Holman Bible Dictionary
(ihm man' yoo ehl)Personal name meaning, “God with us.” Name of son to be born in Isaiah's prophecy to King Ahaz (Isaiah 7:14 ) and fulfilled in birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23 ).
When King Ahaz refused to show his faith by asking God for a sign (Isaiah 7:10-12 ), Isaiah gave him a sign of the birth of Immanuel, using the traditional form of a birth announcement (Isaiah 7:14 ; compare Genesis 16:11 ; Judges 13:3 ,Judges 13:3,13:5 ). The Hebrew language apparently indicates that the prophet and king expected an immediate fulfillment. Recent study has pointed to Ahaz's wife as the woman expected to bear the child and show that God was still with the Davidic royal dynasty even in the midst of severe threat from Assyria. Such a sign would give hope to a king who trusted God but would be a constant threat to one who followed his own strategy. The double meaning of the Immanuel sign appears again in Isaiah 8:8 . The Assyrian army would flood the land until Judah was up to its neck in trouble and could only cry out, “O Immanuel”; a cry confessing that God is with us in His destructive rage but at the same time a prayer, hoping for divine intervention. Isaiah followed this with a call to the nations to lose in battle because of Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 8:10 ).
The Bible says nothing else about the effects of the Immanuel prophecy in the days of Isaiah and Ahaz. It does announce the great fulfillment in Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:22-23 ). Jesus' birth showed all humanity that God is faithful to fulfill His promises in ways far beyond human expectations; for Jesus was not just a sign of God with us. Jesus was God become flesh, God incarnate, God with us in Person.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
("God with us".) Isaiah 7:10-16; Isaiah 8:8; Matthew 1:23. "Behold (arresting attention to the extraordinary prophecy) a (Hebrew: the) virgin (primarily the woman (the foreappointed mother of the Messiah is ultimately meant by the Spirit); then a virgin, soon to become the prophet's second wife) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel .... Before the child (Isaiah's) shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good (i.e. before he reaches the age of discrimination, three years), the land (Syria and Israel then leagued in one) that thou abhorrest," etc. (rather, "the land before the face of whose two kings thou shrinkest shall be forsaken" or "desolate".) Ahaz, king of Judah, received this as a sign given by the Lord Himself, when the king refused to ask one, that Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Damascus, who had already "smitten him with a great slaughter," so that "his and his people's heart was moved as the trees of the wood with the wind" (2 Chronicles 28; Isaiah 7:1-2), should nevertheless not subdue Jerusalem, but be themselves and their land subdued.
Just two years after Pekah of Israel was slain by Hoshea, and Rezin of Damascus by Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria. Like many typical prophecies, having a primary and an ulterior fulfillment (the one mainly aimed at), this has only a partial realization in the circumstances of Isaiah's age; these are only suggestive of those which form the consummation of all prophecy (Revelation 19:10), Messiah's advent. Thus "the virgin" has its full meaning only in the virgin mother of whom Jesus was born, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit. Jeremiah 31:21-22; "O virgin of Israel ... the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man." Micah 5:3; Israel's and Judah's deliverance is ensured by the birth of Immanuel, "He will give them up, until ... she which travaileth hath brought forth." The New Testament application is not an "accommodation," for Matthew (Matthew 1:23) expressly states that Jesus' birth of the virgin "was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold," etc., "and they (no longer she) shall call His name Emmanuel."
When the prophecy received its full and exhaustive accomplishment, no longer is the sense of Immanuel restricted to the prophetess' view of it, in its partial fulfillment in her son; all then call or regard Him as peculiarly and exclusively characterized by the name "Immanuel." 1 Timothy 3:16; "God was manifest in the flesh" (Colossians 2:9). Matthew 28:20; "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." John 1:14; John 1:18. His full manifestation as "God with us" shal1 be in the "new heavens and new earth." Revelation 21:3; "behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them . . . and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God." Immanuel cannot in the strict sense apply to Isaiah's son, but only to the "CHILD ... SON ... Wonderful, the mighty God," as Isaiah expressly says Isaiah 9:6, declaring moreover that his children (Isaiah 7:3; Isaiah 7:14, etc.) are types of Him.
Isaiah 8:18; "behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs ... in Israel from the Lord of hosts," which Hebrews 2:13 quotes to prove the manhood of Messiah. Isaiah (i.e. Jehovah's salvation) typically represents Messiah as "the mighty (Hero) God," "the everlasting Father"; Isaiah's children represent Him as "Child" and "Son." Local and temporary features (as Isaiah 7:15-16) are added in every type, otherwise it would be no type, but the Antitype itself. Call His name Immanuel" means not mere appellation, for this was not the designation by which men ordinarily named Him, but His revealed character shall be what Immanuel means. Sin destroyed the faculty of intuitively perceiving, as Adam once did, the characteristics; hence the name is now generally arbitrary, and not expressive of the nature.
In the case of Jesus Christ, and many in Scripture, the Holy Spirit supplies this want. The promised birth of Messiah involved the preservation of Judah and of David's line, from which God said He should be sprung. Others explain Isaiah 7:14 to refer to the Messiah Immanuel, strictly born of the virgin. "The child" inIsaiah 7:15-16, refers to the child Shear-jashub at Isaiah's side (Isaiah 7:3). The purpose of the two smoking firebrands (Isaiah 7:4) shall come to nought, for before this child shall grow up, the two shall be extinguished. But God's purpose concerning the house of David shall stand, for the virgin shall bring forth Immanuel.
1910 New Catholic Dictionary
(Hebrew: God with us)
A title of the Messias in a series of prophecies (Isaias 7:1 to 9:7) delivered during the reign of King Achaz of Juda (735-727 B.C.). Achaz seeks salvation from the danger presented by the war with Rasin, King of Syria, and Phacee, King of Northern Israel, in an alliance with the Assyrians. Isaias in a first oracle inculcates the doctrine that in Jehovah, but in Him alone, salvation is to be found, and declares that lack of trust in Him will involve disaster: "If you will not believe, you shall not continue." In another oracle, the Prophet offers to give any sign of God's protection that Achaz may ask. The king, who is an idolater, does not deny Jehovah's power to work a miracle, but is doubtless equally convinced of the power of the gods of Assyria; he hypocritically refuses to "tempt the Lord." Then God, through His prophet, gives a sign, which is not, as many have thought, the birth of Emmanuel, but the devastation of Juda. When the House of David sees the country overrun, first by the Syrians and the Israelites of the north and then by those very Assyrians in whom they place their trust, then they will be reminded of Isaias's teaching that "salvation is in Jehovah." With the prediction of the enemy's invasion, Isaias connects the prediction of the salvation which shall come through Emmanuel; he is not, however, enlightened as regards the date of the birth of Emmanuel. He has a vision of the Virgin "conceiving and bringing forth a son"; he sees Him growing up in the midst of the poverty brought on by Achaz's wicked course, but he does not say that He will be born in the near future. In Isaias 8, the name of Emmanuel evokes the assurance of final victory for His land; in Isaias 9, He is given names which are really applicable only to a king who is at the same time God. Here at least Isaias seems to have a glimpse of the truth of the Incarnation.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
IMMANUEL . The name occurs in Isaiah 7:14 ; Isaiah 8:8 , Matthew 1:23 , and is a Heb. word meaning ‘God is with us’; the spelling Emmanuel comes from the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] (see Matthew 1:23 AV [Note: Authorized Version.] , RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ). Its interpretation involves a discussion of Isaiah 7:1-25 , esp. Isaiah 7:10-17 .
1. Grammatical difficulties . The RV [Note: Revised Version.] should be consulted throughout. The exact implication of the word ‘virgin’ or ‘maiden’ (RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ) is doubtful (see art. Virgin); it is sufficient here to say that it ‘is not the word which would be naturally used for virgin , if that was the point which it was desired to emphasize’ (Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets , p. 187). The definite article may either indicate that the prophet has some particular mother in mind, or be generic, referring to the class. In Isaiah 7:16 the renderings of RV [Note: Revised Version.] and RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] are both admissible, but the former is more probable; in Isaiah 7:16 RV [Note: Revised Version.] should be followed, AV [Note: Authorized Version.] being quite misleading. In Isaiah 8:8 there may be no reference to Immanuel at all; a very slight alteration of the vowel points would give the reading ‘â¦ of the land; for God is with us’; the refrain occurs in Isaiah 8:10 .
2. Historical situation . In b.c. 735 the kings of Syria and Ephraim formed an alliance against Judah, with the object of setting Tabeel, a nominee of their own, on the throne of David, and forcing the Southern Kingdom to join in a confederacy against Assyria. Ahaz had only lately come to the throne, and the kingdom was weak and demoralized ( 2 Kings 16:6 ). The purpose of Isaiah was to calm the terror of the people ( Isaiah 7:2 ), and to restore faith in Jehovah ( Isaiah 7:9 ). But the policy of Ahaz was to take the fatal step of Invoking the aid of Assyria itself. Hence, when the prophet offered him a sign from God, he refused to accept it, for fear of committing himself to the prophet’s policy of faith and independence. He cloaked his refusal in words of apparent piety. A sign is, however, given the birth of a child, who shall eat butter and honey ( i.e. poor pastoral fare; cf. Isaiah 7:22 ) till (?) he comes to years of discretion. Before that time, i.e. before he is four or five years old, Syria and Ephraim shall be ruined ( Isaiah 7:16 ). But Ahaz and his own kingdom shall become the prey of Assyria ( Isaiah 7:17 ); the rest of the chapter consists of pictures of desolation. The interpretation of the sign is by no means clear. Who is the child and what does his name imply? Is the sign a promise or a threat? It should be noticed, as probably an essential element in the problem, that it is the house or dynasty of David which is being attacked, and which is referred to throughout the chapter ( Isaiah 7:2 ; Isaiah 7:13 ; Isaiah 7:17 ).
3. Who is the child? (see Driver, Isaiah , p. 40 ff.). ( a ) The traditional interpretation sees in the passage a direct prophecy of the Virgin-birth of Christ, and nothing else. In what sense, then, was it a sign to Ahaz? The view runs counter to the modern conception of prophecy, which rightly demands that its primary interpretation shall be brought into relation to the ideas and circumstances of its age. The rest of the chapter does not refer to Christ, but to the troubles of the reign of Ahaz; is it legitimate to tear half a dozen words from their context, and apply them arbitrarily to an event happening generations after? ( b ) It is suggested that the maiden is the wife of Ahaz and that her son is Hezekiah, the king of whom Isaiah rightly had such high hopes; or ( c ) that she is the ‘prophetess,’ the wife of Isaiah himself. In both cases we ask why the language is so needlessly ambiguous. The chronological difficulty would seem to be fatal to ( b ), Hezekiah being almost certainly several years old in 735; and ( c ) makes the sign merely a duplication of that given in Isaiah 8:3 . It becomes a mere note of time (‘before the child grows up, certain things shall have happened’); it leaves unexplained the solemn way in which the birth is announced, the choice of the name, and its repetition in Isaiah 8:8 (if the usual reading be retained). It also separates this passage from Isaiah 9:1-7 , Isaiah 11:1-9 , which almost certainly stand in connexion with it. Similar objections may be urged against the view ( d ), which sees in the maiden any Jewish mother of marriageable age, who in spite of all appearances to the contrary may call her child, then about to be born, by a name indicating the Divine favour, in token of the coming deliverance. The point of the sign is then the mother’s faith and the period of time within which the deliverance shall be accomplished. ( e ) A more allegorical version of this interpretation explains the maiden as Zion personified, and her ‘son’ as the coming generation. But the invariable word for Zion and countries in such personifications is bethulah , not ‘almah (see art. Virgin). ( f ) There remains the view which sees in the passage a reference to a Messiah in the wider use of the term, as understood by Isaiah and his contemporaries. There probably already existed in Judah the expectation of an ideal king and deliverer, connected with the house of David ( 2 Samuel 7:12-16 ). Now at the moment when that house is attacked and its representative proves himself unworthy, Isaiah announces in oracular language the immediate coming of that king. The reference in 2 Samuel 8:8 , and the passages in chs. 9, 11, will then fall into their place side by side with this. They show that the prophet’s thoughts were at this period dwelling much on the fate and the work of the ‘wondrous child,’ who will, in fact, be a scion of the house of David ( 2 Samuel 9:7 , 2 Samuel 11:1 ). Strong support is given to this view by Micah 5:3 (‘until the time when she that beareth hath brought forth’); whether the passage belong to Micah himself, a contemporary of Isaiah, or be of later date, it is clearly a reference to Isaiah 7 , and is of great importance as an indication of the ideas current at the time. With regard to the beliefs of the time, evidence has been lately brought forward (esp. by Jeremias and Gressmann) showing that outside Israel (particularly in Egypt and Babylonia) there existed traditions and expectations of a semi-divine saviour-king, to be born of a divine, perhaps a virgin, mother, and to be wonderfully reared. That is to say, there was an already existing tradition to which the prophet could appeal, and which is presupposed by his words; note esp. ‘ the virgin.’ How much the tradition included, we cannot say; e.g. did it include the name ‘Immanuel’? The ‘butter and honey’ seems to be a pre-existing feature, representing originally the Divine nourishment on which the child is reared; so, according to the Greek legend, the infant Zeus is fed on milk and honey in the cave on Ida. But in the prophecy, as it stands, it seems to be used of the hard fare which alone is left to the inhabitants of an invaded land. We must indeed distinguish throughout between the conceptions of the primitive myth, and the sense in which the prophet applies these conceptions. The value of the supposition that he was working on the lines of popular beliefs ready to his hand, is that it explains how his hearers would be prepared to understand his oracular language, and suggests that much that is obscure to us may have been clear to them. It confirms the view that the prophecy was intended to be Messianic, i.e. to predict the birth of a mysterious saviour.
4. Was the sign favourable or not? The text, as it stands, leaves it very obscure whether Isaiah gave Ahaz a promise or a threat. The fact that the king had hardened his heart may have turned the sign which should have been of good omen into something different. The name of the child and Isaiah 7:16 speak of deliverance; Isaiah 7:15-17 and the rest of the chapter, of judgment. It is perfectly true that Isaiah’s view of the future was that Ephraim and Syria should be destroyed, that Judah should also suffer from Assyrian invasion, but that salvation should come through the faithful remnant. The difficulty is to extract this sense from the passage. The simplest method is to follow the critics who omit Isaiah 7:16 , or at least the words ‘whose two kings thou abhorrest’; ‘the land’ will then refer naturally to Judah; if referring, as it is usually understood, to Syria and Ephraim, the singular is very strange. The prophecy is then a consistent announcement of judgment. Immanuel shall be born, but owing to the unbelief of Ahaz, his future is mortgaged and he is born only to a ruined kingdom (cf. Isaiah 8:8 ); it is not stated in this passage whether the hope implied in his name will ever he realized. Others would omit Isaiah 8:17 , and even Isaiah 8:15 , making the sign a promise of the failure of the coalition. Whatever view be adopted, the inconsistencies of the text make it at least possible that it has suffered from interpolation, and that we have not got the prophecy in its original form. The real problem is not to account for the name ‘Immanuel,’ or for the promise of a saviour-king, but to understand what part he plays in the rest of the chapter. Connected with this is the further difficulty of explaining why the figure of the Messianic king disappears almost entirely from Isaiah’s later prophecies.
5. Its application to the Virgin-birth . The full discussion of the quotation in Matthew 1:23 is part of the larger subjects of Messianic prophecy, the Virgin-birth, and the Incarnation. The following points may be noticed here. ( a ) Though the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] (which has parthenos ‘virgin’) and the Alexandrian Jews apparently interpreted the passage in a Messianic sense and of a virgin-birth, there is no evidence to show that this interpretation was sufficiently prominent and definite to explain the rise of the belief in the miraculous conception. The text was applied to illustrate the fact or the belief in the fact; the fact was not imagined to meet the requirements of the text. The formula used in the quotation suggests that it belongs to a series of OT passages drawn up in the primitive Church to illustrate the life of Christ (see Allen, St. Matthew , p. lxii.). ( b ) The text would not now be used as a proof of the Incarnation. ‘Immanuel’ does not in itself imply that the child was regarded as God, but only that he was to be the pledge of the Divine presence, and endowed in a special sense with the spirit of Jehovah (cf. Isaiah 11:2 ). The Incarnation ‘fulfils’ such a prophecy, because Christ is the true realization of the vague and half-understood longings of the world, both heathen and Jewish.
C. W. Emmet.
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology
When the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, he learned that his fianc Mary was "with child through the Holy Spirit" and would give birth to a son named "Immanuel" (Matthew 1:18,23 ). "Immanuel" is a Hebrew word meaning "God with us" and expresses the wonder of the incarnation, that God "became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14 ). In the Old Testament God's presence with his people Israel was particularly evident in the tabernacle (Exodus 25:8 ), but the glory that filled the tabernacle was surpassed by the personal presence of God the Son as he revealed the Father during his ministry on earth. Christ's glory was revealed through the miracles he performed (John 2:11 ).
The birth of Immanuel to the virgin Mary fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 , the sign given to Ahaz about seven hundred years earlier. At that time the wicked Ahaz ignored Isaiah's advice and appealed to the king of Assyria for help in a political crisis. Both the context of Isaiah 7 and the use of "Immanuel" two more times in chapter 8 (vv. 8,10) raise the distinct possibility that the sign had a near fulfillment that affected Ahaz directly. Such a possibility is supported by the two verses immediately after 7:14 that tell us that the boy will still be young when Ahaz's enemies—the kings of Samaria and Damascus—will lose their power (a prediction fulfilled in 732 b.c.). The birth of a boy who would serve as a sign to Ahaz appears to be closely linked to the birth of Isaiah's son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1-4. Both Immanuel in 7:15-16 and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:4 are young children when Damascus and Samaria collapse. And in 8:8 the two boys may be identified as Isaiah addresses Immanuel as if he were already present in Jerusalem. Verse 10 contains another occurrence of "Immanuel" in the words "God is with us." The prophet was challenging Ahaz to trust God, who was "with" his people just as he had promised to be with them constantly. In Numbers 14:9 Joshua and Caleb had urged the Israelites to acknowledge that the Lord was with them and to begin the conquest of Canaan, but just like Ahaz the people chose the path of unbelief with its tragic consequences. An earlier king of Judah, Abijah, believed that God was with his people as they faced the numerically superior army of Jeroboam. Abijah's faith was honored as the Lord gave him a resounding victory ( 2 Chronicles 13:12-15 ).
If "Immanuel" was another name for Isaiah's son, the use of "virgin" for Isaiah's wife refers to the time when she was his fianc. The sign of Isaiah 7:14 constitutes a blessing on an upcoming marriage, predicting that a virgin who was engaged to be married would be able to have a child early in the marriage. Unlike Mary she was not a virgin after she became pregnant. It is likely that Isaiah's marriage to a prophetess is in fact briefly described in 8:1-3. Matthew's use of this verse was extraordinarily appropriate in light of Mary's unique virginity and the incarnation of Jesus, who was God in the flesh. Matthew ends his Gospel with Jesus' own assurance to his disciples that he was Immanuel: "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (28:20).
Herbert M. Wolf
See also Virgin Birth
Bibliography . J. Lindblom, A Study of the Immanuel Section in Isaiah ; J. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39 ; H. M. Wolf, Interpreting Isaiah .
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
IMMANUEL (Ἐμμανουήλ) occurs once only in the NT (Matthew 1:23, in the quotation from Isaiah 7:14 where the name is given in the form עִמָנואל). It is necessary, first of all, to examine the original prophecy before discussing the Evangelist’s application of it to Jesus.
1. The circumstances which led to the prediction were as follows. Probably under the influence of a wish to force Judah into a coalition against Assyria, an attack was made on the southern kingdom by Syria and Ephraim about 735–734 (Isaiah 7:1 ff.). The attack was specially directed against the Davidic dynasty, and it was the object of the allies to dethrone Ahaz and set the son of Tabeel in his place (Isaiah 7:6). The invasion filled Ahaz with panic, and he resolved to call in the aid of Tiglath-pileser, the king of Assyria (2 Kings 16:7 ff.). Between the great Empire of Assyria and the petty State of Judah there could be no talk of equal alliance, Judah must forfeit its independence and become a vassal of Assyria. This involved heavy taxation and the loss of all power of independent action. Taxation would only aggravate the social misery and ruthless oppression from which the poor were suffering, and make it more difficult than ever to carry through those social reforms which the prophets regarded as most necessary. Accordingly, Isaiah vehemently opposed the king’s project. He made light of the danger from Syria and Ephraim, and stigmatized the allies as fag-ends of smoking firebrands, which might cause considerable annoyance, but had lost all power for serious mischief. He bade Ahaz be quiet and fearless, assuring him that God would frustrate the designs of his foes (Isaiah 7:4 ff.), but warning him that his stability depended on his faith (Isaiah 7:9). Possibly our present text is somewhat abbreviated, but at any rate Isaiah, either on that or possibly another occasion, offered him a sign in confirmation of his assurance, placing the universe from Sheol to Heaven at his disposal. Ahaz refused, since he had already made up his mind, but pretended that his unwillingness was prompted by reluctance to tempt God. The prophet passionately cries out against the conduct which, not content with wearying men, goes on to weary God. Then he proceeds to give the king a sign from God Himself, namely, the sign of Immanuel (Isaiah 7:10 ff.).
The translation of the Hebrew is itself somewhat uncertain. It may now be taken for granted that the word עַלִמָה translated ‘virgin’ in the Authorized and Revised Versions should be more correctly rendered ‘young woman.’ The proper Heb. term for ‘virgin’ is בִּתוּלָה, though even this is used in Joel 1:8 for ‘young widow.’ All that can with certainty be said of the word used by Isaiah is that it indicates a young woman of marriageable age, but says nothing as to whether she is married or not. Accordingly the terms of the prophecy do not warrant us in interpreting the sign as the prodigy of a virgin conception. The natural interpretation to put on the prophecy is that a young woman, either married at the time or soon to be married, would give birth to a son and call him by this name. It is also uncertain whether we should translate with Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘shall conceive’ or with (Revised Version margin) ‘is with child.’ The former is, however, perhaps the more probable. The third question is whether we should translate ‘a virgin’ or ‘the virgin.’ The Hebrew has the article, which is correctly rendered ‘the virgin,’ in which case some definite person is in the prophet’s mind. But Hebrew idiom often uses the definite article where in English we should translate indefinitely, so that ‘a virgin’ is equally correct as a rendering of the Hebrew.
These uncertainties as to the precise meaning of the words themselves naturally leave much room for difference of opinion, and this is largely increased by other uncertainties. It is therefore desirable to narrow the range of possible interpretation as much as possible. It is clear, in the first place, that the prophet is referring to something in the near future, otherwise the sign could have conveyed no message to the king, all the more that his difficulty was urgent. In the next place, we must beware of supposing that anything extraordinary is necessarily intended by the sign. Isaiah walked in captive’s dress for a sign and a wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia (Isaiah 20:3), certainly not because of any miraculous character attached to his conduct (cf. also Isaiah 8:18). With these considerations in mind we may approach the question, What message was the sign intended to convey? When Ahaz had been bidden ask a sign, the object was to convince him that his enemies would be overthrown and their alliance against him come to nought. We naturally expect that the sign volunteered by the prophet will have the same significance. Yet there are objections to this view. It may be argued that Ahaz’ refusal to ask a sign introduced a new element into the situation, especially after the warning in Isaiah 7:9; and if he rejected a sign assuring him of deliverance, it would not be strange if he received one that was ominous of disaster. And such a sign, according to our present text, we seem to possess. For the prediction in Isaiah 7:15, that Immanuel should eat curdled milk and honey, implies that Judah would have reverted from the agricultural to the pastoral state, in other words, would have suffered a devastation at the hands of an enemy. And this is confirmed by Isaiah 7:17, wherein a terrible invasion bringing a disaster unprecedented since the days of Rehoboam is predicted. On the other hand, this is difficult to harmonize with Isaiah 7:16, at any rate in its present form, for that gives as the meaning of the sign that before the child knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings Ahaz abhors will be forsaken. In other words, Isaiah 7:16 interprets the sign as the desolation of Syria and Ephraim. It is therefore a sign, not of disaster to Judah, but of deliverance. We are accordingly confronted with the problem whether the original text is here preserved. It would suffice to bring Isaiah 7:16 into harmony with Isaiah 7:15; Isaiah 7:17 if the former were to read simply ‘for before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, thy land shall be forsaken’; and several scholars have adopted this expedient. In that case the sign is simply one of disaster for Judah. Nevertheless there are serious difficulties in the way of accepting this solution, and the question is forced upon us whether more radical measures are not necessary. Even with the suggested abbreviation of Isaiah 7:16 it does not connect so well with Isaiah 7:15 as with Isaiah 7:14. But apart from that, there are other arguments for treating the sign as favourable. The name Immanuel itself, expressing the conviction that God was with His people, might, of course, be harmonized with either verse, it gains significance only on account of the distress in which the name was given, the mother’s faith is a sign only when experience seems to contradict it. The name might therefore be given in the midst of the trouble caused by the Syrian invasion or in the greater distress that was to follow from Assyria. But Isaiah certainly anticipated the overthrow of Syria and Ephraim. Not only so, but a little later, in the public exhibition on a tablet of the word Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and nearly a year later in the giving of this name to his newborn son, he expressed his faith in the overthrow of the coalition. It is indeed urged that the sign of Immanuel would thus be only a duplication of the sign of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, but there seems to be no reason why such a duplication should be objectionable. Moreover, there is a significant parallelism between the two which points to such an identification of meaning. The time limit in both cases is very similar. In the one case it is before the child shall know to say ‘my father and my mother’; in other words, the events described are to happen before the infant who has just been born has learnt to utter the first things that a child says. The other time limit is precisely similar, ‘before the child knows to refuse the evil and choose the good.’ By this the prophet need not mean before he comes to years of moral discretion, but before he learns to distinguish between good and harmful food. And the very fact that a year later Isaiah was still concerned mainly with the invasion of the allies and in asserting his conviction of their overthrow, surely makes it probable that the same question preoccupies his attention here. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the obstinacy of Ahaz would make any difference to the character of the sign. Unless we are explicitly warned to the contrary, it is natural to assume that the sign given possessed the same significance as the sign offered. The present writer accordingly takes the view that the sign is of a favourable character. This involves, it is true, the elimination of Isaiah 7:15 (and perhaps of Isaiah 7:17, though this may belong to another prophecy), but in any case something has to be struck out of the passage to secure consistency. It might, of course, seem easier to eliminate a few words in Isaiah 7:16 than to strike out a whole verse. Nevertheless, when we look at Isaiah 7:16 we see that it is practically compounded of part of Isaiah 7:22 and part of Isaiah 7:16, whereas the words ‘whose two kings thou abhorrest’ make a much greater impression of originality.
The question accordingly arises, in what precisely did the sign consist? The stress may lie either on the עַלְמָה, or the son, or the name given to him, or a combination of these. The traditional interpretation has, of course, thrown the stress on the first of these; for it the sign lay in the virgin-conception. But when the true sense of עַלִמָה is understood, this interpretation becomes impossible. If she were one of the king’s wives, then the child would be the king’s son, and the possibility of an identification with the Messiah would have to be considered, it would be possible to accept, with McCurdy, the identification of Immanuel with Hezekiah, the chronological difficulties not being altogether insuperable. A third possible alternative would be to accept the view taken by several scholars, most recently by Whitehouse in the Bible, and identify the עַלִמָה with the community in Zion. We have no evidence, however, that this term was used at that time for the Jewish community, and the identification with one of the king’s wives must also be pronounced improbable, in spite of the fact that the trouble was dynastic even more than national, directed against the Davidic house rather than against Judah as a whole. Nor is there any reason for identifying Immanuel with the Messianic king mentioned in Isaiah 9:1-7 and Isaiah 11:1-9. It is true that, according to the present text of Isaiah 8:8, the land of Judah is represented as Immanuel’s land, but it is probable that the text should be corrected in harmony with Isaiah 8:10.* [Note: Probably instead of ‘thy land, O Immanuel,’ we should read ‘the land, for God is with us,’ thus getting a refrain at the end of v. 8 to match that at the end of v. 10. In that case the figure of the bird with wings spread over the land is a symbol of God’s protecting care of Judah, shielding her from the combination of all earthly foes. The extreme abruptness of the transition from threat to promise makes it highly probable that " translation="">Isaiah 8:8 b–10 is a fragment not connected with the preceding verses. It must even he granted that Marti may be right in regarding it as a later addition; for although the prophecy may be explained as Isaiah’s, on the supposition that he is addressing the forces of Assyria as composed of various nationalities, yet taken by itself the reference to the coalition of the far nations against Judah recurs as a standing feature of the later apocalyptic.] We may then set aside the Messianic identification. With the correction of Isaiah 8:8 no reason remains for considering that the personality of Immanuel is an important element in the sign; it is in harmony with similar cases that it is the name and not the person who bears it that is important. This is true, for example, of Hosea’s children, and, what is still more to the point, of Isaiah’s children. The prophetic significance both of Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz lies not in the children themselves, but exclusively in their names. We expect the same to be true in this case. Just as the names of Isaiah’s two children express, the one his doctrine of the remnant, the other his certainty that Syria and Ephraim would be overthrown, so the name Immanuel expresses the mother’s conviction that God is with His people. The sign is no prodigy in this case. For against the king’s unbelief and his obstinate refusal to accept a sign there arises the mother’s impressive faith, which confronted danger without dismay, and uttered her conviction of God’s presence with His people in the name she gave her son. The personality of the mother is equally with that of the son of no importance for the sign; that consists in the mother’s faith and the son’s name. Accordingly it is better to translate ‘a young woman’ instead of ‘the young woman.’ Isaiah, however, does not mean precisely that any young woman, who is shortly about to conceive and give birth to a son, may call his name Immanuel. While he has no definite young woman in his mind, he predicts that some young woman will, in the future, conceive and bear a son, to whom she will give the name Immanuel. His language is not that of hypothesis but of prediction.* [Note: The connexion of v. 16 with v. 14 is as follows. A young woman will bear a son and call his name Immanuel. This will be a sign, for it will express a faith which triumphs over the appearance of imminent disaster. And it is truly God-inspired faith, for it will be splendidly vindicated. Ere the child thus born in days of darkness knows how to distinguish between hurtful and proper food, the hostile power will be crushed, and thus God’s presence with His people will be clearly manifested. Immanuel will be a standing rebuke to the king’s scepticism.]
2. The way is now clear to discuss St. Matthew’s use of the passage. This is not the place to examine the subject either of the Virgin-conception of Christ or of the early Christian interpretation of prophecy. It is quite plain that this interpretation was in general very little controlled by the original sense of the OT passage quoted. It was of a largely polemical character, since it was necessary, against the cavilling of the Jews, to prove the Messiahship of Jesus from the OT. Accordingly the Hebrew Scriptures were ransacked to find parallels with the life of Christ; and it is not unlikely that, at a quite early period, collections of these passages were drawn up for controversial use. The First Gospel is peculiarly rich in Messianic proof-texts, and it is therefore not surprising that for two facts so important to the author as the Virgin-conception and the Incarnation the writer should allege an OT prophecy. But the fact that he has done so creates a very interesting problem, which, however, will be approached differently by those who accept the Virgin-conception as a fact and by those who dispute it. For the former, the fact itself is the starting-point, and the author had to find in the OT a text appropriate to it. The only question that would really arise would be as to the part played by the LXX Septuagint in suggesting Isaiah 7:14. In this passage the LXX Septuagint renders עַלִמָה by παρθένος,, which suggests virginity much more strongly than the Hebrew word. At the same time, the fact that the LXX Septuagint so translated shows that the author of the First Gospel may independently have taken the word in the same sense. That he did so is rendered not improbable by the fact that his translation differs in some points from that of the LXX Septuagint.† [Note: The LXX of is 7:14 reads in B: διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτός ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ η ταρθενος ἑν γαστρὶ λήμψεται καὶ τεξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὀνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουήλ. For λήμψεται, however, אAQ read ἔξει, which is the same rendering as that in Matthew. For καλέσεις we have in אκαλέσει; neither B nor א here coincide with Matthew. The text in " translation="">Matthew 1:23 reads ἰδοὺ ἡ ταρθενος ἑν γαστρὶ ἔξει καὶ τεξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὁνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουηλ.] The significance for the doctrine of the Incarnation of the name Immanuel, which might be translated ‘God with us’ as well as ‘God is with us,’ probably first drew his attention to the passage, and then the translation of עַלִמָה by παρθένος would readily be suggested by his belief in the Virgin-conception.
Among those, however, who regard the belief in the Virgin-birth as a piece of primitive Christian mythology, there has been a controversy as to what led the author to quote this passage, and the relation between that belief and the passage in Isaiah. Many think that the former was created by the latter,* [Note: Harnack: ‘Even the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin sprang from " translation="">Isaiah 7:14 … The conjecture of Usener, that the idea of the birth from a virgin is a heathen myth which was received by the Christians, contradicts the entire earliest development of Christian tradition, which is free from heathen myths, so far as these had not already been received by wide circles of Jews (above all, certain Babylonian and Persian myths), which in the case of that idea is not demonstrable. Besides, it is in point of method not permissible to stray so far when we have near at hand such a complete explanation as " translation="">Isaiah 7:14, (History of Dogma, i. p. 100, n. 1). Harnack, it is true, does not assert that it was the LXX rendering which created the belief, though it may be presumed that this is his view. He is not divided in principle from Gunkel and Cheyne, since he admits that heathen myths had come into Christianity through Judaism, but he considers that the Virgin-birth does not as a matter of fact belong to these, and that an extra-Jewish source should not be sought when a Jewish source is at hand. Lobstein characterizes the method applied to the documents of the Bible by Usener as ‘supremely defective,’ and, after admitting the ‘remarkable likenesses to our Gospel tradition’ in the pagan parallels he has accumulated, says: ‘Yet the conclusions which he draws from them go singularly beyond his premisses: the Jewish and Christian factors suffice to explain the genesis of the myth of the Nativity’ (The Virgin Birth of Christ, pp. 128, 129, cf. pp. 75, 76). He thinks the LXX translation responsible for ‘the religious construction adopted by the Evangelist’ (pp. 74, 75).] and probably in the form given to it by the LXX Septuagint translation. The Hebrew, it is thought, would not naturally have lent itself to this purpose apart from the definite use of παρθένος in the LXX Septuagint. Several recent scholars, on the other hand, consider that the use of παρθένος is quite insufficient to account for St. Matthew’s quotation. They consider that even, before the birth of Jesus there had been formed a doctrine of the Messiah, which included among other things His supernatural birth. This was ultimately derived from the pagan stories of children of the gods, but was not taken over directly from paganism by Jewish Christianity. It had arisen on the soil of Judaism itself, and it is in the Judaeo-pagan syncretism, with its doctrine that the Messiah must be born of a virgin, that the origin of the belief is to be sought. What was said of Christ was subsequently transferred to Jesus, when Jesus and the Christ were identified. A quotation from Gunkel will make this position clear. After saying that the mythological representations did not make their first appearance in the later Gentile Christianity, he proceeds: ‘But this would have been impossible if Judaism itself had not previously possessed this or similar representations. The birth of Christ from the Virgin through the Divine Spirit had, we may assume, already belonged to the Christological dogma before Jesus, just as His birth in Bethlehem and from David’s race, and has been transferred to Jesus only at a later time. What we have to learn then, and what will subsequently be shown again, is that this Judaism which found its way into primitive Christianity must have been strongly inclined to syncretism’ (Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstandnis des NT, p. 69). Similarly, Cheyne, in his Bible Problems, considers that the historical explanation of the statement of the Virgin-birth is that it arose ‘in the story of non-Jewish origin current in Jewish circles and borrowed from them by certain Jewish Christians.’ He interprets ‘virgin’ in a peculiar sense. In its original meaning ‘it expresses the fact that the great mythic mother-goddess was independent of the marriage tie’ (p. 75). For him the passage in Mt. ‘is a Jewish-Christian transformation of a primitive story, derived ultimately, in all probability, from Babylonia, and analogous to the Jewish transformation of the Babylonian cosmogony in the opening section of Genesis’* [Note: also the important remarks on pp. 193–195. He thinks the translation ταρθενος is so far from accounting for the belief in the Virgin-birth that it needs to be explained itself. ‘In " translation="">Isaiah 7:14 the translator must have had some special motive, and that motive must have been not philological, but, if I may say so, ideological.’ ‘As for the quotation in " translation="">Matthew 1:22 f. it is perfectly well accounted for as one of the subsidiary Biblical proofs which were habitually sought for by the evangelists. The real supports of their statements were traditions of one kind or another, but their belief in the written word of prophecy led them to look for a justification of these traditions in the prophetic scriptions and the prophecies had a common origin.’ The same view is taken by the scholars who regard the doctrine as purely pagan in origin. See, e.g., Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum2, i. pp. 551, 694, where he affirms that Mt.’s use of " translation="">Isaiah 7:14 was possible only for one who had already quite other grounds for ascribing that origin to Jesus.] (p. 93). On the other hand, a good many scholars take the view that the story was created, not simply out of pagan materials, but on pagan soil and among Gentile Christians. This is the view of Usener, Schmiedel, Soltau, Pfleiderer, and others (see references below). It does not fall within the scope of this article to discuss this question further, since it is concerned simply with the bearing of the LXX Septuagint translation of עַלִמָה by παρθένος on the development of the belief in the Virgin-conception of Christ. To rebut the Christian use of Isaiah 7:14 as a prediction of the supernatural birth of Christ, later Jewish translators substituted νεᾶνις for παρθένος. See Virgin Birth.
Literature.—In addition to commentaries on Isaiah and Matthew, and articles on ‘Immanuel’ in Dictionaries of the Bible, reference may be made to the articles ‘Mary’ and ‘Nativity’ in the Encyc. Bibl.; Giesebrecht, SK [Note: K Studien und Kritiken.] , 1888; Porter, JBL [Note: BL Journal of Biblical Literature.] , 1895; McCurdy, II PM, vol. i. pp. 368–371, 417–420; Soltau, The Birth of Jesus Christ, pp. 50–52; Lobstein, The Virgin Birth of Christ, pp. 73–75, 128–130; Cheyne, Bible Problems, pp. 67–100, 191–195; Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , i. pp. 551, 694; Harnack, History of Dogma, i. p. 100, n. [Note: note.] 1; Box, ‘The Gospel Narratives of the Nativity and the alleged Influence of Heathen Ideas’ in ZNTW [Note: NTW Zeitschrift für die Neutest. Wissen. schaft.] , 1905, p. 80 ff.
A. S. Peake.
Morrish Bible Dictionary
Names of the Messiah prophetically announced, meaning "God with us." The introduction of this name is remarkable. Ahaz king of Judah, being attacked by Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel — and there being also a disposition to form a confederacy to set up the son of Tabeal, and so reject the son of David, which Ahaz was — Isaiah was sent to tell him to be quiet and fear not. Jehovah then told Ahaz to ask for a sign, either in the deep or in the height above; but Ahaz refused to ask; therefore the Lord gave him this sign, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." Isaiah 7:14,15 .
It has been asked, How could this be a sign to Ahaz, seeing that this event did not take place till centuries after? The prophetic announcement of the birth of such a child was the present evidence to faith that whatever combinations men might make, the remnant could count on God: see Isaiah 8:9,10 , where they say, "God is with us." It should be noticed that there are two prophetic children: the one (Shear-jashub) figurative of the remnant, and Immanuel; so the prophecy continues, "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou fearest shall be forsaken" (as Isaiah 7:16 should be translated). In Isaiah 7:3 of this chapter Isaiah had been told, when he went to meet Ahaz, to take his symbolical child Shear-jashub ('the remnant shall return') with him. And doubtless Isaiah 7:16 refers to Shearjashub; and before this child could have grown to maturity, Pekah had been killed by Hoshea, and Damascus had been taken and Rezin slain by the king of Assyria. 2 Kings 15:30 ; 2 Kings 16:9 .
It may seem strange that there should be no break between Isaiah 7:15 and Isaiah 7:16 , as the one verse refers to Immanuel, and the other to Shearjashub; but such abrupt transitions are not unusual in prophetic scriptures. When the Lord was in the temple, and speaking of His Father's house, He was asked for a sign, He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," referring to His body. And in the prophecies the future is often closely associated with what related to passing events. In Isaiah 8:8 it is foretold that the wing of the king of Assyria should fill the breadth of the land — the land of Immanuel — which took place soon after, yet this is a type of the Assyrian's attacks in the last days.
In the N.T. we get the fulfilment of the above prophecy: Mary the virgin conceived and brought forth her Son. His name was Jesus, and also Emmanuel, 'God with us,' showing that He was God, and became man. Matthew 1:23 .
People's Dictionary of the Bible
Immanuel (im-măn'u-el), God with us. The name given to the child whose birth the prophet Isaiah was authorized to announce to Ahaz when the confederacy was formed by Israel and Syria against Judah. Isaiah 7:1-16. This passage has been cited by Matthew, and specially applied to the birth of Christ, Matthew 1:22-23, who is rightly regarded as "God with us" and as ever present in his church and with his people through the ages of the world. Matthew 28:20.
Hitchcock's Bible Names
God with us
The Hawker's Poor Man's Concordance And Dictionary
American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
See EMMANUEL .
Easton's Bible Dictionary
God with us. In the Old Testament it occurs only in Isaiah 7:14,8:8 . Most Christian interpreters have regarded these words as directly and exclusively a prophecy of our Saviour, an interpretation borne out by the words of the evangelist (Matthew 1:23 ).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Meaning ‘God with us’, the name ‘Immanuel’ was given at first to a child born in the time of Ahaz, king of Judah (735-716 BC). The birth and naming of the child was a sign of assurance to the king and his people that God was with them to protect them during an enemy attack (Isaiah 7:10-16; see AHAZ).
The promise given to Ahaz was quoted in the New Testament by Matthew in relation to the birth of Jesus Christ. The virgin Mary also would conceive and give birth to a son named Immanuel, but in this case ‘God with us’ meant much more. In Jesus Christ, God actually came and lived as a man among the inhabitants of earth (Matthew 1:18-23; John 1:14). (For fuller discussion see VIRGIN.)
Kantian - ) Of or pertaining to Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher; conformed or relating to any or all of the philosophical doctrines of Immanuel Kant
Emmanuel - See Immanuel
Emmanuel - See Immanuel
Emmanuel - —See Immanuel
Emmanuel - ) See Immanuel
Emmanuel - See Immanuel
Emman'Uel - (Matthew 1:23 ) [Immanuel ]
Emmanuel - (em man' yoo ehl) See Immanuel
Emmanuel - (See Immanuel
Immanuel - When the angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, he learned that his fianc Mary was "with child through the Holy Spirit" and would give birth to a son named "Immanuel" (Matthew 1:18,23 ). "Immanuel" is a Hebrew word meaning "God with us" and expresses the wonder of the incarnation, that God "became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14 ). ...
The birth of Immanuel to the virgin Mary fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 , the sign given to Ahaz about seven hundred years earlier. Both the context of Isaiah 7 and the use of "Immanuel" two more times in chapter 8 (vv. Both Immanuel in 7:15-16 and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:4 are young children when Damascus and Samaria collapse. And in 8:8 the two boys may be identified as Isaiah addresses Immanuel as if he were already present in Jerusalem. Verse 10 contains another occurrence of "Immanuel" in the words "God is with us. ...
If "Immanuel" was another name for Isaiah's son, the use of "virgin" for Isaiah's wife refers to the time when she was his fianc. Matthew ends his Gospel with Jesus' own assurance to his disciples that he was Immanuel: "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (28:20). Lindblom, A Study of the Immanuel Section in Isaiah ; J
Emmanuel - or Immanuel, "God with us
Immanuel - ...
When King Ahaz refused to show his faith by asking God for a sign (Isaiah 7:10-12 ), Isaiah gave him a sign of the birth of Immanuel, using the traditional form of a birth announcement (Isaiah 7:14 ; compare Genesis 16:11 ; Judges 13:3 ,Judges 13:3,13:5 ). The double meaning of the Immanuel sign appears again in Isaiah 8:8 . The Assyrian army would flood the land until Judah was up to its neck in trouble and could only cry out, “O Immanuel”; a cry confessing that God is with us in His destructive rage but at the same time a prayer, hoping for divine intervention. Isaiah followed this with a call to the nations to lose in battle because of Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 8:10 ). ...
The Bible says nothing else about the effects of the Immanuel prophecy in the days of Isaiah and Ahaz
Imperative, Categorical - A term coined by Immanuel Kant to characterize the moral law as thus enunciated: ...
"Act so as to use humanity, in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means
Categorical Imperative - A term coined by Immanuel Kant to characterize the moral law as thus enunciated: ...
"Act so as to use humanity, in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means
Immanuel - Meaning ‘God with us’, the name ‘Immanuel’ was given at first to a child born in the time of Ahaz, king of Judah (735-716 BC). The virgin Mary also would conceive and give birth to a son named Immanuel, but in this case ‘God with us’ meant much more
Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz - ) As Immanuel, Isaiah's (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 8:1-4) first son by the virgin, was the sign of Judah's deliverance, so Maher-shalal-hash-baz the second son is the sign of destruction to Judah's enemies, Syria and Samaria. (See Immanuel
Immanuel - "Behold (arresting attention to the extraordinary prophecy) a (Hebrew: the) virgin (primarily the woman (the foreappointed mother of the Messiah is ultimately meant by the Spirit); then a virgin, soon to become the prophet's second wife) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel . " Micah 5:3; Israel's and Judah's deliverance is ensured by the birth of Immanuel, "He will give them up, until . "...
When the prophecy received its full and exhaustive accomplishment, no longer is the sense of Immanuel restricted to the prophetess' view of it, in its partial fulfillment in her son; all then call or regard Him as peculiarly and exclusively characterized by the name "Immanuel. " Immanuel cannot in the strict sense apply to Isaiah's son, but only to the "CHILD . Call His name Immanuel" means not mere appellation, for this was not the designation by which men ordinarily named Him, but His revealed character shall be what Immanuel means. Others explain Isaiah 7:14 to refer to the Messiah Immanuel, strictly born of the virgin. But God's purpose concerning the house of David shall stand, for the virgin shall bring forth Immanuel
Immanuel - Immanuel (im-măn'u-el), God with us
Immanuel, Emmanuel - Jehovah then told Ahaz to ask for a sign, either in the deep or in the height above; but Ahaz refused to ask; therefore the Lord gave him this sign, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. " It should be noticed that there are two prophetic children: the one (Shear-jashub) figurative of the remnant, and Immanuel; so the prophecy continues, "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou fearest shall be forsaken" (as Isaiah 7:16 should be translated). ...
It may seem strange that there should be no break between Isaiah 7:15 and Isaiah 7:16 , as the one verse refers to Immanuel, and the other to Shearjashub; but such abrupt transitions are not unusual in prophetic scriptures. In Isaiah 8:8 it is foretold that the wing of the king of Assyria should fill the breadth of the land — the land of Immanuel — which took place soon after, yet this is a type of the Assyrian's attacks in the last days
Interpret - --Immanuel, which being interpreted, signified, God with us
Pekah - (See AHAZ; OBED; Immanuel. ...
But his plot with Rezin to set aside the line of David, and raise "the son of Tabeal" (probably a Syrian favored by a party in Jerusalem: Isaiah 8:6; Isaiah 8:9; Isaiah 8:12) to the throne of Judah, was ultimately frustrated according to God's purpose and word (Isaiah 7:1-16), for "Immanuel" must succeed as Son and Heir of David, which Pekah's plot was incompatible with
Immanuel - Immanuel (Ἐμμανουήλ) occurs once only in the NT (Matthew 1:23, in the quotation from Isaiah 7:14 where the name is given in the form עִמָנואל). Then he proceeds to give the king a sign from God Himself, namely, the sign of Immanuel (Isaiah 7:10 ff. For the prediction in Isaiah 7:15, that Immanuel should eat curdled milk and honey, implies that Judah would have reverted from the agricultural to the pastoral state, in other words, would have suffered a devastation at the hands of an enemy. The name Immanuel itself, expressing the conviction that God was with His people, might, of course, be harmonized with either verse, it gains significance only on account of the distress in which the name was given, the mother’s faith is a sign only when experience seems to contradict it. It is indeed urged that the sign of Immanuel would thus be only a duplication of the sign of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, but there seems to be no reason why such a duplication should be objectionable. If she were one of the king’s wives, then the child would be the king’s son, and the possibility of an identification with the Messiah would have to be considered, it would be possible to accept, with McCurdy, the identification of Immanuel with Hezekiah, the chronological difficulties not being altogether insuperable. Nor is there any reason for identifying Immanuel with the Messianic king mentioned in Isaiah 9:1-7 and Isaiah 11:1-9. It is true that, according to the present text of Isaiah 8:8, the land of Judah is represented as Immanuel’s land, but it is probable that the text should be corrected in harmony with Isaiah 8:10. * [Note: Probably instead of ‘thy land, O Immanuel,’ we should read ‘the land, for God is with us,’ thus getting a refrain at the end of v. With the correction of Isaiah 8:8 no reason remains for considering that the personality of Immanuel is an important element in the sign; it is in harmony with similar cases that it is the name and not the person who bears it that is important. Just as the names of Isaiah’s two children express, the one his doctrine of the remnant, the other his certainty that Syria and Ephraim would be overthrown, so the name Immanuel expresses the mother’s conviction that God is with His people. ’ Isaiah, however, does not mean precisely that any young woman, who is shortly about to conceive and give birth to a son, may call his name Immanuel. While he has no definite young woman in his mind, he predicts that some young woman will, in the future, conceive and bear a son, to whom she will give the name Immanuel. A young woman will bear a son and call his name Immanuel. Immanuel will be a standing rebuke to the king’s scepticism. ] The significance for the doctrine of the Incarnation of the name Immanuel, which might be translated ‘God with us’ as well as ‘God is with us,’ probably first drew his attention to the passage, and then the translation of עַלִמָה by παρθένος would readily be suggested by his belief in the Virgin-conception. —In addition to commentaries on Isaiah and Matthew, and articles on ‘Immanuel’ in Dictionaries of the Bible, reference may be made to the articles ‘Mary’ and ‘Nativity’ in the Encyc
Immanuel - Immanuel . In Isaiah 8:8 there may be no reference to Immanuel at all; a very slight alteration of the vowel points would give the reading ‘â¦ of the land; for God is with us’; the refrain occurs in Isaiah 8:10 . did it include the name ‘Immanuel’? The ‘butter and honey’ seems to be a pre-existing feature, representing originally the Divine nourishment on which the child is reared; so, according to the Greek legend, the infant Zeus is fed on milk and honey in the cave on Ida. Immanuel shall be born, but owing to the unbelief of Ahaz, his future is mortgaged and he is born only to a ruined kingdom (cf. The real problem is not to account for the name ‘Immanuel,’ or for the promise of a saviour-king, but to understand what part he plays in the rest of the chapter. ‘Immanuel’ does not in itself imply that the child was regarded as God, but only that he was to be the pledge of the Divine presence, and endowed in a special sense with the spirit of Jehovah (cf
Smooth Places: Peril of - Carnal-security invited her citizens to his fatal feasts, and the Prince Immanuel withdrew himself; let the result warn us against a repetition of the evil
Communion (2) - ...
See Shaw's Immanuel; Owen and Henry on Communion; and article FELLOWSHIP
Breadth - ” Rôchab itself sometimes represents the concept length, breadth, or the total territory: “… And the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel” (Isa
Name - Whether the Immanuel prophecy had any local fulfillment in relation to this second son is a debated subject (cf
Ahaz - God's mercy lingered over Judah, and to Ahaz was the sign given that "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel
Isaiah, Book of - ...
The following seven divisions are distinctly marked:...
Isaiah 1 — Isaiah 12 : The sinful condition of the people as still in possession of the land; various pleadings and chastisements culminating in the Assyrian; the introduction of Immanuel; ends with a song. Immanuel, Son of David, is introduced as a sign for faith, when unbelief was seeking a confederacy. See Immanuel. A remnant, 'my brethren,' is attached to Immanuel, who is a stone of stumbling to the unbelieving nation, but a light amid the darkness until He is received in power and glory
Name - So Messiah, Jesus, Immanuel, the Word, indicate His manifested relations to us in redemption (Revelation 19:13); also Isaiah 9:6, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc
Emmanuel - Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel
Ahaz - (Concerning God’s sign of assurance given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:10-25, see Immanuel; VIRGIN
Interpret, Interpretation, Interpreter - 1), to interpret," is always used in the Passive Voice in the NT, "being interpreted," of interpreting the names, Immanuel, Matthew 1:23 ; Golgotha, Mark 15:22 ; Barnabas, Acts 4:36 ; in Acts 13:8 , of Elymas, the verb is rendered "is
Bear - 7:14, uses this verb to predict the “birth” of Immanuel
Isa'Iah, Book of - 6,7 he announces the birth of the child Immanuel, which in ch
Bee - In Isaiah 7:15-16, of Immanuel it is written, "butter and honey shall He eat," i
Names - So the Lord Jesus has various names: Son of God, Immanuel, Son of man, etc
Ahaz - Thereupon God Himself gave the sign: "a virgin should bring forth Immanuel. " (For the primary fulfillment in the birth of a child in Isaiah's time, see Immanuel
Simeon - But when they came to the seventh chapter, and to this verse in that chapter, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," Simeon at that impossible prophecy threw down his pen and would write no more. They rise, and they stand, and they fall, just as they receive or reject Immanuel
Guide - It is the steady, unvarying guidance of the heart towards its Divine home, the love of God, as the name Immanuel suggests (Matthew 1:23)
Day-Star - ...
For the same thought in the hymnology of the Church reference may be made to the Advent Hymns, ‘Light of the lonely pilgrim’s heart, Star of the coming day,’ also ‘Come, O come, Immanuel
Virgin - This divine protection would become so evident over the following months, that in thanks to God one of the Judean young women would name her new-born child Immanuel, meaning ‘God with us’
Isaiah - Especially is this so with the prophetic conception of ‘Immanuel,’ an ideal figure in whom we find the earliest portraiture of the Messianic King (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 8:8; Isaiah 8:10; Isaiah 9:6-7)
Isaiah - Especially is this so with the prophetic conception of ‘Immanuel,’ an ideal figure in whom we find the earliest portraiture of the Messianic King (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 8:8; Isaiah 8:10; Isaiah 9:6-7)
Jehovah - So "Immanuel" is used not of the mere appellation, but of His proving in fact to be what the name means (Isaiah 7:14)
Names And Titles of Christ - Immanuel. Matthew applies the prophecy (Is 7:14), ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us’ (Matthew 1:23). The name Immanuel, as applied to Christ in respect of His Incarnation, thus denotes the union of the Divine and the human natures in the person of the God-man
Damascus - ...
But, as their counsel was contrary to God's counsel that David's royal line should continue until Immanuel, it came to nought (2 Kings 15:19; 2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 15:57; 2 Kings 16:5; Isaiah 7:1-6)
Shekinah - Shekinah in these connexions is practically = Immanuel (‘God with us’)
Joseph And Mary - Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Ay, and she perhaps-how shall he whisper it even to himself at midnight-the virgin-mother of Immanuel! A better mother he could not have
Galilee - The region the first to be darkened by the Assyrian invasion was cheered by the prophet's assurance that it should be the first enlightened by Immanuel (1 Corinthians 1:27-29)
Food - " These were the ordinary food of children; Isaiah 7:15, so of the prophet's child who typified Immanuel; the distress caused by the Syrian and Israelite kings not preventing the supply of spontaneously produced foods, the only abundant articles of diet then
Virgin Birth - As the title "Immanuel" entails, it is the permanent coming of God's presence in the person of his Son. According to Matthew 1:22-23 , the virgin birth is understood as a prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 : "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel
Son of God - the mighty God, the Everlasting Father"; (Isaiah 7:4) Immanuel "God with us"; (Micah 5:2) "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
Jesus, the Lord - The former gospel records the accomplishment of the prophetic word that God would be present with His people, signified by the name Immanuel, 'God with us
Matthew, Gospel by - Here we read, He "shall save his people from their sins," and in this gospel only is quoted the prophetic name Immanuel, 'God with us
Isaiah - " (See Immanuel. Thus, Isaiah 12, closing the section of Isaiah 7-12, aptly called "the book of Immanuel," is the future song of redeemed Israel, answering to that at the Red Sea (Exodus 15; compare Revelation 15:2-3)
Jesus Christ - He has many other titles and names in Scripture, as "Immanuel," Matthew 1:23; "Son of God," John 1:34; "Son of man," John 8:28; "Son of David," etc
Eagle - He shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings" (the array of his army) "shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel,"...
Jesus Christ - Immanuel "God with us" declares His Godhead; also John 1:1-18. (See Immanuel
Disciple, Discipleship - The significance of Matthew's interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' name, "Immanuel, " therefore, cannot be overstated: "The virgin will be with Child and will give birth to a Son, and they will call him Immanuel'which means, God with us'" (Matthew 1:23 )
Jesus Christ - This One is Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14 ; Matthew 1:23 )
King, Christ as - : "The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin … will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel" (7:14)
Virgin Birth - of Isaiah 7:14 (LXX Septuagint ): ‘Behold, the virgin (ἡ παρθένος) shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel. ‘The wonderful child of whom you all know, of whom the ancient prophecy speaks, whose name is Immanuel, is already on the way to being born
David - In the book of Immanuel (Isaiah 7-12 ), the prophet speaks about the appearance of a wonder child who will be deliverer, world ruler, and righteous king
Mary, the Virgin - ...
Then followed Joseph's discovery of the conception and his tender dealing with her, and reception of her by God's command (Matthew 1), as being the virgin foretold who should bring forth Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14; Jeremiah 31:22)
Salvation - The advent name "Immanuel, " "God with us, " signifies momentous progress in the history of salvation
Messiah - These were symbols and types of the messianic task, giving expression to the priestly mediatorial office, the God with you (Immanuel) principle, and the substitutionary death on behalf of sinners
Messiah - But in the name of the child, Immanuel , was the pledge that Jehovah would ever he with His people and would ultimately save them; not impossibly through the child himself, although nothing is said of Immanuel’s share in the accomplishment of the deliverance. Whether or not the reference in Isaiah 9:6-7 is to Immanuel, it is unquestionable that it is to the coming of a descendant of David, who should deliver Israel and reign with Jehovah’s assistance for ever triumphantly
the Disobedient Prophet - Conscience is God, Conscience is Immanuel, God in us
Christ - ...
Immanuel, Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23
God, Names of - dwelling), and in the promised name Immanuel ("God with us, " Isaiah 7:14 ; Matthew 1:23 )
Messiah - The Immanuel prophecy, which contained the assurance of God’s presence among His people, delivered to the doubting Ahaz and his unbelieving court during the dark days of b
Prophet - ...
So the prophet Isaiah's son is the sign of the immediate deliverance of Judah from Rezin and Pekah; but language is used which could not have applied to him, and can only find its full and exhaustive accomplishment in the antitypical Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14-16; Isaiah 8:3-12; Isaiah 8:18; Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 1:18-23)
Faith - This understanding is in sharp contrast with the picture of Ahaz, who rejects God's invitation to confirm the truth of his word, and then ironically is given the promise of Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14 )
Prayer - Such prayer is a dynamic dialogue that expresses the history Immanuel wills to have with humans
God - This promise of divine presence with Israel reaches its summit in the Old Testament text of Isaiah 7:14 , when God promises that a child would be born and that his name would be Immanuel, which means "God is with us
Jesus Christ - Isaiah predicts his birth of a virgin, under the title of "Immanuel, God with us