I was recently reading an exchange between Dr. Bowen and Robert Rowe, and it struck me that the real issue was being overlooked. I won’t reproduce the entire dialogue, but here’s the link for reference. Rowe was defending Hugh Ross’s concordism by appealing to Matthew’s citation of Hosea. But the thrust of Robert’s case misses the true nature of the problem—or rather, the correct solution.
I still think this form of concordism is commonly misunderstood. I’ve repeatedly emphasized that I do not nullify the clear Ancient Near Eastern context of Old Testament texts. But neither do I ignore the sensus plenior—the fuller meaning—of Scripture that the New Testament writers consistently affirm. The entire NT reads the OT typologically and christologically. Consider how Jesus himself is applied to the Old Testament: if Matthew can apply Hosea 11:1 to Jesus, why is it inappropriate to affirm that the Old Testament can concord with many other redemptive realities? That approach, after all, has deep roots in church history from the apostolic era onward.
I. The Real Issue: Robert’s Blind Spot
Robert seems blind to his own inconsistencies. He assumes the NT writers violate the historical-grammatical sense of the OT, treating them as if they abandon the original meaning altogether—a common liberal trope. But that is not how the early church or Reformed exegesis has traditionally understood Matthew’s use of Hosea.
The crucial distinction is between prophecy and prediction. The latter is a subset of the former. Matthew is not misappropriating Hosea; he’s asserting that Hosea’s theology is typological and eschatologically fulfilled in Christ. The book of Hosea is saturated with Exodus typology. Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 fits seamlessly with Hosea’s own interpretive framework.
As D.A. Carson explains:
“The verb ‘fulfill’ has broader significance than mere one-to-one prediction… Not only in Matthew but elsewhere in the NT, the history and laws of the OT are perceived to have prophetic significance… ‘Fulfillment’ must be understood against the background of these interlocking themes and their typological connections… The NT writers do not think they are reading back into the OT things that are not already there germinally.”
— Matthew, Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Kindle Locations 4948–4964)
Carson also cites W.L. LaSor, who sees Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 as a classic example of sensus plenior—a fuller sense not necessarily grasped by Hosea, but intended by the divine Author. Yet Carson rightly notes that Matthew is writing to Jews who would not tolerate fanciful use of Scripture. His argument only works if Hosea’s theology can support the typological reading—which it can.
II. Beale and Hays on Hosea’s Typological Intent
A. Beale’s Exegetical Defense
G.K. Beale addresses this head-on in his article:
“Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?”
→ JETS 55:4 (2012)
Beale shows that Hosea intentionally portrays the first Exodus as a redemptive pattern to be recapitulated in the eschaton:
“The chapter begins with the exodus out of Egypt and ends with the same exodus out of Egypt, the former referring to the past event and the latter to a yet future event… Hosea appears to understand that Israel’s first exodus (Hos 11:1) was to be recapitulated at the time of the nation’s latter-day exodus.” (JETS 55:4, p. 705)
Beale outlines Hosea 11 in three stages:
- Past deliverance (v.1),
- Impending judgment (v.5),
- Future restoration (vv.10–11).
Matthew, therefore, is not wrenching Hosea out of context; he is recognizing the eschatological trajectory Hosea sets in motion. As Beale puts it:
“Matthew is unpacking what is already exegetically latent in Hosea 11… This borders on Matthew having a ‘grammatical-historical’ exegetical perspective of Hosea 11:1 in the context of 11:2–11!” (p. 708)
Beale even notes that Hosea alludes to Numbers 23–24 and Hosea 1:11, which both anticipate a future Exodus and Davidic king “out of Egypt.” Jesus is that king.
B. Steve Hays on Hosea’s Paradigmatic Theology
Steve Hays complements Beale’s work in his article:
“Out of Egypt”
→ Triablogue, 2014
Hays points out that Hosea 11:5 and 11:11 show that Hosea himself sees Israel’s Assyrian exile as a second bondage and anticipates a second Exodus. This pattern is foundational to Hosea’s theology:
“Hosea recast the threatened Assyrian deportation in terms of second Egyptian bondage followed by a second Exodus… Hosea already understood that the same past event can foreshadow an analogous future event(s).”
So when Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 to Christ, he is not distorting Hosea but completing his typology. The Exodus becomes a divine precedent for future acts of deliverance—culminating in Jesus.
III. Corporate vs. Individual: Covenant Representation
A frequent objection is that Hosea 11:1 refers to corporate Israel, whereas Matthew applies it to an individual. But this misses a key biblical dynamic:
“‘Divine sonship’ in OT usage can have both a collective referent (Israel) and an individual referent (David or David’s heir)… In covenant theology, an individual can represent others. So the individual and collective aspects can (and often do) merge.”
Jesus, as the Davidic Son, embodies Israel and brings to fulfillment the role Israel failed to fulfill. That’s why Matthew can apply a text about Israel’s deliverance from Pharaoh to Jesus’ deliverance from Herod. It is covenantal typology—not a category mistake.
IV. Prophetic Genre and the Scope of Intent
Hays offers a critical insight about prophetic genre:
“You’re conflating two distinct issues:
i) What did the prophet intend?
ii) What did the prophet not intend?You’re acting as though, if the prophet didn’t intend multiple referents, then he excluded them. But those are not convertible propositions.”
Prophets, unlike apostles or historians, often spoke without full knowledge of their words’ final referents. Their knowledge was true but limited. Long-range prophecy must be interpreted retrospectively:
“The significance of long-range prophecy has to be completed by a retrospective viewpoint… That doesn’t contradict original intent—for that’s the nature of long-range prophecy.”
Matthew is not violating Hosea’s intent—he is revealing the full scope of what Hosea, under inspiration, was truly pointing toward.
V. Sensus Plenior Without Allegory
Even if Matthew’s use involves sensus plenior, this doesn’t justify arbitrary eisegesis. The NT writers were not inventing new meanings. Their authority rests on divine inspiration and apostolic office. Rowe’s method, by contrast, lacks the guardrails to distinguish sensus plenior from illegitimate allegory.
Without a robust theology of inspiration and typology, concordism becomes subjective projection. We must ask: what principle prevents us from reading modern science, geopolitics, or philosophy into Genesis?
VI. Sense vs. Reference
Hays also highlights the crucial distinction between sense (what something means) and reference (what it refers to):
“Take ‘beagle.’ That means a particular breed of dog. But that has multiple referents—all the beagles in the world.”
Likewise, Hosea 11:1 may mean Israel’s exodus, but that doesn’t preclude further referents through typological repetition. As Hays puts it:
“Matthew is not interpreting Hosea analogically. Rather, the underlying events—the Egyptian bondage/Exodus, the Assyrian deportation/restoration, the Holy Family taking refuge in Egypt—are themselves analogical.”
VII. Intertextual Echoes and Messianic Trajectory
Finally, Hays notes that Hosea 11:1 itself echoes messianic expectation from the Pentateuch:
“The ‘sonship’ motif comes from Exod 4:22–23 while the ‘out of Egypt’ motif comes from Num 23:22 and 24:8. In Num 24:8, the referent is singular, highlighting a future king.”
Hosea isn’t just talking about past events—he’s picking up threads of prophetic expectation that point toward a messianic king. Matthew recognizes and completes that trajectory in Jesus Christ.
VIII. Isaiah 53 and Messianic Fulfillment
The exchange between Bowen and Rowe also touched on Isaiah 53. For more on that discussion, see:
“Is The Servant Of Isaiah 53 Israel Or A Remnant? So What?”
→ Triablogue, 2015
The Council 