The Use Of Immanuel In Matthew Is Not Symbolic.
This article, hosted by ITW, is a critical response to
Is the Name Immanuel Symbolic or Literal in Significance? by Mark McFallby Mark McFall
By James Goodfellow - atheist. Matthew 1:22-23 “ All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us." The author of Matthew is referred to as AOM henceforth. Neither “Immanuel” nor "God with us” is found elsewhere in the New Testament. AOM explicitly emphasizes important symbols. AOM does not give the literal meaning of Joshua (Gk. Jesus[‘Savior’]) in Matthew 1:21: ‘She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.’ AOM expands upon Joshua and gives us: “he will save his people from their sins’". This emphasis is evidence that AOM intends the name of Jesus to be symbolic and the theme of his gospel. AOM again expands upon a name as a symbol in : ‘And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.’ ( Gk Peter [Rock]) AOM defines other words without comment: Matthew 21:9 and Matthew 27:33. Other Gospel writers follow this pattern: Mark 3:17, Acts 13:8, Acts 4:36 and . Matthew 1:23 falls into this latter group, where no emphasis or explicit symbolism is expressed. Christ is given over a hundred titles in the NT. No evidence has been presented that: these predict “they will call him” by that title, or that they were known by AOM’s original audience. They have nothing in common with Matthew 1:23, except that they are titles. AOM presents us with 2 pieces of evidences in Matthew 1:22-23: A virgin birth and they will call him Immanuel". What does AOM assert that Matthew 1:22-23 is required evidence for? AOM asserts that Mary was a virgin five times: Matthew 1:16,18(twice),20, 25. 1:23 is offered as evidence of this. Matthew never asserts that Jesus was called Immanuel. The purpose of the verse is evidence for Mary’s virginity. Is Immanuel symbolic because of the lack of other possibilities? There exists at least one other possibility: AOM uses a prior prophecy to illustrate that Immanuel was a miracle birth 700 years before and Jesus is now a miracle birth. The miracle is the virgin birth of two different persons. AOM provides a scriptural precedent for a virgin birth, not to assign the name Immanuel to the already named Jesus. There is no evidence that AOM intended a significant symbolic meaning for Immanuel. There is no evidence that “God with us” was intended as a significant title for Christ. There is no evidence that AOM intended any use for the name Immanuel outside of the scripture evidence of Mary’s virginity. There is no evidence that Immanuel has to be symbolic because of the lack of other possibilities. The evidence is that AOM intended Matthew 1:22-23 solely as evidence for the Virgin Birth of Christ. There is no direct evidence to support another use. This article (above) hosted by ITW, is a critical response to Is the Name Immanuel Symbolic or Literal in Significance? by Mark McFall. ITW thanks James Goodfellow for his article from a critical point of view. by Mark McFall. ITW thanks James Goodfellow for his article from a critical point of view. END Posted: 01/14/04