Immanuel appears so often on Christmas cards and carols we often assume we know what it means. On closer examination, of course, most Christians have only a vague idea of the origin of the term and that it is another name for Jesus.
As already mentioned in the glossary, the word appears for the first time in the context of the Syro-Ephraimite War as a sign given by Yahweh through Isaiah to King Ahaz to assure him that Yahweh can be trusted to relieve him of disaster in the imminent war.♦
In one sense the meaning of the sign is clear and simple. The prediction that before the boy named Immanuel, who was to be born of a virgin, knows "enough to reject the wrong and choose the right the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (v16), simply means that within a short time (before the child knows how to tell right from wrong—perhaps, two to three years) the alliance of the two nations, Syria and Israel (Ephraim), will be destroyed. That, of course, was what did eventually happened. As promised by Isaiah in v17, in 722 the kings of Assyria, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II laid waste to Israel (Syria did not escape a similar fate).
The simplicity of this explanation, however, hides a host of difficult questions. It is, of course, impossible to provide a comprehensive survey of the discussion in this short essay, since it would involve at least some serious exegesis of the book of Isaiah. As a lay-preacher, however, you should at least be aware of some of the issues involved even if you never get to say anything about them in your sermon (and I doubt raising these questions have any relevance in a sermon).
The most vexing of these question is the identity of the virgin, and hence her son, Immanuel, implied in the oracle. Who was she? Who was/is he? It is a long-standing position in the Christian Church that Jesus is the Immanuel; Matt 1:23 clearly implies that this is so. This then raises the question of how a fulfilment seven hundred years later could serve as a sign that was relevant to Ahaz. Surely, if the sign given was to be meaningful to Ahaz, he had to have an idea of who she was. But the text leaves us none the wiser. Also nowhere in the book of Isaiah or the historical narratives of the OT do we find any hint that the oracle was remembered as being fulfilled in the time soon afterwards. One way around this problem is to argue that the oracle was intended not just for Ahaz; when Isaiah proclaimed that the Lord would "himself give you a sign" (v14), the 'you' is plural. Most commentators are agreed that the plural personal pronoun is best understood as referring to "the house of David," of which Ahaz was its then head and representative. This makes sense also because the oracle is about Yahweh's trustworthiness in protecting those who put their trust in Him. Still, this solution leaves a certain unhappiness for most readers; Ahaz would not have had the benefit of Matthew to assure him so. Furthermore, Isaiah's depiction of the time of fulfilment of the oracle was set in the context of the contemporary scene, not somewhere in the future and certainly not within the Roman context of Jesus's birth.
Some commentators have sought to identify the "virgin" with Ahaz's wife and Immanuel as her son Hezekiah, or with Isaiah's wife. If that were the case, however, theie wives would hardly qualify as "virgin." And so the question turns then on the meaning of the word ha'alma, 'the virgin.' 'alma, which is, strictly speaking not the proper word for a virgin (which is betula), but rather 'a young woman of marriageable age,' though in the normal course of things they would be (or expected or assumed to be) virgins. On this ground, Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife would make the grade but there remains no other grounds in Scriptures upon which to stake firmly such a proposal.
Another proposal is that "the virgin" refers any young woman of marriageable age at the time of the national crisis. Yahweh's promise then consists of this: that any of them, if they conceive then, will know that the crisis would be resolved by the time their child has begun to know how to choose right from wrong, i.e., it would not be long, there is light at the end of the tunnel. This proposal has, first, the problem of the text: the noun is definite ("the virgin") not just any virgin. Secondly, it has nothing else in Isaiah to support it.
We come now to take another look at Matthew's quotation of Isaiah and how he was so sure it referred to the virgin conception of Jesus. While the proper Hebrew word for a virgin is betula and the word in Isa 7:14 is 'alma, it is also clear that Matthew was not quoting from the Hebrew text but from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. The Greek word for a virgin is parthenos, which the LXX uses to translate the Hebrew betula. In normal practice the LXX would have used Greek neanis for the Hebrew 'alma, such as at Isa 7:14, except that, in this case, it doesn't and uses parthenos instead. Matthew was not, therefore, selectively emending the text to suit his theology. The text he found in his Greek Bible pointed to a virgin, whose birth of Jesus was its clear fulfilment.
This short summary of some of the more vexing issues on the meaning of the the Immanuel, I hope, will help to be careful about what you preach and teach. It is easy to become overconfident and cocky when we know too little. Yet, remember, whatever use you put this learning to, do not show off. It has no place in the Kingdom of God. It is wiser to say less than to confuse with too much.
Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2020