Is the Name Immanuel Symbolic or Literal in Significance?

(this article responds "The Use of Immanuel is Not Symbolic" by James Goodfellow)

By Mark McFall

In Matthew 1:23 we read: "Behold, the parthenos (young woman/virgin) shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us."

According to many skeptics, no one ever called Jesus by the name "Immanuel" which suggests a failed prophecy. In their view, because Matthew quoted from Isaiah the phrase "call his name" we should understand "Immanuel" to be taken literally since other biblical passages use names literally (e.g. Adam’s naming of Seth; Cain’s naming of Enoch; Seth’s naming of Enos, etc...). But if Matthew intended the name "Immanuel" to be taken literally then why do we not see any reference to it? Thought provoking? I’ll say it is.

Since the New Testament writers are silent on using the name "Immanuel" one can infer that Matthew's reasoning for referencing "Immanuel" was for the purpose of drawing attention to the activities of Jesus in which he saw characteristics in the meaning of the name "Immanuel" which had prior significance to Isaiah (Is. 7:14). Though that child or son was born void of the attributes that accompany the meaning (Is. 7:16) he was nonetheless seen as a sign that God was with them in a troublesome time. Knowing this, the writer of Matthew, tapped into that meaning and used it for symbolic purposes that seemed to fit known characteristics about Jesus.

That the writer of Matthew used Immanuel for symbolic purposes is an idea favored by a scholarly consensus. They say, "that names of individuals expressed their personality and status or nature" (The Oxford Companion, pg. 545) as we see in other symbolic reference to Jesus (e.g. "King of kings," "The Lamb of God," "Chief Shepherd," etc…). Indeed, it is likely that Matthew used Immanuel for the same purpose, as many skeptics contend, Jesus is nowhere actually called "Immanuel." Instead, we see New Testament writers interpreting Jesus to have characteristics implied in the meaning of Immanuel; a meaning that can also be inferred at other locations: John 1:1-3; John 1:14; John 20:28; Col. 2:9; etc. In light of these considerations, while the idea that Jesus was going to be literally called "Immanuel" doesn’t hold water the notion that Jesus’ reported characteristics were found in the meaning of "Immanuel" suggests symbolic significance.

If we understand that Matthew used parthenos in the same sense as Isaiah used almah, (i.e. "young woman") then we should not think the prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of either child. Rather, it was fulfilled in what "Immanuel" meant in the eyes of each of these authors (see article: The Virgin Birth Revisited).