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!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

In Revelation, Israel brought forth the Messiah - the Messiah promised to them.

I’d suggest you not start by entering the room holding Mary’s hand.

Just go to the passage. Read the entire section. Ask how it fits in with the preceding and following sections. Ask about all you find.

I know you would like it to be about Mary. Your extensive artwork proves this. Yet it is not about her.

Mary’s roll was to bear and raise Messiah to fulfill God’s promises to Israel. This she fulfilled. We continue to note how blessed she was to be chosen and used in this important roll.

The rest stems from poor hermeneutics and Hopium...

[Luircin]

Yeah no.

There are no capital letters at all in the verse in question in the original Greek manuscripts.

[Luircin]

Random expansion on your topic.

The woman in Revelation is not only Israel but the Church as a whole, because if we stretch all through history, she is one and the same.

[ealgeone]

No it wasn’t. Nor is the way Rome renders it. It’s more made up false teachings from Rome.

[kosciusko51]

Mindreading is not allowed. Why did you say that, instead of giving an answer?

Since you question my motive: I asked why, since it is odd to me that the quote stops in the middle of the verse. And I will ask again, why is not the whole passage used to identify the Woman? And when do/did all these events take place?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

The woman in Revelation is not only Israel but the Church as a whole, because if we stretch all through history, she is one and the same.

I understand this Reformed theological view that makes Israel and the Church into one body.

I do not share it based on what I see in Scripture. I do not see the fulfillment of Israel's promised land boundaries, etc. Nor are the promises to Israel as glorious as what He has promised the Church. It is an interesting discussion, but way off the thread topic.

Happy New Year to you Luircin!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

why is not the whole passage used to identify the Woman?

If you carry Mary into the room, you have to find a place for her to sit! Part of the verse looked like a chair fit for Mary, so...

[Luircin]

Well, I more meant how Paul spoke about us believers being grafted into the vine that is Israel.

And I’m a lot better now than I was over New Years’ let me tell you. Ear infections are no fun, but the good Lord decided to gift us with antibiotics so now I’m starting to feel better.

Hope things are going well over there.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Paul spoke about us believers being grafted into the vine that is Israel.

Right on, right on!

Illness: prayers up for you!!

“Hope things are going well over there.

I am so grateful for the blessings of God in our lives.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I am sorry. I thought that when you said the quote was "cut off," you were implying there was some mishandling of the text involved. If that wasn't your intent, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I've been shuttling back and forth between the keyboard and the kitchen, which has made my sense of the continuity of the discussion a little choppy.

[kosciusko51]

I understand getting distracted, and I entered the conversation late.

Perhaps when you are less distracted, you could go back to my original post and reread what I pointed out and the questions I asked.

Grace and Peace

[ealgeone]

Watcha cooking tonight?

You ever make mincemeat pies?

[af_vet_1981]

In Revelation, Israel brought forth the Messiah - the Messiah promised to them.

Jacob is a man. God named him Israel. He is a father, not a mother. He has twelve sons. None of them is the Messiah. He is a Patriarch, not a Matriarch.

There is no valid path to bring forth a man child to rule the Gentiles (nations) with a rod of iron and rise up to the throne of God except through the virgin, Miriam/Mary, who belongs to both the nation of Israel and the Church. She is the woman who brings forth Jesus, the man child who will rule the Gentiles with a rod of iron and is caught up to heaven at the right hand of the Father.

Going to the passage, and comparing it with Joseph's dream one can see:
1. Joseph dreamed that the sun, the moon, and eleven stars bowed to him. The text in Genesis interprets the sun as Jacob, the moon as Joseph's mother Rachel, and the eleven stars as Joseph's brothers.
2. In Revelation the wonder in heaven is a woman, not a man. She is clothed by the sun with the moon under her feet. There is a crown of twelve stars in a crown upon her head.
3. The woman, clothed by the sun (Patriarch(s)), and the moon (Matriarch(s)), crowned by the stars (twelve tribes) becomes pregnant and brings forth the Messiah who rises up to the throne of God.
4. The woman cannot be Israel, except through Miriam/Mary, because Israel are the brethren of the Messiah, not the mother of the Messiah.
5. The woman cannot be the Church, except through Miriam/Mary, because the Church is the body of the Messiah, not the mother of the Messiah.

[Zuriel]

**Symbolic of the literal truth expressed in this tagline.**

God is a Spirit. God was IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself. The flesh grew in wisdom and stature. God always knew all things, and never grew, for he is higher than the heavens, lower than the ocean floors.

It’s really a pathetic painting, especially the fanciful appearance of the Son in a young boy’s body, in the mother, as though she has pouch like a kangaroo.

And yes, the big Mary, little Jesus theme is dominant for all to see.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Jacob is a man. God named him Israel. He is a father, not a mother. ”

Israel is a nation as well.

Let me know when you outline Revelation and Daniel, verse by verse, paragraph by paragraph, section by section, and you will see more clearly friend.

Consider this a great goal for your new year.

Also, I note you take figurative language literally. A bad hermeneutic amigo.

Happy New Year!

[Zuriel]

**And because Jesus, on His cross, gave his mother a son (John)(representing the faithful -— all the others had fled) and gave His faithful -— His Church -— a Mother.**

John never pulled a sword in an effort to stop the arrest. He fled with all the others. Like Peter, he then followed at a distance, but did not speak up or attempt to intervene at any time: not at the home of the high priest, not at Pilate’s hall, not while Herod’s men mocked the Lord, not back at Pilate’s hall when Barabbas was freed, not when the cross was being borne, not when the nails were being hammered in to the body.

John was not the superior in faith example, before Pentecost, that your doctrine teaches. He was as afraid as the rest when the stormy sea threatened. He didn’t attempt to walk on water.

He didn’t have the power to overcome, until the upper room experience on Pentecost.

[af_vet_1981]

Israel is a nation as well.

I covered that point; Israel, the nation, are the brethren of the Messiah, not the mother of the Messiah. The Messiah has a mother, a woman, the handmaid of the Lord. Her name, blessed for all generations, is Miriam/Mary.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Again with a literal premise about a figurative description.

Sorry, but it’s back to “study to show yourself approved!”

Start your outlines! You’re 3 days behind already!

[af_vet_1981]

Again with a literal premise about a figurative description.

Do you mean you do not really believe as a literal premise that
1. the man child is the Messiah ?
2. the man child is to rule the nations with a rod of iron ?
3. the man child was caught up to heaven, to God's throne ?

[kosciusko51]

Jeremiah 3:6

The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore?