|Isaiah 7:14 - Deception In The Name Of Jesus
One of the most deceptive things written in the New Testament was written by the author of Matthew when he took a small section of Isaiah chapter 7 and attempted to show the birth of Jesus as the fulfillment of a prophecy.
But while he (Joseph) 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.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
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.
The author of Matthew is saying that Mary's "virgin" birth of Jesus would fulfill the prophecy ofIsaiah 7:14. The actual Hebrew verse which the author of Matthew attempts to manufacture a prophecy fulfillment out of doesn't say a virgin would give birth but that a young woman would conceive. As an aside, the KJV Bible does as most Christian Bibles do, which is to translate the Hebrew word "almah" to mean virgin instead of young woman. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) Bible is one of the few Christian Bibles that maintains the term young woman instead of replacing it with the word "virgin". The basic issue is that Isa 7:14 doesn't have anything to do with Jesus in the first place.
Isa 7:14 (KJV)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
The author of Matthew was trying to retrofit Jesus into a prophecy about a child who was to be born and called the name Immanuel. This tactic is called manufacturing a prophecy fulfillment and the author of Matthew was a master at doing it. He was a master of deception.
One of the problems with this is that the prophecy given by Isaiah was already fulfilled hundreds of years before Jesus ever arrived on earth.
The birth and naming of the child Immanuel was to be a sign for king Ahaz that God was with his people who were about to be invaded by two rival kingdoms. This is clear when Isa 7:14is put back into the context which the author of Matthew lifted it out of.
Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
This promise was kept by God as shown in 2 Kings 16:9. Assyria defeated the two rival kings and Ahaz and his people would be safe.
2 Kings 16:9
And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
The child was born, called by the name Immanuel by his mother and the Assyrians defeated the two kings who threatened Ahaz and his people. The prophecy was fulfilled long before the author of Matthew dishonestly claimed that Jesus fulfilled it. The author of Matthew ignored all this because he only wanted one verse from Isaiah and that was Isa 7:14 which he wanted to use to give credibility to his tale about a "virgin" birth.
There are many problems associated with the deliberate misapplication of Isa 7:14 by the author of Matthew and this essay will focus on investigating the particular problem that Mary never called the name of her child Immanuel as required by the prophecy, but instead called him Jesus.
Here is the prophecy about Jesus according to the author of Luke:
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Note: Mary's child was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel. And Jesus he was actually called. Not Immanuel.
How do Christians get around this huge problem? They try to find ways to concoct a rationalization, any rationalization, that will satisfy the requirement that Mary would call and name her child Immanuel as stipulated by the prophecy. The following is an example of what Christian apologists try to do. First, the Christian warns skeptics about reading the Bible improperly:
[A Christian wrote:
You (skeptics) really need to stop reading into the Bible what you want to.]
Note: Please keep the above warning in mind as this believer spins his rationalization of the problem.
It is no more honest to claim that Jesus was the Immanuel who fulfilled Isa 7:14 than it would be to claim Jesus was the Ishmael who fulfilled of Gen 16:11. According to Biblical evidence, Jesus was never called the name Immanuel as required by the prophecy, nor is the prophecy about Jesus in the first place. The text of Luke 1:31 says Mary would call his name Jesus. The text of Isa 7:14 says the woman would call his name Immanuel. Show within the Biblical text where Mary (or anyone else) called or named Jesus Immanuel.
Even today He is called Immanuel. I call Him that and I know a lot of other people that do too.]
You can call him Moses if you want to. I stated that according to the Biblical evidence Jesus was never called Immanuel and it's not honest to do and then claim he was the Immanuel ofIsa 7:14 unless you want to rewrite the prophecy.
Which is not true. It is just not recorded the way that you would like for it to be recorded.
When someone says, "Surely you are the Son of God." They are saying "God with us." Immanuel.]
Show that from the Biblical text. Don't just assert based on your theological speculations of what calling someone might mean. Demonstrate from the text that:
"When someone says, "Surely you are the Son of God." They are saying "God with us." Immanuel."
Show where Mary called the name of her child Immanuel. For that matter, show where anyone in the New Testament called Jesus the name "Immanuel."
[This Christian then posted the following verse as his proof:
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.]
There is nothing about Jesus being called or named Immanuel in this entire verse. The term"the Son of God" is not equated to Immanuel in this verse. You've simply speculated that the term "Son of God" means the same as Immanuel because it suits your needs and is the only way you can rationalize the problem away. I'm not interested in your speculations. You need to demonstrate from within the actual Bible text that your speculation is valid.
At this point the Christian simply repeats what he said before.
Immanuel means God with us. Jesus is called Immanuel by lots of people. Including me.
It means God with us. Calling Jesus the Son of God, or Christ means God with us.]
Note: This is a wonderful illustration of how the mind of a believer can work. They are utterly incapable of proceeding outside the limits of their programming and will simply repeat what they previously said when they are asked to support their assertions.
In this person's indoctrinated mind, calling Jesus "the Son of God"; is the same as calling him "Immanuel". And so, according to this Christian, Jesus was really called Immanuel after all. That is the way he solves the problem of Jesus not being called Immanuel by Mary or anyone else.
Of course, this Christian hasn't supported his assertion from the Biblical text. He ignored the request to do that and simply made an argument by assertion and didn't bother to provide evidence that his assertion is valid. The rationalization used by this Christian is exposed as a failure by looking at what the New Testament scriptures actually say "the Son of God"; means.
You haven't established, using the Biblical text, that Jesus was ever called or named Immanuel by Mary as required by the stipulation of the prophecy, or that he was called or named Immanuel by anyone else. All you have done is to assert that calling Jesus the "Son of God" is the same as calling him Immanuel. You haven't demonstrated using the scriptures, that "the Son of God" means Immanuel.All you've done is assert and speculate that it does, which is why your attempted rationalization doesn't reconcile the problem.
"Calling Jesus the Son of God, or Christ means God with us."
No it does not. You invented that definition. The term "the Son of God" as used in the New Testament doesn't equate to the name Immanuel or the term "God with us". It equates to an expected king Messiah or Christ which would follow the line of king David, sit on his throne, and usher in an era of restoration and prosperity for Israel (which Jesus failed to do ).
Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
...And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ (the expected king Messiah).
You've done exactly what you told skeptics not to do. You told skeptics: "You really need to stop reading into it (the Bible) what you want to."
None of these verses say that Jesus was "the Son of God" , the Immanuel. Nor is there any reason why they would. The word Christ (Messiah) and the name Immanuel are not interchangeable just because you want them to be. The word Christ does not mean "God with us", it simply means anointed or messiah.
Immanuel wasn't an expected king Messiah nor did Isaiah ever imply such a thing. As Isa 7:14 clearly states, the mother of this child would call his name Immanuel as a sign for king Ahaz and his people that God was with them and they wouldn't be invaded by two rival kingdoms.
It wouldn't do Ahaz a bit of good to have Isa 7:14 fulfilled hundreds of years after he was dead.Isaiah 7 isn't messianic and the Isa 7:14 prophecy was fulfilled hundreds of years before the author of Matthew ever decided to lift a piece of Isa 7 out of context and apply it to Jesus in an attempt to manufacture a prophecy fulfillment to lend credibility to his virgin birth story. The term "the Son of God", as used in the New Testament, refers to an expected king Messiah and has nothing to do with the Immanuel in Isa 7:14, and Isa 7:14 has nothing to do with Jesus. (end)
Note: The type of dishonesty exhibited by this believer is not unusual. It's one of the tools of standard Christian indoctrination procedures. They will claim that Jesus was the only person who fulfilled Old Testament prophecies and then tell people unfamiliar with the Bible to read the Gospel of Matthew to see how Jesus did so.
Christian advertising in this matter is nothing more than circular logic, misapplied scripture, and deceptive rationalizations all dressed up as the inerrant word of God. Millions of people take the bait and they swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Then they go out and aggressively try to persuade others to do the same, often telling potential converts that if the don't accept Jesus as their Lord, they will go to hell. This simply isn't a healthy religion folks. It's very, very ill.
Christians who maintain that the Bible is inerrant are required to make all Bible scriptural inconsistencies and contradictions disappear if the Bible is to be the word of God. This Christian is stuck with what the author of Matthew did and had to find a way to make a twist become truth. Rather than admit the obvious, this Christian decided to invent an explanation, ignore the request to back up his assertion with scriptural evidence and then pretended he had resolved the dilemma in an honest manner.
The lengths that believers have to go to and the type of dishonesty they have to engage in to maintain that the Bible has no errors serves to highlight how flawed the Bible is. When maintaining a perception becomes more important than reality, rationality is dead and buried.