Isaiah 7:14-16
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
There is no doubt that Jesus is the Emmanuel that Isaiah prophesied. There never was a virgin birth before Jesus, neither shall there be after. It was the first time and the last. Yet another reason Jesus can claim to be ‘the first and the last’. He is utterly unique. So in what sense can his name be called ‘God with us’, without Jesus being God Almighty himself? To understand this we need to go back to the book of Exodus:
Exodus 25:8
And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
It has always been God’s desire to dwell among his people, and the first means he chose of doing this was through the Old Testament tabernacle (Tent). It was there, in the Ark of the Covenant, that his glory would abide and Moses would speak with him face to face.
But this was a far cry from God’s ultimate dwelling place among men. The Ark was no more than a shadow of how God would talk to us and walk among us, tabernacled in his Son, Jesus. Jesus was absolutely clear that he was not God; However it was God the Father that indwelt him:
John 10:38
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Now I ask you: Did the glory of God, dwelling in the sanctuary, stop it from being a tent? Neither did the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Jesus compromise his humanity one iota. He was absolutely ‘Son of Man’- that is to say, human.
Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Not all of God dwelt in Christ since the Bible declares
1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
God is everywhere present :
Psalms 139:7
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
The body of Jesus occupied just a few cubic feet of space. Although the Messiah had as much of the fullness of God in him as could dwell bodily- that is to say, fit in a body, that does not make him God any more than the glory filling the sanctuary turn it into God. This also gives scriptural perspective to the Trinitarian teaching that Christ is ‘God-the-Son’ incarnate. Instead, it was God the Father who indwelt his Son, the man Christ Jesus. Hence, Jesus never referred to ‘the Son who dwells in me’.
2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
John 14:10-11
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
Hello Alex
some good thoughts there to show that God being “with” Israel or us, etc. does not change the nature of the dwelling place in which God or His glory dwelled.
I have a question in connection with this topic: Is Jesus actually ever called / named “Emmanuel” ?
Sure, Mt 1:23 mentions “Emmanuel” as part of the quote from the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Christ … BUT right afterwards there is the direct instruction by the angel to name the child “Jesus” (and not “Emmanuel”). The same name “Jesus” is used throughout the NT writings for Christ, and nowhere is he called by the name “Emmanuel”. Was he even called “Emmanuel”?
Is the name “Emmanuel” the name of the child that was born in the time of Isaiah whose birth was to be a sign for the king? Isaih wasn’t speaking about “a virgin birth”, he was prophesying that a young woman who apparently was still a virgin at the time of the prophecy was to have a child before certain events in relation to Israel’s enemy would happen => obviously, the virgin would get married and then have her first child by her husband befire those events.
Anyone have further thoughts on this?
Wolfgang
I can’t find any evidence of Jesus ever being addressed as Emmanuel either.
Instead someone’s ‘name being called X’ would seem to be a Hebraism used to introduce a description of a person.
Another example could be Isaiah 9:6 “his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, The mighty God…”
See also other uses of name to denote personal qualities and attributes, and, as such, standing for the whole person:
Exodus 34:14 “… for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God…”
Psalm 75:1 “… for that your name is near, your wondrous works declare.”
That being the case opens up the possibility that Matthew was on a bit of a midrash with his use of Isaiah 7:14.
The child originally in view was a prophetic sign that the fortunes of God’s people were about to take a turn for the better and that this was because, unlike the other nations, God was with Israel.
I think the point Matthew was making was that the same was the case, and more so, with Jesus.
In view of this an additional point emerges. No one would suggest that Isaiah’s son was God Almighty by virtue of his name. Why change the rules when it comes to Jesus?
I hope this makes sense,
Alex
Sounds good Alex.
I thought Albert Barnes’ comments in relation to Matthew 1:23 were appropriate:
“The name is designed to denote that God would be with the nation as its protector, and the birth of this child would be a sign or pledge of it. The mere circumstance that this name is given, however, does not imply anything in regard to the nature or rank of the child, for nothing was more common among the Jews than to incorporate the name, or a part of the name, of the Deity with the names which they gave to their children.”
Apologian
Sound quote.
Is this the same Barnes who wrote the commentaries?
Alex
I believe it is. Barnes’ commentary is one of the very few commentaries I actually check when doing my own Bible study. It is conservative and well written, does not engage in flights of fancy, and treats the Word with respect. He is also very aware of apologetic issues, and doesn’t shy away from identifying problems and dealing with them honestly.
Another commentary I would recommend thoroughly is John Gill’s. He’s as conservative as Barnes, and displays an astonishing knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, as well as a couple of other languages. His commentary also includes extremely useful quotes from the Jewish commentaries and traditions, providing valuable insights which are otherwise overlooked.