From an email sent to me: Several Bible verses specifically affirm the deity (deity means to be God) of Christ. In Matthew 1:23, Christ is called “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.”
Reply: The use of the titular name Imanuel had its earlier fulfillment is someone other than Jesus Christ:
"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 Chron 13:12-15)." -- Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Immanuel'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology".
Was one of Isaiah's sons also God? Of course not!
"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 Chron 13:12-15)." -- Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Immanuel'". "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology".
Was one of Isaiah's sons also God? Of course not!
Harris, in his Jesus As God, has this long, technical, and interesting statement:
"Matthew 1:23 is the first of Matthew's "formula citations" and reflects the LXX version of Isaiah 7:14, to which the evangelist has added O ESTIN KTL. The issue is whether MEQ HMWN O QEOS should be translated "God with us" or "God is with us," that is, whether MEQ HMWN is attributive and functions as an adjective or is predicative and functions as an adverb. It should be observed immediately that both of the above translations are feasible, for in both Hebrew (GKC §141f) and Greek (N. Turner, Syntax 294-98, 309-10) the copula may be omitted.
That Matthew attaches special significance to the name EMMANOUHL is incontestable: he has included in his citation of Isaiah 7:14 a line (KAI KALESOUSIN...EMMANOUHL) which was not directly germane to his purpose of showing that the virginal conception and the birth of Jesus were the fulfillment of Scripture; in addition, he has added a translation of the Hebrew expression El Imanuw-'el that the LXX had simply transliterated.
In arguing in favor of the translation "God with us," J. C. Fenton notes the inclusio in Matthew 1:23 and Matthew 28:20 (MEQ hHMWV hO QEOS-EGW MEQ hUMWN EIMI) and equates the EGW of 28:20 with the hO QEOS of 1:23: "Matthew is saying that Jesus is God" (81). But one may recognize the presence of inclusio without drawing Fenton's conclusion. The Messiah Jesus is now always with his obedient disciples (28:20) because God once deigned to visit his people in this Messiah (1:23). Is it likely that Matthew, whose favorite designation for Jesus is hUIOS QEOU would preface his Gospel with hO QEOS as a christological title?
Fenton also emphasizes that in Matthew META + the genitive almost always means "in the company of" rather than "in favor of" and therefore is more readily applicable to the Son than the Father (81). In the nature of the case, most uses of META in the Gospels denote a literal "being with," but one should not overlook its figurative use "of aid or help be with someone, stand by, help someone of God's help" (BAGD 509a, citing [with a "cf."] Matt. 1:23). Perhaps the closest verbal parallel in the NT to MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS is found in 2 Corinthians 13:11: hO QEOS ... ESTAI MEQ hUMWN. In both texts (EINAI) META denotes divine aid and favor.
Whereas the MT of Isaiah 7:14 reads the third-person singular qara (referring to the child's mother) and the LXX the second-person singular KALESEIS (referring to Ahaz), Matthew has the impersonal third-person plural KALESOUSIN "they (= people) will call him (Immanuel)." If these people are the followers of Jesus, "Immanuel" could here be portrayed as the post-Easter christological confession of the church, comparable to Thomas's confession, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28) . It is unnecessary, however, to restrict this confession to a post-Easter setting when QEOS became an occasional title of Jesus. For when, during the public ministry of Jesus, people glorified God that he had intervened in human history to bring physical or spiritual healing through Jesus, they were in effect giving Jesus the name "Immanuel"-in the person of Jesus "God is with us" to save. For instance, the crowd at Nain who had witnessed Jesus' raising of the widow's son "glorified God" with the words "God has visited his people" (Luke 7:16), which is equivalent to saying "Jesus is Immanuel" (cf. also Luke 1:68-69).
In favor of the translation "God is with us," it is true that the translation of El Imanuw-'el that Matthew supplies, MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS simply reproduces the word order of the Hebrew, but if hO QEOS were in fact a title of Jesus, one might have expected the translation to be either hO MEQ hHMWN QEOS or hO QEOS MEQ hHMWN (or the more correct Greek hO QEOS hO MEQ HMWN). That is, word order suggests that MEQ hHMWN is predicative rather than attributive, functioning as an adverb rather than as an adjective.
There are only three occurrences of El Imanuw-'el in the OT, all in Isaiah. Twice the LXX translates the expression by (KURIOS) hO QEOS (Isa. 8:8, 10), and once it transliterates the phrase (Isa. 7:14). Matthew cites the transliteration found in Isaiah 7:14, but when he chooses to add a translation he uses the rendering found in Isaiah 8:8, 10 where, according to BDB 769a, El Imanuw-'el is a "declaration of trust and confidence, with us is God!" That is, the meaning of MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS seems almost indistinguishable from hO QEOS -hUPER hHMWN (cf. Rom. 8:31).
There are therefore strong reasons for believing that in Matthew 1:23 MEQ hHMWN hO QEOS signifies that in Jesus God is present, to bring salvation to his people rather than that Jesus, as hO QEOS is personally present with his people. Matthew is not saying, "Someone who is 'God' is now physically with us," but "God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus."" pp. 257, 258 Jesus as God-The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment