Anonymous
6/23/2025, 6:27:53 PM
No.17785655
>>17785629
You’re treating Matthew like a Protestant prooftexter, not as a Jewish theologian steeped in midrash. Catholic exegesis views these Old Testament passages through the lens of typology, not 1:1 literalism. 'Immanuel' was indeed a near-term sign for Ahaz and a foreshadowing of a greater fulfillment (that is, 'God with us' in the person of Christ). The name and concept far exceed any local fulfillment in Isaiah’s time. It's also relevant that Matthew’s citations use common Second Temple midrashic technique. That is, reapplying past Israelite history to Jesus as the new Israel, the true Son, and the covenant's fulfillment. This was a known and accepted Jewish interpretive practice.
>"Out of Egypt I called my son” is a manipulative misreading and a lie
It’s only a ‘lie’ if you flatten every prophecy into newspaper literalism. Hosea 11 refers to Israel’s exodus, yes, but Matthew presents Jesus as recapitulating Israel’s story, doing faithfully what Israel failed to do. Jesus, like Israel, comes out of Egypt. But, unlike Israel, He obeys. That’s the contrast Matthew intends to highlight. If Matthew’s audience were Jewish Christians (which they were), they would have known Hosea 11:1 in full. Accusing Matthew of lying to people who read Hosea weekly is absurd. His audience understood the application and the symbolic contrast. These are not even isolated cases (see Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and others used typologically in early Christian theology). Rigid literalism can't explain how prophecy works in scripture's broader arc.
You’re treating Matthew like a Protestant prooftexter, not as a Jewish theologian steeped in midrash. Catholic exegesis views these Old Testament passages through the lens of typology, not 1:1 literalism. 'Immanuel' was indeed a near-term sign for Ahaz and a foreshadowing of a greater fulfillment (that is, 'God with us' in the person of Christ). The name and concept far exceed any local fulfillment in Isaiah’s time. It's also relevant that Matthew’s citations use common Second Temple midrashic technique. That is, reapplying past Israelite history to Jesus as the new Israel, the true Son, and the covenant's fulfillment. This was a known and accepted Jewish interpretive practice.
>"Out of Egypt I called my son” is a manipulative misreading and a lie
It’s only a ‘lie’ if you flatten every prophecy into newspaper literalism. Hosea 11 refers to Israel’s exodus, yes, but Matthew presents Jesus as recapitulating Israel’s story, doing faithfully what Israel failed to do. Jesus, like Israel, comes out of Egypt. But, unlike Israel, He obeys. That’s the contrast Matthew intends to highlight. If Matthew’s audience were Jewish Christians (which they were), they would have known Hosea 11:1 in full. Accusing Matthew of lying to people who read Hosea weekly is absurd. His audience understood the application and the symbolic contrast. These are not even isolated cases (see Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and others used typologically in early Christian theology). Rigid literalism can't explain how prophecy works in scripture's broader arc.