[Pg 38]

Vers. 10, 11. "And the Lord spoke farther unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it from the depth, or above from the height."

Ahaz observed a dignified silence after those words of the Prophet; but his whole manner shews the Prophet that they have not made any impression upon him. If David's spirit had rested on Ahaz, he would surely, if he had wavered at all, have, on the word of the Prophet, thrown himself into the arras of his God. But in order that the depth of his apostacy, the greatness of his guilt, and the justice of the divine judgments may become manifest, God shows him even a deeper condescension. The Prophet offers to prove the truth of his announcement by any miraculous work which the king himself should determine, and from which he might, at the same time, see God's omnipotence, and the Divine mission of the Prophet. As Ahaz refused the offered sign, the word 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13: [Greek: ei arnoumetha, kakeinos arnesetai hemas. ei apistoumen, ekeinos pistos menei—arnesasthai gar heauton ou dunatai] came into application. According to Deut. vii. 9 ff. the truth and faithfulness of God must now manifest itself in the [Pg 39] infliction of severe visitations upon the house of David.—The character of a sign is, in general, borne by everything which serves for certifying facts which belong to the territory of faith, and not to that of sight. 1. In some instances, the sign consists in a mere naked word; thus in Exod. iii. 12: "And this shall be the sign unto thee that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain." Moses'doubts of the truth of his Divine mission originated in the consciousness of his own unworthiness, and in the condition of those to whom he was sent. From these doubts he was delivered by the announcement that, at the place where he had been called, he, at the head of the delivered people, should serve his God. This was to him a sign that God was in earnest in calling him. 2. In other instances the assurance given by the sign consists in its perceptibility and corporeality; so that the word assumes, as it were, flesh and blood. A case of this kind it is, e.g., when, in chap. viii. 18, Isaiah calls his two sons, to whom, at the command of God, he had given symbolical names, expressive of the future salvation of the covenant-people, "Signs and wonders in Israel;" farther, chap. xx. 3, where the Prophet walks naked and barefoot for a sign of the calamity impending over Egypt and Ethiopia in three years. 3. In another class of signs, a fact is announced which is, in itself, natural, but not to be foreseen by any human combination, the coming to pass of which, in the immediate future, furnishes the proof that, at a distant future, that will be fulfilled which was foretold as impending. The wonderful element, and the demonstrative power do not, in such a case, lie in the matter of the sign, but in the telling of it beforehand. It is in this sense that, in 1 Sam. x., Samuel gives several signs to Saul, that God had destined him to be king, e.g., that in a place exactly fixed, he would meet two men who would bring him the intelligence that the lost asses were found; that, farther onwards, he would meet with three men, one of whom would be carrying three kids, another, three loaves of bread, and another, a bottle of wine, &c. In 1 Sam. ii. 34, the sudden death of his two sons is given to Eli as a sign that all the calamities threatened against his family should certainly come to pass. In Jer. xliv. 29, 30, the impending defeat of Pharaoh-Hophras is given as a sign of the divine vengeance breaking in upon the Jews in Egypt. Even before the [Pg 40] thing came to pass, it could not in such a case, be otherwise than that the previous condition and foundation brought before the eyes in a lively manner (Jer. xliv. 30: "Behold, I give Pharaoh-Hophras into the hands of his enemies") gave a powerful shock to the doubts as to whether the fact in question would come to pass. 4. In other cases, the assurance was given in such a manner, that all doubts as to the truth of the announcement were set at rest by the immediate performance of a miraculous work going beyond the ordinary laws of nature. Thus, e.g., Isaiah says to Hezekiah, in chap. xxviii. 7: "And this shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing which He has spoken," and, as a sign that the Lord would add fifteen years to the life of the King, who was sick unto death, he makes the shadow on the sun-dial of Ahaz to go back ten degrees. Of this description were also the signs granted to Gideon, and, in many respects, the plagues in Egypt also. In the passage before us, no other sign can possibly be spoken of than one of the two last classes. For it was a real, miraculous sign only which could possibly exert any influence on a mind so darkened as was that of Ahaz, and it was the vain offer of such an one only which was fitted to bring to light his obduracy. If, then, the Prophet was willing and able to give a real, miraculous sign, why, then, is the answer of Ahaz so unsuitable? And we can surely not suppose, as Meier does, that he should have intentionally misunderstood the Prophet. The temptation of the Lord by the children of Israel, to which the word of the Lord, Deut. vi. 16, quoted by Ahaz, refers, consisted, according to Exod. xvii., in their having asked water, as a miraculous sign that the Lord was truly in the midst of them. How could the Prophet reproach Ahaz with having offended, not men merely, but God, unless he had offered to prove, by a fact which lay absolutely beyond the limits of nature, the truth of his announcement, the divinity of Him who gave it, the divinity of his own mission, and the soundness of his advice? Hendewerk is of opinion that "it is difficult to say what the author would have made to be the sign in the heavens; probably, a very simple thing." But in making this objection it is forgotten that Isaiah gives free choice to the king. Hitzig says: "Without knowing it, Isaiah here plays a very dangerous game. For if Ahaz had accepted his proposition, Jehovah would [Pg 41] probably have left His servant in the lurch, and he would have begun to doubt of his God and of himself." In these words, at all events, it is conceded that the prophets themselves would not be what people in modern times would have them to be. If such was their position towards miracles, then, in their own convictions, prophecies, too, must be something else than general descriptions, and indefinite forebodings. But how should it have been possible that an order could have maintained itself for centuries, the most prominent members of which gave themselves up to such enthusiastic imprudence and rashness? Moreover, it is overlooked that afterwards, to Hezekiah, our Prophet grants that in reality which here he offers to Ahaz in vain,—[Hebrew: hemq] and [Hebrew: hgbh] are Infin. absol. "going high," "going low." The Imperat. [Hebrew: walh] must be understood after [Hebrew: hgbh] also. Some explain [Hebrew: walh] by "to hell," "down to hell;" but this is against the form of the word, which it would be arbitrary to change. Nor does one exactly see how, if we except, perhaps, the apparition of one dead, Isaiah could have given to the king a sign from the Sheol; and in other passages, too (comp. Joel iii. 3 [ii. 30]), signs in the heavens and in the earth are contrasted with one another. Theodoret remarks that both kinds of miracles, among which the Lord here allowed a choice to Ahaz, were granted by Him to his pious son, Hezekiah, inasmuch as He wrought a phenomenon in heaven which affected the going back of the shadow on the sun-dial of Ahaz; and on earth, inasmuch as He, in a wonderful manner, destroyed the Assyrians, and restored the king to health. Jerome farther remarks, that, from among the plagues in Egypt, the lice, frogs, &c., were signs on earth; the hail, fire, and three day's darkness, were signs in the heaven. It is on the passage before us that the Pharisees take their stand, when in Matt. xvi. 1 they ask from the Lord that He should grant them a sign from heaven. If even the Prophet Isaiah offered to prove in such a manner his divine mission, then, according to their opinion, Christ was much more bound to do this, inasmuch as He set up far higher claims. But they overlooked the circumstance that enough had already been granted for convincing those who were well disposed, and that it can never be a duty to convince obstinate unbelief in a manner so palpable.

[Pg 42]

Ver. 12. "And Ahaz said: I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord."

Ahaz declines the offer by referring to Deut. vi. 16., and thus assuming the guise of reverence for God and His commandment. "He pretends," says Calvin, "to have faith in the words of the Prophet, and not to require anything besides the word." The same declarations of the Law, the Lord opposes to Satan, when the latter would induce Him to do something for which he had no word of God, Matt. iv. 7. That would really have been a tempting of God. Ahaz had no doubt that the miracle would really be performed; but he had a dislike to enter within the mystical sphere. Who knows whether the God who grants the miracle is really the highest God? comp. Is. x. 10, 11, xxxvi. 18-20, xxxvii. 10-12. Who knows whether He is not laying for him a trap; whether, by preventing him from seeking the help of man. He is not to bring upon him the destruction which his conscience tells him he has so richly deserved? At all events the affording of His help is clogged with a condition which he is resolved not to fulfil, viz., his conversion. A better and easier bargain, he thought, could be struck with the Assyrians; how insatiable soever they might be, they did not ask the heart. How many do even now-a-days rather perish in sin and misery, than be converted!

Ver. 13. "And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it too little for you to provoke man, that you provoke also my God?"

When Ahaz had before refused to believe in the simple announcement of the Prophet, his sin was more pardonable; for, inasmuch as Isaiah had not proved himself outwardly as a divine ambassador, Ahaz sinned to a certain degree against man only, against the Prophet only, by unjustly suspecting him of a deceitful pretension to a divine revelation. Hence, Isaiah continues mild and gentle. But when Ahaz declined the offered sign, God himself was provoked by him, and his wickedness came evidently to light. It is substantially the same difference as that between the sin against the Son of Man, the Christ coming outwardly and as a man only (Bengel: quo statu conspicu, quatenus aequo tum loco cum hominibus conversabatur), and the sin against the Holy Ghost who powerfully glorifies Him outwardly and inwardly. It is the antithesis [Pg 43] of the relative ignorance of what one is doing, and of the absolute unwillingness which purposely hardens itself to the truth known, or easy to be known. We say relative ignorance; for an element of obduracy and hardening already existed, if he did not believe the Prophet, even without a sign. For the fact that the Prophet was sent by God, and spoke God's word, was testified to all who would hear it, even by the inner voice, just as in every sin against the Son of Man there is always already an element of the sin against the Holy Ghost.—The truth that godlessness is the highest folly is here seen in a very evident manner. The same Ahaz who rejects the offer of the living God, who palpably wishes to reveal to him that He is a living God, sacrifices his son to the dead idol Moloch, who never yet gave the smallest sign of life! In this mirror we may see the condition of human nature.—The circumstance that it is not Ahaz, but the house of David that is addressed, indicates that the deed is a deed of the whole house.—The Prophet says, "My God," i.e., the God whose faithful servant I am, and in whom ye hypocrites have no more any share. In Ver. 11, the Prophet had still called Him the God of Ahaz.

Ver. 14. "Therefore the Lord himself giveth you a sign: Behold the Virgin is with child, and heareth a Son, and thou callest his name Immanuel."

Ahaz had refused the proffered sign; the whole depth of his apostacy had become manifest; no further regard was to be had to him. But it was necessary to strengthen those who feared God, in their confidence in the Lord, and in their hope in him. For this reason, the Prophet gives a sign, even against the will of Ahaz, by which the announcement of the deliverance from the two kings was confirmed. Your weak, prostrate faith, he says, may erect itself on the certain fact that, in the Son of the Virgin, the Lord will some day be with us in the truest manner, and may perceive therein a guarantee and a pledge of the lower help in the present danger also.—"Therefore"—because ye will not fix upon a sign. Reinke, in the ably written Monograph on this passage, assigns to [Hebrew: lkN] the signification, "nevertheless," which is not supported by the usus loquendi.—[Hebrew: itN] must be translated as a Present; for the pregnancy of the Virgin and birth of Immanuel are present to [Pg 44] the Prophet; and the fact cannot serve as a sign, in so far as it manifests itself outwardly, but only in so far as, by being foretold, it is realized as present.—[Hebrew: hva] He, i.e., of His own accord without any co-operation, such as would have taken place if Ahaz had asked the sign.—[Hebrew: lkM] refers by its form to the house of David; but in determining the sign, it is not the real condition of its representative at that time which is regarded, but as he ought to be. In substance, the sign given to ungodly Ahaz is destined for believers only.—[Hebrew: hnh] "behold" indicates the energy with which the Prophet anticipates the future; in his spirit it becomes to him the immediate present. Thus it was understood as early as by Chrysostom: [Greek: monon gar ouk horontos en ta ginomena kai phantazomenou kai pollen echontos huper ton eiremenon plerophorian, ton gar hemeteron ophthalmon ekeinoi saphesteron ta me horomena eblepon.]—The article in [Hebrew: helmh] cannot refer to the virgin known as the mother of the Saviour; for, besides the passage before us, it is only Micah v. 2 (3) which mentions the mother of the Saviour, and it is our passage only which speaks of her as a virgin. In harmony with [Hebrew: hnh], the article in [Hebrew: helmh] might be explained from the circumstance that the Virgin is present to the inward perception of the Prophet—equivalent to "the virgin there." But since the use of the article in the generic sense is so general, it is most natural to understand "the virgin" as forming a contrast to the married or old woman, and hence, in substance, as here equivalent to a virgin. To this view we are led also by the circumstance that, in the parallel passage, Mic. v. 2 (3) [Hebrew: ivldh] "a bearing woman" is used without the article.—[Hebrew: elmh] is, by old expositors, commonly derived from [Hebrew: elM] in the signification "to conceal" A virgin, they assume, is called a concealed one, with reference to the customs of the East, where the virgins are obliged to lead a concealed life. Thus it was understood by Jerome also: "Almah is not applied to girls or virgins generally, but is used emphatically of a hidden and concealed virgin, who is never accessible to the look of males, but who is with great care watched by the parents." But all parties now rightly agree that the word is to be derived from [Hebrew: elM], in the signification, "to grow up." To offer here any arguments in proof would be a work of supererogation, as they are offered by all dictionaries. But with all that, Luther's remark is even now in full force: "If [Pg 45] a Jew or a Christian can prove to me that in any passage of Scripture Almah means 'a married woman,'I will give him a hundred florins, although God alone knows where I may find them." It is true that [Hebrew: elmh] is distinguished from [Hebrew: btvlh], which designates the virgin state as such, and in this signification occurs in Joel i. 8. also where the bride laments over her bridegroom whom she has lost by death. Inviolate chastity is, in itself, not implied in the word. But certain it is that [Hebrew: elmh] designates an unmarried person in the first years of youth; and if this be the case, un violated chastity is a matter of course in this context; for if the mother of the Saviour was to be an unmarried person, she could be a virgin only; and, in general, it is inconceivable that the Prophet should have brought forward a relation of impure love. In favour of "an unmarried person" is, in the first instance, the derivation. Being derived from [Hebrew: elM], "to grow up," "to become marriageable," [Hebrew: elmh] can denote nothing else than puella nubilis. But still more decisive is the usus loquendi. In Arabic and Syriac the corresponding words are never used of married women, and Jerome remarks, that in the Punic dialect also a virgin proper is called [Hebrew: elmh]. Besides in the passage before us, the word occurs in Hebrew six times (Gen. xxiv. 43; Exod. ii. 8; Ps. lxviii. 26; Song of Sol. i. 3, vi. 8; Prov. xxx. 19); but in all these passages the word is undeniably used of unmarried persons. In the two passages of the Song of Solomon, the [Hebrew: elmvt] designate the nations which have not yet attained to an union with the heavenly Solomon, but are destined for this union. In chap. vi. 8, they are, as brides, expressly contrasted with the wives of the first and second class. Marriage forms the boundary; the Almah appears here distinctly as the anti-thesis to a married woman. It is the passage in Proverbs only which requires a more minute examination, as the opponents have given up all the other passages, and seek in it alone a support for their assertion that [Hebrew: elmh] may be used of a married woman also. The passage in its connection runs as follows: Ver. 18. "There be three things which are too wonderful for me, and four which I know not. Ver. 19. The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon the rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a maid. Ver. 20. This is the way of an adulterous woman; she [Pg 46] eateth, and wipeth her mouth and saith: I have done no wickedness." According to De Wette, Bertheau, and others, the tertium comparationis for every thing is to lie in this only, that the ways do not leave any trace that could be recognized. But the traceless disappearing is altogether without foundation; there is not one word to indicate it; and it is quite impossible that that on which every thing depends should have been left to conjecture. Farther,—instead of the eagle, every other bird might have been mentioned, and the words "in the air" would be without meaning, as well as the words "in the heart of the sea" mentioned in reference to the ship. But the real point of view is expressly stated in ver. 18. It is the incomprehensible. It is thus only that ver. 20, for which the other verses prepare the way, falls in with the tendency of the whole. In the way of the adulteress, that which is pointed out is not that it cannot be known, but the moral incomprehensibility that she, practising great wickedness which is worthy of death, and will unavoidably bring destruction upon her, behaves as if there were nothing wrong, as if a permitted enjoyment were the point in question, that she eats the poisoned bread of unchaste enjoyment as if it were ordinary bread; comp. ix. 17, xx. 17; Ps. xiv. 4. Four incomprehensible things in the natural territory are made use of to illustrate an incomprehensible thing in the ethical territory. The whole purpose is to point out the mystery of sin. In the case of the eagle, it is the boldness of his flight in which the miraculous consists. The speed and boldness of his flight is elsewhere also very commonly mentioned as the characteristic of the eagle; it is just that which makes him the king of birds. In the case of the serpent, the wonder is that, although wanting feet, it yet moves over the smooth rock which is inaccessible to the proud horse; comp. Amos vi. 12: "Do horses run upon the rock." In the ship, it is the circumstance that she safely passes over the abyss which, as it would appear, could not fail to swallow her up. The way of a man with a maid occupies the last place in order to intimate that [Hebrew: drK], as in the case of the adulteress, denotes the spiritual way. What is here meant is the relation of the man to the virgin, generally, for if any particular aspect had been regarded, e. g., that of boldness, cunning, or secrecy, it [Pg 47] ought to have been pointed at. The way of the man with the maid is the secret of which mention is made as early as in Gen. ii. 24,—the union of the strong with the weak and tender (comp. the parallel passage, Jer. xxxi. 22), the secret attraction which connects with one another the hearts, and at last, the bodies. The end of the way is marriage. It is the young love which specially bears the character of the mysterious; after the relation has been established, it attracts less wonder.—[Hebrew: hrh] is the femin. of the verbal adj. [Hebrew: hrh]. The fundamental passage, Gen. xvi. 11, where the angel of the Lord says to Hagar: "Behold thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has heard thy affliction," shows that we must translate: The virgin is with child, and not: becomes with child. The allusion to that passage in Genesis is very significant. In that case, as well as in the one under consideration, salvation is brought into connection with the birth of a child. To the birth of Ishmael, the despairing Hagar is directed as to a security for the divine favour; to the birth of Immanuel, the desponding people are directed as to the actual proof that God is with them. If the Almah represents herself to the Prophet as being already with child, then passages such as Is. xxix. 8, Matt. xi. 5, are not applicable. A virgin who is with child cannot be one who was a virgin.—The form [Hebrew: qrat] may be 3d fem. for [Hebrew: qrah], comp. Jer. xliv. 23; but the fundamental passage in Gen. xvi. 11 is decisive for considering it as the 2d fem.: "thou callest," as an address to the virgin; in which case the form is altogether regular. It was not a rare occurrence in Israel that mothers gave the name to children, Gen. iv. 1, 25, xix. 37, xxix. 32. The circumstance, therefore, that the giving of the name is assigned to the mother (the virgin) affords no ground for supposing, as many of the older expositors do, that this is an intimation that the child would not have a human father. "Thou callest" can, on the contrary, according to the custom then prevalent, be substantially equivalent to: they shall name, Matt. [Greek: kalesousi], Jerome: vocabitur. The name is, of course, not to be considered as an ordinary nomen proprium, but as a designation of his nature and character. It may be understood in different ways. Several interpreters, e. g., Jerome, referring to passages such as Ps. xlvi. 8, lxxxix. 25, Is. xliii. 2, Jer. i. 8, see [Pg 48] in it nothing else than an appeal to, and promise of divine aid. According to others, the name is to be referred to God's becoming man in the Messiah; thus Theodoret says: "The name reveals the God who is with us, the God who became man, the God who took upon Him the human nature." In a similar manner Irenaeus, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Lactantius, Calvin, and others, express themselves. But those very parallel passages just quoted show that the name in itself has no distinct reference to the incarnation of God in Christ. But from the passage chap. ix. 5, (6), which is so closely connected with the one before us, and in which the Messiah is called God-hero, (the mighty God), and His divine nature so emphatically pointed out (comp. also Mic. v. 1 [2],) it plainly appears that the Prophet had in view the highest and truest form of God's being with His people, such as was made manifest when the word became flesh. (Chrysostom says: "Then, above all, God was with us on earth, when He was seen on earth, and conversed with man, and manifested so great care for us.")

According, then, to the interpretation given, this verse before us affirms that, at some future period, the Messiah should be born by a virgin, among the covenant people, who in the truest manner would bring God near to them, and open the treasures of His salvation. In Vol. I. p. 500 ff., we proved that this explanation occurs already in the Gospel according to St. Matthew. According to the interpretation of the Apostle, the passage can refer to Christ only, and finds in him not only the highest, but the only fulfilment. In the Christian Church, throughout all ages, the Messianic explanation was the prevailing one. It was held by all the Fathers of the Church, and by all other Christian commentators down to the middle of the 18th century,—only that some, besides the higher reference to the Messiah, assumed a lower one to some event of that period. With the revival of faith, this view, too, has been revived. It is proved by the parallel passage, chap. ix. 5 (6). That passage presents so remarkable an agreement with the one now under consideration, that we cannot but assume the same subject in both. "Behold, a virgin is with child, and beareth a son"—"A child is born unto us, a son is given;"—"They call him Immanuel," i.e., Him in whom God will be with us in the truest manner—"They call Him [Pg 49] Wonder-Counsellor, the God-Hero, Ever-Father, the Prince of Peace." Both of these passages can the less be separated from one another, that chap. viii. 8 is evidently intended to lead from the one to the other. In this passage it is said of the world's power, which in the meantime, and in the first place, was represented by Asshur: "And the stretchings out of his wings are the fulness of the breadth of thy land, Immanuel," i. e., his wings will cover the whole extent of thy land,—the stretching of the wings of this immense bird of prey, Asshur, comprehends the whole land. In the words: "Thy land, O Immanuel," the prophecy of the wonderful Child, in chap. viii. 23-ix. 6 (ix. 1-7), is already prepared. The land in which Immanuel is to be born, which belongs to Him, cannot remain continually the property of heathen enemies. Every destruction is, at the same time, a prophecy of the restoration. A look to the wonderful Child, and despair must flee. Behind the clouds, the sun is shining. Every attempt to assign the Immanuel to the lower sphere, must by this passage be rendered futile. For how, in that case, could Canaan be called His land? The signification "native country" which [Hebrew: arC], it is true, sometimes receives by the context, does not suit here. For the passage just points out the contrast of reality and idea, that the world's power takes possession of the land which belongs to Immanuel, and hence prepares for the announcement contained in that which follows, viz., that this contrast shall be done away with, and that this shall be done as soon as the legitimate proprietor comes into His kingdom. Farther,—Decisive in favour of the Messianic explanation is also the passage Mic. v. 1, 2, (2, 3), where, in correspondence to virgin here, we have, she who is bearing. The latter, indeed, is not expressly called a virgin; but it follows, as a matter of course, that she be so, as she is to bear the Hero of Divine origin ("of eternity"), who, hence, cannot have been begotten by any mortal. Both of the prophecies mutually illustrate one another. "Micah designates the Divine origin of the Promised One; Isaiah, the miraculous circumstances of His birth" (Rosenmueller) Just as Isaiah holds up the birth of Immanuel as the pledge that the covenant-people would not perish in their present catastrophe; just as he points to the shining form of Immanuel, announcing the victory over the [Pg 50] world, in order to comfort them in the impending severe oppression by the world's power (viii. 8);—so Micah makes the oppression by the world's power continue only until the time that she who is bearing brings forth. As Micah, in v. 1 (2), contrasts the divine dignity and nature with the birth in time, so, in Isaiah, Immanuel, He in whom God will most truly be with His people, is born by a virgin.

The arguments which the Jews, and, following their example, the rationalistic interpreters, especially Gesenius, and with them Olshausen, have advanced against the Messianic explanation, prove nothing. They are these:

1. "A reference to the Messiah who, after the lapse of centuries, is to be born of a virgin, appears to be without meaning in the present circumstances." This argument proves too much, and, hence, nothing. It would be valid against Messianic prophecies in general, the existence of which certainly cannot be denied. Do not Jeremiah and Ezekiel, at the time when the people were carried away into captivity, comfort them by the announcement that the kingdom of God should, in a far more glorious manner, be established by Messiah, whose appearance was yet several centuries distant? The highest proof of Israel's dignity and election, was the promise that, at some future time, the Messiah was to be born among them. How, indeed, could the Lord leave, without the lower help in the present calamity, a people with whom He was to be, at some future period, in the truest manner? The Prophet refers to the future Saviour in a way quite similar to that in which the Apostle refers to Him, after He had appeared: "Who did not spare His only begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, how should He not in Him give us all things freely?" Let us only realize the truth that the hope in the Messiah formed the centre of the life of believers; that this hope was, by fear, repressed only, but not destroyed. All which was needed, therefore, was to revive this hope, and with it the special hope for the present distress also was given—the assurance, firm as a rock, that in it the covenant-people could not perish. This revival took place in this way, that in the mind of the Prophet, the Messianic hope was, by the Holy Spirit, rekindled, so that at his light all might kindle their lights. The Messianic idea here meets us in such originality [Pg 51] and freshness, as if here were its real fountain head. The faith already existing is only the foundation, only the point of connexion. What is essential is the new revelation of the old truth, and that could not fail to be affecting, overpowering to susceptible minds.

2. "The ground of consolation is too general. The Messiah might be born from the family of Ahaz without the Jewish state being preserved in its then existing condition, and without Ahaz continuing on the throne. The Babylonish captivity intervened, and yet Messiah was to be born. Isaiah would thus have made himself guilty of a false sophistical argumentation."—We answer: What they, at that time, feared, was the total destruction of state and people. This appears sufficiently from the circumstance that the prophet takes his son Shearjashub with him; and indeed the intentions of the enemy in this respect are expressed with sufficient clearness in ver. 6. It is this extreme of fear which the Prophet here first opposes. Just as, according to the preceding verses, he met the fear of entire destruction by taking with him his son Shearjashub, "the remnant will be converted," without thereby excluding a temporary carrying away, so he there also prepares the mind for the announcement contained in vers. 15, 16, of the near deliverance from the present danger, by first representing the fear of an entire destruction to be unfounded. A people, moreover, to whom, at some future period, although it may be at a very remote future, a divine Saviour is to be sent, must, in the present also, be under special divine protection. They may be visited by severe sufferings, they may be brought to the very verge of destruction,—whether that shall be the case the Prophet does not, as yet, declare,—but one thing is sure, that to them all things must work together for good; and that is the main point. He who is convinced of this, may calmly and quietly look at the course of events.

3. "The sense in which [Hebrew: avt] is elsewhere used in Scripture, is altogether disregarded by this interpretation. For, according to it, [Hebrew: avt] would refer to a future event; but according to the usus loquendi elsewhere observed, [Hebrew: avt] 'is a prophesied second event, the earlier fulfilment of which is to afford a sure guarantee for the fulfilment of the first, which is really the point at issue.'" But, in opposition to this, it is sufficient to [Pg 52] refer to Exod. iii. 12, where Moses receives this as a sign of his Divine mission, and of the deliverance of the people to be effected by him: "When thou hast brought forth my people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain." In chap. xxxvii. 30, our Prophet himself, as a confirmation of the word spoken in reference to the king of Asshur: "I make thee return by the way by which thou earnest," gives this sign, that, in the third year after this, agriculture should already have altogether returned into its old tracks, and the cultivation of the country should have been altogether restored.[4] The fact here given as a sign is later than that which is to be thereby made sure. The sign consists only in this, that the idea is vividly called up and realized in the mind, that the land would recover from the destruction; and this of course, implies the destruction of the enemy. But in our chapter itself,—the name of Shearjashub affords the example of a sign (comp. chap. vii. 18), which is taken from the territory of the distant future. It is time that commonly [Hebrew: avt] is not used of future things; but this has its reason not in the idea of [Hebrew: avt], but solely in the circumstance that, ordinarily, the future cannot serve as a sign of assurance. But it is quite obvious that, in the present case, the Messianic announcement could afford such a sign, and that in a far higher degree than the future facts given as signs in Exod. iii., and Isa. xxxvii. The kingdom of glory which has been promised to us, forms to us also a sure pledge that in all the distresses of the Church, the Lord will not withhold His help from her. But the Covenant-people stood in the same relation to the first appearance of Christ, as we do to the second.

(4.) "The passage, chap. viii. 3, 4, presents the most marked resemblance to the one before us. If there the Messianic explanation be decidedly inadmissible, it must be so here also. The name and birth of a child serves, there as here, for a sign of the deliverance from the Syrian dominion. If then there the mother of the child be the wife of the Prophet, and the child a son of his, the same must be the case here also." But it is a priori improbable that the Prophet should have given [Pg 53] to two of his sons names which had reference to the same event. To this must be added the circumstance, that the time is wanting for the birth of two sons of the Prophet. Before Immanuel knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, the country of both the hostile kings shall be desolated, chap. vii. 15; before Mahershalalhashbaz knows to cry My Father, My Mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried before the king of Assyria, chap. viii. 4. The two births hence coincide. At all events, it is impossible to find the time for a double birth by the same mother. Several interpreters (Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk,) assume the identity of Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz; but this is altogether inadmissible, even from the difference of the names. It is the less admissible to assume a double name for the child, as the name Shearjashub plainly enough shews that the Prophet was in earnest with the names of his children; and indeed, unless they had been real proper names, there would have existed no reason at all for giving them to them. To have assigned several names to one child would have weakened their power. The agreement must, therefore, rather be explained from the circumstance, that it was by the announcement in chap. vii. 14 that the Prophet was induced to the symbolical action in chap. viii. 3, 4. He has, in chap. vii. 14, given to the despairing people the birth of a child, who would bring the highest salvation for Israel, as a pledge of their deliverance. The birth of a child and its name were then required as an actual prophecy of help in the present distress,—a help which was to be granted with a view to that Child, who not only indicates, but grants deliverance from all distresses, and to whom the Prophet reverts in chap. ix., and even already in chap. viii. 8.—Moreover, besides the agreement there is found a thorough difference. In chap. vii. the mother of the child is called [Hebrew: helmh], whereby a virgin only can be designated; in chap. viii., "the prophetess." In chap. vii. there is not even the slightest allusion to the Prophet's being the father; while in chap. viii. this circumstance is expressly and emphatically pointed out. In chap. vii. it is the mother who gives the name to the child; in chap. viii. it is the Prophet. Far closer is the agreement of chap. ix. 5 (6) with chap. vii. 14. It especially appears in the circumstances that in neither of them [Pg 54] is the father of the child designated; and, farther, in the correspondence of Immanuel with [Hebrew: al gbvr], God-Hero.

(5.) "Against the Messianic explanation, and in favour of that of a son of the Prophet, is the passage chap. viii. 18, where the Prophet says that his sons have been given to him for signs and wonders in Israel." But although Immanuel be erroneously reckoned among the sons of the Prophet, there still remain Shearjashub and Mahershalalhashbaz. The latter name refers, in the first instance only, to Aram and Ephraim specially; or the general truth which it declares is applied to this relation only. But, just as the name Shearjashub announces new salvation to the prostrate people of God, so the second name announces near destruction to the triumphing world hostile to God; so that both the names supplement one another. As signs, these two sons of the Prophet pointed to the future deliverance and salvation of Israel, and the defeat of the world; and the very circumstance that they did so when, humanly viewed, all seemed to be lost, was a subject for wonder. But that we can in no case make Immanuel a third son of the Prophet, we have already proved.

Ver. 15. Cream and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good. Ver. 16. For before the boy shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the country shall be forsaken of the two kings of which thou standest in awe.

The older Messianic explanation has, in these two verses, exposed itself to the charge of being quite arbitrary. Most of the interpreters assume that, in ver. 15, the true humanity of the Saviour is announced. The name Immanuel is intended to indicate the divine nature; the eating of milk and honey the human nature. Milk and honey are in this case considered as the ordinary food for babes; like other children. He shall grow up, and, like them, gradually develope. Thus Jerome says: "I shall mention another feature still more wonderful: That you may not believe that he will be born a phantasm. He will use the food of infants, will eat butter and milk." Calvin says: "In order that here we may not think of some spectre, the Prophet states signs of humanity from which he proves that Christ, indeed put on our flesh." In the same manner Irenaenus, Chrysostom, Basil, and, in our century, Kleuker and Rosenmueller speak.—But this explanation [Pg 55] is altogether overthrown by ver. 16. Most interpreters assume, in the latter verse, a change of subject; by [Hebrew: ner], not Immanuel, but Shearjashub, who accompanied the Prophet, is to be understood. According to others, it is not any definite boy who is designated by [Hebrew: ner]; but it is said in general, that the devastation of the hostile country would take place in a still shorter time than that which elapses between the birth of a boy and his development. Such is Calvin's view. But the supposition of a change of subject is altogether excluded, even by the circumstance that one and the same quality, the distinction between good and evil, is in both verses ascribed to the subject. Others, like J. H. Michaelis, refer ver. 16 also to the Messiah, and seek to get out of the difficulty by a jam dudum. It is not worth while to enter more particularly upon these productions of awkward embarassment. All that is required is, to remove the stone of offence which has caused these interpreters to stumble. Towards this a good beginning has been made by Vitringa, without, however, completely attaining the object. In ver. 14, the Prophet has seen the birth of the Messiah as present. Holding fast this idea, and expanding it, the Prophet makes him who has been born accompany the people through all the stages of its existence. We have here an ideal anticipation of the real incarnation, the right of which lies in the circumstance, that all blessings and deliverances which, before Christ, were bestowed upon the covenant-people, had their root in His future birth, and the cause of which was given in the circumstance, that the covenant-people had entered upon the moment of their great crisis, of their conflict with the world's powers, which could not but address a call to invest the comforting thought with, as it were, flesh and blood, and in this manner to place it into the midst of the popular life. What the Prophet means, and intends to say here is this, that, in the space of about a twelvemonth, the overthrow of the hostile kingdoms would already have taken place. As the representative of the cotemporaries, he brings forward the wonderful child who, as it were, formed the soul of the popular life. At the time when this child knows to distinguish between good and bad food, hence, after the space of about a twelvemonth, he will not have any want of nobler food, ver. 15, for before he has entered upon this stage, the land of [Pg 56] the two hostile kings shall be desolate. In the subsequent prophecy, the same wonderful child, grown up into a warlike hero, brings the deliverance from Asshur, and the world's power represented by it.—We have still to consider and discuss the particular. What is indicated by the eating of cream and honey? The erroneous answer to this question, which has become current ever since Gesenius, has put everything into confusion, and has misled expositors such as Hitzig and Meier to cut the knot, by asserting that ver. 15 is spurious. Cream and honey can come into consideration as the noblest food only; the eating of them can indicate only a condition of plenty and prosperity. "A land flowing with milk and honey" is, in the books of Moses, a standing expression for designating the rich fulness of noble food which the Holy Land offers. A land which flows with milk and honey is, according to Numb. xiv. 7, 8, a "very good land." The cream is, as it were, a gradation of milk. Considering the predilection for fat and sweet food which we perceive everywhere in the Old Testament, there can scarcely be anything better than cream and honey; and it is certainly not spoken in accordance with Israelitish taste, if Hofmann (Weiss, i. S. 227) thus paraphrases the sense: "It is not because he does not know what tastes well and better (cream and honey thus the evil!), that he will live upon the food which an uncultivated land can afford, but because there is none other." In Deut. xxxii. 13, 14, cream and honey appear among the noblest products of the Holy Land. Abraham places cream before his heavenly guests, Gen. xviii. 8. The plenty in honey and cream appears in Job xx. 7, as a characteristic sign of the divine blessing of which the wicked are deprived. It is solely and exclusively vers. 21 and 22 that are referred to for establishing the erroneous interpretation. It is asserted that, according to these verses, the eating of milk and honey must be considered as an evil, as the sad consequence of a general devastation of the hind. But there are grave objections to any attempt at explaining a preceding from a subsequent passage; the opposite mode of proceeding is the right one. It is altogether wrong, however, to suppose that vers. 21, 22, contain a threatening. In those verses the Prophet, on the contrary, allows, as is usual with him, a ray of light to fall upon the dark picture of the [Pg 57] calamity which threatens from Asshur; and it could, indeed, a priori, be scarcely imagined that the threatening should not be interrupted, at least by such a gentle allusion to the salvation to be bestowed upon them after the misery (comp. in reference to a similar sudden breaking through of the proclamation of salvation in Hosea, Vol. I., p. 175, and the remarks on Micah ii. 12, 13); but then he returns to the threatening, because it was, in the meantime, his principal vocation to utter it, and thereby to destroy the foolish illusions of the God-forgetting king. It is in the subsequent prophecy only, chap viii. 1; ix. 6 (7) that that which is alluded to in vers. 21, 22 is carried out. The little which has been left—this is the sense—the Lord will bless so abundantly, that those who are spared in the divine judgment will enjoy a rich abundance of divine blessings. Parallel is the utterance of Isaiah in 2 Kings xix. 30: "And the escaped of the house of Judah, that which has been left, taketh root downward, and beareth fruit upward."—If thus the eating of cream and honey be rightly understood, there is no farther necessity for explaining, in opposition to the rules of grammar, [Hebrew: ldetv] by "(only) until he knows" (comp. against this interpretation Drechsler's Comment.). [Hebrew: ldetv] can only mean: "belonging to his knowledge, i.e., when he knows." Good and evil are, as early as Deut. i. 39: "Your sons who to-day do not know good and evil," used more in a physical than in a moral sense. Michaelis: "rerum omnium ignari." The parallel expression, "not to be able to discern between the right hand and the left hand," in Jonah iv. 11 (Michaelis: "discretio rationis et judicii, ut sciant utra manus sit dextra aut sinistra") likewise loses sight of the moral sense. But good and evil are very decidedly used in a physical sense in 2 Sam. xix. 36 (35), where Barzillai says: "I am this day fourscore years old, can I discern between good and evil, or has thy servant a taste of what I eat or drink, or do I hear any more the voice of singing men or singing women?" The connection with the eating of cream and honey, by which the good and evil is qualified, clearly proves that good and evil are, in our passage, used in a similar sense. To the same result we are led by the circumstance also, that the evil precedes, which must so much the rather have a meaning, that nowhere else is this the case with this phrase. The evil, the [Pg 58] bad food in the time of war, precedes; the good follows after it: Cream and honey, the good, he will eat when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, i.e., when he is beyond the time where he does not yet know to make any great difference between the food, and in which, therefore, the evil, the bad food, is felt as an evil. If the good and the evil be understood in a physical sense, then, in harmony with chap. viii. 4, we must think of the period of about one year. Moral consciousness develops much later than sensual liking and disliking.—The construction of [Hebrew: mas] and [Hebrew: bHr] with [Hebrew: b] points to the affection which accompanies the action.—[Hebrew: ki] in ver. 16 suits very well, according to the view which we have taken, in its ordinary signification, "for." The full enjoyment of the good things of the land will return in the period of about twelve months (in chap. xxxvii. 30 a longer terra is fixed, because the Assyrian desolation was much greater than the Aramean); for, even before the year has expired, devastation shall be inflicted upon the land of the enemies. [Hebrew: hadmh] comprehends at the same time the Syrian and Ephraimitish land.

From ver. 17-25 the Prophet describes how the Assyrians, the object of the hope of the house of David, and also the Egyptian attracted by them, who, however, occupy a position altogether subordinate, shall fill the land, and change it into a wilderness. The fundamental thought, ever true, is this: He who, instead of seeking help from his God, seeks it from the world, is ruined by the world. This truth, which, through the fault of Ahaz, did not gain any saving influence, obtained an accusing one; it stood there as an incontrovertible testimony that it was not the Lord who had forsaken His people, but that they had forsaken themselves. It was a necessary condition of the blessed influence of the impending calamity that such a testimony should exist; without it, the calamity would not have led to repentance, but to despair and defiance.—From the circumstance that in ver. 17, which contains the outlines of the whole, upon the words: "The Lord shall bring upon thee and thy people," there follow still the words: "And upon thy father's house," it appears that the fulfilment must not be sought for in the time of Ahaz only. In the time of Ahaz, the beginning only of the calamities here indicated can accordingly be sought for,—the germ from which all that followed [Pg 59] was afterwards developed. Nor shall we be allowed to limit ourselves to that which Judah suffered from the Assyrians, commonly so called. It is significant that, in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, Nebuchadnezzar is called King of Asshur. Asshur, as the first representative of the world's power, represents the world's power in general.

* * * * * * * * * *

We have still to submit to an examination those explanations of vers 14-16 which differ, in essential points, from that which we have given. Difference of opinion—the characteristic sign of error—meets us here, and that in a very striking manner, in those who oppose the convictions of the whole Christian Church.

1. Rosenmueller expressed his adherence to the Messianic explanation, but supposed that the Prophet was of opinion that the Messiah would be born in his time. Even Bruno Bauer (Critik der Synopt. i. S. 19) could not resist the impression that Immanuel could be none other than the Messiah. But he, too, is of opinion that Isaiah expected a Messiah, who was to be born at once, and to become the "deliverer from the collision of that time." This view has been expanded especially by Ewald. "False," so he says, "is every interpretation which does not see that the Prophet is here speaking of the Messiah to be born, and hence of Him to whom the land really belongs, and in thinking of whom the Prophet's heart beats with joyful hope, chap. viii. 8, ix. 5, 6 (6, 7)." But not being able to realize that which can be seen only by faith—a territory, in general, very inaccessible to modern exposition of Scripture—he, in ver. 14, puts in the real Present instead of the ideal, and thinks that the Prophet imagined that the conception and birth of the Messiah would take place at once. By [Hebrew: elmh] he understands, like ourselves, a virgin; but such an one as is so at the present moment only, but will soon afterwards cease to be so;—and in supposing this, he overlooks the fact that the virgin is introduced as being already with child, and that her bearing appears as present. In ver. 15, the time when the boy knows &c., is, according to him, the maturer juvenile age from ten to twenty years. It is during this that the devastation of the land by the Assyrians is to take place, of which [Pg 60] the Prophet treats more in detail afterwards in ver. 17 ff. But opposed to this view is the circumstance that, even before the boy enters upon this maturer age (ver. 16), hence in a few years after this, the allied Damascus and Ephraim shall be desolated; so little are these two kings able to conquer Jerusalem, and so certain is it that a divine deliverance is in store for this country in the immediate future. And, in every point of view, this explanation shows itself to be untenable. The supposition that a real Present is spoken of in ver. 14 saddles upon the Prophet an absurd hallucination; and nothing analogous to it can be referred to in the whole of the Old Testament. According to statements of the Prophet in other passages, he sees yet many things intervening between the Messianic time and his own; according to chap. vi. 11-13, not only the entire carrying away of the whole people, (and he cannot well consider the Assyrians as the instruments of it, were it only for this reason, that he is always consistent in the announcement that they should not succeed in the capture of Jerusalem), but also a later second divine judgment. According to chap. xi., the Messiah is to grow up as a twig from the stem of Jesse completely cut down. This supposition of His appearance, the complete decay of the Davidic dynasty, did not in any way exist in the time of the Prophet. According to chap. xxxix., and other passages, the Prophet recognised in Babylon the appearance of a new phase of the world's power which would, at some future period, follow the steps of the Assyrian power which existed at the time of the Prophet, and which should execute upon Judah the judgment of the Lord. We pointed out (Vol. I. p. 417 ff.) that in the Prophet Micah also, the contemporary of Isaiah, there lies a long series of events between the Present and the time when she who is bearing brings forth. Farther—In harmony with all other Prophets, Isaiah too looks for the Messiah from the house of David, with which, by the promise of Nathan in 2 Sam. vii. salvation was indissolubly connected, and the high importance of which for the weal and woe of the people appears also from the circumstance of its being several times mentioned in our chapter. Hence it would be a son of Ahaz only of whom we could here think; and then we should be shut up to Hezekiah, his first-born. But in that case there arises the difficulty which Luther already brought forward against the Jews: [Pg 61] "The Jews understand thereby Hezekiah. But the blind people, while anxious to remedy their error, themselves manifest their laziness and ignorance; for Hezekiah was born nine years before this prophecy was uttered!"—"The eating of cream and honey" is, in this explanation, altogether erroneously understood as a designation of the devastated condition of the land. From our remarks, it sufficiently appears that the expression "to refuse the evil," &c., cannot denote the maturer juvenile age. And many additional points might, in like manner, be urged.

2. Several interpreters do not indeed deny the reference to the Messiah, but suppose that, in the first instance, the Prophet had in view some occurrence of his own time. They assume that the Prophet, while speaking of a boy of his own time, makes use, under the guidance of divine providence, of expressions, which apply more to Christ, and can, in an improper and inferior sense only, be true of this boy. This opinion was advanced as early as in the time of Jerome, by some anonymous author who, on that account, is severely censured by him: "Some Judaizer from among us asserts that the Prophet had two sons, Shearjashub and Immanuel. Immanuel too was, according to him, born by the prophetess, the wife of the Prophet, and a type of the Saviour, our Lord; so that the former son Shearjashub (which means 'remnant,'or 'converting') designates the Jewish people that have been left and afterwards converted; while the second son Immanuel, 'with us is God,' signifies the calling of the Gentiles after the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." This explanation was defended by, among others Grotius, Richard Simon, and Clericus; and then, in our century, by Olshausen, who says: "The unity of the reference lies in the name Immanuel; the son of Isaiah had the name but Christ the essence. He was the visible God whom the former only represented." In a modified form, this view is held by Lowth, Koppe, and von Meyer, also. According to them, the Prophet is indeed not supposed to speak of a definite boy who was to be born in his time, but yet, to connect the destinies of his land with the name and destinies of a boy whose conception he, at the moment, imagines to be possible. "The most obvious meaning which would present itself to Ahaz," says von Meyer, "was this: If now a girl was to marry, to become [Pg 62] pregnant, and to bear a child, she may call him 'God with us,'for God will be with us at his time." But the prophecy is, after all, to have an ultimate reference to Christ. "The prophecy," says Lowth, "is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign, after Ahaz had refused the call to fix upon any thing from the whole territory of nature according to his own choice, is so emphatically declared to be one selected and given by God himself; the terms of the prophecy are so unique in their kind, and the name of the child is so expressive; they comprehend in them so much more than the circumstances of the birth of an ordinary child require, or could even permit, that we may easily suppose, that in minds, which were already prepared by the expectation of a great Saviour who was to come forth from the house of David, they excited hopes which stretched farther than any with which the present cause could inspire them, especially if it was found that in the succeeding prophecy, published immediately afterwards, this child was, under the name of Immanuel, treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who else could this be than the heir of the throne of David, under which character a great, and even divine person had been promised?" The reasons for the Messianic explanation are very well exhibited in these words of Lowth; but he, as little as any other of these interpreters, has been able to vindicate the assumption of a double sense. When more closely examined, the supposition is a mere makeshift. On the one hand, they could not make up their minds to give up the Messianic explanation, and, along with it, the authority of the Apostle Matthew. But, on the other hand, they were puzzled by the sanctum artificium by which the Prophet, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking through him, represents Christ as being born even before His birth, places Him in the midst of the life of the people, and makes Him accompany the nation through all the stages of its existence. In truth, if the real, or even the nearest fulfilment is sought for in the time of Ahaz, there is no reason whatever for supposing a higher reference to Christ. The [Hebrew: elmh] is then one who was a virgin, who had nothing in common with the mother of Jesus, Mary, who remained a virgin even after her pregnancy. The name Immanuel then refers to the help which God is to afford in the present distress.

[Pg 63]

3. Many interpreters deny every reference to Christ. This interpretation remained for a long time the exclusive property of the Jews, until J. E. Faber (in his remarks on Harmar's observations on the East, i. S. 281), tried to transplant it into the Christian soil.[5] He was followed by the Roman Catholic, Isenbiehl (Neuer Versuch ueber die Weissagung vom Immanuel, 1778) who, in consequence of it, was deposed from his theological professorship, and thrown into gaol. The principal tenets of his work he had borrowed from the lectures of J. D. Michaelis. In their views about the Almah, who is to bear Immanuel, these interpreters are very much at variance.

(a) The more ancient Jews maintained that the Almah was the wife of Ahaz, and Immanuel, his son Hezekiah. According to the Dialog. c. Tryph. 66, 68, 71, 77, this view prevailed among them as early as the time of Justin. But they were refuted by Jerome, who showed that Hezekiah must, at that time, have already been at least nine years old. Kimchi and Abarbanel then resorted to the hypothesis of a second wife of Ahaz.

(b) According to the view of others, the Almah is some virgin who cannot be definitely determined by us, who was present at the place where the king and Isaiah were speaking to one another, and to whom the Prophet points with his finger. This view was held by Isenbiehl, Steudel (in a Programme, Tuebingen, 1815), and others.

(c) According to the view of others, the Almah is not a real but only an ideal virgin. Thus J. D. Michaelis: "At the time when one, who at this moment is still a virgin, can bear," &c. Eichhorn, Paulus, Staehelin, and others. The sign is thus made to consist in a mere poetical figure.

(d) A composition of the two views last mentioned is the view of Umbreit. The virgin is, according to him, an actual virgin whom the Prophet perceived among those surrounding him; but the pregnancy and birth are imaginary [Pg 64] merely, and the virgin is to suggest to the Prophet the idea of pregnancy. But this explanation would saddle the Prophet with something indecent. Farther: It is not a birth possible which is spoken of, but an actual birth. From chap. viii. 8, it likewise appears that Immanuel is a real individual, and He one of eminent dignity; and this passage is thus at once in strict opposition to both of the explanations, viz. that of any ordinary virgin, and that of the ideal virgin. It destroys also

(e) The explanation of Meier, who by the virgin understands the people of Judah, and conceives of the pregnancy and birth likewise in a poetical manner. The fact, the acknowledgment of which has led Meier to get up this hypothesis, altogether unfounded, and undeserving of any minute refutation, is this: "The mother is, in the passage before us, called a virgin, and yet is designated as being with child. The words, when understood physically and outwardly, contain a contradiction." But this fact is rather in favour of the Messianic explanation.

(f) Others, farther, conjecture that the wife of the Prophet is meant by the Almah. This view was advanced as early as by Abenezra and Jarchi. By the authority of Gesenius, this view became, for a time, the prevailing one. Against it, the following arguments are decisive; part of them being opposed to the other conjectures also. As [Hebrew: elmh] designates "virgin" only, and never a young woman, and, far less, an older woman, it is quite impossible that the wife of the Prophet, the mother of Shearjashub could be so designated, inasmuch as the latter was already old enough to be able to accompany his father. Gesenius could not avoid acknowledging the weight of this argument, and declared himself disposed to assume that the Prophet's former wife had died, and that he had thereupon betrothed himself to a virgin. Olshausen, Maurer, Hendewerk, and others, have followed him in this. But this is a story entirely without foundation. In chap. viii. 13, the wife of the Prophet is called simply "the prophetess." Nor could one well see how the Prophet could expect to be understood, if, by the general expression: "the virgin" he wished to signify his presumptive betrothed. There [Pg 65] is an entire absence of every intimation whatsoever of a nearer relation of the Almah to the Prophet; and such an intimation could not by any means be wanting if such a relation really existed. One would, in that case at least, be obliged to suppose, as Plueschke does, that the Prophet took his betrothed with him, and pointed to her with his finger,—a supposition which too plainly exhibits the sign of embarrassment, just as is the case with the remark of Hendewerk: "Only that, in that case, we must also suppose that his second wife was sufficiently known at court even then, when she was his betrothed only, although her relation to Isaiah might be unknown; so that, for this very reason, we could not think of a frustration of the sign on the part of the king." Hitzig remarks: "The supposition of a former wife of the Prophet is altogether destitute of any foundation." He then, however, falls back upon the hypothesis which Gesenius himself admitted to be untenable, that [Hebrew: elmh], "virgin" might not only denote a young woman, but sometimes also an older woman. Not even the semblance of a proof can be advanced in support of this. It is just the juvenile age which forms the fundamental signification of the word. In the wife of the Prophet we can the less think of such a juvenile age, that he himself had already exercised his prophetic office for about twenty years. Hitzig has indeed altogether declined to lead any such proof. A son of the Prophet, as, in general, every subject except the Messiah, is excluded by the circumstance that in chap viii. 8, Canaan is called the land of Immanuel.—Farther,—In all these suppositions, [Hebrew: avt] is understood in an inadmissible signification. It can here denote a fact only, whereby those who were really susceptible were made decidedly certain of the impending deliverance. This appears clearly enough from the relation of this sign to that which Ahaz had before refused, according to which the difference must not be too great, and must not refer to the substance. To this may be added the solemn tone which induces us to expect something grand and important. A mere poetical image, such as would be before us according to the hypothesis of the ideal virgin, or of the real virgin and the ideal birth, does [Pg 66] surely not come up to the demand which in this context must be made in reference to this sign. And if the Prophet had announced so solemnly, and in words so sublime, the birth of his own child, he would have made himself ridiculous. Farther,—How then did the Prophet know that after nine months a child would be born to him, or, if the pregnancy be considered as having already commenced, how did he know that just a son would be born to him? That is a question to which most of these Rationalistic interpreters take good care not to give any reply. Plueschke, indeed, is of opinion that, upon a bold conjecture, the Prophet had ventured this statement. But in that case it might easily have fared with him as in that well known story in Worms, (Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenthum ii. S. 664 ff.), and his whole authority would have been forfeited if his conjecture had proved false. And this argument holds true in reference to those also who do not share in the Rationalistic view, of Prophetism. Predictions of such a kind may belong to the territory of foretelling, but not to that of Prophecy.



[Footnote 1: Meyer, Blaetter fuer hoehere Wahrheit, iii. S. 101.]

[Footnote 2: Caspari very justly remarks: "Nothing can be clearer than that 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ff. comes in between 2 Kings xvi. 5 a. b.; that the author of the books of the Kings gives a report of the beginning and end; the author of the Chronicles, of the middle of the campaign." But we cannot agree with Caspari in his transferring to Idumea the victory of Rezin. According to Is. vii. 2, Aram was encamped in Ephraim. According to 2 Kings xvi. 5, both of the kings came up to Jerusalem and besieged her. The expedition against Elath, 2 Kings xvi. 6, was secondary, and by the way only.]

[Footnote 3: The words: "In threescore and five years more, Ephraim shall be broken and be no more a people," have, by rationalistic critics, without and against all external arguments, been declared to be spurious. The reasons which serve as fig leaves to cover their doctrinal tendency are the following: (1) "The time does not agree, inasmuch as the ten tribes sustained their first defeat very soon afterwards by Tiglath-pilezer; the second, nineteen to twenty-one years later, by Shalmanezer, who, in the sixth year of Hezekiah, carried the inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes away into captivity." But the question here is the complete destruction of the national existence of Israel; and that took place only under King Manasseh, when, by Azarhaddon, new Gentile colonists were brought into the land, who expelled from it the old inhabitants who had again gathered themselves together; comp. 2 Kings xvii. 24 with Ezra iv. 2, 10. From that time, Israel amalgamated more and more with Judah, and never returned to a national independence. This happened exactly sixty-five years after the announcement by the Prophet. Chap. vi. 12 compared with ver. 13 shows how little the desolation of the country (ver. 16) is connected with the breaking up as a nation. It is, moreover, at least as much the interest of those who assert the spuriousness, as it is ours to remove the chronological difficulties; for how could it be imagined that the supposed author should have introduced a false chronological statement? His object surely could be none other than to procure authority for the Prophet, by putting into his mouth a prophecy so very evidently and manifestly fulfilled. (2) "The words contain an unsuitable consolation, as Ahaz could not be benefitted by so late a destruction of his enemy." But, immediately afterwards, he is even expressly assured that this enemy will not be able to do him any immediate harm. Chrysostom remarks: "The king, hearing that they should be destroyed after sixty-five years, might say within himself: What about that? Although they be then overthrown, of what use is it to us, if they now take us? In order that the king might not speak thus, the Prophet says: Be of good cheer even as to the present. At that time they shall be utterly destroyed; but even now, they shall not have any more than their own land, for 'the head of Ephraim,'" &c. The preceding distinct announcement of the last end of his enemy, however, was exceedingly well fitted to break in Ahaz the opinion of his invincibility, and to strengthen his faith in the God of Israel, who, with a firm hand, directs the destinies of nations, and, no less, the faith in His servant whom He raises to be privy to His secrets.—(3.) "The use of numbers so exact is against the analogy of all oracles." But immediately afterwards (ver. 15 comp. with chap. viii. 4), the time of the defeat is as exactly fixed, although not in ciphers. In chap. xx. Isaiah announces that after three years the Egyptians and Ethiopians shall sustain a defeat; in chap. xxiii. 15, that Tyre would flourish anew seventy years after its fall; in chap. xxxviii. 5, he announces to Hezekiah, sick unto death, that God would add fifteen years to his life. According to Jeremiah, the Babylonish captivity is to last seventy years; and the fulfilment has shown that this date is not to be understood as a round number. And farther, the year-weeks in Daniel.—But in opposition to this view, and positively in favour of the genuineness, are the following arguments: The words have not only, as is conceded by Ewald, "a true old-Hebrew colouring," but in their emphatic and solemn brevity ("he shall be broken from [being] a people") they do not at all bear the character of an interpolation. If we blot them out, then the Prophet says less than from present circumstances, from ver. 4, where he calls the kings "ends of smoking firebrands," in opposition to ver. 6, and from the analogy of ver. 9, where the threatening is much more severe, he was bound to say. His saying merely that they would not get any more, was not sufficient. He could make the right impression only when he reduced that declaration to its foundation—i.e., their own destruction and overthrow. Ver. 16, too, would go far beyond what would be announced here, if we remove this clause. He announces destruction to the kings themselves. Finally, the symmetrical parallelism would be destroyed by striking out these words. The words: "If ye believe not, ye shall not be established," would, in that case, be without the parallel members. They are connected with the clause under discussion so much the rather, that in them it is not specially Judah's deliverance from the Syrians and Ephraimites that is looked at, but its salvation in general.]

[Footnote 4: By a minute and trifling exposition of what is to be understood as a whole, and comprehensively, many misunderstandings have been introduced into this passage. The defeat of Asshur should take place very soon, but the devastation of the country had been so complete that a longer time would be required before the fields would be again completely cultivated.]

[Footnote 5: Gesenius mentions Pellicanus as the first defender of the Non-Messianic interpretation. But this statement seems to have proceeded from a cursory view of an annotation by Cramer on Richard Simon's Kritische Schriften i. S. 441, where the words: "this historical interpretation Pellicanus too has preferred," do not refer to Isaiah but to Daniel. Nor is there any more ground for the intimation that Theodorus a Mopsuesta rejected the Messianic interpretation.]



THE PROPHECY, CHAP. VIII. 23-IX. 6. (Chap. ix. 1-7.) UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN.

In the view of the Assyrian catastrophe, the Prophet is anxious to bring it home to the consciences of the people that, by their own guilt, they have brought down upon themselves this calamity, and, at the same time, to prevent them from despairing. Hence it is that, soon after the prophecy in chap. vii., he reverts once more to the subject of it. The circumstances in chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7) are identical with those in chap. vii. Judah is hard pressed by Ephraim and Aram. Still, some time will elapse before the destruction of [Pg 67] their territories. The term in chap. vii. 16: "Before the boy shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good," and in chap. viii. 4: "Before the boy shall know to cry, My father and my mother," is quite the same. This is the less to be doubted when it is kept in mind that, in the former passage, evil and good must be taken in a physical sense. The sense for the difference of food is, in a child, developed at nearly the same time as the ability for speaking. If it had not been the intention of the Prophet to designate one and the same period, he ought to have fixed more distinctly the limits between the two termini. It might, indeed, from chap. viii. 3, appear as if at least the nine months must intervene between the two prophecies of the conception of the son of the Prophet, and his birth. As, however, it cannot be denied that there is a connection between the giving of the name, and the drawing up of the document in vers. 1 and 2, we should be obliged to suppose that, in reference to the first two futures with Vav convers. the same rule applies as in reference to [Hebrew: vicr], in Gen. ii. 19. The progress lies first in [Hebrew: vtld]; the event falling into that time is the birth.

Chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7), forms the necessary supplement to chap. vii., the germ of which is contained already in chap. vii. 21, 22. The Prophet saw, by the light of the Spirit of God, that the fear of Aram and Ephraim was unfounded; the enemy truly dangerous is Asshur, i.e., the whole world's power first represented by Asshur. For the King of Asshur is, so to say, an ideal person to the Prophet. The different phases of the world's powers are intimated as early as chap. viii. 9, where the Prophet addresses the "nations," and "all the far-off countries;" and, at a later period, he received disclosures regarding all the single phases of the world's power which began its course with Asshur. With this the Prophet had only threatened in chap. vii.; here, however, he is pre-eminently employed with it, exhorting, comforting, promising, so that thus the two sections form one whole in two divisions. His main object is to induce his people, in the impending oppression by the world's power, to direct their eyes steadily to their heavenly Redeemer, who, in due time, will bring peace instead of strife, salvation and prosperity instead of misery, dominion instead of oppression. As in chap. vii. 14, the [Pg 68] picture of Immanuel is placed before the eyes of the people desponding on account of Aram and Ephraim, so here the care, anxiety, and fear in the view of Asshur are overcome by pointing to the declaration: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." It is of great importance for the right understanding of the Messianic announcement in chap. viii. 23, ix. 6, that the historical circumstances of the whole section, and its tendency be clearly understood. As, in general, the Messianic announcement under the Old Testament bears a one-sided character, so, for the present occasion, those aspects only of the picture of the Saviour were required which were fitted effectually to meet the despondency of the people in the view, and under the pressure of the world's power.

After these preliminary remarks, we must enter still more in detail upon the arrangement and construction of the section before us.

The Prophet receives, first, the commission to write down, like a judicial document, the announcement of the speedy destruction of the present enemies, and to get it confirmed by trust-worthy witnesses, chap. viii. 1, 2. He then, farther, receives the commission to give, to a son that would be born to him about the same time, a name expressive of the speedy destruction of the enemies, vers. 3, 4. Thus far the announcement of the deliverance from Aram and Ephraim. There then follows, from vers. 5-8, an announcement of the misery which is to be inflicted by Asshur, of whom Ahaz and the unbelieving portion of the people expected nothing but deliverance. Up to this, there is a recapitulation only, and a confirmation of chap. vii. But this misery is not to last for ever, is not to end in destruction. In vers. 9, 10, the Prophet addresses exultingly the hostile nations, and announces to them, what had already been gently hinted at at the close of ver. 8, that their attempts to put an end to the covenant-people would be vain, and would lead to their own destruction. The splendour of Asshur must fade before the bright image of Immanuel, which calls to the people: "Be ye of good cheer, I have overcome the world." Calvin strikingly remarks: "The Prophet may be conceived of, as it were, standing on a watch tower, whence he beholds the defeat of the people, and the victorious Assyrians insolently exulting. [Pg 69] But by the name and view of Christ he recovers himself, forgets all the evils as if he had suffered nothing, and, freed from all misery, he rises against the enemies whom the Lord would immediately destroy." The Prophet then interrupts the announcement of deliverance, and exhibits the subjective conditions upon which the bestowal of deliverance, or rather the partaking in it, depends, along with the announcement of the fearful misery which would befal them in case these conditions were not complied with. But, so he continues in vers. 11-16, he who is to partake of the deliverance which the Lord has destined for His people, must in firm faith expect it from Him, and thereby inwardly separate himself from the unbelieving mass, who, at every appearance of danger, tremble and give up all for lost. He who stands as ill as that mass in the trial inflicted by the Lord; he to whom the danger becomes an occasion for manifesting the unbelief of his heart;—he indeed will perish in it. At the close, the prophet is emphatically admonished to impress this great and important truth upon the minds of the susceptible ones. In ver. 17: "And I waited upon the Lord," &c., the Prophet reports what effect was produced upon him by this revelation from the Lord,—thereby teaching indirectly what effect it ought to produce upon all. In ver. 18, the Prophet directs the desponding people to the example of himself who, according to ver. 17, is joyful in his faith, and to the names of his sons which announced deliverance. Deliverance and comfort are to be sought from the God of Israel only. Vain, therefore,—this he brings out, vers. 19-22—are all other means by which people without faith seek to procure help to themselves. They should return to God's holy Law which, in Deut. xviii. 14, ff. commands to seek disclosures as regards the future, and comfort from His servants the Prophets only, and which itself abounds in comfort and promise. If such be not done, misery without any deliverance, despair without any comfort, are the unavoidable consequences. From ver. 23, the Prophet continues the interrupted announcement of deliverance. That which, in the preceding verses, he had threatened in the case of apostacy from God's Word, and of unbelief, viz., darkness, i.e., the absence of deliverance, will, as the Prophet, according to vers. 21, 22, foresees, really befal them in future, as [Pg 70] the people will not fulfil the conditions held forth in vers. 16 and 20, as they will not speak: "To the Law and to the testimony," as they will not in faith lay hold of the promise, and trust in the Lord. The calamity having, in the preceding verses, been represented as darkness, the deliverance which, by the grace of the Lord, is to be bestowed upon the people (for the Lord indeed chastises His people on account of their unbelief, but does not give them up to death), is now represented as a great light which dispels the darkness. It shines most clearly just where the darkness had been greatest—in that part of the country which, being outwardly and inwardly given up to heathenism, seemed scarcely still to belong to the land of the Lord, viz., the country lying around the lake of Gennesareth. The people are filled with joy on account of the deliverance granted to them by the Lord,—their deliverance from the yoke of their oppressors, from the bondage of the world which now comes to an end. As the bestower of such deliverance, the Prophet beholds a divine child who, having obtained dominion, will exercise it with the skill of the God-man; who will, with fatherly love, in all eternity care for His people and create peace to them; who will, at the same time, infinitely extend His dominion, the kingdom of David, not by means of the force of arms, but by means of right and righteousness, the exercise of which will attract the nations to Him; so that with the increase of dominion, the increase of peace goes hand in hand. The guarantee that these glorious results shall really take place is the zeal of the Lord, and it is this to which the Prophet points at the close.