# They Shall Call His Name Emmanuel



## blhowes (Apr 13, 2013)

I was wondering something about this passage. When Matthew says in verse 22 that all this was done in fulfillment of what was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, it would make sense that one of those things he's referring to would be the name chosen. Emmanuel is mentioned in the OT passage, but Joseph was instructed to call his name Jesus. Is there something in the original language that indicates that in the OT passage it wasn't saying that the messiah's name would be Emmanuel (as opposed to Jesus)?

Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. 
Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.


----------



## Reformedfellow (Apr 13, 2013)

Listen to the first 12mins or so. 
Hebrews - SermonAudio.com


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 13, 2013)

The one name, Jesus, is given to him at birth. The other name, Emmanuel, is given to him by the virgin of prophecy, some 750 yrs before he is born. Either name could convey a whole range of thoughts. But consider that the latter, found in Is.7:14, is a highly charged prophetic name, and its best interpreter is fulfillment, not a surface reading. 

When you read the phrase, "they shall call his name Emmanuel," I don't think one has only to understand "they" as "his parents;" it probably means "everybody" in some sense. Eventually, everyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ truly and savingly must acknowledge him as "God with us." The name (being understood as a prophetic symbol) reflects what they who call him so understand about this child, rather than it being a run-of-the-mill identifier. Giving someone a name doesn't have to mean "given at birth as his personal, first or primary name." But it certainly is likely Mary and Joseph were the first to think of their son, Jesus, as also bearing the name "Emmanuel."

Most evidently, that's not the public name God wills Jesus to grow up with. Obviously _Matthew_ doesn't mean us to take the name as a moniker for the child (v21). In the original context, the virgin appears to be the one naming her newborn. Does Mary reckon that she is personally prophesied about in Isaiah, and that this babe is God-in-the-flesh? How does she even begin to comprehend those ideas _prior to_ the rest of his life, including the resurrection? I don't think anyone could actually grasp it so early. We understand Isaiah's expression best viewed back through the complete life of the Son of God. And that, it seems to me, is what Matthew means to do for his NT readers.


----------



## Cymro (Apr 13, 2013)

If you consider that Emmanuel should be His name, then you would
have to apply the same reasoning to Isaiah 9:6. "His name shall be
called Wonderful" (secret) etc. In John Owen's catechism, the question is asked,
How is God to be known? The response being, By His names and titles. These.
are prophetic discoveries of the Being and nature of God in Christ. The Scripture
is replete with these unfoldings of the person of our Lord without which God would
be unknown. Each of Christ's diverse names and offices reveal the variegated facets 
of His glorious Being. This is where the objection that the name of Jesus is not found 
in the psalms so we must invent hymns, fails. For the psalms portray Christ with other names,
offices and descriptions. Jesus was His human name, but was also prophetic concerning
the salvation of His people.


----------

