Isaiah 7:14


#1

Ok, heres one:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” -Isaiah 7:14

So why did Joseph name him “Jesus”, and not “Immanuel”?


#2

Immanuel means God is with us, Jesus was the command given in the NT.

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

C.F. Luke 1:30-32

so Mary’s son who is God himself made flesh, is named both Jesus and Immanuel.

Jesus has many names, Immanuel is one of them.


#3

Immanuel (“God with us” or “God is with us”) was a descriptive title, not a prescriptive one. Christ is God in the flesh, among men, hence “God with us”.


#4

The angel told Joseph to name him “Jesus.”–See Matthew 1:21.

While his birth fulfilled the prophecy at Isaiah 7:14, like all prophecies the expressions therein are symbolic and had a double fulfillment–a minor one, fulfilled in the time of Ahaz, and a major or complete one, fulfilled in Jesus’ birth.

Some scholars feel that the minor fulfillment may have been in reference to the popular interpretation that this is speaking of Ahaz’s son. If the popular interpretation is correct, the child in the original fulfillment was not named “Immanuel” either. His son and successor was named Hezekiah.


#5

Jesus was a gifted leader. He became familiar with some of the prophesies in the Old Testament and, what seems likely, came up with a strategy to fulfill some of them so that he could become a more effective leader among his Galileeans.

Thus if in Isaiah 7:14 there was a prophesy that a virgin would give birth, then by his supporters claiming that he was born of a virgin even though he had several siblings, a living legend was created. If the Messiah was prophesied to be born in the city of David, then by his supporters claiming that he was the Messiah and was born there (even though Nazareth is his probable birthplace), that also would be a powerful image he could portray to his people.

If we was not born in Nazareth but it was prophesied that he be called a Nazarene, then going to live in Nazareth would be an excellent strategy.

A very clever person. Even though his portrayal of the Messiah was not what the Jews expected (and they indeed did not accept his claim), by purposely thumbing his nose at authority he was likely daring them to be violent with him. This was also a clever strategy, because it appears that he wanted to become a symbol rather than a long-term preacher spreading the message of the coming of the Kingdom of God.

Now if God told Him to do this, so much the better. Since nobody can verify Jesus claims with historical or archeological evidence, we are left with the statements the He and his supporters said about Him,


#6

Matthew in 1:23 attributed the name “Immanuel” to Christ in order to fulfill Isaiah 7. I wonder why the Angel didn’t just give the command to name the Child “Immanuel” in the first place. I wonder if “Immanuel” is used elsewhere in the New Testament?


#7

In other words, in order to accurately fulfill the so-called prophecy, Matthew should have said that Joseph name the new son “Emmanuel”. Why did Joseph choose the name Jesus? This does not complete the prophecy.


#8

Christ fulfills Isaiah in other places, too. And Joseph names him “Jesus” because that is what Gabriel commanded (Mk 1:21). I am now hoping to find other places in the New Testament where the name “Immanuel” is used.


#9

Also, going on James the Just’s line: He says the name “Immanuel” is descriptive like other titles such as “Savior” or “Messiah”, instead of prescriptive like “Joshua” or “Abraham” or “Jesus”. This is interesting, because modern use of “Immanuel” seems to be more prescriptive in its use as a first name. ie “Immanuel Kant.” James do you have anything to back up your idea?


#10

Even though what you’ve written here basically amounts to that of a conspiracu theory, I’m curious to know what you think exactly Jesus was “really” trying to accomplish by supposedly being a very clever con artist?

Was it for power? He said His Kingdom was not of this world.

Was it for control? He never forced anyone. And control them how and for what?

For riches? He wasnt concerned with them.

He willingly accepted a tortuous death. He spent time with the lowest class of people in society. His apostles all died tortous deaths as well. So “clever” in what way and for what purpose?


#11

Jesus was a clever leader, not a con artist. Who knows how many revelations He had?

His flock consisted of the poor of Galilee, who were being heavily taxed by the Romans. He was uncomfortable with that along with His followers, but did not blatantly exhort His flock to rebellion. If somehow He could portray himself as a powerful person that might be able to do something to relieve the suffering, He could better achieve His goal. He spent at least ten years as a wandering preacher, much of it as a mendicant. By being baptized, He became a more holy person. But His effectiveness was limited. In those days, there was a feeling that a great apocalypse was near and that life in this world would soon come to an end. That is why He said that the kingdom of God was not of this world.

If He felt that progress toward His goals was too slow, bringing things to a head in Jerusalem during Passover just might accomplish what He wanted, or at least a part of it. In the process, He could confront the authorities and purposely stimulate them to do something. It worked, but probably not in the manner He had expected. If he could have been put in prison in a similar manner as was Nelson Mandela, that might have been His hope. Perhaps that’s why He was so disappointed.

The bottom line is that He became a legend, but only by word of mouth. It wasn’t until war clouds began building thirty-five years after His death, that there seems to have been an effort to record the actions of His ministry before word of mouth was silenced. Indeed, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE, an apocalypse that Jesus was worried about happened. He may not have been able to effect His goals personally, but His apostles certainly did.

During his life on earth, Jesus was just one of many wandering preachers. He was so insignificant that He is not mentioned in any of the historical documents of the day. Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria failed to mention Him. It was only after the Gospels began to be circulated that he had achieved the recognition He desired.


#12

I used to have similar thoughts as you about this, but what good would achieved recognition do for Him if He was dead? What good what it have done the Apostles if they were all dead too?

I can see your point if their goal was some pay off, but knowing that preaching the Gospel meant death and doing it anyway and willingly accepting their death just doesnt make any sense for a group of people who were looking to get something out of it.


#13

Not to mention some in the Decapolis, and some Samaritans. Oh, and at least some of the powerful – Sanhedrin member(s) and those who would have been present at his questioning and trial… :wink:

If somehow He could portray himself as a powerful person that might be able to do something to relieve the suffering, He could better achieve His goal.

“His goal”? Which, pray tell, was what?

He spent at least ten years as a wandering preacher, much of it as a mendicant.

Ten? Based on what?

By being baptized, He became a more holy person.

:hmmm: He said that he was the Son of God; how does baptism make God more holy? :wink:

If he could have been put in prison in a similar manner as was Nelson Mandela, that might have been His hope. Perhaps that’s why He was so disappointed.

That’s just silly. Why would a 1st century Palestinian Jew expect that sedition against the Roman empire would lead to imprisonment? The Romans were infamous for their cruel capital punishment as the response to insurrection.

‘Disappointed’? Where do you get that Jesus was ‘disappointed’?

During his life on earth, Jesus was just one of many wandering preachers. He was so insignificant that He is not mentioned in any of the historical documents of the day. Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria failed to mention Him.

Umm… pardon? Josephus most certainly did mention Jesus! (The contemporary scholarly consensus is that there were interpolations in one of the citations, but that there was a mention of Jesus there…)

It was only after the Gospels began to be circulated that he had achieved the recognition He desired.

Jesus desired recognition? Hmm…


#14

Why is it that the Bible doesn’t just translate Isaiah 7:14 as “God with us” instead of Immanuel if it is a descriptive title and not a name?


#15

Because names were both descriptive and proper names?

The man gave his wife the name “Eve,” because she was the mother of all the living. -Gen 3:20

(Eve) conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have produced a male child with the help of the LORD.” --Gen 4:1

(Eve) gave birth to a son whom she called Seth. “God has granted me another offspring in place of Abel,” she said. --Gen 4:25

The first to emerge was reddish, and his whole body was like a hairy mantle; so they named him Esau. Next his brother came out, gripping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob. --Gen:25:25-26

Leah conceived and bore a son, and she named him Reuben; for she said, “It means, ‘The LORD saw my misery.’" Gen 29:32

In the Bible, names are descriptive titles… :wink:


#16

However, the prophesy from Isaiah seems to imply that he would be given the prescriptive name of “Immanuel.”


#17

The Church preserves the heritage of Isaiah 7:14 precisely by calling Jesus Immanuel, and recalling it specially at the holy time of Advent. There is no either/or. Since when did naming - especially naming God - become a zero-sum affair? Immanuel is a name of Jesus. If it had said Prince of Peace in Isaiah 7:14 instead, the prophecy would have been no less fulfilled.


#18

Well… let’s look at the quote carefully, then: speaking directly to Ahaz, the prophet (conveying the words of God) says, “καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ”. That is, “you will call the name of him ‘Immanuel’.” (This ‘you’ isn’t ya’ll, but you singular.)

So, strictly speaking, God isn’t saying that the boy’s name will be Immanuel, or that ya’ll (whoever that might imply) will call him Immanuel… but that Ahaz himself will call him Immanuel. :wink:


#19

Gorgias wins the thread.


#20

LOL! :thumbsup:

(The really cool thing, BTW, is that Gabriel uses exactly the same phrase in telling Mary what she will name her baby: “καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν” – ‘you will call the name of him “Jesus”’ …!)


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.