Why Jesus wasn't given the proper name "Immanuel"?

[tonychanyt]

Isaiah 7:

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

So why Jesus wasn't given the proper name "Immanuel"?

Barnes explained:

We are not, then, to suppose that the child should actually receive the name Immanuel as a proper name, since, according to the usage of the prophet, and especially of Isaiah, that is often ascribed to a person or thing as a name which belongs to him in an eminent degree as an attribute;

Isaiah used the idiom "call him" to designate an attribute. He did it again in Isaiah 62:

4 No longer will they call you Deserted, or name your land Desolate. But you will be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; for the LORD will take delight in you, and your land will be married.

Matthew explained in 1:

21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

"Call his name Immanuel" was an idiom for attributing "God with us" to Jesus.

Another similar case is found in Jeremiah 23:

5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’

In the OT and NT, "name" does not always refer to his literal personal name. The word "name" often refers to the person's title, reputation, character, or authority. Even today, sometimes we use it like that.

 

[Sabertooth]

So, an epithet, then...?

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Isaiah 7:


So why Jesus wasn't given the proper name "Immanuel"?

Barnes explained:


Isaiah used the idiom "call him" to designate an attribute. He did it again in Isaiah 62:


Matthew explained in 1:


"Call his name Immanuel" was an idiom for attributing "God with us" to Jesus.

Another similar case is found in Jeremiah 23:


In the OT and NT, "name" does not always refer to his literal personal name. The word "name" often refers to the person's title, reputation, character, or authority. Even today, sometimes we use it like that.

We have to realise the original text in Isaiah 7:14 doesn't speak about a virgin. Using 'virgin' to translate the Hebrew word 'almah' (H5959) is simply incorrect - yet nearly all English translations (except the NET translation AFAIK) do that because they seek consistency with the Greek LXX translation that used 'parthenos' in this verse - and the current Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew quotes the LXX with 'parthenos' which at that time primarly meant 'virgin'.

The original text in Isaiah 7:14 with 'almah' refers to a young woman (not necessarily a virgin) - the Hebrew has a dedicated word for 'virgin' : 'betulah' which isn't used in this verse.

The primary meaning of the text in Isaiah 7:14 is a reference to a woman and event in those days - that was fulfilled also in those days. And likely that boy back then was called 'Immanuel'.

Matthew is using it a second time with the then-current primary meaning of 'parthenos' meaning 'virgin' to point at Jesus' birth. At the time of translation of the LXX (2nd century BCE) it is likely 'parthenos' could also mean 'young woman'. All Jewish translators would have known that 'almah' doesn't mean 'virgin'.

See this interesting article on Isaiah 7:14:

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.e...t=biblical_and_ministry_studies_presentations

 

[Sabertooth]

Here is a song about the verses cited,...

Emmanuel, Amy Grant (1983)

 

[KevinT]

We have to realise the original text in Isaiah 7:14 doesn't speak about a virgin. Using 'virgin' to translate the Hebrew word 'almah' (H5959) is simply incorrect - yet nearly all English translations (except the NET translation AFAIK) do that because they seek consistency with the Greek LXX translation that used 'parthenos' in this verse - and the current Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew quotes the LXX with 'parthenos' which at that time primarly meant 'virgin'.

Any theories as to WHY this change was made? It was before the birth of Christ.

KT

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Any theories as to WHY this change was made? It was before the birth of Christ.

KT

One of the better questions I retain. Thus far I bear in mind a possible unusual holy motivation of the translators and promoters of the Septuagint, specifically, preservation and promotion of what was available of the way and the will of God, directly against those whom Christ the Lord spoke strongest against: the scribes and the Pharisees.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Any theories as to WHY this change was made? It was before the birth of Christ.

KT

Of course all translators of the LXX knew 'almah' means young woman and not virgin; it is likely at the time of writing for the LXX the word 'parthenos' had a wider meaning which included both young woman and virgin. So in their days this may have been a correct decision, but at the time writing for the gospel of Matthew 'parthenos' meant 'virgin' explicitly, and not young woman. And the author seems to seize on that quoting Isaiah with that now 'bent' interpretation for 'almah'.

Still when we translate the original Hebrew in Isaiah we should translate for its original meaning - and not for the double / later fulfillment in Matthew afterwards. Rabbis could accuse Christians justifiably with a biased translation for Isaiah 7:14.

 

[prodromos]

All young women who were unmarried were virgin's, unless they were prostitutes.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Of course all translators of the LXX knew 'almah' means young woman and not virgin; it is likely at the time of writing for the LXX the word 'parthenos' had a wider meaning which included both young woman and virgin. So in their days this may have been a correct decision, but at the time writing for the gospel of Matthew 'parthenos' meant 'virgin' explicitly, and not young woman. And the author seems to seize on that quoting Isaiah with that now 'bent' interpretation for 'almah'.

Still when we translate the original Hebrew in Isaiah we should translate for its original meaning - and not for the double / later fulfillment in Matthew afterwards. Rabbis could accuse Christians justifiably with a biased translation for Isaiah 7:14.

The very idea that we of Christ would be unbiased in translation does frankly make me laugh No one knows God except by act of God! God biases us to Himself, to His meanings of His words.

For instance. We of Christ know that there are Three who comprise One who is God. We know this because as part of conversion, God has biased us to a number of things He has said. Jews devoted to Scripture today, do not have this bias; they have another bias, and as a consequence, they demand that Elohim is unilaterally singular, and that a certain "us" in early Genesis is irrelevant.

All young women who were unmarried were virgin's, unless they were prostitutes.

Good point.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

All young women who were unmarried were virgin's, unless they were prostitutes.

One of the hypotheses for the first fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14 is that the 'young woman' was a woman from the King's harem - so already belonging to the King but not necessarily a virgin - and a miracle of a virgin birth is not the subject of the story in Isaiah - the sign in Isaiah is that the young woman will give birth before ... . The virgin 'twist' using the LXX translation and the later interpretation for 'parthenos' plays only a role in Matthew.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

The very idea that we of Christ would be unbiased in translation does frankly make me laugh No one knows God except by act of God! God biases us to Himself, to His meanings of His words.

For instance. We of Christ know that there are Three who comprise One who is God. We know this because as part of conversion, God has biased us to a number of things He has said. Jews devoted to Scripture today, do not have this bias; they have another bias, and as a consequence, they demand that Elohim is unilaterally singular, and that a certain "us" in early Genesis is irrelevant.

Good point.

I prefer to translate given the language and meanings/context of the time of writing given the intentions of the author and the audience at the time of writing. So clearly in this case only 'young woman' is a correct translation for Isaiah 7:14 'almah' - Christians don't have to be afraid of that.

Btw - Matthew originally was written in Hebrew, so how fascinating it would be if we could check what Matthew originally wrote? (almah or betulah) We don't have the original Matthew anymore unfortunately.