TRUTH in Scripture – SHADOW vs ACTUAL

A Common Fallacy – Interpreting Scripture.

The Quote in Image is FALSE and reveals a COMMON FALLACY in EXEGESIS.

Here’s a Biblical Example to Prove it, Verses:

“When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.” – God Speaks (in Hosea 11:1, NASB)

“He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.” (Matthew 2:15, NASB)

Explanation:

Please compare

Hosea 11:1 with Matthew 2:15 to see “two meanings” (literal and allegorical) regarding the “Son” meaning “Israel & Lord Jesus Christ” DISPROVING the Quote in image.

Let us ‘not’ remain deceived by the ‘traditions of men’ to Truly Understand the Great Treasures of Holy Scripture (sometimes hidden).

Conclusion

BOTH MEANINGS are TRUE in that His “Son” refers to ‘Israel’ (the ‘shadow’ meaning in Hosea 11:1 literally) and ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ (the ‘actual’ hidden meaning in Hosea 11:1 allegorically) as the Inspired Gospel author of Matthew 2:15 Reveals irrefutably.

The “shadow” vs “actual” reveals the Mystery of more than one meaning to Holy Scripture (but we must be careful NOT to ‘over-speculate’ or ‘claim things which are NOT Written’ whilst doing so – each man being responsible for his own exegesis accordingly) as the Verse below reveals this Biblical Concept in Exegesis:

“things which are a mere SHADOW of what is to come; but the SUBSTANCE belongs to Christ.” – apostle Paul (Colossians 2:17, NASB)

“SHADOW of what is to come” = Allegorical (usually earthly)

“SUBSTANCE belongs to Christ” = Literal (actual, usually HEAVENLY)

Please note the words SHADOW is Verses below too to ‘realize’ this Biblical Truth:

“For the Law, since it has only a SHADOW of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.” (Hebrews 10:1, NASB)

“who serve a copy and SHADOW of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.” (Hebrews 8:5, NASB)

An Edifying Comment:

NO Verse states what you claimed as one meaning as “Israel was a picture of Christ” means BOTH (TWO meanings of SON in Hosea 11:1). My explanation is backed with Verses. Sola Scriptura.

I repeat TWO MEANINGS of SON in Hosea 11:1 —> Israel (on earth) and Lord Jesus Christ (in Heaven). John Owen is Wrong.

In Hosea 11:1, the author ONLY refers to Israel as ‘the SON’ (earthly). Can’t you see?

Only in light of New Testament Interpretation, we see the SON in Hosea 11:1 to refer also to Lord Jesus Christ (heavenly) where BOTH are TRUE.

Peace to you

More Noble Minded? – Check your pastor’s preaching!

Let’s Have the BEREAN ATTITUDE in Searching the Scripture to CHECK if what a preacher says is true instead of ‘blindly accepting it’ as the Verse below clearly implies:

“Now these [Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11, NASB)

Are we like the Bereans above whom the Bible calls “noble minded”?

God is Truly Pleased if we are so.

P/S: Context

The Bereans were actually CHECKING apostle Paul’s (and Silas) preaching as the Previous Verse clearly reveals:

“The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.” (Acts 17:10, NASB)

So, if God allowed the Bereans to CHECK apostle Paul’s and Silas’ preaching and called the BEREANS as MORE NOBLE MINDED for doing so, how much more we need to check each other’s preaching AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE ONLY as it is Written (and exhorted) in these Verses?

A further edifying comment:

1) Two meanings for Son in Hosea 11:1 are NOT Contradictory but represents the “shadow” vs “substance”.

2) Of course, if any interpretation is contradictory, both can’t be true at the same time.

The quote in picture makes sense in regards to point 2 but doesn’t make sense in regards to point 1.

The quote in picture is “too general” and claiming that it only refers to point 2 is just a ‘way of showing that it’s right’ but it is NOT fully right (i. e. it is not an absolute statement) because it is against point 1. It’s just relatively true (sometimes true as per point 2).

In the field of Logic (Philosophy and Mathematics), something that is relatively true is FALSE.

For Example, the statement “all men like cars” is FALSE because not all men like cars though some may like cars.

Your attempts to prove John Owen right is like trying to prove that “all men like cars” (a general quote as per John Owen’s) by showing the ‘contradictory argument’ otherwise by proving the ‘half truth’ that ‘some men like cars’ via a carefully constructed example or statement for this (by illustrating this as support whilst ignoring the ‘other half truth’).

You’re repeating point 2 of which no one is arguing against.

If John Owen wanted to only refer to point 2, or if you wanted to quote him to mean only that, you/he should not have generally used the word “Scripture” because “Scripture can have two meanings” (e. g. Allegorical vs Literal or Shadow vs Substance) but the “interpretation or exegesis” may have “only one meaning”.

In other words, all your ‘repeated points or arguments’ holds true only if the word “Scripture” in John Owen’s quote is replaced by the word “exegesis or interpretation”.

This is a common fallacy in logic itself.

In the quote, John Owen used the word “Scripture” instead of “interpretation” making your ‘cover up argument’ for his sloppy choice of words invalid.

Perhaps his exegesis and yours is as sloppy as well.

Cheers