Question about Isa. 7:14 and Matt. 1:23

[Brotherly Spirit]

All of Isaiah 7:14 seems to be fulfilled except the last part " and they shall call his name Immanuel (Emmanuel)". Additionally the next verse "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse evil and choose the good." But it also says what was prophesied would be a "sign" from the Lord, is the name symbolic focusing on "God with us" and the "Butter and honey shall he eat" too?

 

[HTacianas]

All of Isaiah 7:14 seems to be fulfilled except the last part " and they shall call his name Immanuel (Emmanuel)". Additionally the next verse "Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse evil and choose the good." But it also says what was prophesied would be a "sign" from the Lord, is the name symbolic focusing on "God with us" and the "Butter and honey shall he eat" too?

If you ever have a chance to read the Talmud you'll find the same type of scripture quotes composing arguments between rabbis and also between rabbis and others. It's almost a "tit for tat" recitation of scripture seemingly out of context to bolster an argument. Matthew 1:23 has always struck me as being "spoken in the same language" so to say.

Those quotes are seemingly offered on a stand alone basis without any adjoining verses either before or after. Acceptance of Matthew at face value seems to be his intent.

 

[Ken Rank]

If you ever have a chance to read the Talmud you'll find the same type of scripture quotes composing arguments between rabbis and also between rabbis and others. It's almost a "tit for tat" recitation of scripture seemingly out of context to bolster an argument. Matthew 1:23 has always struck me as being "spoken in the same language" so to say.

Those quotes are seemingly offered on a stand alone basis without any adjoining verses either before or after. Acceptance of Matthew at face value seems to be his intent.

And... there are many who believe (as do I) that Matthew was written to/for Jews. Therefore, it would only make sense that certain phraseology would be used that would have been recognized and understood at the time by his target audience. Not that "Matthew" isn't a book all can learn and grow from... but at that time, if the audience was the Jews in and around Judea... then what I stated would most likely be true.

 

[HTacianas]

And... there are many who believe (as do I) that Matthew was written to/for Jews. Therefore, it would only make sense that certain phraseology would be used that would have been recognized and understood at the time by his target audience. Not that "Matthew" isn't a book all can learn and grow from... but at that time, if the audience was the Jews in and around Judea... then what I stated would most likely be true.

Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. There is a substantial amount of commentary among the Church Fathers of a Hebrew version of Matthew. The Hebrew version may or may not have included the genealogy of modern Matthew. Origen commented that the misidentification of Zecharias of Matthew 23:35 was "a mistake of the scribes" and the Hebrew had a different, and proper, identification. It's unclear if he meant a Hebrew version of Matthew or the Hebrew old testament.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's a tough one.

Isaiah Chapter 7

 

[Ken Rank]

Matthew was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. There is a substantial amount of commentary among the Church Fathers of a Hebrew version of Matthew. The Hebrew version may or may not have included the genealogy of modern Matthew. Origen commented that the misidentification of Zecharias of Matthew 23:35 was "a mistake of the scribes" and the Hebrew had a different, and proper, identification. It's unclear if he meant a Hebrew version of Matthew or the Hebrew old testament.

I didn't mean it was written in Hebrew, I mean it was written to the Jews to share Yeshua. I do think it was in Hebrew, though. Jerome claimed to have an original copy in Hebrew that he translated from into Latin. And I think Eusebius claimed it was written in Hebrew as well? Not positive on the latter.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

Haven't read any of the Talmud, but I've noticed the same among us Christians taking verses out of context (me too *points finger at himself*). So that makes sense, especially if the targeted audience was the Jews. They could had taken it at face value as custom for providing scriptural support of an argument. But also I think it's possible even if it's not literally fulfilled word for word, there's something related or revealed for us to learn from where those quoted verses lead us. Definitely reading Isaiah 7 would be a start.

It's interesting too how scriptures which are God's word could had been mishandled and not kept properly. Though I believe His word is authoritative, I can't help but think how important it is to not hang yourself on certain verses or words. But search and find context for the whole picture, even if those verses or words don't say it all word for word.

If you ever have a chance to read the Talmud you'll find the same type of scripture quotes composing arguments between rabbis and also between rabbis and others. It's almost a "tit for tat" recitation of scripture seemingly out of context to bolster an argument. Matthew 1:23 has always struck me as being "spoken in the same language" so to say.

Those quotes are seemingly offered on a stand alone basis without any adjoining verses either before or after. Acceptance of Matthew at face value seems to be his intent.

And... there are many who believe (as do I) that Matthew was written to/for Jews. Therefore, it would only make sense that certain phraseology would be used that would have been recognized and understood at the time by his target audience. Not that "Matthew" isn't a book all can learn and grow from... but at that time, if the audience was the Jews in and around Judea... then what I stated would most likely be true.

It's a tough one.

Isaiah Chapter 7