"'Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,' which translated is 'God with us.'"
The Issue: Did Matthew mean God with us in a geographic sense or in a functional sense?
The Trinitarian Claim
Trinitarians claim "God with us" is intended to identify Jesus as "God." They further suggest it means God was "with us" in the sense of coming to be located with us geographically. And since Jesus came to be "with us" then He was "God with us."
What the Evidence will Show
The evidence will show that "God with us" is intended to convey the idea that God was with his people, Israel, in plan and purpose. The facts will show it means God was with them as opposed to being against them or indifferent to them. And the facts will show that God was with them in plan and purpose by sending His Son Jesus to save them from their sins.
Examination of the Evidence
Incompatible Interpretation
The Trinitarian interpretation is inconsistent with Scripture. The Jews were told explicitly that God will only be among humanity in the new heavens and earth (Revelation 21:1-4). If indeed, God has already been among us, the point of God's promise to dwell among us becomes meaningless.
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." (Revelation 21:1-4).
Proof of the Intent
The concept of God being with someone in a functional sense is expressed throughout the Bible. For example David says God is with him in the 23rd Psalm. He did not mean God came down out of heaven to literally walk with him. He meant God was with him in a functional sense. It is incredulous to say that Matthew was telling us that God was with Israel in the sense of occupying the same space. God was with Israel in plan and purpose because we are told numerous times that "no one has ever seen God" or even can see God.7 The fact is, that we are told right here in the context of Matthew chapter one how God was with his people Israel: his son Jesus whose name is "YHWH saves" will save his people from their sins." And in fact, if we look at Isaiah 8:8-10, another occurrence of the name "Immanuel," we can clearly also see here that the name Immanuel was intended to mean "God with us" in plan and purpose.
Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; And give ear, all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered; Gird yourselves, yet be shattered. Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a purpose, but it will not stand, For God is with us" (Lit. Immanuel). (Isaiah 8:8-10).
The Bible tells us that God was "with" his people many, many times and it never meant God was occupying the same space they occupied. And there isn't any reason whatsoever to think Matthew had this in mind either. Yahweh was said to be with his people in the Old Testament and it is a reference to God being with them in plan and purpose.8 In fact, at 2 Chronicles 13:12 we are told God was "with" Israel but no one assumes it means Yahweh was occupying their common space.9 David says that although he walks through the valley of the shadow of death he fears no evil, because YHWH is "with him."10 He does not mean YHWH came down from heaven and shared a common space with him. He means YHWH is with David in plan and purpose. God was with him and not against him.
And when we come to the New Testament, and explore what it has to say concerning Jesus, this becomes even more abundantly clear. At John 3:2, Nicodemus remarks that he felt God was "with" Jesus because of the miracles he had done. Indeed, Jesus tells us plainly that he drove out demons not by himself but by "the Spirit of God"11 and that it is God the Father "in him" that does the works.12 Indeed, Peter also tells us plainly that God preached the good news of peace and did miracles through Jesus.13 God was with Israel in the sense that he was with them in plan and purpose through his Son Jesus Christ.16
At Luke 7:16 where Jesus rose a young man from the dead, we are plainly told, "They were all filled with awe and praised God. 'A great prophet has appeared among us,' they said. 'God has come to help his people.'" No one seriously interprets this particular verse to mean Jesus was God and had come to raise this young man from the dead. In the very same way, Matthew tells us that God has come to save his people through his Son who is to be named "YHWH saves" and in this way the child is "God with us" because through this child God was with his people in the plan and purpose of salvation. It is plainly obvious to anyone who embraces the truth instead of clinging to a man-made tradition, that the term "God with us" refers not to the idea that "Jesus is God" but to the idea that God was with Israel in plan and purpose by sending His Son to them. The overwhelming force of Scripture, the immediate context of the passage, and the facts behind the origin of the quotation, demand we comprehend the name "God with us" in the sense of plan and purpose. Matthew was speaking in terms of God's function, not his geographic location.
The idea here in Matthew is to indicate God was with his people Israel in the plan and purpose of their salvation, not in the sense of being with them geographically. Let us get at the real truth of the matter here. If we back up just a little bit to verse 1:21 in Matthew, we will see that the angel tells Joseph that the child born to Mary is to be called "Yahweh saves" (Jesus) because he will "save his people from their sins." Now let us stop and think about that for one second. They named the child "YHWH saves." Obviously, the name "YHWH saves," given to the promised child, was to reflect back to the fact that God was going to save his people from their sins. It refers to His purpose. And "God with us" is also meant to convey the same idea that God was with them in the purposeful sense of saving them from their sins through his son Jesus. This is how Yahweh was "with" Israel. Yahweh God was saving his people from their sins and in this way is "with them." It is a matter of plan and purpose, not a matter of God's location. The name "Immanuel" or "God with us" is intended to refer to what God was doing rather than where he was. He was "with his people" in the sense that He sent his Son to save them and was "with" them in that plan and purpose.
Summation of the Facts
- The Trinitarian interpretation of the name "Immanuel" is incompatible with Revelation 21 where we find the ultimate destiny of Christians is to have God with them in a geographic sense.
- Immanuel was not literally Jesus' name. It was an appellation intended to indicate that God was with his people in plan and purpose by providing his son Jesus to die for their sins.
- Matthew is quoting Isaiah where we are explicitly informed that "God with us" means God was withhis people in plan and purpose and opposed to being against them.
Call for Discernment
The term "God with us" could hypothetically mean two different things: (1) God with us in the sense of occupying the same space, or (2) God with us in the sense of being with us in plan and purpose as opposed to being against us. To be honest with ourselves and others we must be objective rather than simply choosing the one that suits our fancies. We do find that God will only be with us people in the new heavens and new earth - in the sense of occupying the same sense as his people. The Bible commonly refers to God being with his people and it always means in plan and purpose. We also find that Matthew was quoting Isaiah who made it quite plain he was referring to plan and purpose and not location. Hence, we must find the Trinitarian claim to be without any merit whatsoever.
Notes:
| 1. | Matthew 1:25 |
| 2. | Matthew 1:21. See 10:5-6; 15:24 |
| 3. | Luke 3:6 |
| 4. | Luke 2:28-30 |
| 5. | Acts 28:28; cf. 13:47 |
| 6. | Acts 3:25-26; 5:31; 13:23 |
| 7. | Jn 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1 Jn 4:12; 1 Tim 6:16 |
8. | Num 14:14,42; Joshua 22:21, see Deut 31:17 |
9. | Also see 2 Chron 15:2; 20:17 |
| 10. | Ps 23:4; see 46:7
|
| 11. | Matthew 12:28
|
| 12. | John 14:10
|
| 13. | Luke 8:39 24:19; Acts 2:22; 10:36,38; see Lk 24:20
|
| 16. | A similar idea is also found at Luke 1:68,78. |
