Why Was He Named Jesus and Not Emmanuel?

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 01-02-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Why Was He Named Jesus and Not Emmanuel?

Msgr. Charles Pope • January 2, 2018 •

Yesterday we continued our meditation on the Eighth Day of Christmas by pondering the meaning of the Lord’s circumcision, which occurred on that day. In today’s post we consider another thing that took place on the same day: The name “Jesus” was announced and ascribed to Him.

Was this really the best name for Him? Why did the angel say that He should be called Jesus? Was He not referred to by other names (e.g., Emmanuel) in the Old Testament? What is the significance of the name “Jesus”?

St. Thomas Aquinas, through his Summa Theologiae, will be our teacher in this analysis. His teachings are presented below in bold, black italics, while my commentary appears in plain, red text. St. Thomas takes up the following question:

Whether His name was suitably given to Christ? (Summa Theologiae III, Q 37, Art 2).

A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: “Since a name is but an expression of the definition” which designates a thing’s proper nature.

Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men are named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father or some other relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him “by his father’s name Zachary,” not by the name John, because “there” was “none of” his “kindred that” was “called by this name,” as related Luke 1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph “called the name of” the “first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to forget all my labors” (Genesis 41:51). Or, again, from some quality of the person who receives the name; thus it is written (Genesis 25:25) that “he that came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called Esau,” which is interpreted “red.”

What St. Thomas discusses in terms of names is somewhat forgotten today. In our era, at least in the West, names are simply a sound associated with us. There is very little sense that names mean something or signify something. For example, my name, “Charles,” means “strong” or “manly.” In addition, I was named after my father and carry a family name forward. My full name is Charles Evans Pope IV. In its entirety, my name speaks to both a legacy and a quality.

Today, however, parents more often seem to choose names based on what is popular, or clever, or that “sound good.” In some cases, whim and/or frivolity replace thoughtful consideration. In biblical times the ancient Jews waited until the eighth day to name a child. This permitted some time to observe something of the nature of the child, of his or her qualities. This was especially important when the child was not going to be named after a relative.

As St. Thomas notes, most Jewish names were highly meaningful; they brought forth images and concepts such as “God has been gracious” (John), “A sojourner there” (Gershon), “The Lord has judged” (Jehoshaphat), “Pleasant” (Naomi), and “Ewe” (Rachel).

God also hints that He has a name for us, a name by which he knows us. Revelation 2:17 says this regarding those who persevere: I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.

The key point for us is that names are not merely random sounds assigned to us. They convey meaning and something of our nature or personality. Thoughtful consideration should be given when naming a child.

But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Genesis 17:5): “Thou shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many nations”: and it was said to Peter (Matthew 16:18): “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Since, therefore, this prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through Him all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus, i.e. Savior: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother, but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster father.

Yes, God knows our essence and destiny better than we or any others do. For most of his life, Abram (father of many) considered himself to be anything but the father of many nations. He did not have even a son! Yet God knew him differently and called him Abraham (father of many nations). Today, a vast multitude look to Abraham as a father—Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Indeed, he is the father of many nations. Peter, too, seemed anything but a rock when Jesus named him. He was impetuous and was not to be found during the crisis of the Crucifixion; but the Lord knew that Peter would become a rock and named him accordingly.

In Hebrew, the name Jesus is “Yeshua,” which means “Yahweh is Salvation.” This name is most suitable for Jesus, as St. Thomas sets forth. The angel instructs both Joseph and Mary to name him Jesus: You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins (Mat 1:21; Luke 1:31).

The name that God has for Him is “Jesus.” In assigning this name through the angel, God teaches that Jesus is both God and Savior.

This line of reasoning raises another question, which St. Thomas now takes up by articulating an objection to the fact that He was named Jesus rather than something else (e.g., Emmanuel):

It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ. For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling. But the prophets foretold [other names] for Christ: for it is written (Isaiah 7:14): “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel”; and (Isaiah 8:3): “Call His name, Hasten to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey”; and (Isaiah 9:6): “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace”; and (Zechariah 6:12): “Behold a Man, the Orient is His name.” Thus it was unsuitable that His name should be called Jesus (Objection 1).

St. Thomas responds to that objection as follows:

All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means “salvation.” For the name “Emmanuel, which being interpreted is ‘God with us,’” designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of the Son of God, the result of which union was that “God is with us.”

When it was said, “Call his name, Hasten to take away,” etc., these words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose spoils He took away, according to Colossians 2:15: “Despoiling the principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently.”

When it was said, “His name shall be called Wonderful,” etc., the way and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as “by the wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the inheritance of the life to come,” in which the children of God will enjoy “perfect peace” under “God their Prince.”

When it was said, “Behold a Man, the Orient is His name,” reference is made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the Incarnation, by reason of which “to the righteous a light is risen up in darkness” (Psalm 111:4). (Reply to Objection 1).

Many people today mention only the text from Isaiah, which indicates that He will be called Emmanuel, but as St. Thomas notes there were a many names and titles ascribed to the Messiah. This alone serves as a caution to those who take one text of the Scriptures and elevate its importance.

The key to interpreting Scripture is doing so within the context of the entirety of Scripture. One must read Scripture with the Church, not apart from it. God is not in the business of contradicting Himself.

The prophetic texts do speak of naming the Messiah in various ways. Given the variety of names it is clear that God does not intend that one name or title should prevail, but rather that all of them should complete a kind of picture of Him who comes to save us.

So, the name “Jesus” means that God comes to save us. Therefore, He is wonderful. He is God-hero, Father forever, and Prince of Peace. He is Emmanuel, God with us. The Light of His glory is like the light of ten thousand suns rising in the East (the Orient) to cast out the darkness.

“Jesus” (God saves) pretty well sums it up!

[veracious]

Odd thing is: not one single person on earth, called Yeshua by the name of ‘Jesus’ when He was here.

Truth in translation: names are not translated in strict translations. The name John in English, remains John in strict translations to other languages. John, is not going to respond if someone calls him by another name. Furthermore, John and his descendents are not going be real happy that some foreign people group write at length about him, using another name. Imagine Him mother hearing about it twisting. Who are they talking about?

Allah is not the name of our Father. Allah is just one “god” among multitudes. So “god” is a title of a diety, and YHVH’s name is not “god”, it is YHVH, or at the least, the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob. Otherwise, “god” can be identified as any of the god, making the claim that Allah is the same “god” of the Bible.

Further, our Father goes by other attribute names:
YHVH Jireh - YHVH Provider
YHVH Rapha - YHVH Healer
YHVH Yeshua - YHVH Savior or YHVH of our Salvation

[Mrs. Don-o]

Not all small-t traditions, but Sacred Tradition --- the kind St. Paul referred to--- is not refuted by anything you wrote in your last remarks.

You'll have to debate St. Paul on that.

Tagline.

[lurk]

It’s a great question.

The direct fulfillment of Isa. 7 was immediate. A child would be born, and before the child could eat solid food the kings of Syria would be gone and their threat to Jerusalem would be gone. Less than 3 years.

Then Matthew made a secondary application that Jesus is God with us. Immanuel then becomes not his given name, but his nature, God with us.

[ealgeone]

The Apostles and the local Churches they planted before 100 AD, and many after that point as well, didn't have the New Testament in writing. They had it in walking and talking, in preaching and teaching, in living and in dying, in life and death. They didn't read it. They lived it.

When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. Col 4:16 NASB [~61 AD]

I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers. 1 Thess 5:27 NASB [~51AD]

1Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: Gal 1:1-2 NASB [~49 AD]

1Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; 7to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:1-7 NASB [~58]

2To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: 1 Cor 1:2 NASB [~56]

1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: Eph 1:1 NASB [~61]

1Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons: Phil 1:1 NASB [~61]

1Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. 1 Thess 1:1 NASB [~51AD]

2To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 1 Tim 1:2 NASB [~63]

1James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. James 1:1 NASB[~45-50]

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 1 Peter 1:1 NASB [~63]

4John to the seven churches that are in Asia:.... Rev 1:4 NASB [~90]

The Gospels had also been completed by this point and were in circulation among the local churches. [Mark ~50; Luke ~60; Matthew ~60s; John ~85-90]

Paul's writings were recognized as Scripture in 2 Peter [~66].

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (King James Bible) "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

What were those traditions?

Paul gives us the answer in the same letter! This is why context is so important in reading the Scriptures.

6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. 10For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. 12Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. 13But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. 2 Thess 3:6-13 NASB

Was he talking about the Immaculate Conception? Nope.

Perpetual Virginity? Nope.

Papal Supremacy? Nope.

The Assumption? Nope?

The Mass as currently practiced in Roman Catholicism? Nope.

At Trent, when Rome authorized its Canon...did it include any of the writings of the ECFs? Nope.

Rome could have solved the question of what is or is not inspired right then and there. That Rome never included any of the writings of the ECFs is not lost on the astute reader of history.

[ealgeone]

Yeah, who was it who wrote the NT, protected it, and authorized it?

Not the Roman Catholic Church!

Just so the Protestants could memorize it?

Something Roman Catholics would be well advised to do.

[ealgeone]

Not all small-t traditions, but Sacred Tradition --- the kind St. Paul referred to--- is not refuted by anything you wrote in your last remarks.

Roman Catholics claim "Sacred Tradition" to support the Immaculate Conception do they not?

You'll have to debate St. Paul on that.

Actually, it is the Roman Catholic who has to debate Paul on this as they advance the belief "tradition" is equal to Scripture.

If I as a non-Catholic only rely upon Scripture I know I am on solid ground as Scripture is inspired and without error.

There is nothing in "Sacred Tradition" that is needed to understand salvation and how to obtain it.

However, the position of the Roman Catholic who equates "Sacred Tradition" with Scripture is on shaky ground as they are relying upon the opinion of the various ECFs.

As has been demonstrated in these threads the ECFs are in disagreement with each other on many of the issues near and dear to Rome. The Immaculate Conception as an example.

The current issues many Roman Catholics have with the current pope illustrate the reliance upon teachings other than found in Scripture.

Rome, through "Sacred Tradition" has added to what has been revealed in Scripture...in many cases contradicting Scripture.

Roman Catholicism has the same error in this case as Mormonism. Both have added "sacred" texts to Scripture that must be believed by their adherents.

Non-Catholics cannot fall into this error of adding to Scripture.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Amen to all that Scripture you quoted.

As for the rest: read a little history.

BTW, I've decided not to spend 2018 freepin' around in useless circles, nor cut-and-pasting what I wrote on these topics in 2009, '10, '11, '12, ...'17, etc.

Google

"Mrs Don-o" "[topic word]"

and it will all be don-o-splained for you!

Cheers.

[ealgeone]

Amen to all that Scripture you quoted. As for the rest: read a little history.

I have!

On a side note...thought of you last weekend.

I know you like to cook.

I made some very delicious homemade yeast bread.

Nothing better than warm bread with some butter and strawberry preserves!

[Slyfox]

The Holy Spirit inspired it but the select Apostles wrote it. The Holy Spirit has no arms.

The Catholic Church protected it and very carefully proclaimed, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what needed to be in the NT. And yes, the Church authorized what books would be part of the canon.

It was a Catholic bishop about 700 years ago who decided that there should be Chapter and verse separation so that it would be easier to read.

The use of the word "Catholic" was introduced in the fourth century in order to differentiate between those groveling in heresy and those who stuck by the truth.

There is so much you guys do not know. As is everything that happened for 1500 years before Martin Luther was of no use to God.

[SubMareener]

When you say things like “ only inspired texts” you got really close to denying the sovereignty of Abba Father YHWH. Never a good move. Just saying.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, yeast bread! Yay! Good for you!

I made some buckwheat pancakes, with a recipe that uses a 1:3 ratio of buckwheat to regular white flour, and yeast which is allowed to work in the batter overnight in the refrigerator (now there's something different: yeast working in the cold?) But they were really good; and yes, butter and strawberry preserves make it pert-near perfect.

The next project will be "crumpets," which, after reading innumerable British social satires and murder mysteries, I finally got around to looking up. Turns out it's basically a yeast-raised pancake, too.

With tea: a small-t tradition.

Hey.

[NorthMountain]

it would be better interpreted as 'the one who walks among us, is God'

In Eden, God walked with Adam (and Eve); see Genesis 2&3

After they sinned, He drove them out of the Garden, and walked with them no more.

When Jesus was born, God walked the earth with Man once again ...

John 1:
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

This time, though, when He left He sent His Holy Spirit to teach us all things.

[ealgeone]

There is so much you guys do not know. As is everything that happened for 1500 years before Martin Luther was of no use to God.

And there is so much you guys have added since the writings of the Apostles.

[ealgeone]

The use of the word "Catholic" was introduced in the fourth century in order to differentiate between those groveling in heresy and those who stuck by the truth.

The name [Catholic] appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

[Salvation]

**There is even a Roman Catholic writing by Alexander VII that admits Roman Catholics worship Mary! **

Source — live web source! PLEASE!

[metmom]

Then show me what those traditions were, how you know they came from the apostles, how you know they were passed down faithfully and without corruption for 2,000 years.

Please provide documentation for those proofs.

Also, please show us where the phrase “sacred tradition” appears in Scripture and where and how they were to be passed down.

Catholicism uses the out of *sacred tradition* to support a whole bunch of unscritpural doctrines. Since there are no Scripture to support them, they invented this *sacred tradition* stuff as justification to teach as truth things not found in Scripture.

[ealgeone]

The link is there. Copy and paste it into your browser.

[circlecity]

"The Holy Spirit inspired it but the select Apostles wrote it."

What's that got to do with the Roman Catholic Church.

[metmom]

Interestingly, the EO do not accept as doctrine many things that the Roman rite puts forth and uses *sacred tradition* so support, like the immaculate conception.

Yet they are considered in full communion with Rome.

Somehow.

When Prots are condemned as heretics and Mary haters for not agreeing.

[Hot Tabasco]

Why Was He Named Jesus and Not Emmanuel?

Why wasn't He named Bob or Larry?