God and Matthew were making in Matt 2:15, it was not to resignify Hosea into two flights from Egypt—a near and a far fulfillment and the like. Language will not bear that much semantic weight.

It is clear what you are saying, and I agree for the most part. Specifically, #5 when speaking of Hosea’s “fulfillment”, that was the *the one fulfillment* when Jesus came out of Egypt. God taking Israel out of Egypt was a *type*. Sailhamer says Hosea was reading Balaam’s prophecies which spoke of the Messiah in 11.1. So sometimes its hard to figure out how much and what exactly the prophet knew with much certainty.

The Abomination of Desolation was a *type* (or shadow, symbol, sign) when Antiochus Epiphanes did it in 168 BCE. Jesus told the disciples to watch for the fulfillment and then vacate Jerusalem when they see it in the future just before His return.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net