The Hebrew word Immanuel is defined by Brown Driver and Briggs as: “Immanuel (with us is God); name of child, symbolizing presence of el to deliver his people . . . is declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!” Strong’s says: “with us (is) God; Immanuel, a name of Isaiah’s son:—Immanuel.”
In other words, it does not mean, God with us in the sense of the person so named actually being God, but rather in the sense that God is with us – i.e. God is on our side, God will help us, which is what Matthew 1:21 says regarding the parallel name Jesus (“YHWH saves”) – “for he shall save his people from their sins.” Joshua in the Old Testament had the same name as Jesus. It was a declaration of the salvation available from YHWH, not a declaration that Joshua was God.
In Matthew 1:23, Immanuel is interpreted as “God with us.” This is perhaps more ambiguous than “God is with us,” but not difficult to understand. In the entire book of Matthew, there is no significant statement of anything approaching the deity of Christ. To suggest this title as evidence that Christ actually was God would leave it standing totally alone in Matthew.
The prophecy in which it occurs in Isaiah 7:14, while obviously a messianic prophecy, also obviously had a dual application, as is common with Old Testament prophecies. There was a person, a son, at the time of Isaiah, who first was given this title of Immanuel. Christ was the second or more complete fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. But, as Strong’s points out, there was also a person in Isaiah’s time who also was referred to by the title Immanuel. Isaiah 8:8 uses the same name, but if it is a messianic prophecy, it is not at all obvious. Obviously that former person titled Immanuel was not God incarnate. Simply being called “God is with us” would in no way imply that the person was actually God.
Names such as this are common in Scripture. For example in Nehemiah 11:7, there is a person listed by the name of Ithiel, which means, “God has arrived.” That certainly did not imply that his parents thought Ithiel was God, arrived in their presence. Likewise, to assert that Immanuel means “God present incarnate in this person” would do violence to the Hebrew and to the context in which it is prophesied in Isaiah.
0
Immanuel
Started by Guest_Alethia_*, Feb 02 2003 05:49 AM
11 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 113 posts
Iota
Posted 02 February 2003 - 06:59 AM
Thanks for sharing that! It was something I'd wondered about now and again! 
#3
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 107 posts
Iota
Posted 03 February 2003 - 12:49 AM
Alethia, on Feb 2 2003, 05:49 AM, said:
The Hebrew word Immanuel is defined by Brown Driand
In other words, it does not mean, God with us in the sense of the person so named actually being God, but rather in the sense that God is with us – i.e. God is on our side, God will help us
In other words, it does not mean, God with us in the sense of the person so named actually being God, but rather in the sense that God is with us – i.e. God is on our side, God will help us
"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for GOD WAS WITH HIM" (Acts.10:38)
The same statement is applied to Joseph...
"And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold Joseph into slavery: but GOD WAS WITH HIM" (Acts.7:9)
Chris
"Today I saw a red-and-yellow sunset and thought, how insignificant I am! Of course, I thought that yesterday, too, and it rained" (Woody Allen)
#4
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 1,779 posts
Rho
Posted 09 February 2003 - 12:19 PM
Quote
The Hebrew word Immanuel is defined by Brown Driver and Briggs as: “Immanuel (with us is God); name of child, symbolizing presence of el to deliver his people . . . is declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!” Strong’s says: “with us (is) God; Immanuel, a name of Isaiah’s son:—Immanuel.”
Facts are that he was "God with us" as testified by both his own words, and scripture.
- "He who has seen me has seen the father", he said in John 14:9
- Col 1:19 "in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell"
- [I]"...he was in the form of God" - Phil 2:6
Now, we know the context in which those are to be read. Surely more than enough biblical support exists to defeat the trinity (none of which i could be bothered going into for those who agree with me
)without becoming apologetic about the "Immanuel" title, doesn't it?Phil
P.S. don't be afraid to tear me to shreds if i'm totally and absolutely wrong.
#6 Guest_Alethia_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 February 2003 - 12:01 AM
Phil,
For myself, basically I agree with you. If it were not for the way the word is misused, it would not be an issue. I see no problem personally with the statement that Jesus is "God with us." But that is because of the way in which you and I understand that. We would not take that to mean that Jesus is God Incarnate in the Trinitarian view. We would take it to mean that Jesus is a physical manifestation of God, a way in which we can see God represented, which is the concept expressed by the three other passages to which you referred. It is often hard to express that point to a Trinitarian. They see the words "God with us" and leap to a different concept. So then it becomes a problem to try to find a way to express and prove the meaning of Immanuel that makes it clear that a Hebrew would not read the Incarnation into it, nor should we.
For myself, basically I agree with you. If it were not for the way the word is misused, it would not be an issue. I see no problem personally with the statement that Jesus is "God with us." But that is because of the way in which you and I understand that. We would not take that to mean that Jesus is God Incarnate in the Trinitarian view. We would take it to mean that Jesus is a physical manifestation of God, a way in which we can see God represented, which is the concept expressed by the three other passages to which you referred. It is often hard to express that point to a Trinitarian. They see the words "God with us" and leap to a different concept. So then it becomes a problem to try to find a way to express and prove the meaning of Immanuel that makes it clear that a Hebrew would not read the Incarnation into it, nor should we.
#7
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 1,779 posts
Rho
Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:18 AM
he he... don't worry, no particular dramas here either...
ideally, i'd love to see as get to a position where apologetics because of others' misunderstandings was no longer standard behaviour. My thought process goes something like this - "who cares if they are wrong, we needn't compromise truth simply to avoid looking like the fruitcakes". Especially if to accomplish that distinction we need to go stretching the meanings of words beyond their simplicity.
The old cliche of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" annoys me, so i won't use it here. Instead, i'll simply say that we need to be careful that in our attempts to not confuse or sound like the trinitarians, we don't also end up reducing both Christ's role and his efforts. Maybe we could simply ask them to put their "doctrine" another way so as not to confuse it with the biblical one...
Phil
ideally, i'd love to see as get to a position where apologetics because of others' misunderstandings was no longer standard behaviour. My thought process goes something like this - "who cares if they are wrong, we needn't compromise truth simply to avoid looking like the fruitcakes". Especially if to accomplish that distinction we need to go stretching the meanings of words beyond their simplicity.
The old cliche of "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" annoys me, so i won't use it here.
Instead, i'll simply say that we need to be careful that in our attempts to not confuse or sound like the trinitarians, we don't also end up reducing both Christ's role and his efforts. Maybe we could simply ask them to put their "doctrine" another way so as not to confuse it with the biblical one... Phil
"I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless i live; yet not i, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which i now live in the flesh i live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
- Gal 2:20
-----------------
"She was one in a million, so there's FIVE MORE JUST IN NEW SOUTH WALES!!"
- The Whitlams
- Gal 2:20
-----------------
"She was one in a million, so there's FIVE MORE JUST IN NEW SOUTH WALES!!"
- The Whitlams
#8
-
- Christadelphian
-
- 361 posts
BTDF Friendship
Posted 10 February 2003 - 07:07 AM
Good to have you back Evangelion
"A friend loveth at all times .." (Proverbs 17:17)
"The task ahead of you is never as *great* as the POWER behind you!! ".. if you have faith as small as a mustard seed .. Nothing will be impossible for you" (Matthew 17:20)
"The task ahead of you is never as *great* as the POWER behind you!! ".. if you have faith as small as a mustard seed .. Nothing will be impossible for you" (Matthew 17:20)
#9
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 107 posts
Iota
Posted 25 May 2003 - 10:35 PM
As Alethia noted, there are many Hebrew names which incorporate a reference to God, for instance -
ELLI = "God" (Yahweh)
ELIHU = "My God is He"
Yehu (Jehu) = "He is God"
There are many more examples of this as we see many OT names which incorporate "El" or "Ye". Certainly Jehu's parents were not suggesting that their child was actually "God in the flesh" by giving him this name. These type of names (like Immanuel) simply represent a certain truth about God, in keeping with their religion, which the parent's were emphasizing in desiring that their child would grow to be a godly individual.
There is a thread right now on CARM where Trins are arguing that since Immanuel means "God with us", he must actually BE God. This is just a continuance of the endless sort of "equivication" they utilize, and perhaps the weakest example yet. By the same token, we could point to dozens of OT individuals who were apparently "God in the flesh" also, per the meaning of their names.
Chris
ELLI = "God" (Yahweh)
ELIHU = "My God is He"
Yehu (Jehu) = "He is God"
There are many more examples of this as we see many OT names which incorporate "El" or "Ye". Certainly Jehu's parents were not suggesting that their child was actually "God in the flesh" by giving him this name. These type of names (like Immanuel) simply represent a certain truth about God, in keeping with their religion, which the parent's were emphasizing in desiring that their child would grow to be a godly individual.
There is a thread right now on CARM where Trins are arguing that since Immanuel means "God with us", he must actually BE God. This is just a continuance of the endless sort of "equivication" they utilize, and perhaps the weakest example yet. By the same token, we could point to dozens of OT individuals who were apparently "God in the flesh" also, per the meaning of their names.
Chris
"Today I saw a red-and-yellow sunset and thought, how insignificant I am! Of course, I thought that yesterday, too, and it rained" (Woody Allen)
#10
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 22,344 posts
Omega
Posted 26 May 2003 - 06:54 PM
Quote
This is just a continuance of the endless sort of "equivication" they utilize, and perhaps the weakest example yet.
Excellent point, echad. And not just an equivocation - a blatant double standard as well. :thumbsdown:
#11
-
- Members
-
- 253 posts
Lambda
Posted 27 March 2004 - 05:15 AM
[quote name='Alethia' date='Feb 2 2003, 05:49 AM'] The Hebrew word Immanuel is defined by Brown Driver and Briggs as: “Immanuel (with us is God); name of child, symbolizing presence of el to deliver his people . . . is declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!” Strong’s says: “with us (is) God; Immanuel, a name of Isaiah’s son:—Immanuel.”
In other words, it does not mean, God with us in the sense of the person so named actually being God, but rather in the sense that God is with us – i.e. God is on our side, God will help us, which is what Matthew 1:21 says regarding the parallel name Jesus (“YHWH saves”) – “for he shall save his people from their sins.” [/quote]
Yes, that is what Matthew intended. He did not mean "God with us" [geographically] but "God with us" [purposefully] by means of his Son Jesus.
David meant something similar when he said, "Yea though I walk through the valley of death, thou art with me."
JMW [/quote]
[quote]The Hebrew word Immanuel is defined by Brown Driver and Briggs as: “Immanuel (with us is God); name of child, symbolizing presence of el to deliver his people . . . is declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!” Strong’s says: “with us (is) God; Immanuel, a name of Isaiah’s son:—Immanuel.”
In other words, it does not mean, God with us in the sense of the person so named actually being God, but rather in the sense that God is with us – i.e. God is on our side, God will help us, which is what Matthew 1:21 says regarding the parallel name Jesus (“YHWH saves”) – “for he shall save his people from their sins.” [/quote]
Yes, that is what Matthew intended. He did not mean "God with us" [geographically] but "God with us" [purposefully] by means of his Son Jesus.
David meant something similar when he said, "Yea though I walk through the valley of death, thou art with me."
JMW
In other words, it does not mean, God with us in the sense of the person so named actually being God, but rather in the sense that God is with us – i.e. God is on our side, God will help us, which is what Matthew 1:21 says regarding the parallel name Jesus (“YHWH saves”) – “for he shall save his people from their sins.” [/quote]
Yes, that is what Matthew intended. He did not mean "God with us" [geographically] but "God with us" [purposefully] by means of his Son Jesus.
David meant something similar when he said, "Yea though I walk through the valley of death, thou art with me."
JMW [/quote]
[quote]The Hebrew word Immanuel is defined by Brown Driver and Briggs as: “Immanuel (with us is God); name of child, symbolizing presence of el to deliver his people . . . is declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!” Strong’s says: “with us (is) God; Immanuel, a name of Isaiah’s son:—Immanuel.”
In other words, it does not mean, God with us in the sense of the person so named actually being God, but rather in the sense that God is with us – i.e. God is on our side, God will help us, which is what Matthew 1:21 says regarding the parallel name Jesus (“YHWH saves”) – “for he shall save his people from their sins.” [/quote]
Yes, that is what Matthew intended. He did not mean "God with us" [geographically] but "God with us" [purposefully] by means of his Son Jesus.
David meant something similar when he said, "Yea though I walk through the valley of death, thou art with me."
JMW
#12
-
- Members
-
- 2,997 posts
Sigma
Posted 08 November 2006 - 07:28 PM
Any idea who the 10 men are representing in Zech 8? I kind of related this to the "10 kings" in revelation without a Kingdom as of yet.
Zechariah 8:23 Thus said Jehovah of Hosts: In those days take hold do ten men from all languages of the nations, Yea, they take hold in skirt of a man, a Jew/Judean, to say: We are going with you, for we hear God/Elohim [is] with you!
Zechariah 8:23 Thus said Jehovah of Hosts: In those days take hold do ten men from all languages of the nations, Yea, they take hold in skirt of a man, a Jew/Judean, to say: We are going with you, for we hear God/Elohim [is] with you!
Luke 21:22 "For these are the DAYS of VENGEANCE, that ALL THINGS which are WRITTEN may be FULFILLED1 Peter 4:7 But the End of ALL THINGS is NIGH at Hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.!
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
