What does Matthew 1:22 mean?

Roger1440 said:

Can someone explain to me how a child born 700 years later fulfills what the lord had said to the prophet?

Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
Mat 1:23 "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us").

Click to expand...

Roger1440, 'Fulfillment' is the word that is causing confusion. To fulfill means, in this case, to follow after or to be similar to. Bible scholars sometimes refer to this sort of fulfillment of a Biblical Type. Joseph, for example, is considered to be a type of Jesus; because there were many similarities. Jesus fulfilled the type of Joseph. Matthew refers to the death of the children in Bethlehem and connects it to Jeremiah 34. He's not saying that Jeremiah predicted that children in Bethlehem were going to die. He is, however, referring you to the whole of chapter 34 of Jeremiah.

With respect, I know that many people think Matthew concocted this fulfillment; but consider that Matthew is not referring only to one verse of Jeremiah 34. How would that ever make sense even in Matthew's time? No, the confusion is due to misunderstanding what Matthew is saying. At the time there were no chapter and verse marks, so to refer to a section Matthew quoted a memorable piece of it. He was referring to the text surrounding the bit that he quoted. To understand how it is a fulfillment, you must include a lot of surrounding verses. Then what becomes clear is that Matthew is defining Jesus ministry, not merely abducting a verse out of context. The whole chapter of Jeremiah 34 is the context (possibly more than chapter 34). Happy studying!

(The 1440K floppy drive was one of the best innovations.)

Egyptian Phoenix said:

Except the Hebrew word almah doesn't mean virgin, it means young woman. Christian bibles render it virgin through use of the Greek LXX which uses parthenos

And if you're going to argue almah is always synonymous with virgin- Dinah was still called an almah after being raped in Genesis

Click to expand...

Considering the culture at the time, a maiden (young girl) would be a virgin because that is what was required of young girls...they remained chaste in virginity while unmarried.

But i think what you might need to consider is the fact that it was the Jewish scholars who actually translated the Septuagint who rendered Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin'. Instead of translating the Hebrew word almah for “maiden” into the equivalent Greek word for “maiden,” they translated it into the Greek word parthénos, which means simply “virgin”! This is evidence that 200 years prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish religious teachers & scholars back then believed that the prophecy was referring to a 'virgin' birth of the Son of God.

Pegg said:

...This is evidence that 200 years prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish religious teachers & scholars back then believed that the prophecy was referring to a 'virgin' birth of the Son of God.

Click to expand...

Still, how is one verse taken from Isaiah a prophecy about the Messiah? And, was there a child that fulfilled the sign for King Ahaz? If so, then his mother would have to be a virgin also, right? Or, if there was no child back in Isaiah's time, then the whole of chapter seven has to be a prophecy about the Messiah, but it isn't. Plus, if the Jewish religious teachers & scholars believed it a prophecy that referred to the 'virgin' birth of the Son of God, then there should be 200 years of commentary and other writings that showed that Jews did believe it to be a prophecy. I don't know Pegg, was there ever any Jewish beliefs or writings prior to Jesus that a virgin would give birth to God's son?

Pegg said:

Considering the culture at the time, a maiden (young girl) would be a virgin because that is what was required of young girls...they remained chaste in virginity while unmarried.

But i think what you might need to consider is the fact that it was the Jewish scholars who actually translated the Septuagint who rendered Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin'. Instead of translating the Hebrew word almah for “maiden” into the equivalent Greek word for “maiden,” they translated it into the Greek word parthénos, which means simply “virgin”! This is evidence that 200 years prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish religious teachers & scholars back then believed that the prophecy was referring to a 'virgin' birth of the Son of God.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out, a young woman was not necessarily culturally a virgin. Dinah was still an almah after being raped

As falling blood pointed out, parthenos can mean young woman who isn't a virgin

You're also skipping the fact that the Alexandrian Jews only translated the Pentatuach of the LXX

CG Didymus said:

Still, how is one verse taken from Isaiah a prophecy about the Messiah? And, was there a child that fulfilled the sign for King Ahaz? If so, then his mother would have to be a virgin also, right? Or, if there was no child back in Isaiah's time, then the whole of chapter seven has to be a prophecy about the Messiah, but it isn't. Plus, if the Jewish religious teachers & scholars believed it a prophecy that referred to the 'virgin' birth of the Son of God, then there should be 200 years of commentary and other writings that showed that Jews did believe it to be a prophecy. I don't know Pegg, was there ever any Jewish beliefs or writings prior to Jesus that a virgin would give birth to God's son?

Click to expand...

There is no record in the scriptures that the words of the prophet were fulfilled during those days. If they were, then surely something would have been written about it, but nothing was said. So its unlikely that the prophecy was fulfilled during Ahaz's lifetime because no messiah appeared back then...the jews were still waiting for their messiah in the first century and still today they wait.

CG Didymus said:

Plus, if the Jewish religious teachers & scholars believed it a prophecy that referred to the 'virgin' birth of the Son of God, then there should be 200 years of commentary and other writings that showed that Jews did believe it to be a prophecy. I don't know Pegg, was there ever any Jewish beliefs or writings prior to Jesus that a virgin would give birth to God's son?

Click to expand...

the hebrew scriptures contain the writings of Gods prophets. The prophets were often persecuted and killed by the general jewish populations. So its not as if other jewish writers would have been promoting the prophets words or expressing belief in them.... the opposite would have been true.

Egyptian Phoenix said:

As I pointed out, a young woman was not necessarily culturally a virgin. Dinah was still an almah after being raped

As falling blood pointed out, parthenos can mean young woman who isn't a virgin

You're also skipping the fact that the Alexandrian Jews only translated the Pentatuach of the LXX

Click to expand...

‘al·mah′ in the Hebrew Scriptures occurs only seven times and at two of these places it is in reference to a young virgin girl:
Genesis 24:43 where the young woman Rebecca was chosen as a wife for Issac.... she was a vigin.
43*here I am stationed at a fountain of water. What must occur is that the maiden coming out to draw water to whom I shall actually say: “Please, let me drink a little water from your jar,” 44*and who will indeed say to me: “Both you take a drink, and I shall also draw water for your camels,” she is the woman whom Jehovah has assigned for the son of my master.

Exodus 2:8 where the young girl Miriam was told to call her mother....Miriam being a young girl was a virgin.
8*So Phar′aoh’s daughter said to her: “Go!” At once the maiden went and called the child’s mother.

So the word Almah can refer to a virgin.

Pegg said:

‘al·mah′ in the Hebrew Scriptures occurs only seven times and at two of these places it is in reference to a young virgin girl:
Genesis 24:43 where the young woman Rebecca was chosen as a wife for Issac.... she was a vigin.
43*here I am stationed at a fountain of water. What must occur is that the maiden coming out to draw water to whom I shall actually say: “Please, let me drink a little water from your jar,” 44*and who will indeed say to me: “Both you take a drink, and I shall also draw water for your camels,” she is the woman whom Jehovah has assigned for the son of my master.

Exodus 2:8 where the young girl Miriam was told to call her mother....Miriam being a young girl was a virgin.
8*So Phar′aoh’s daughter said to her: “Go!” At once the maiden went and called the child’s mother.

So the word Almah can refer to a virgin.

Click to expand...

Almah can mean virgin, key word CAN not DOES

There is a Hebrew word for virgin-batulah

Unless that word is used in conjunction with almah its an assumption

Cool, I got the top of the page.

Egyptian Phoenix said:

Almah can mean virgin, key word CAN not DOES

There is a Hebrew word for virgin-batulah

Unless that word is used in conjunction with almah its an assumption

Click to expand...

it can mean either, correct.

so how it is rendered by a translator will depend on their own view of the one who would bring this child into the world... and clearly they believed she would be a virgin.

Pegg said:

it can mean either, correct.

so how it is rendered by a translator will depend on their own view of the one who would bring this child into the world... and clearly they believed she would be a virgin.

Click to expand...

No clearly they didn't believe she would be a virgin. Do you believe in context at all? Isaiah clearly says this birth was a sign for Ahaz and further says that before the child is old enough to know evil and choose good the two enemies Ahaz fears will be desolate

Making it a prophecy of Jesus totally removes it from the surrounding context of the other verses.

Egyptian Phoenix said:

No clearly they didn't believe she would be a virgin. Do you believe in context at all? Isaiah clearly says this birth was a sign for Ahaz and further says that before the child is old enough to know evil and choose good the two enemies Ahaz fears will be desolate

Making it a prophecy of Jesus totally removes it from the surrounding context of the other verses.

Click to expand...

Pegg, this is a major problem, the context. I agree with Egyptian Phoenix. Jesus can't fit into the rest of the verses in Isaiah. If there was a child in Isaiah's time that ate his curds and honey and got old enough to know to choose evil over good, then what happened to his mother? Somebody must have noticed that she never had sex with a man, yet had a child. Or, she was a young girl, not a virgin, had a child and the two kings that Ahaz feared were eliminated.

Another problem is the Catholics. They, in the name of God, added to the story and made Mary a perpetual virgin and immaculately concepted. If they embellished the story, why not Matthew? I know, because the NT is the Word of God. And how do we know this? Because the NT says so. That's the other problem. It has to be true, and it has to make sense, even when it doesn't, because it is the word of God. Yet, so many variations of Christianity, something ain't right.

Pegg said:

Considering the culture at the time, a maiden (young girl) would be a virgin because that is what was required of young girls...they remained chaste in virginity while unmarried.

But i think what you might need to consider is the fact that it was the Jewish scholars who actually translated the Septuagint who rendered Isaiah 7:14 as 'virgin'. Instead of translating the Hebrew word almah for “maiden” into the equivalent Greek word for “maiden,” they translated it into the Greek word parthénos, which means simply “virgin”! This is evidence that 200 years prior to the birth of Christ, the Jewish religious teachers & scholars back then believed that the prophecy was referring to a 'virgin' birth of the Son of God.

Click to expand...

If I were to tell you, “My next door 99 year old neighbor told me her children are taking her out to dinner on her 100th birthday”, what would I mean by “children”? The word children has several different meanings. One meaning is minor offspring. In other words people who have yet to achieve adulthood. Another meaning is simply offspring of someone. How would someone know which meaning is meant? Since a 100 year old woman cannot possibly have minor children, logic would dictate the meaning is meant to mean simply the offspring of the woman.

Appling the same logic to Isaiah 7:14, the word in question could not mean virgin. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out, virgins do not conceive children. In all likelihood that’s why the Jewish versions of Isaiah 7:14 in English do not use the word virgin. If the Jews are wrong, it implies the Jews do not know how to interpret their own scripture. At this point things get much worse. If Jews do not understand their own scripture, God must be the author of confusion.

All scripture is built upon scripture that had preceded it. If a preceding scripture is misunderstood, then all subsequent scripture would be incorrect. Here is an example. Jewish Law has about 163 commandments. The foundation of all the commandments is built upon the commandments given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. If the Jews interpreted the original Ten Commandments incorrectly then the remaining commandants must be interpreted wrong. The early Church fathers had made such a claim. Justin Martyr was among them. The argument that the early Church fathers proposed is absurd. If the Jews interpretation of scripture is wrong, how can we even trust the very concept of the Messiah?

Pegg said:

the hebrew scriptures contain the writings of Gods prophets. The prophets were often persecuted and killed by the general jewish populations.

Click to expand...

I know that a few OT prophets being persecuted, but can cite your sources of one OT prophet being killed by (your words) "general Jewish populations"?

gnostic said:

I know that a few OT prophets being persecuted, but can cite your sources of one OT prophet being killed by (your words) "general Jewish populations"?

Click to expand...

2Chronicles 36:15*And Jehovah the God of their forefathers kept sending against them by means of his messengers, sending again and again, because he felt compassion for his people and for his dwelling. 16*But they were continually making jest at the messengers of the [true] God and despising his words and mocking at his prophets, until the rage of Jehovah came up against his people, until there was no healing




Nehemiah 9:26 “However, they became disobedient and rebelled against you and kept casting your law behind their back, and your own prophets they killed, who bore witness against them to bring them back to you; and they went on committing acts of great disrespect.

2Chronicles 24:20*And God’s spirit itself enveloped Zech·a·ri′ah the son of Je·hoi′a·da the priest,...21*Finally they conspired against him and pelted him with stones at the king’s commandment in the courtyard of Jehovah’s house.


1 Kings 18:4 Hence it came about that when Jez′e·bel cut off Jehovah’s prophets, O·ba·di′ah proceeded to take a hundred prophets and keep them hid by fifties in a cave, and he supplied them bread and water.)

Jeremiah 20 Now Pash′hur the son of Im′mer, the priest, who was also the leading commissioner in the house of Jehovah, kept listening to Jeremiah while prophesying these words. 2*Then Pash′hur struck Jeremiah the prophet and put him into the stocks

Jeremiah 37:15*And the princes began to get indignant at Jeremiah, and they struck him and put him into the house of fetters

Jeremiah 38:6*And they proceeded to take Jeremiah and throw him into the cistern of Mal·chi′jah the son of the king, which was in the Courtyard of the Guard. So they let Jeremiah down by means of ropes. Now in the cistern there was no water, but mire; and Jeremiah began to sink down into the mire.

Roger1440 said:

Appling the same logic to Isaiah 7:14, the word in question could not mean virgin. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out, virgins do not conceive children. In all likelihood that’s why the Jewish versions of Isaiah 7:14 in English do not use the word virgin. If the Jews are wrong, it implies the Jews do not know how to interpret their own scripture. At this point things get much worse. If Jews do not understand their own scripture, God must be the author of confusion.

Click to expand...

You are a good ways off from what you said the thread would be about. "If Jews do not understand their own scripture, God must be the author of confusion?" You are guessing. To begin with, Jews do not understand their own scripture completely; and they will tell you so. They study it, and they understand parts of it. They have experts and continually generate commentary, but none of them understand it. That isn't how they operate.

The foundation of all the commandments is built upon the commandments given to Moses at Mt. Sinai.

Click to expand...

Even this statement is an interpolation, not a direct quote. Before Moses received anything, Noah would have received something. Before that someone else would have and so on. Of the 163 commandments you mention, are you certain that none of them is based upon something previous to the ten commandments? Of the 163 commandments, how do you base the various altar rituals upon the ten commandments? If you eliminated the 10 commandments, most of them would still be in force because of redundant commandments. This does not support your statement.

If the Jews interpretation of scripture is wrong, how can we even trust the very concept of the Messiah?

Click to expand...

If the Jews interpretation of scripture is always right, then why don't we just give them little thrones and bring them beer?

The Kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) had allied itself with Syria. This is approximately the year 732 B.C. Together they planned to overthrow Judah. King Ahaz of Judah was worried. Isaiah reassures King Ahaz, “Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "'It will not take place, it will not happen.” (Isaiah 7:7). Isaiah tells King Ahaz to ask God for a sign. The sign would authenticate the prophesy. King Ahaz tells Isaiah, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." (Isaiah 7:12). So Isaiah himself gives King Ahaz a sign. “…The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14). Regardless if this woman is a virgin, young woman or maiden, the birth is a sign to authenticate the prophesy to King Ahaz. A birth nearly seven hundred years later cannot possible accomplish this. It’s far beyond the life time of King Ahaz. Jesus was born around the year 4 B.C.

Oddly, the author of the Gospel of Mathew is the only person in over 700 years that understood Isaiah’s prophesy. Millions upon millions of Jews were born and died during that period. In the present day, Jews still don’t interpret Isaiah’s prophesy as the author of Gospel of Mathew did nearly two thousand years ago. Luke’s Gospel mentions the virgin birth but makes no reference to Isaiah’s prophesy. Of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament only two mention a virgin birth. Of the two only Mathew’s Gospel mentions Isaiah’s prophesy. If there was a virgin birth, either the other writers of the New Testament did not know about it or they thought it was of little or no importance. You would think a virgin birth would be the talk of the town, yet no one seems to know about. There are no historical records anywhere.

Is it possible the author of the Gospel of Mathew was wrong? YES. Whoever wrote this Gospel did not know Jewish scripture very well. This book was written for Jews. The Jews that accepted this Gospel did not know Jewish scripture very well.

Here are a few examples of the author’s mistakes:

“and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.” (Matt. 2:23) How was this fulfilled and where was this said? No one seems to know. All anyone can do is guess.

“saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.” (Matt. 21:2) The author of the Gospel of Mathew misunderstands Zech. 9:9. Mathew has Jesus ride into town on both a donkey and colt. This is silly. It makes Jesus look like as if he is part of some sort traveling circus act.

“6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money."7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel,” (Matt. 26:6-9)It is actually a combination of Zec.11:12-13 and Jer. 19:1-13. What Mathew had done was twist at least two different stories to fit his literary agenda.

roger1440 said:

Here are a few examples of the author’s mistakes:

“and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.” (Matt. 2:23) How was this fulfilled and where was this said? No one seems to know. All anyone can do is guess.

Click to expand...

The word 'Nazarene' in hebrew means 'sprout' or figuratively an 'offpring'
There are many scriptures which refer to Christ as an offpring or sprout in the the OT.

(Isaiah 11:1) And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jes′se; and out of his roots a sprout (Heb. Nots·ri′ Gr. Na·zo·rai′os) will be fruitful.

(Jeremiah 23:5) “Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will raise up to David a righteous sprout(Heb. Nots·ri′ Gr. Na·zo·rai′os) . And a king will certainly reign and act with discretion and execute justice and righteousness in the land.

(Zechariah 3:8) “‘Hear, please, O Joshua the high priest, you and your companions who are sitting before you, for they are men [serving] as portents; for here I am bringing in my servant Sprout(Heb. Nots·ri′ Gr. Na·zo·rai′os)!

roger1440 said:

“saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.” (Matt. 21:2) The author of the Gospel of Mathew misunderstands Zech. 9:9. Mathew has Jesus ride into town on both a donkey and colt. This is silly. It makes Jesus look like as if he is part of some sort traveling circus act.

Click to expand...

When you compare Mark and Lukes account, they both say Jesus rode on the 'colt' which no one had ever sat. It was a young unbroken donkey, hence the '***' mentioned was the colts mother.

(Mark 11:2) and told them: “Go into the village that is within sight of YOU, and as soon as YOU pass into it YOU will find a colt tied, on which none of mankind has yet sat; loose it and bring it.

(Luke 19:30) saying: “Go into the village that is within sight of YOU, and in it after YOU pass in YOU will find a colt tied, on which none of mankind ever sat. Loose it and bring it

Matthew adds the detail that both the *** and the 'colt' (meaning young male) were brought to Jesus and this is what you would expect... a young colt would still be suckling its mother. I dont understand why you think this account makes no sense??? It makes perfect sense that a young unbroken colt would be brought along with its nursing mother. And the prophecy is in harmony with this;
(Zechariah 9:9) “Be very joyful, O daughter of Zion. Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem. Look! Your king himself comes to you. He is righteous, yes, saved; humble, and riding upon an ***, even upon a full-grown animal the son of a she-***

roger1440 said:

Is it possible the author of the Gospel of Mathew was wrong? YES. Whoever wrote this Gospel did not know Jewish scripture very well.

Click to expand...

This entire thread was a bait & switch. You never had any intention of discussing scripture. Not once have you replied to anyone except to press your heavy interpretations of all things except for Matthew 1:22. You time wasting insensitive poster.

roger1440 said:

Oddly, the author of the Gospel of Mathew is the only person in over 700 years that understood Isaiah’s prophesy. Millions upon millions of Jews were born and died during that period. In the present day, Jews still don’t interpret Isaiah’s prophesy as the author of Gospel of Mathew did nearly two thousand years ago.

Click to expand...

Oddly, Pegg has explanations that can appease the doubting troubled Christians. Unfortunately, she's a JW, so how can a "normal" "real" Christian trust what she says? They'll tell her all the "false" teachings she's following and how she's way off base on her interpretations. Christians arguing with Christians? But then, why should I believe in anything that any of them say? You're a Christian, yet questioning Matthew, that's awesome. I believe that if it don't make sense, what is wrong with taking a hard look at what it says?

I read what it says in Josh McDowell's book on the supposed evidence of the virgin birth that demands a verdict. It, again, only appeases the faithful, the ones that are too afraid of letting themselves question the NT. The virgin birth story is great, great for pagan god/man believing people. Is it possible that this Matthew did some "creative" interpretations to help create a god/man? Why not? It makes too much sense, but it makes the NT a creation of man and not God. Can Christians, like yourself, let themselves examine the text and ask the hard questions? And yet, remain "believers"? The problem is that if they don't ask the hard questions and find good answers then what kind of Christian are they? I think to some degree, they become blind followers of traditions and interpretations of man.

CG Didymus said:

Pegg, this is a major problem, the context. I agree with Egyptian Phoenix. Jesus can't fit into the rest of the verses in Isaiah. If there was a child in Isaiah's time that ate his curds and honey and got old enough to know to choose evil over good, then what happened to his mother? Somebody must have noticed that she never had sex with a man, yet had a child. Or, she was a young girl, not a virgin, had a child and the two kings that Ahaz feared were eliminated.

Click to expand...

there was no child born in Ahaz's time. And the prophecy doesn't have to have been fulfilled in Ahaz's time. There are numerous examples of prophecies given to certain people, but not fulfilled in their lifetime. For example, God told Abraham that his seed would number the grains of sands... Abraham didnt live to see that prophecy fulfilled. So a prophecy doesnt have to become fulfilled during the lifetime of the people it is spoken to.

CG Didymus said:

Another problem is the Catholics. They, in the name of God, added to the story and made Mary a perpetual virgin and immaculately concepted. If they embellished the story, why not Matthew? I know, because the NT is the Word of God. And how do we know this? Because the NT says so. That's the other problem. It has to be true, and it has to make sense, even when it doesn't, because it is the word of God. Yet, so many variations of Christianity, something ain't right.

Click to expand...

but the catholics havent changed the words of Matthew to include the perpetual virgin in the account, have they?

Their teaching doesnt change scripture. I dont see the problem.