Why wasn't Jesus named Emmanuel?

[TheButler]

Matthew explicitly refers to the Emmanuel prophecy in Isaiah which says the Mashiach/Messiah will be named Emmanuel but then says Joseph called his son Jesus. Why the contradiction?

Matthew 1:
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
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.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

While this is a heavily protestant website, I highly suggest reading this :

Why wasn’t Jesus named Immanuel? | GotQuestions.org

Hope it helps

 

[TheButler]

Got it. Prophecies aren’t to be taken literally. Thanks.

 

[Mary888]

Thanks for the link. Do you think the idea that - since God and Son are one, and in Jewish tradition God’s name is unknown, the name of the Messiah was also meant to not be known from the start before His birth - has any relevance?

 

[Thom18]

I think the difference is that it is said that the Messiah will be called Emmanuel, not named so. Alternatively, Gabriel tells Mary that her child will be named Jesus. There’s a difference, I think, between being called something and being named something.

 

[Wesrock]

Emmanuel means God-with-us, which rather fits with what Christians say of Jesus (God-saves) and the Incarnation.

 

[Spyridon]

Emmanuel is a title meaning “God is with us”.

Also, prophecy IS meant to be taken literally, but not literalistically.

 

[TheButler]

I think the difference is that it is said that the Messiah will be called Emmanuel, not named so. Alternatively, Gabriel tells Mary that her child will be named Jesus. There’s a difference, I think, between being called something and being named something.

Yet Matthew uses the same phrase, “call his name”

Also, prophecy IS meant to be taken literally, but not literalistically.

Like the Virgin birth? Literally that could be a reference to a planet in Virgo on a particular date, the date of the Messiah’s birth. (Ptolemy listed the constellations in AD 150 so the virgin Virgo was understood in the Greek world and the NT was written in Greek…) Literalistically it is the birth from a human female unknown to men, no?

 

[Kei]

The Messiah was to be called many things.
Not all could be His Name.
Unless you want to go spread the good news of
Jesus Emmanuel Prince of Peace Everlasting Father Wonderful Counselor Mighty God Christ.

 

[DetectiveNiko]

Most likely, in fact Jews today still hold that tradition of not saying the name since its not knowable (It is why YHWH is meant to be an unpronouncable name). It is also why you don’t hear Yahweh in church a lot. They try to abstain from using it as much as possible as respect for the Jews. (Atleast that is what I heard )

 

[Gorgias]

Got it. Prophecies aren’t to be taken literally. Thanks.

OK – ask a technical question… get a highly technical answer. Ready?

You’re talking about Mt 1:23, which itself quotes Isaiah 7:14. In addition, we have to consider which Isaiah 7:14 we’re talking about – the one found in the Greek (Septuagint) text or the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. Moreover, the author of the Gospel does his own little take on ‘translation’, which we’ll discuss in detail in a moment.

Let’s recall the context of Isaiah 7:14 – Ahaz, the king of Judah is freaking out because Israel and Aram have made an alliance (in order to fend off the advances of the Assyrians) and now they’re marching on Judah (in order to conquer it and use its strength for their own aims). Isaiah is sent by God to tell King Ahaz not to freak out – that God is telling Ahaz that Syria and Israel both will fall. The problem is, Ahaz has no intent to rely on God; instead, he’s going to turn to Assyria for protection, as well as turning to the gods of Damascus (see 2 Kings 16). God tells Isaiah to have Ahaz ask Him for a sign that what He’s saying is true. Ahaz doesn’t want a sign – after all, he’s not interested in trusting in God. Nevertheless, God gives him the sign we all know: “the virgin shall be with child…”

In the Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14, we see the verb “shall call”. The big question is… who shall call? If you vocalize the word one way, it becomes “you shall call” (2nd person singular) – as if God is saying “you, Ahaz, will call him…”. If you vocalize it another way, it becomes “she shall call” (as in “the virgin shall call…”).

If you look at the Greek text – the Septuagint – you find that this translation says “you shall call.” Incidentally, for a variety of reasons, it’s clear that it’s this Greek version of Scripture that Matthew is quoting. So, the prophecy, as it appears in the Septuagint, is only claiming that Ahaz will call this child “God is with us.” (Which is particularly ironic: Ahaz’s whole problem is that he doesn’t get it that God really is with him and the nation of Judah.)

Matthew does something particularly interesting, though: he’s just used that word καλέσεις (“you shall call”) in the context of Joseph’s angelic dream. The angel commands Joseph – which, by extension, means that God Himself is commanding Joseph – to name the baby “Jesus.” If Matthew were then to turn around and say “you shall call him Emmanuel”, then confusion would result. Therefore, Matthew looks at the prophecy in its historical context and renders it in his paraphrase as “and they shall call him Emmanuel.”

Is this reasonable? Very much so. If we look at Isaiah 8:10, we see that the cry that rises up is “with us is God!”. And Jesus Himself affirms that this is the case, proclaiming, “I am with you until the end of the age”!

So, in summary, here’s your answer: the prophecies say that either “you” or “she” or “they” will call… but not that his parents will name him “Emmanuel.” Rather, the angel of God commands Joseph to name him “God Saves” (Jesus).

 

[PJM]

“Jesus” Means Savior

“Emmanuel” Means God With Us

“Jesus” RIGHTLY understood is BOTH Savior & God IS with US. Amen

GBY

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I don’t speak or read Hebrew, so I am going solely by an interlinear translation, but it seems the same construction in Isaiah 7:14 is used in Genesis 16:11 in the naming of Ishmael. For Ishmael that was his actual name and for Emmanuel we’re given a rationalization as to why that wasn’t his name.

Both say “šə·mōw wə-qā-rāṯ” (shall call his name) followed by the name.

Here is the interlinear for Isaiah 7:14, and here is the interlinear for Genesis 16:11.

But even apart from the use of the same words I have two questions that I hope anyone can answer:

1. Did anyone call Jesus Emmanuel when he was alive?
2. If the answer to the first question is no, then isn’t the prophecy a self-fulling prophecy at absolute best?

 

[Francis]

Because the Heavenly Father wished to call Him Jesus( Savior, anointed one ) remember Angles are only messengers. Besides who are you and me to decide or question it ,can the pot ask the potter why did you make me so like wise .have faith and just believe like a child .God Bless

Luke 1:30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”[c] 35 The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[d] will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

 

[Gorgias]

it seems the same construction in Isaiah 7:14 is used in Genesis 16:11 in the naming of Ishmael.

It comes down to vowel pointings, which in this case tell us whether the context is “you shall call his name” or “she shall call his name.” If it’s “you shall call his name”, then there’s no problem: after all, I might call my buddy “Star Lord”, but that doesn’t mean that it’s his name.

Did anyone call Jesus Emmanuel when he was alive?

Do you mean “did anyone say ‘truly this is the Son of God’ with respect to Jesus, while He was on earth?” Yes, they did – Simon Peter, and the centurion, at the very least, as witnessed by Scripture. (Whether others did or not is open to discussion.)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

Did anyone call Jesus Emmanuel when he was alive?

Do you mean “did anyone say ‘truly this is the Son of God’ with respect to Jesus, while He was on earth?” Yes, they did – Simon Peter, and the centurion, at the very least, as witnessed by Scripture. (Whether others did or not is open to discussion.)

I meant what I asked. Not did anyone call him the Son of God, but did anyone call to him Emmanuel. I understand if you want to say that he was referred to by a name that isn’t one’s actual name (I’m sometimes referred to as “Mo”). But I’m asking if a contemporary of Jesus called him Emmanuel. I don’t know of any Bible passage where this occurs. As far as I can tell people refer to Jesus as Emmanuel after the fact because of Isaiah 7:14, which if correct would make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Gorgias]

I meant what I asked. Not did anyone call him the Son of God, but did anyone call to him Emmanuel.

If they called him ‘God’ or ‘Son of God’, wouldn’t that imply that “God is with us”?

I don’t know of any Bible passage where this occurs.

Offhand, I can’t think of any. However, does the prophecy claim that he’ll be called by that name in Scripture? Does it claim that he’ll be called that during his lifetime?

As far as I can tell people refer to Jesus as Emmanuel after the fact because of Isaiah 7:14, which if correct would make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Does the prophecy claim that it will be his legal name? Does it claim that he’ll be called it aside from knowledge of his divinity? If not, then the reason for the use of the name doesn’t impugn the fulfillment, does it?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If they called him ‘God’ or ‘Son of God’, wouldn’t that imply that “God is with us”?

So I checked a site for other names in the Bible that would be equally or more suitable for a prophesized son of god than Emmanuel. Here are some of the one just from the first 10 letters of the alphabet:

Abiah/Abijah - My father is Yahweh
Abidan - My father is judge
Abiel - God is my father
Abimael - My father is God
Abimelech - My father is king
Abiram - My father is exalted
Abner - My father is a light
Absalom - My father is peace
Adonijah - My lord is Yahweh
Anaiah - Yahweh answers
Daniel - God is my judge
Eliakim - God rises
Eliezer - My God is help
Elihu - My God is he
Elijah - My God is Yahweh
Elioenai - My eyes look to God
Elisha - My God is salvation
Elnathan - God has given
Gedaliah - Yahweh is great
Gemariah - Yahweh has accomplished
Gomer - Complete
Hananiah - Yahweh is gracious
Hodiah - Majesty of Yahweh
Hosanna - Deliver us
Ithiel - God is with me
Jadon - He will judge
Jamin - Right hand
Jehiel - God lives
Jehu - Yahweh is he
Joab - Yahweh is father

Offhand, I can’t think of any. However, does the prophecy claim that he’ll be called by that name in Scripture? Does it claim that he’ll be called that during his lifetime?

Let’s look at the actual prophecy in Isaiah 7. It says that God will be a child from the house of David as a sign, and he shall be named/called Emmanuel – which means God with us.

So if we’re allowing him to be called that not during his lifetime, but afterward because of the prophecy, then we’re saying that the child who is a sign from God will be considered a sign that God with us. Well no kidding! I predict that the Nobel Prize winners in Literature for 2020 will be referred to as Nobel Prize winners. The scientists who figure out the cure for AIDS will be considered great scientists. Future Miss Americas will be referred to as Miss America.

In order for a prophecy to carry any weight there must be a logical possibility that it does not come true.

Does the prophecy claim that it will be his legal name? Does it claim that he’ll be called it aside from knowledge of his divinity? If not, then the reason for the use of the name doesn’t impugn the fulfillment, does it?

Another necessary for a proper prophecy is to be clear what it means for it to have occurred or not occurred. A plain reading of the text would say that this foretold child would be named Emmanuel. He clearly wasn’t. so some backtracking occurs. OK, so he won’t be named Emmanuel but he will be called Emmanuel – except that he isn’t called Emmanuel. Further backtracking occurs (truly it’s a staple of apologetics), and now people years after his death who have read the prophecy and because of this self-fulfilling prophecy now occasionally refer to him as Emmanuel. If there was a need for further backtracking, it would be done without a whit of concern to how backtracking eviscerates the words that are being defended.

 

[Mintaka]

Um… clearly we do call Jesus “Emmanuel.”

You may have heard him called “Emmanuel” in approximately 5.2 million Christmas carol renditions this year, as well as in 65 zillion Masses, church services, recitals, choral concerts, radio and television broadcasts, and other means of communication.

If you can say that Malachi’s prophecy about perfect worship and sacrifice to the Lord happening “from the rising of the Sun to its setting” is talking about Catholic Masses all over the world, you can certainly say that Handel’s Messiah fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy.

Sheesh, what more do you want? Candy?

P.S. It was actually fairly common in ancient times, and even in Jewish areas, for people to have more than one name that people called them, depending on occasion. This included both titles and “kenning names,” which were nicknames used by poets. (Often because they fit better into rhyme schemes, or the relevant local equivalent.) Like Elizabeth I of England, the Roman emperors had about five zillion suck-up kenning names and references made to them, all of which you were supposed to know and respect.

So yeah… His name was Jesus. But he also had titles and kenning names like “Christ/Messiah”, “the Lord/Adonai”, “Emmanuel,” “the Son of Man,” “the Son of God,” “the son of Mary,” “the son of Joseph,” “the son of the Maker/carpenter,” “Teacher/Rabboni,” and so on, and they were all part of the package.

 

[Gorgias]

So if we’re allowing him to be called that not during his lifetime, but afterward because of the prophecy, then we’re saying that the child who is a sign from God will be considered a sign that God with us.

No… the prophecy says that something unique will happen: the virgin will give birth! And then, it adds to the uniqueness: the presence of that child will mean “God is with us”. It’s not the tautology you’re making it out to be…

Well no kidding! I predict that the Nobel Prize winners in Literature for 2020 will be referred to as Nobel Prize winners. The scientists who figure out the cure for AIDS will be considered great scientists.

In order for a prophecy to carry any weight there must be a logical possibility that it does not come true.

Yes, so look at what you’ve said! Is it guaranteed that there will be a cure for cancert? That Miss America will be around in 2020?

Another necessary for a proper prophecy is to be clear what it means for it to have occurred or not occurred.

Umm… says who?

In fact, the hallmark of prophecy is that it’s highly interpretative and multivalent.

A plain reading of the text would say that this foretold child would be named Emmanuel.

Who says that your plain reading is the authoritative one, though?

Further backtracking occurs (truly it’s a staple of apologetics)

It’s OK – after all, it’s a staple of atheists’ commentary to assert arbitrary limitations on the meaning of Scripture.

because of this self-fulfilling prophecy now occasionally refer to him as Emmanuel.

Tell me: what’s the most stunning part of the prophecy? What’s the part which, if true, renders the prophecy ‘fulfilled’? I’m going to suggest that it’s the part that predicts the virgin birth. Moreover, I’m going to challenge your ‘plain reading’ and suggest that “they will call him Emmanuel” means “he will be recognized as God among us.” So, I get that you want to claim that the prophecy is unreasonably vague in its fulfillment, and that it was never properly fulfilled, and that Christians are bending over backward to try to make it fit. I mean, I get it – it’s part of your project. But, I think a reasonable case can be made for the prophecy and its fulfillment, without losing moral or intellectual legitimacy.