Emmanuel in perspective

By Coen van Wyk 

In the King James Version of the Bible the author of Matthew wrote the following about the conception of Jesus. It is alleged that Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph,

“was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew chapter 1, verse 18).

That is rather perplexing because the question is: On what basis could it have been “found” that her pregnancy was caused by the Holy Ghost?

But then an unnamed angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him the following about Mary’s pregnancy:

“… that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost”. (Mathew chapter 1, verse 20).

The author of Matthew also adds the following comment:

“Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the profit, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forthe a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.”

(Mathew chapter 1, verses 22 to 23).

Now the last-mentioned quoted prophesy is that of Isaiah who uttered the words when he spoke to Ahaz, who ruled Judah hundreds of years before the time of Jesus. The following events caused Isaiah to address the words to Ahaz.

In the time of the two Israelite kingdoms and while Ahaz was king of Judah, Syria and Israel formed an alliance with the intention of launching an attack on Judah. This is clear from the following contents of Isaiah chapter 7, verse 5 in the King James Version where it is alleged that Ahaz was told about the intentions of Syria and Israel. The following was allegedly said to Ahaz: That they;

“…have taken evil counsel against thee saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it”

In the New English Bible God allegedly instructed Isaiah to convey to Ahas the following words concerning the shenanigans of Syria and Israel, being that they;

“… have laid plans against you, saying let us invade Judah and break her spirit”

It is said that when the people of Judah learned about the plans of Syria and Israel;

“… king and people were shaken like forest trees in the wind”. (Isaiah chapter 7, verse 2)

But, so it is alleged, God told Ahaz that Syria and Israel would not succeed with their mischief. In that regard the The New English Bible emphatically states the following:

“Therefore the Lord God: This shall not happen now, and never shall…” (Isaiah chapter 7 verse 7).

And god also gave a sign to Ahaz to fortify, in some or other way, his assurance that Syria and Israel would not succeed with their malevolence. That a sign was given is clear from the following contents of Isaiah chapter 7, verse 14 of the King James Version and the The New English Bible repsectively:

King James Version

“ Therefore he Lord himself shall give you a sign: A young woman is with child, and she will bear a son and will call him Immanuel that is god is with us.”

The New English Bible:

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Immediately after mentioning in, verse 14, the Immanuel sign (allegedly promised by God), the following is stated in verses 15 and 16:

“15 By the time that he has learned to reject evil and choose good, he will be eating curd and honey;

16 before that child has learned to reject evil and choose good, desolation will come upon the land before whose two kings you cower now.”

The reference in the Bible to Immanuel (that is god is with us) or Emmanuel (which interpreted as, God with us) is summarized in the following table:   

It is therefore clear from the Bible that Emmanuel (or Immanuel, as he is also called) had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. As a Christian I attended numerous church services, over a period of many years, during which the Immanuel prophesy in Isaiah was falsely held up as a prophesy of the coming of Jesus.

I must first explain that although some Bibles  (such as the King James Version) refer to a “virgin”, the word in the original Hebrew scriptures is translated as “young woman”. The word, “young woman”, is indeed the word contained (correctly so) in many Bibles, one of which is the The New English Bible.

I will now deal with the issue concerning the child that was intended as the Immanuel sign. In that regard it is clear from the Bible that the child, that God (and Isaiah) had in mind in the prophesy, is Isaiah’s child that was subsequently born. I will explain.

Soon after the promise of a sign in Isaiah 7, 23, Isaiah said (8,3):

“Then I lay with the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son …”.

Of that son born to Isaiah, he alleged (8,4) that God said the following:

“ Before the boy can say Father or Mother, the wealth of Damascus and the Spoils of Samaria shall be carried off and presented to the king of Assyria.”

Given the fact that Damascus and Samaria has been mentioned in the last quote from the Bible, I need to explain their relevance in this matter. The Old Testament of the Good News Bible (based on the Masoretic text) states the following in Isaiah 7,8 and 7,9, respectively:

“Because Syria is no stronger than Damascus, its capital city ..” ; and

“Israel is no stronger than Samaria, its capital city .. “.

That is a clear indication that when God allegedly said that, “Before the boy can say Father or Mother, the wealth of Damascus and the Spoils of Samaria shall be carried off and presented to the king of Assyria”, his reference to Damascus and Samaria was to Syria and Israel, of which Damascus and Samaria were, respectively, capitals.

So, it is clear that Isaiah’s son was connected to the woes of Syria and Israel, as God predicted and regarding which he gave a child (Immanuel) as sign.

To sum up: It is alleged that when Judah was threatened by Syria and Israel, God assured Ahaz, the king of Judah, that Syria and Israel would not prevail. And God gave a sign that Syria and Israel would not triumph over Judah, the sign being that a child would be born. God gave the sign through Isaiah (or so Isaiah alleged). And a child was indeed born, and lo, it is the son of the very prophet who predicted the birth of a child as verification of the assurance that God gave to Ahaz. And of his child Isaiah alleges that God said to him; that “Before the boy can say Father or Mother, the wealth of Damascus and the Spoils of Samaria shall be carried off and presented to the king of Assyria.”

The fact that things thereafter went horribly awry (despite God’s assurance) and not as predicted by Isaiah, would in die course be discussed under another heading.

So, it is all about;

·        Isaiah’s prophesy;

·        Isaiah’s allegation of God’s sign of a child that authenticates Isaiah’s prophesy;

·        Isaiah’s child that ostensibly constitutes the fulfilment of God’s sign as predicted by Isaiah.

Furthermore, given the fact that neither his parents nor anybody else ever called Jesus, Emmanuel, the whole story of Emmanuel is therefore actually all about Isaiah, and not about Jesus!