Immanuel - God with Us

Immanuel – God is with us

TYRONE A STEELE

Last updated 8/22/2006

(STILL INCOMPLETE)

א. Synopsis of theory

Chapter 8 of the book of Isaiah is a parallelism of chapter 7, as well as a fulfillment of it. It was not intended as a prophecy of the coming Messiah.

ב. Presuppositions of theory

a. That Yeshua of Yosef of Nazareth was the Messiah (Meshiach).

b. That Isaiah was a true prophet of God whose prophecies have either come true or will come true

c. The original Hebrew text (Tanach) is the best resource for translation

d. The most accurate word-for-word English translation is the New King James Version (NKJV)

e. Holy Scripture is infallible in regard to its inspiration and truth and historical accuracy

ג. Sources used:

a. NKJV

b. Davar Hebrew-English Dictionary (http://www.faithofgod.net/davar)

c. The Online Bible (http://www.onlinebible.net)

d. Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon

ד. Orthodox Christian view

a. Reference to Immanuel in Isaiah 7:14 is a symbolic and prophetic name of the Messiah, the Christ, prophesying that He would be born of a virgin and would be 'God with us'

b. The prophetess in 8:3 was the wife of Isaiah

ה. Relevant Hebrew words and names: Immanuel & Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz

(a = “ah” unless otherwise noted)

Hebrew word	English Transliteration	NKJV	Hebrew literal Translation/Meaning		Scriptural Reference
עִמָנוּאֵל	ē-man-oo-āl	Immanuel	עִמַנוּ (Emanoo)	With Us	Is. 7:14 Is. 8:8&10 Mat. 1:23
עִמָנוּאֵל	ē-man-oo-āl	Immanuel	אֵל (āl)	God	Is. 7:14 Is. 8:8&10 Mat. 1:23
לְמַהֵר	Lē ma-hār	Maher	To/For Hastily/fast		Is. 8:1&3
שָׁלָל	Sha-lal	Shalal	Booty		‘’
חָשׁ	Khash	Hash	Swift		‘’
בַּז	baz	Baz	Hawk (prey)		‘’

ו. Table/Diagram of Chapters 7 & 8 and storyline

ז. Meaning and purpose of chapter 7 (relevant verses only)

a. Definitions

b. Interpretations

ח. Meaning and purpose of chapter 8 (relevant verses only)

a. Definitions

i. Prophetess:

b. Possibly Isaiah’s Wife

c. Possibly a virgin prophetess of the Temple

i. Son born: “swift is booty, speedy is prey” symbolic name given by Isaiah by the Lord's direction to Isaiah's son; prophetic indication that Damascus and Samaria were soon to be plundered by the king of Assyria.

ii. Uriah: “God is my flame” a priest who built king Ahaz' heathen altar

iii. Zechariah: “Jehovah Remembers” son of Jeberechiah who was taken by the prophet Isaiah as one of the 'faithful witnesses to record' when he wrote concerning Maher-shalal-khash-baz

ט. Conclusion of meaning of chapters 7 & 8

י. Unresolved problems with theory

a. The prophetess who gave birth to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz could not have been a virgin if she was Isaiah’s wife (RESOLVED: The translation of “virgin” is a mistranslation. The Hebrew actually indicates a “Young married woman,” not a virgin.

b. The child of the prophetess was given the name of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz not Immanuel

c. The 65 year timeline given earlier in chapter 7 would have been unfulfilled

יא. Arguments against theory

a. Isaiah 9:1,6&7 – “A Son is given … And He shall be called …”

b. Isaiah 11:1-5 – “a Rod from the stem of Jesse”

c. The conception was to be a “sign” to the house of David. The normal meaning of “young married woman” would hardly be considered a “sign.”

d. The word ah-lay-mah is used seven times in the OT (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Psa. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14). A study of these contexts reveals that ah-lay-mah is used only of one who is a virgin.[i]

e. Parthenos is found fifteen times in the New Testament. It never means “young married woman.”

f. The child was named “God with us.” There is no other reason for him to have been named that except for that of the appellation of Yeshua.

g. The church fathers were of one mind that Jesus was born of a virgin, and Isaiah 7:14 was appealed to as an Old Testament prophetic proof-text.[ii]

h. Matthew 1:23 – “So that it may be fulfilled that was written …”

i. Being the only two places in Scripture that the messiah is mentioned as born from a virgin (Mary), this utterly invalidates Matthew’s theology. Matthew’s reference to Isaiah 7:14 is paramount in validating his story. Saying Matthew was incorrect also reduces the infallibility of Scripture.

Response:

1. Matthew (as did Paul) used a rabbinical method of interpretation called “MiDrash,” which means “with search.” That is to say, he used a method of interpretation to apply the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 in an alternate light, in a way that the “P’Shat” (simple, obvious) interpretation had not intended. It was common (See Donald E. Curtis’ article regarding this at: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=545).[1]

2. The problem of there being no other references available that Yeshua was born of a virgin is problematic but Scripturally speaking, being the Messiah does not require that He was not born of a virgin. See my response to this issue at: http://www.steeleancestry.org/papers-html/teshuvah_reply.html

יב. Arguments for theory

a. The references to Immanuel in 8:8&10 and 7:14 encase the reference to Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1&3, which lead the interpretation in the direction of combining both names into the same person

b. Nothing is further stated about Immanuel or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. It is strictly in the context of being a sign to Judah (the house of David).

c. No further input is given regarding the importance of the prophesied child. It was never written that Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz or Immanuel were at all messianic nor was it implied.

d. The time-frame that it would take for the Immanuel-child to reach the age of accountability was used as a chronological measurement. Before that time-span would expire, Judah’s current threat would dissipate (which reality came to pass).[iii] Therefore, if it came to pass that their threats vanished, which was supposed to have occurred before the child could know right from wrong, then it had to have been sometime between the child’s age of two to twelve years. Sometime before the child turned twelve – not 600 years later after the fact.

e. The word “sign” (to the house of David) does not demand a miracle.

f. While Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon states that there is no instance where it can be proved that the word ‘virgin’ in Is.7:14 designates a young woman who is not a virgin,[iv] the definition for original word used for “virgin” does not necessitate a woman who has never had intercourse but can also mean a maiden or newlywed woman. As well, Exodus 2:8 indicates that the ‘maid’ was able to nurse the baby Moses. Usually, a woman must be with child at least once before she is medically capable of nursing.

i. The concept of a newlywed woman or maiden is more appropriate when interpreting Is. 8:1&3 as a fulfillment of 7:14.

ii. Strong number 05959 is used 4 times as ‘virgin,’ 2 times as ‘maiden’ and 1 time as ‘damsel.’ It can be used either way.

iii. Strong’s lexicon results for 05959 (עַלֵמָה) show the following instances:

1. Genesis 24:43 – virgin (ASV reads ‘maiden,’ LXX is ‘damsel’)

2. Exodus 2:8 – maid (indicates a woman who can nurse (Moses). Women who have never conceived medically cannot nurse)

3. Psalms 68:25 - Damsels

4. Proverbs 30:19 – maiden, young woman

5. Song of Solomon 1:3 - virgin

6. Song of Solomon 6:8 - virgins

iv. The Hebrew word for ‘virgin’ is בֵתוֹלָה (vay-toh-lah) not עַלֵמָה (ah-lay-mah)

v. In other verses in Isaiah, the word for virgins used is 01330, בַּחוּרִים (bahk-oo-reem)

g. Isaiah 11:1-5, while still within the storyline of the predicted devastation, is not within the same timeline but is a prophecy of a time much later to come (5BC)

יג. Unresolved problems with orthodox view

יד. Arguments against orthodox view

טו. Arguments for orthodox view

טז. Negative affects of theory upon Christian doctrine, worldview, and validation

a. There are no other direct prophecies in the OT of the Messiah being born of a virgin besides Is. 7:14

b. However, this invalidates neither Christianity as a whole or the idea of Yeshua bar Yosef having been the Messiah and the Son of God as He claimed.

יז. Positive affects of theory upon Christian doctrine, worldview, and validation

a. There are prophecies in the Old Testament that have a dual application. That is, they have a rather immediate application to a more temporal circumstance; then, they also have an ultimate fulfillment in a more far-reaching spiritual event.[v]

b. This creates a bridge between the gap of classic Judaism and Christianity that is much easier to traverse.

יח. Summary

a. The theory that chapter 8 of the book of Isaiah is a parallelism of chapter 7, as well as a fulfillment of it, and not a messianic prophecy, does no damage to the Christian faith. It solves the problem of what to make of Isaiah being told to impregnate his wife and why he was told to do so, and solves the issue of the Messiah never again being called Immanuel in either the Old or New covenantal Scriptures. While it may offend some that this theory goes head-strong against common dogma and millennia of orthodox views, it is neither our duty to offend or refrain from offense, but to read and interpret Scripture as it was intended to be understood, lest we become victims of eisegesis (reading meaning into Scripture) and not proprietors of exegesis (getting the intended meaning out of Scipture).

[1] Even if it was error (which it was not) it would be human error. To say that there was human error in no way requires there to be holy inspired error.
Matthew made many theological errors.

a. In Mat 26:15 he attributed the 30 pieces of silver prophecy to Jeremiah, when it was actually prophesied by Zechariah in 11:12-13.

b. He misconstrued the meaning of Hosea 11:1 in Mat 2:15

c. He misunderstood the meaning of Jeremiah 31:15-17 in Mat 2:17&18