When we talk about “fulfilled prophecy,” what we usually mean is a straightforward prediction along the lines of Micah 5:2, which says that Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. Matthew shows how the prophecy was fulfilled. But that’s not the only thing that “fulfilled” can mean.
“Fulfill” has a fuller sense (if you’ll pardon the expression) than just the Micah 5:2 predictive prophecy meaning. In the Hosea 11//Matthew 2 usage, the original sense in Hosea is critical to Matthew’s meaning. Knowing that Israel is God’s son is necessary to understanding the points that Matthew is making: first, that Jesus is Israel (in exactly what sense is a question Matthew will spend the whole book exploring), and second, that the land of Israel has become spiritual Egypt.
Don’t miss that latter point. Matthew invokes “out of Egypt I called My Son” not when Jesus leaves literal Egypt, but when Jesus flees Judea. Judea is the “Egypt” Jesus is fleeing, and Herod is the baby-boy-slaughtering “Pharaoh.” John the Baptist will later reinforce this same point by calling repentant Israelites to come out into the desert to pass through water, a new Exodus forming a new people of God (Jesus joins the new people of God “to fulfill all righteousness”). John the evangelist will much later make the point explicit in Revelation 11:8.
We don’t want to read something into the text that isn’t there, but neither do we want to miss something that is there—and the NT shows us repeatedly that there’s a LOT more there than one might think at first glance. From Jesus Himself proving the resurrection by exegeting a verb tense in Genesis (Matt. 22:32) to the fulfillments of the first few chapters of Matthew to the dizzying displays of Hebrews, the NT shows us a way of reading the OT that we perhaps wouldn’t have come up with on our own, but that’s ok. God is revealing it to us in the way He handles His own revelation.
In conservative circles, we have gotten our hermeneutics from the Book of Nature (mostly as read by E. D. Hirsch), which is very useful as far as it goes. But if that’s all we have, then our hermeneutic will force us to condemn the Holy Spirit’s exegesis of His own work. There has to be something wrong with that picture. What is it? Easy: the Book of Nature isn’t all we have. The Book of Scripture also has something to teach us about how to read.
Full Contact Christianity 
Please forgive the length of this comment, my brother, but you “rang my bell.” Kudos to you. Preach it.
“Fuller” fulfillment sounds like ‘sensus plenior’, but it is important that we distinguish that classical hermeneutical notion from the much more organic concept which you have described so well as part-and-parcel of Hosea’s original sense. And it is far more common in the NT use or citation of the OT than hermeneuticians typically acknowledge. Classically, sensus plenior signifies meaning in the NT that was not envisioned by the OT author cited, but which the NT author “received” under inspiration of the HS. The late hermeneutician Robert L Thomas (Evangelical Hermeneutics) went so far as to label texts like Matthew 2:15 as “inspired sensus plenior application” because in his view it was not part of the originally intended meaning per se. However, it is not application at all, and as you have put it, much better described as “the HS’s exegesis of his own work.“
John Sailhamer went even further in his own writing on how Mt 2:15 relates to Hosea 11 by showing how Hosea itself is an example of “the OT’s use of the OT,” as he put it, whereby the “lion” imagery in Hosea 11 was alluding to Balaam’s prophecies in Num 23–24. When Hosea says in 11:10-11 that God “will roar like a lion; when he roars, his children will come trembling out of the west; they [pl] will come out of Egypt, trembling like sparrows …,” he is referring to a future second Exodus for the entire nation that will replicate the original Exodus, as mentioned in Num 23:21b-22a. But “Egypt” then will in fact be Jerusalem, as you pointed out from Rev 11:8. However, in Num 24:7-9, Balaam again refers to God as a lion who will sponsor a future king and “bring him [sing] out of Egypt.” Thus, when Hosea refers to “my son” in 11:1, it is a dual reference to both the original Exodus and the king who subsequently recapitulates the nation’s exodus in his own advent. In 11:10-11 he is referring to he nation’s future exodus out of Jerusalem. And as you pointed out, Jesus fulfills the promises to Israel by becoming Israel.
What we have, then, is a hermeneutical device that Darrel Bock and I call “pattern fulfillment” which plugs into the metanarrative of Abraham and the nation Israel, and which is being increasingly recognized as progressive (one might say “fuller”) fulfillment of a prophetic pattern in its replication, whether within or across dispensations. In the case of Hosea 11, as realized in Mt 2:15, we have no less than three iterations of the Exodus motif: the original Exodus; the first advent of Messiah; and the future Exodus of the nation Israel saved out of Jerusalem at Messiah’s second advent.
Such pattern fulfillment can also be readily demonstrated in such motifs as the flood narrative and the “little horn” king in Daniel who fulfills Gen 3:15 (in which “seed” also has both singular and plural referents; namely, 2 kings and 2 peoples who identify, respectively, with those kings, cf. also Sailhamer on this).
What Robert Thomas misses with his “sensus plenior application” comment is the dual authorship of Scripture. Of course Hosea is talking about Israel. And the Holy Spirit is too–but He already knows what else He’s going to do with it. Obviously — Thomas being an orthodox Christian — he doesn’t think the Spirit didn’t know what was going to happen later in Matthew. So his distinction between interpretation and application here rests entirely on an extrabiblical set of hermeneutical canons that tells him that the text just can’t be doing what it’s obviously doing. It’s a hermeneutic that owes much to E. D. Hirsch, which is fine, but hasn’t been duly chastened by Scripture. That seems a bad thing for a biblical hermeneutic.
As to pattern fulfillment: yes, and it’s far worse than that. The Exodus motif occurs in the original exodus and the first advent of the Messiah, and will recur in the second advent…and in between, in every single baptism from John’s ministry right down to the last guy I dunked in the Platte.
Is it pejorative? IIRC, the term was coined by its proponents.
I haven’t seen the recent criticism; I haven’t paid attention to intra-dispensational back-and-forth in a long while; as you know, I think dispensationalism has major structural problems anyway; it’s not literal enough in key places. I’m happy to loot the corpse and leave the rest behind; the Bible is eternal, but theological systems have an expiration date.
I can’t get excited about a battle over who gets title to “literal grammatical, historical” hermeneutics. I think Bock had to fight for that because he’s tied to institutions where he can’t afford not to. Me? If Matthew is departing from an LGH take on Hosea 11, then so much the worse for LGH hermeneutics. The Bible trumps Elliott Johnson’s distillation of E. D. Hirsch.
Now, what I would say to someone who’s arguing the point with me is that a LGH reading of Matthew requires you to revise your hermeneutics in order to accommodate what Matthew plainly does with Hosea. I started with LGH hermeneutics; a careful, close reading of the NT text forced me to confront a series of places where the biblical authors themselves were plainly not employing the hermeneutic that I had been taught. Ultimately, I had to decide if I was going to follow uninspired men or the Holy Spirit. I made my decision and I’m happy with it.
Oooh, nicely stated. I myself “grew up” on Elliott Johnson and E.D. Hirsch and was happy enough to “loot the corpse,” as would be evident to anyone who has read the Preface to my Unlocking Wisdom. And no, the term is not pejorative until “culturally appropriated” by the LGH opposition.
One last point on “pattern fulfillment” and “complementary hermeneutic.” I’ve been trekking through The Twelve with my men’s group for the last year or so, obviously beginning with Hosea himself. One thing that comes through loud and clear in the first three of The Twelve is the frequency with which they use the imagery of the Exodus. In our deep dive, I came across a text that I’d never appreciated before, especially since the popular English translations don’t pick up the intended nuance. Ironically, it is Hosea’s ‘riff’ in 12:9-10—quoting the LORD Himself—on the nature of the inspired prophetic gift you alluded to above. Here is my translation:
The key textual clue as to “authorial intent” here is “as in the days of …” clearly meant to designate recapitulation of a pattern God had already used to deal with His people and remind them in their forgetfulness of who He is and how he ‘rolls’. Just three verses later, Hosea adds the following regarding His people Israel:
Once we have eyes to see and ears to hear, we discover his prophetic “analogies” all over the place.