Bible Commentaries

b) Isaiah in the bosom of the royal family giving a sign by announcing the Virgin’s Son Immanuel

Isaiah 7:10-25

10 ⁴⁰ Moreover the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God;

⁴¹Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord; 13And he said,

Hear ye now, O house of David;

Is it a small thing for you to weary men,

But will ye weary my God also?

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;

Behold, a virgin ⁴²shall conceive, and bear a Song of Solomon,

And ⁴³shall call his name Immanuel.

15 Butter and honey shall he eat,

That he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

16 For before the child shall know

To refuse the evil, and choose the good,

The land that thou abhorrest

Shall be forsaken of both her kings.⁴⁴

17 The Lord shall bring upon thee,

And upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house,

Days that have not come,

From the day that Ephraim departed from Judah;

Even the king of Assyria.

18 And it shall come to pass in that day,

That the Lord shall hiss

For the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt,

And for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.

19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them

In the ⁴⁵desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks,

And upon all thorns, and upon all ⁴⁶⁴⁷bushes.

20 In the same day shall the Lord shave ⁴⁸with a razor that is hired,

Namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria,

The head, and the hair of the feet:

And it shall also consume the beard.

21 And it shall come to pass in that day,

That a man shall ⁴⁹nourish a young cow, and two sheep;

22 And it shall come to pass,

For the abundance of milk that ⁵⁰they shall give he shall eat butter:

For butter and honey shall every one eat

That is left ⁵¹in the land.

23 And it shall come to pass in that day,

That every place ⁵²shall be,

Where then were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings,

It shall even be for briers and thorns.

24 With arrows and with bows shall men come thither;

Because all the land shall become briars and thorns.

25 And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock,

Then shall not come thither ⁵³the fear of briers and thorns:

But it shall be for the sending forth of oxen,

And for the treading of lesser cattle.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

On Isaiah 7:10. וַיוֹסֶף ו׳ occurs again in Isaiah only Isaiah 8:5.

On Isaiah 7:11. The words העמק ונו׳ admit of several explanations. But that must be excluded at once which reading שְׁאָלָֽה (with the tone on the ultima) takes the word as substantive. For “request” is שְׁאֵלָה, and there is no reason for assuming that the Masorets punctuated falsely. The explanation is very old that takes שְׁאָֽלָה as a pausal form for שְׁאלָה ( Genesis 37:35; Genesis 42:38; Genesis 44:29; Genesis 44:31; Numbers 16:30; Numbers 16:33; Ezekiel 31:15 sqq.). The LXX. Vulg, Pesch, Arab, have it, and it commends itself in point of sense very much. For when it says. “Descending deep into hell, or mounting up to the height,” both members correspond admirably both in respect to sense and to sound. But this construction is dubious. For the examples cited by Ewald § 93, a, 3, rest all of them on this, that an existing or possible form with a may be chosen in pause for the form with o in accordance with the law of variation. For there is no such thing as an o changed into a in pause. We must therefore take שְׁאָֽלָה as imperative (comp. רְנָֽזָה Isaiah 32:11; שְׁמָֽעָהְ סְלָֽחה Daniel 9:19; סְעָֽדָה 1 Kings 13:7. Then הַֽעֲמֵק ( Isaiah 29:15; Isaiah 30:33; Isaiah 31:6) הַנְכֵּהּ ( Psalm 113:5) are inffabs. with a gerund sense: “going deep ask or mounting up high.”

On Isaiah 7:12. ולא־אנסה a paratactic construction.

On Isaiah 7:13. The construction המעט מכם means originally “is it from you out (from your point of view) a little?” The כִּי has a causal sense: because ye insult my God. One sees that to insult men is a small matter, an unsatisfying indulgence to your haughtiness. Comp. Numbers 16:9; Job 15:11; Ezekiel 34:18.

On Isaiah 7:14. Regarding עַלְמָה it may be considered settled that directly and properly it can never signify a married woman. It may, perchance, be used of a young married woman, whose youth or youthful looks one would especially emphasize, like Ruth ( Isaiah 2:5-6) as a young wife is called נַֽעֲרָה. But in point of fact no such form of expression occurs in the Old Testament. On the other hand a virgin, as such, (as virgo illibata) is never called עלמה. For the proper term for virgin is בּתְוּלהָ ( Genesis 24:16; Leviticus 21:3; Leviticus 21:13-14; Deuteronomy 22:14; Deuteronomy 22:19-20; Judges 19:24; 2 Samuel 13:2; 2 Samuel 13:18) and virginity is בְּתוּלִים ( Deuteronomy 22:15; Deuteronomy 22:17; Judges 11:37 sq.; Ezekiel 23:3; Ezekiel 23:8). עַלְמָה is fem. of עֶלֶם ( 1 Samuel 17:56; 1 Samuel 20:22) and has nothing to do with עָלַם “to conceal.” עֶלֶם, however, is from a root עָלַם, kindred to עוּל (trans. sugere, potare, intr. redundare, succulentum, vegetum esse). The latter עָלַם occurs in Hebrew only in the words עֲלֻמִים,עַלְמָה, עֶלֶם (œtas juvenilis of women Isaiah 54:4, of men Psalm 89:46; Job 20:11; Job 33:25) more common in the dialects, where it has the meaning of “becoming fat, thick, strong, mature, manly.” עלמה occurs (not to count the musical term עֲלָמוֹת Psalm 46:1; 1 Chronicles 15:20) six times: Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19; Psalm 68:26; Song of Solomon 1:3; Song of Solomon 6:8. In none of these passages can it be proved to have the sense of virgo illibata or conjux. Especially from Song of Sol. it appears that the third class of the occupants of Solomon’s harem comprised the עֲלָמוֹת. Was virginity characteristic of them? Proverbs 30:19 is difficult. According to all the foregoing it seems to me certain that every בְּתוֹּלָה is indeed a עַלְמָה, but not every עַלְמָה a בְּתוּלָה. As עֲלוּמִים is the time of youth generally, and may be used of men as well as of women, (בִּתוּלִים could not be said of men) then עלמה is the young woman, still fresh, young and unmarried, without regard to whether still a virgin in the exact sense.—הנה הע׳ הרה, that these words may be read: “behold, the virgin is pregnant,” is owned by every one. The expression occurs twice beside. Genesis 16:11 the angel says to Hagar, who was already pregnant: הנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵאל. This passage has, moreover, so much resemblance to ours that we must suppose that it was in the Prophet’s mind. Judges 13:5; Judges 13:7, it is at least very probable, considering Isaiah 7:12, that the wife of Manoah was already pregnant. The form קָרָאת in the original passage, Genesis 16:16, Isaiah 2pers. fem. In our passage it may also be 3 pers. fem. For this form is still to be found Genesis 33:11; Exodus 5:16 (?); Leviticus 25:21; Leviticus 26:34; Deuteronomy 31:29; Jeremiah 13:19; Jeremiah 44:23; 2 Kings 9:37 (K’thib); Psalm 118:23. It is seen that the form occurs most frequently in the Pentateuch, while Jeremiah 44:23 is a verbatim quotation from Deuteronomy 31:29; and 2 Kings 9:37, there exists likely an error of the pen, thus leaving only two instances not in the Pentateuch beside our verse. The form occurs nowhere else in Isaiah.

On Isaiah 7:15. That לדעתו is not: “until his knowing,” appears from this, that, the Prophet would in that case say that from his birth on to the years of discretion the boy would be nourished with butter and honey, and then no longer. Thereby, too, the prospect of a brief period of desolation for the land would be held out, which plainly is not the meaning of the Prophet. For Isaiah had in mind the periods of exile, both the Assyrian and the Babylonian, and neither comprises in itself and in the Prophet’s representation so short a period. That the latter is so is seen in the way he expresses himself ( Isaiah 7:17 sq.) on the occasion and extent of the desolation. Therefore לדעתו means: “to the time of his knowing; or about the time.” Comp. לָאוֹר,לָבֹּקֶר לְעֵת עֶרֶב,ְלָעֶרֶב, Psalm 30:6 : Job 24:14; Genesis 3:8; Genesis 8:14; Genesis 49:27, etc.—המאה is “thick milk,” lac spissum, (comp. Genesis 18:8; Judges 5:25; Proverbs 30:33).

On Isaiah 7:16. That the Prophet says האדמה and not האדץ, has for its reason doubtless that he would designate Syria and the territory of the Ten Tribes by one word. But the two together did not constitute an ארץ, but a land complex in a physical sense.—On קָץ comp. at Isaiah 7:6.

On Isaiah 7:17. The form of expression אשׁר לא באו is like Exodus 10:6; Exodus 34:10; Daniel 9:12. The construction למיום ונו is like Jeremiah 7:7; Jeremiah 7:25; Jeremiah 25:11. All that follows depends as one notion on the distributive לְ. Without לְ Exodus 10:6.

On Isaiah 7:18. והיה ביום ההוא, this formula occurs Isaiah 7:21; Isaiah 7:23; Isaiah 10:20; Isaiah 10:27; Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 17:4; Isaiah 22:20; Isaiah 23:15; Isaiah 24:21; Isaiah 27:13, and not again. In this formula יום does not designate only a day in the ordinary sense, but, according to circumstances, an undetermined period, like we use the word “period.”—זבוב only here in Isaiah.—יְאֹר is an Egyptian word (comp. on Isaiah 19:6) which, however, has become naturalized in Hebrew. It is partly appellative, and as such means “ditches” ( Exodus 8:1; Isaiah 33:21) and rivers ( Nahum 3:8; Daniel 12:5); partly a proper name, and as such means the Nile ( Isaiah 19:7-8; Isaiah 23:10). The יארי מערים (comp. Isaiah 19:6; Isaiah 37:25; 2 Kings 19:24) are the canals of the Nile ( Exodus 8:1).

On Isaiah 7:19. בּתּוֹת is ἅπ. λεγ. If it is kindred to בָּתה ( Isaiah 5:6) which is most probable, it means abscissum praeruptum, the steep side of a wady.—נָקִיק (found beside only Jeremiah 13:4; Jeremiah 16:16) is, as appears plain from Jeremiah 13:4, “the cleft.”—נַֽעֲצוּץ (again only Isaiah 55:13) is “the thornbush; נַֽהֲלֹל (from נֵהַל Exodus 15:13; Isaiah 40:11; Isaiah 49:10; Isaiah 51:18, “to lead to pasture”) pascuum, the pasture, grazing ground.

On Isaiah 7:20. נִּלַּח and תער only here in Isaiah. שׂכירה subs. abstractum (conductio), but may be also fem. of שָׂכִיר (conductus, “hired”) occurs nowhere else. This razor is to be had נהר ּבעברי נהר without article, like Micah 7:12, and Jeremiah 2:18 (which passage, more over, looks back to ours), is the Euphrates. The עברי are the two sides of the Euphrates; for עֶבֶר alone may mean the territory on the hither side as well as the further side (comp. Joshua 24:2-3; Joshua 24:14-15; 2 Samuel 10:16; 1 Chronicles 19:16, with 2 Kings 5:4; Ezra 8:36; Nehemiah 2:7; Nehemiah 2:9; Nehemiah 3:7), and עַבָרִים are the sides generally: Exodus 32:15; 1 Kings 5:4; Jeremiah 58:28; 49:32.—שׁער רנלים is euphemistic, like Deuteronomy 28:57; Isaiah 36:12 K’ri. Comp. Judges 3:24; 1 Samuel 24:4. תסכּה proves that the Prophet uses תער as fem, which usually is masc. Thereby the adjective construction of שׁכירה is confirmed as the correct one. Regarding the usus loquendi, comp. Isaiah 13:15; Isaiah 29:1; Isaiah 30:1.

On Isaiah 7:21. שׁתי צאן, because female sheep, yielding milk are meant. He does not kill them, but lets them live, raises them. חיה is “to make live.” This does not occur only when something dead, or non-existent, is called into life: but also when something living, but on the point of dying, is let live; therefore “preserves alive.” Comp. Isaiah 38:1; Genesis 7:3; 2 Samuel 12:3; 1 Kings 18:5, etc.

On Isa 7:23. On שׁמיר ושׁית see on Isa 5:6.

On Isaiah 7:25. Both the verb נֶעְדַּר and the substantive מַעְדִּר occur only in is, viz., here and Isaiah 5:6.—מִשְׁלָח is a place where cattle are allowed to roam free (comp. Isaiah 32:20). The expression belongs to Deuteronomy, where only, except here, it is found; Deuteronomy 12:7; 15:10; 13:21; 28:8, 20.—מִרְמָס see on Isaiah 5:5.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. Moreover the Lord—tempt the Lord, Isaiah 7:10-12. When Isaiah says: “Moreover the Lord spake,” he puts himself quite in the background. He gives prominence only to the proper author of the address, as Isaiah 7:3, he reports only the words of Jehovah to himself, and passes over the performance that was his, a man’s work, as a matter of course. Though Ahaz was a backslider, the divine love on its part does not let him go. The Lord says still to him: I am thy God. De jure. He is Song of Solomon, though de facto so no longer. Because Jehovah still loves Ahaz, He seeks to reclaim him, coming to him half way, and holding out His hand in order to make return as easy for him as possible. That is, the Lord demands no unconditional faith from Ahaz, but He permits him to attach his faith to any condition that he will. If Jehovah fulfils the condition, then that is security, or the sign, that Jehovah deserves to be believed, that He is therefore the God He gives Himself out to be.

There is no other instance of submitting to a man’s choice what the sign shall be. It may be fearlessly said that for Isaiah to propose to Ahaz the choice of a miraculous sign is itself a sign. It is a pledge that he serves the true, living, and almighty God; that therefore there is such a God, who not only can do miracles, but who, under circumstances, will do them. Had Isaiah offered Ahaz this choice without possessing the power to perform what he promised, he would have been either a deceiver or a crazed enthusiast. In the name of science, rationalistic expositors may be challenged to prove that Isaiah was a deceiver or an enthusiast. In any case the Prophet leaves it to Ahaz, from what part of the universe he will have a miracle.

The reply of Ahaz is hypocritical. He acts as if he still believed in Jehovah, and as if he declined the proposal only through fear, lest he should have the appearance of tempting God ( Deuteronomy 5:16). But he had already his own plans. He had already resolved to oppose to the gods and kings of Syria and Ephraim, not Jehovah, the God of Judah, but the gods and the king of Assyria.

[ Isaiah 7:11. “Ask it in the depth,” etc. There may be an historical relation between this expression and Deuteronomy 30:11-14, and John 4:11-13, and Romans 10:6-8, and comp. Psalm 139:6-10, that makes them useful for mutual interpretation. Τὴν ἃβυσσν, Romans 10:7, seems to show that Paul combines the language of Deuteronomy and is, and also to favor the LXX. and Vulg. in reading our passage as if שְׁאֹלָה were meant.—Tr.].

2. And he said—Immanuel, Isaiah 7:13-14. It seems to me that this form of address, joined to the “moreover the Lord spake,” Isaiah 7:10, intimates that the Prophet spoke these words, not on the spot mentioned Isaiah 7:3, but in the house of David, i. e., in the royal palace, and before the royal family, and that the contents of his address concerned very nearly the house of David as a family, (not merely as representative of the government). הלאה, to weary,” corresponds exactly to the French ennuyer, which means primarily the discomfort one experiences from anything that lasts too long, and then any sort of discomfort. Without doubt Ahaz had often enough made trial of human patience. But “to weary men” seems to point to the fact that in Ahaz’s refusal lay an insult to the Prophet. For this refusal might be regarded as indirectly repelling an insane presumption on the part of Isaiah. Still, doubtless, the insult to his God is the chief matter to the Prophet. Notice that by “my God” here, he in a measure retracts the “thy God” of Isaiah 7:10. By this one word he lets Ahaz know that by his unbelief he has excluded himself from a part in the Lord. Full of this displeasure, the Prophet declares to the house of David: Because ye will have no sign, one shall be given to you. The sign must therefore be one that Ahaz could observe, and every meaning that ignores this, must from the outstart be regarded as mistaken. It is further clear that the sign which Ahaz must accept against his will must be of a character unpleasant to him. The whole connection shows this clearly. The unbelief, the desertion, the hypocrisy of Ahaz must be punished. Had he accepted the offer of the Lord, he might at will have chosen a sign from any sphere. But because he insolently declined the offer, he must put up with a sign that will appear in a very delicate quarter, and consist in a fact very unpleasant for him. Consider in addition that the Prophet, as we learned above, spoke these words in the royal palace, and before the royal family, and we obtain an important threefold canon for the exposition of the passage: the sign must have been for Ahaz, 1) recognized; 2) unpleasant, punishing; 3) of concern to his whole family.

Behold the virgin,etc.—“Behold” has great emphasis. “It stands here as if the Prophet raised his hand, signed to all the world that they should be still and give heed to this the chiefest miracle of which he would now preach.” (Foerster).—On העלמה see Text. and Gr. Who is “the virgin” here? To whom does the definite article point? We must at the outset exclude all those exposisions according to which the Alma = “virgin” is a purely ideal person, whether belonging to the present or the future. What sort of a sign for Ahaz could it be, if the Prophet in spirit saw in the remote future a virgin that bore the Messiah; even if, by means of an ideal anticipation, the wonderful child, which formed, as it were, the soul of the people’s life, is construed as representative of the contemporaries of Ahaz (Hengstenberg)? It is no better when, by a figurative construction the Alma is made to mean Israel, out of which a people of salvation shall arise, which, after it has endured the consequences of the present ignorance, shall know to prefer the good to the bad (v. Hofmann). It is the same with the explanation of W. SchultzProf, in Breslau, Stud. and Krit., 1861, Heft. IV.) who by comprehending under the Alma or virgin the Messiah and His mother, and all their typical forerunners, understands by this person “the quiet ones of the land, who needed not the king nor his co-operation.” The canon we have set up as imperative, is equally violated by Kueper (Die Proph. d. A. B. übersichtle dargestellt, Leipzig, 1870, p216): he admits that Alma does not necessarily mean a pure virgin, yet he lays especial emphasis on the virginity of the mother, because it may be inferred from the name Immanuel, which proves the piety of the mother; and he sees precisely in this virginity the threat against Ahaz, because it follows that Immanuel is to be born without co-operation of a man of the race of David. For it is impossible that Ahaz could infer this virginity thus from the words of the Prophet. Beside, there is nothing threatening in the promise that the Messiah shall be born as the Son of God in the sense of Luke 1:35, without co-operation of a man, of the race of David; it is rather the highest honor. The latest attempt at exposition, too, by Ed. Engelhardt (Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. and K. 1872 Heft. IV.), does not satisfy. “The house of David cannot be destroyed before the promised deliver comes forth from it. The mother is therefore, yet to appear that bears Him, and this mother, determined by the word of the Prophecy, it is that the Prophet means here “(l. c. page627).” How is it to be proved that העלמה was a standing expression for the mother of the Messiah? What, moreover, was there punitive in this? What in the text says that the house of David would be destroyed after the birth of the Messiah’s mother? Moreover, how is this conceivable? To express what Engelhardt fancies is the meaning of the Prophet, the words must read: the Alma has not yet borne. What sort of a sign, would that be?

Others adopt an ideal construction in the sense that they regard the birth of a son from the Alma, at the time indicated, as an idea, a possibility, without reference to its realization (“were a virgin to conceive this instant a boy as an emblem of his native land, the mother would name her babe like the land at that time must say: God was with us,” Eichhorn, comp. J. D. Michaelis, Paulus, Staehelin,etc.). The arbitrariness of this exposition is manifest; the Prophet does not speak hypothetically, but quite categorically. This sign, too, would be neither observable, nor threatening.

Others find the key to the exposition (Rosenmueller, Ewald, Bertheau), in the supposition that Isaiah saw the Messiah Himself in the child to be born, and that consequently we have before us, an erroneous hope and an unfulfilled Prophecy. But it is incredible that the Prophet, accompanied as he was by his son Shearjashub, could have expected in so short a period the fulfilment of the Prophecy contained in his name. The people must first become a remnant. Comp, the Prophet’s inquiry Isaiah 6:10 and the reply Isaiah 7:11. If the Alma does call her son Immanuel, he is not necessarily therefore really Immanuel. It may mean only that he signifies the Immanuel. And Song of Solomon, too, Isaiah 8:8, the land of Immanuel is not the land of the present, but of the future Immanuel, who only is the true Lord and Master of the land. In Isaiah 8:10 where עִמָּנוּ אֵל is written separately as two words, can at most only a play on the name Immanuel be recognized. Moreover if Isaiah saw in the boy Immanuel the Messiah himself, then must certainly his mother be the legitimate wife of a member of the family of David. But it is incredible that עַלְמָה alone without any qualification, can mean married women.

The ancient Jewish explanation, according to which the Alma was the mother of Hezekiah, that Abi. daughter of Zachariah ( 2 Kings 18:2), was shown by Jerome even to be impossible, inasmuch as Hezekiah at the time Isaiah spoke these words was already 12 years old. The later Jewish explanation ranks among its supporters Faustus Socinus, Joh. Crellius, (Socinian), Grotius, (who in his Dever. religionis Christ. still presented the orthodox view, but afterwards went over to Crellius’ views), Joh. Ludwig Von Wolzogen (Socinian), John Ernst. Faber (in the Anm. zu Harmar’s Beobachtungen über den Orient, etc, I. S. 281), [Put Dr. Barnes here: only that he includes a reference to Messiah, according to Matthew 1:22.—Tr.] Gesenius, Hitzig, Heudewerk, Knobel,etc. According to this view the Alma is the wife of the Prophet himself, either the mother of Shear-jashub, or a younger one, at that time only betrothed to him. But this is wrecked on the impossibility of referring העלמה to the wife or the betrothed of the Prophet without any nearer designation and without the faintest hint of her being present. Beside, how should the family of the Prophet happen to have the Immanuel born in it? Were the promises to David to be transferred to Isaiah? Kimchi and Abarbanel modify this view by saying that by the Alma must be understood the wife of Ahaz. But then, instead of something bad, the Prophet would rather have announced something joyful. Others again understand by the Alma any virgin, not more particularly specified, that was present at the place of interview, and to whom the Prophet pointed with the finger.

For my part I believe, that in expounding our passage, it is an exegete’s duty to leave out of view at first Matthew 1:23. We have only to ask: What, according to the words and context, did Isaiah in that moment wish to say, and actually say? How far his word spoken then was a prophecy, and with what justice Matthew 1:18 regards the fact recounted there as the fulfilment of this prophecy will appear from inquiry that must be made afterwards. Bearing in mind then the canon proposed above, and we obtain the meaning: Behold the (i. e. this) virgin (i. e. this yet unmarried daughter of the royal house) is pregnant, etc. After the indignant words of the Prophet, Isaiah 7:14 a, that roll up like dark clouds, we must look for a sign that strikes the house of David like thunder and lightning. Doubtless Ahaz was not the only guilty person. While Joshua ( Joshua 24:15) had said: “I and my house will serve the Lord,” Ahaz had said the contrary. If not, why did the Prophet, instead of addressing himself to the king with such emphasis, address the whole house? And did what was said Isaiah 3:16 sq. about the luxury of the daughters of Zion have no application to the women in the household of Ahaz? Therefore the whole house must with terror endure the shame of one of the princesses who was present being pointed out as pregnant. That is the bold manner of the prophets of Jehovah—a manner that is no respecter of persons—the “sackcloth roughness” of men that know that they have Almighty God for their support. Thus, for example, Jeremiah said to king Jehoiakim that he should be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem, Jeremiah 22:19.

As regards the sense, it remains essentially the game whether קרתא is translated “thou wilt call” or “she will call.” For in any case the word is spoken in presence of the Alma. She herself takes note of what the Prophet announces in regard to the name to be given. Whether she is spoken to or spoken of, remains immaterial. If God, with no expression of disapproval, says “she will call him Immanuel,” is not that as much as to say: “she shall so call him?” She would hardly have thought of that name herself. It was not a usual name. It is found only here in the Old Testament. It was a beautiful name, rich in consolation. The Lord would have spoken quite differently if the name had given Him displeasure. That such was not the case, we see from Isaiah 8:8; Isaiah 8:10 very decidedly. If often occurs in Scripture that mothers give names to their children: Genesis 4:25; Genesis 19:37 sq.; Genesis 29:32; Genesis 30:6; Genesis 30:8; Genesis 30:11; Genesis 30:13; Genesis 30:18; Genesis 30:20; Genesis 30:24; Genesis 35:18; 1 Samuel 1:20. Often the name is determined by divine command: Genesis 16:11; Genesis 17:19; Hosea 1:4; Hosea 1:6; Hosea 1:9; 1 Chronicles 22:9; Matthew 1:21. Here, now, grave doubts arise. Is it conceivable that God has made a fallen woman the type of the θεοτόκος, and an illegitimate child the type of the Son of God become man? The objections to our view, founded on the piety of the Alma (see above), disappear when we refer back the giving of the name to the announcement of the divine will. For if the Alma does not name the child Immanuel self-prompted, she gives no proof of fearing God and faith in God. She did only what she could not have omitted to do without defying the divine will. But how is it conceivable that God should make such a child the bearer and symbol of His holy purpose of salvation, a child to which clung the reproach of illegitimate birth, that was therefore the fruit and the continual monument of sin, whose mother, in fact, in some circumstances, might have incurred the penalty of stoning, according to Deuteronomy 22:21? How can this fruit of sin bear the holy name of Immanuel? Does this not involve the dangerous inference that God does not take strict account of sin? that in some cases He does not mind using it as means and instrument for His plans? To this I would reply as follows. The Prophet is extremely sparing in portraying the historical background of his prophecies. He indicates only what is indispensable. It is just this scantiness that makes our passage so difficult, and all effort’s at expounding it suffer alike from this. For there is not a single one against which it may not be objected that one explanatory statement or other is necessary to its complete establishment. It seems to me that the presence of the article in ”the Alma” is easiest explained if, in the circle to which the Prophet addressed, there was only one person present that could be designated as Alma. In every language in such a case a more exact pronominal definition may be dispensed with. Besides, in Hebrew, the article in some cases has decidedly a demonstrative meaning, and can be used δεικτικῶς (comp. הַיּוֹה,הַשָּׁנָה,הַפַּעַם הַלַּיְלָה,).

The Prophet, as the servant of Jehovah, might come to the king unannounced. Though hated by the king, the king still dreaded him, and, according to Isaiah 7:12, Ahaz did not venture to express his unbelief openly, but only under the mask of reverence. Assuredly Nathan did not first request an audience and permission to deliver a message of Jehovah’s to the king ( 2 Samuel 24:11 sq.). And thus we may assume that the Prophet came to the palace at a time when the king was not surrounded by officers of state—at least not by these alone, but also by his family. And in the circle into which Isaiah stepped in the discharge of his prophetic disciplinary office there must have been one—but only one—daughter of the royal house who was indeed unmarried, but no longer a virgin. More than this we do not know. The Prophet writes no more than he said, perhaps out of compassion, or perhaps to avoid making the person in question the object of honors she did not deserve (possibly of idolatrous worship in after days). By revealing this secret to the dismay of the family, the Prophet had of course given a sign, a pledge of the credibility of what was promised Isaiah 7:7. For whoever knew that secret of the past and present could know also the secret things of the future. And the king could at once ascertain the verity of the sign that was given. Of course he might take measures to defeat the prophecy and render its accomplishment impossible. But what good would that do? The chief thing, that there was a boy in the body of the (supposed) virgin, he could not undo, and this boy was called, and was de jure, and indeed de jure divino, Immanuel, even though the king (or his mother) gave him no name at all, or another name. [See addenda of Tr. pp127, 128.]

But how shall we account for so unholy a transaction being made the type of the holiest transaction of history? Here we must consider the relation of our passage to Matthew 1:23. The sacred history narrates that Mary, before Joseph took her home, was found with child, and that Joseph had resolved not to denounce her, but to leave her privately ( Matthew 1:18 sq.). Ought it to surprise us if this part of the history of the fulfilment should be prefigured, too, in the period of the prophecy? But why just so and then? If that event, that the mother of the Lord was to be found pregnant before marriage, was to be prefigured, could it be done otherwise than that there should happen to a virgin in a natural way and in sinful fashion what happened to Mary in a supernatural way and without sin? Sinful generation occurs in the list of the ancestors of Jesus more than once. Compare only the genealogy in Matthew that calls especial attention to these cases by naming the mother concerned. Remember Judah and Tamar. And not to mention Rahab and Ruth, there is Song of Solomon, born of David and the wife of Uriah. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me,” Psalm 51:7, applies to the whole genealogy, and, apart from the birth, we must apply to every individual of it the words: “there is none that doeth good, no, not one” ( Psalm 14:3; Romans 3:10 sq.). Let one call to mind the sins of Jacob, a David, a Song of Solomon, and one must say it depends on circumstances which was the more unworthy vessel, they or this unfortunate virgin. In short, we here stumble on secrets of divine sovereignty that we cannot fathom. The day shall declare it ( 1 Corinthians 3:13).

Moreover Immanuel is only a transitory apparition. He is named only here and chap8. It is a single though significant point, that is visible above the horizon once and then disappears again. Therefore it is also to be noted that spite of Matthew 1:23, and that the words of the angel Luke 1:31 remind us of our text and of Genesis 16:11, Mary still did not receive command to call her son Immauel. Had our passage the significance that is attributed to it; were it a direct prophecy of the birth of Jesus from a virgin, then properly the name that the son of Mary was to bear was already settled, and one can’t comprehend why the angel ( Luke 1:31) gives another name. But Immanuel is not Himself and immediately Jesus. He is only a type, like many others. And, indeed, as a son of a virgin, He is a type of that reproach of antenuptial conception which the Saviour of the world had to bear as a part of the general reproach that was meted out to Him, and which He has now-a-days to bear still. This is a point that prophecy might not pass in silence, and yet could touch only lightly.

But by his name he points to the faithfulness of God that will not forsake His people, even when they have become a בֶּן־זְנוּנִים, and have signalized their desertion of Him by the alliance with the secular power. And this faithfulness is itself a pledge in turn of that which had determined on the most glorious visitation of the people ( Luke 1:78) in the person of the God- man, precisely for that time when the nation would lose the last remnant of its independence in the embrace of the secular powder. All the features must not be pressed; which is the case with Isaiah 7:15 sqq. especially. The prophetic word hovers freely over present and future, combining both, yet leaving both their peculiarities. It was God’s providence that Isaiah should select these words that at the same time fitted so wonderfully the event narrated Matthew 1:18 sqq, to whom the tongue of an Isaiah was just as subservient as that of a Caiaphas ( John 11:51).

3. Butter and honey—the King of Assyria.

Isaiah 7:15-17. Butter and honey is by no means a mean food. That appears from Deuteronomy 32:13-14; Job 20:17, where the words rather mean a very noble food. Comp. 2 Samuel 17:29. Nor do they appear in any passage of the Old Testament, as children’s food. Rather from Isaiah 7:21 sqq. it appears that butter and honey represent natural food in contrast with that procured by art. For butter comes immediately from milk, and honey, too, may be had ready from bees in a form that men can enjoy. And as Palestine had and still has many wild bees, on account of which it is called a land “flowing with milk and honey” (comp. Exodus 3:8; Exodus 3:17, sqq. and the characteristic passage 1 Samuel 14:25 sqq.; Judges 14:8), therefore we may suppose that wild honey ( Matthew 3:4) is especially meant here. Therefore the boy shall eat butter and honey on to the time when he shall know evil and good (anni discretionis). If the ability to distinguish good and evil is employed as marking a period of time, it can only be in a moral sense. For even the smallest child distinguishes in a physical sense what tastes bad and what good. Moreover the expression reminds one of Genesis 2:9; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3:5; Genesis 3:22; comp. Deuteronomy 1:39. Naturally the land must be deserted before the boy knows how to distinguish between good and evil, in order that at the time when this happens, his food may be reduced to butter and honey.

The two kings of the land are Rezin and Pekah. It may be seen from Isaiah 7:2 how great was the dread of these

experienced by Ahaz.

The Lord shall bring,etc.—It is to be noticed here, first of all, that the Prophet adds these words roughly and directly, without any particle connecting them with what goes before. This mode of expression is explained by the fact that the Prophet contemplates the transactions of Isaiah 7:17 as immediately behind those of Isaiah 7:16. From his point of view he sees no interval between them. That is not the same as saying that there is no interval between. Prophecy sees all as if in one plane, that in the fulfilment is drawn apart in successive planes. Hence one may say: Isaiah prophesies here the Assyrian and Babylonish exile. For the desolation that ( Isaiah 7:16) is to befall Ephraim happened by the carrying away of the Ten Tribes (comp. 2 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 17:23 sqq.). But what the Prophet predicts Isaiah 7:17 sqq. was fulfilled by the captivity of Judah more than120 years later. Accordingly, the relation of the prophecy to the fulfilment takes the following shape. Our prophecy must have happened in the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, consequently about the year B. C743. The first devastation and partial desolation of the territory of Ephraim by the Assyrians, i. e., by Tiglath-Pileser, happened already in the time of Pekah ( 2 Kings 15:29), who died B. C739. The boy, that was to be born according to Isaiah 7:14, in fact did not live to see any period of the desolation of his native land, nor did he use butter and honey in the manner designated. This form of expression is traceable solely to contemplation of events together that in reality are far apart. For Judah succumbed to such a devastation not till130 years later. But if we may assume that a child awakes. to moral consciousness in its third or fourth year, and is consequently to be regarded as a personality, capable of distinguishing between good and evil, then that child was alive to see the first inroad of the Assyrians into the territory of Ephraim (and Syria according to 2 Kings 16:9) and consequently the beginning of the fulfilment of our prophecy. But did it live to see the beginning, then the Prophet might regard it as one that had lived through the entire fulfilment, because, as remarked before, he does not distinguish successive plains of fulfilment. And he has good reason for this. For as all consequences are contained in the principle, so in the first-fruits of fulfilment are contained the rest of the degrees of fulfilment. For him, who has an eye open to divine realities, all these degrees are ideally contained, but just on that account divinely and really contained in the degree that is the first-fruits. For divine ideas bear the pledge of their reality in themselves. Therefore where a complex of divine ideas is realized even in its beginnings, there the whole is become real for Him who contemplates things with an eye divinely illuminated. Thus Jeremiah regards the world-dominion of Nebuchadnezzar, the subjection of all nations under his power, and the seventy years of Judah’s exile as realized practically by the battle at Carchemish, although, to human eyes, Nebuchadnezzar during several years did nothing to extend his kingdom on one side or other. Comp. my remarks on Jeremiah 25:11. Song of Solomon, too, the Lord says Matthew 24:34; Luke 21:32, “This generation shall not pass away till all this be fulfilled.” He could, with entire justice, say that the generation then living would live to see the last judgment because they would witness the beginning of it, the destruction of Jerusalem. Comp. Van Oosterzee on Luke 21:32.

It is seen from the foregoing that, regarding the passage in the light of its fulfilment, we understand “the king of Assyria” Isaiah 7:17, to include the king of Babylon. But Isaiah could speak here only of the king of Assyria. For in the foreground of his tableau of the future he saw only the king of Assyria. He did not know, or did not need to intimate that the king of Babylon stood behind the former as continuer and accomplisher. The Assyrian king, this would-be-helper and protector, for whose sake Ahaz has so impiously contemned the support of Jehovah (see on Isaiah 7:12), just he must be designated as the instrument of the judgment that was to burst in on unbelieving Judah and its equally unbelieving royal house. Thus it appears how impossible it is to treat the words “the king of Assyria” as a gloss, like Knobel and Diestel do. If the words were not there, there would be no hint as to who was to be the instrument of the judgment predicted Isaiah 7:16-17. The words connect very well with “days” in apposition as being explanatory—for it is just as easy to say “bring days on a people” as “bring a king upon any one.”

4. And it shall come to pass——treading lesser cattle.

Isaiah 7:18-25. These verses connect very closely with Isaiah 7:17, as its amplification. This happens as follows: that in a section underlying which is a duality, there is described first, the means and instruments of the desolation, second the consequences of the desolation. The means and instruments are characterized in a two fold image. First, the destroyer is compared to flies and bees, second, to a razor. The flies mean Egypt, the bees Assyria. But both images merge into one, into that of the razor, and Assyria appears as the razor, by which we are to understand not Assyria alone, but also Babylon. The consequences of the desolation, again, are portrayed under a double figure, or rather by the presentation of two examples. The first example: a man has nothing of his cattle left but a little cow (young cow). But he feeds on thick milk, for, in consequence of the superabundance of food for stock, the remnant of the inhabitants will feed on butter and honey. The second example is itself again divided in two: a.) a vineyard once well cultivated, planted with noble vines, is so over-grown with thorns and thistles, that no one ventures into it without bow and arrow; b.) all the once cultivated heights are so overgrown with thorns and thistles, that they are only fit for the pasture of cattle.

Will hiss,etc.—Jehovah’s might and sovereignty will reveal itself here in the most glorious manner. He only needs to whistle (comp. on Isaiah 5:26; Zechariah 10:8), and the flies of Egypt and the bees of Assyria come obedient to His call. That Egypt was a land abounding in flies may be supposed from the warmth of its climate and the frequent overflows with their slimy sediment. Comp. Exodus 8:12 sqq. If the flies at the extreme ends of the canals (see crit. note on ׳אר) are called, those that are nearer would not stay away. The expression then means that all the Egyptian flies, even the farthest off, shall come on.—The Assyrians are compared to the bee as noble, martial, strong, dangerous. Assyria had many bees. Comp. Knobelin loc. Therefore the entire land, to the steep, rocky ravines and cliffs of the brooks, and to the prickly thorn hedges and the trampled cattle pastures will be covered (נָחוּ comp. a Isaiah 7:2) with the swarms of flies and bees. Thus, extensively and intensively, an entire devastation of the land is predicted. The same appears by the second figure Isaiah 7:20. Ahaz, at a great price, had hired the Assyrian king as an ally against Syria and Ephraim. For this purpose he had not only sacrificed great treasures but also the independence of his land. For he had caused it to be said to Tiglath-Pileser: “I am thy servant and thy Song of Solomon, come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria and out of the hand of the king of Israel.” 2 Kings 16:7. For this purpose he sent the Assyrian the gold and silver that was in the house of Jehovah and in the house of the king. The definite article in תערחשׂכירה, “the hired razor,” was both historically justified and comprehensible to Ahaz, who must have felt the reproach that lay in the expression. Thou hast hired a razor to shave others, says Isaiah to him, but this razor will shave thee. In Leviticus 14:8 sq. the shaving off all the hair on the body is prescribed as a part of the purification to be observed by one recovered from leprosy. Perhaps the Prophet would intimate that this devastation was also an act of purification, by which the nation was to be purified from the leprosy of sin, that therefore the punishment is intended for the improvement of those that would accept the chastisement ( Proverbs 8:10; Proverbs 19:20). The shaving bald evidently signifies the entire devastation and emptying of the land in every quarter and with regard to men, cattle and every other possession.

In Isaiah 7:21-25, the degree and extent of the devastation is portrayed by two illustrative figures. The first example shows that instead of skilful cultivation, the grass shall grow rank. A man rescues from his stock a heifer, the Prophet supposes, (comp. Isaiah 15:5; Jeremiah 48:34; Deuteronomy 21:3; 1 Samuel 16:2) and two sheep. Because there is no regular cultivation, grass grows in every field. Therefore there is abundant pasture for the few cattle. Beside, the wild bees produce honey in abundance. Thus honey and butter are the food of that man and of all the remnant of the inhabitants still in the land. The second example presents a still greater degree of uncultivated wildness; the whole land growing rank with thorns and thistles. And this greatest wildness appears in a double gradation: first, every place for growing wine appears covered with thorns and thistles ( Isaiah 7:23-24), and then the same is affirmed of all the hills. It is hard to find a distinction here, because wine grows on the hills, or mountains, too. It seems to me that the Prophet carries out completely in this last member the duality which, as was remarked, rules in the whole section. Everything is double. Already in Isaiah 7:18 we have flies and bees, meaning Egypt and Assyria; ravines and clefts of the rock; thorn-hedges and pastures. Only Isaiah 7:20 neglects the rule, because the Prophet would designate the two enemies in an unity. But Isaiah 7:21 and on, this rule of duality is carried out, and at the close becomes emphatic. We observe two degrees of growing wild. In the first appear: one man and the entire remnant of the inhabitants, cattle and sheep, butter and honey. The second degree, subdivides in two again, in which appears to me to lie the emphasis, and both are characterized by the double notions of thorn and thistle, arrow and bow, a seeding place for cattle, and a trampling place for sheep. The thousand vines and thousand shekels recall Song of Solomon 8:11. In Syria at the present time the vineyards are still taxed according to the number of the vines; a good vine at one Piaster = about four cents. Therefore, the price of one shekel = to about25 cents is high. The construction of Isaiah 7:23 betrays a certain luxuriance and rankness. The first or the last יִהְיֶה “shall be” is certainly an excess. Perhaps the Prophet would thereby express by word painting the rank growth of the weeds. Will one go into the property with bow and arrow in order to hunt, or to protect himself? I believe, with Gesenius, both. He that goes in will need his weapons for protection; he that would hunt needs only to go into the nearest vineyard. The protecting fence is gone; beasts wild and tame, penetrate into it. The vineyards of Israel are now a copy of what Israel itself as the vineyard of Jehovah had become ( Isaiah 7:5).

[J. A. Alexander on Isaiah 7:14-16. “The two interpretations that appear to me the most plausible, and the least beset with difficulties are those of Lowth and Vitringa, with which last Hengstenberg’s is essentially identical. Either the Prophet, while he foretells the birth of Christ, foretells that of another child, during whose infancy the promised deliverance shall be experienced; or else he makes the infancy of Christ Himself, whether seen as still remote or not, the sign and measure of that same deliverance. While some diversity of judgment ought to be expected and allowed in relation to this secondary question, there is no ground, grammatical, historical or logical, for doubt as to the main point, that the church in all ages has been right in regarding this passage as a signal, and explicit prediction of the miraculous conception and nativity of Christ.” On הָעַלְמָה, “the Alma.” “It is enough for us to know that a virgin or unmarried woman is designated here as distinctly as she could be by a single word. That the word means simply a young woman, whether married or unmarried, a virgin or a mother, is a subterfuge invented by the later Greek translators, who, as Justin Martyr tells us, read νεα̈νις, instead of the old version παρθένος, which had its rise before the prophecy became a subject of dispute between Jews and Christians. The use of the word in this connection makes it, to say the least, extremely probable that the event foretold is something more than a birth in the ordinary course of nature.”

“To account for the Alma by a second marriage of Ahaz, or of is, or by the presence of a pregnant woman, or the Prophet’s pointing at her,” “may be justly charged with gratuitously assuming facts of which we have no evidence, and which are not necessary to the interpretation of the passage.” “A further objection is, that though they may afford a sign in one of the senses of the word, viz.: that of an emblem or symbol, they do not afford such a sign as the context would lead us to expect. It seems very improbable, after the offer to Ahaz, which he rejected, that the sign bestowed (unasked) would be merely a thing of every-day occurrence, or at most the application of a symbolical name. This presumption is strengthened by the solemnity with which the Prophet speaks of the predicted birth, not as a usual and natural event, but as something which excites his own astonishment, as he beholds it in prophetic vision.”

This last objection applies equally to the Author’s theory of the Alma being an unmarried princess detected in pregnancy. In addition to all the other assumptions of this theory, which are greater than those of any other, it must be assumed that the pregnancy was at a stage that could be kept secret from the scrutiny that ever characterized the regime of the women’s apartments in an oriental family. Otherwise it would be no sign in the Author’s sense.

The Author’s threefold canon has its foundation in what are obviously conjectures. Whether the sign was to be such as Ahaz was to test, because he would see it accomplished, depended precisely on the sign itself. It might be a sign like that to Moses Exodus 3:12, which could only be fulfilled after other events predicted, with which it was associated as a sign, had come to pass. Comp. Isaiah 37:30. It may have been like those signs given by Christ to unbelievers in His day, that were not meant to induce belief in those that asked, but were the refusal of a sign to them. (vid. John 2:18-22; Matthew 12:38-40). If it was such a sign, then the Author’s first canon is an error. Whether the sign was meant for the whole royal family, according to this third canon, depends wholly on the “house of David” having the meaning he gives it. Yet that meaning has no other foundation than the conjecture that Isaiah had intruded on the private, domestic retirement of Ahaz. The second canon, viz.: that the sign in its form must be punitive, is only an assumption. The contrary is as easily assumed.

The connection of the words Isaiah 7:10-16 with the Isaiah 7:9 b is very close. The belief there challenged is, by a second message, brought to the test. Ahaz does not stand the test. He does not believe, or he would joyfully avail himself of the offered sign, as Hezekiah did later 2 Kings 20:8 sq. Thereupon Isaiah proceeds to denounce the consequences already threatened Isaiah 7:9 b, that must follow unbelief. But first, as to unbelieving Saul was announced the man after God’s own heart that was to be raised up in his place, so to Ahaz is announced, in a clearer light than ever before, the promised “seed of the woman” who would deliver Israel. But before that would come to pass, the two kingdoms of which Israel was composed, Judah as well as Ephraim must suffer desolation. Thus the prophecy of Immanuel relates to Christ alone, as J. H. Michaelis and others suppose (vid. J. A. Alex,in loc.); and Isaiah 7:16 is (with Henderson) to be understood of Canaan and its two kingdoms, Ephraim and Judah. This view encounters fewer difficulties than any other, while such as it does encounter are felt as much by any other. On the other hand it is much in favor of this view, that there is then in Isaiah 7:17 simply a continuation and amplification of the theme begun in Isaiah 7:16, and no such abruptness as the Author, with most expositors, finds in what Isaiah 7:17 announces.

The chief difficulty is that in כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר the כִּי must be given the force of “but” (Umbreit). Yet כִּי may have its usual sense “for,” and assign the reason why an Immanuel, that knows good and evil, shall be needed. For before such a one comes, those that call good evil and evil good (vid. Isaiah 5:20), etc., shall have brought the inheritance of Jehovah to that extremity, by their unbelief, where only such a deliverer can save.—Tr.

On Isaiah 7:18. “Assyria and Egypt are named as the two great rival powers, who disturbed the peace of Western Asia, and to whom the land of Israel was both a place, and a subject of contention. The bee cannot of itself denote an army, nor is the reference exclusively to actual invasion, but to annoying and oppressive occupation of the country by civil and military agents of these foreign powers. It was not merely attacked, but infested by flies and bees of Egypt and Assyria. Fly is understood as a generic term, including gnats, mosquitoes, etc., by Henderson, and bee as including wasps and hornets, by Hitzig and Umbreit.”

On Isaiah 7:20. “The rabbinical interpretation of שׂער רנלים is a poor conceit, the adoption of which by Gesenius [and Naegelsbach—Tr.], if nothing worse, says but little for the taste and the “æsthetic feeling” which so often sits in judgment on the language of the Prophet. The true sense is no doubt the one expressed by Ewald (von oben bis unten) [from head to foot] and before him by Clericus. ”J. A. Alex.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 7:1. “Hierosolyma oppugnatur, etc. Jerusalem is assaulted but not conquered. The church is pressed but not oppressed.”—Foerster.

2. On Isaiah 7:2. “Quando ecclesia, etc. When the Church is assaulted and Christ crucified over again in His elect, Rezin and Pekah, Herod and Pilate are wont to form alliance and enter into friendly relations. There are, so to speak, the foxes of Samson, joined indeed by the tails, but their heads are disconnected.”—Foerster.—“He that believes flees not ( Isaiah 28:16). ‘The righteous is bold as a lion’ ( Proverbs 28:1). Hypocrites and those that trust in works (work-saints) have neither reason nor faith. Therefore they cannot by any means quiet their heart. In prosperity they are, indeed, overweening, but in adversity they fall away ( Jeremiah 17:9).” Cramer.

3. On Isaiah 7:9. (“If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.”) “Insignis sententia, etc. A striking sentiment that may be adapted generally to all temptation, because all earnest endeavor after anything, as you know, beguiles us in temptation. But only faith in the word of promise makes us abide and makes sure whatever we would execute. He warns Ahaz, therefore, as if he said: I now promise you by the word, it shall be that those two kings shall not hurt you. Believe this word! For if you do not, whatever you afterwards devise will deceive you: because all confidence is vain which is not supported by the word of God.”—Luther.

4. On Isaiah 7:10-12. “Wicked Ahaz pretends to great sanctity in abstaining from asking a sign through fear of God. Thus hypocrites are most conscientious where there is no need for it: on the other hand, when they ought to be humble, they are the most insolent. But where God commands to be bold, one must be bold. For to be obedient to the word is not tempting God. That is rather tempting God when one proposes something without having the word for it. It is, indeed, the greatest virtue to rest only in the word, and desire nothing more. But where God would add something more than the word, then it must not be thought a virtue to reject it as superfluous. We must therefore exercise such a faith in the word of God that we will not despise the helps that are given in addition to it as aids to faith. For example the Lord offers us in the gospel all that is necessary to salvation. Why then Baptism and the Lord’s Supper? Are they to be treated as superfluous? By no means. For if one believes the word he will at the same time exhibit an entire obedience toward God. We ought therefore to learn to join the sign with the word, for no man has the power to sever the two.

But do you ask: is it permitted to ask God for a sign? We have an example of this in Gideon. Answer: Although Gideon was not told of God to ask a sign, yet he did it by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, and not according to his own fancy. We must not therefore abuse his example, and must be content with the sign that is offered by the Lord. But there are extraordinary signs or miracles, like that of the text, and ordinary ones like Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Yet both have the same object and use. For as Gideon was strengthened by that miraculous event, Song of Solomon, too, are we strengthened by Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, although no miracle appears before our eyes.” Heim and Hoffmann after Luther. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, also asked the Lord to show him the right wife for Isaac by means of a sign of His own choosing, ( Genesis 24:14).

It ought to be said that this asking a sign (opening the Bible at a venture, or any other book) does not suit Christian perfection ( Hebrews 6:1). A Christian ought to be inwardly sensible of the divine will. He ought to content himself with the guarantees that God Himself offers. Only one must have open eyes and ears for them. This thing of demanding a sign, if it is not directly an effect of superstition ( Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4; 1 Corinthians 1:22), is certainly childish, and, because it easily leads to superstitious abuses, it is dangerous.

5. On Isaiah 7:13. “Non caret, etc. That the Prophet calls God his God is not without a peculiar emphasis. In Zechariah 2:12 it is said, that whoever touches the servants of God touches the pupil of God’s eye. Whoever opposes teacher and preacher will have to deal with God in heaven or with the Lord who has put them into office.”—Foerster.

6. On Isaiah 7:14. “The name Immanuel is one of the most beautiful and richest in contents of all the Holy Scripture. ‘God with us’ comprises God’s entire plan of salvation with sinful humanity. In a narrower sense it means ‘God-man’ ( Matthew 1:23), and points to the personal union of divinity and humanity, in the double nature of the Son of God become man. Jesus Christ was a God-with-us, however, in this, that for about 33 years He dwelt among us sinners ( John 1:11; John 1:14). In a deeper and wider sense still He was such by the Immanuel’s work of the atonement ( 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Timothy 2:3). He will also be such to every one that believes on Him by the work of regeneration and sanctification and the daily renewal of His holy and divine communion of the Spirit ( John 17:23; John 17:26; John 14:19-21; John 14:23). He is such now by His high-priestly and royal administration and government for His whole Church ( Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 7:25). He will be snch in the present time of the Church in a still more glorious fashion ( John 10:16). The entire and complete meaning of the name Immanuel, however, will only come to light in the new earth, and in the heavenly Jerusalem ( Revelation 21:3; Revelation 21:23; Revelation 22:5).”—Wilh. Fried. Roos.

Isaiah 8:7. On Isaiah 8:5 sqq. “Like boastful swimmers despise small and quiet waters, and on the other hand, for the better display of their skill, boast of the great sea and master it, but often are lost in it,—thus, too, did the hypocrites that despised the small kingdom of Judah, and bragged much and great things of the power and splendor of the kingdom of Israel and of the Syrians; such hypocrites are still to be found now-a-days—such that bear in their eye the admiranda Romae, the splendor, riches, power, ceremonies and pomp of the Romish church, and thereupon ‘set their bushel by the bigger-heap.’ It is but the devil’s temptation over again: ‘I will give all this to thee.’ ”—Cramer.—“Fons Siloa,” etc. “The fountain of Siloam, near the temple, daily reminded the Jews that Christ was coming.”—Calvin on John 9:7.

8. On Isaiah 8:10. “When the great Superlatives sit in their council chambers and have determined everything, how it ought to be, and especially how they will extinguish the gospel, then God sends the angel Gabriel to them, who must look through the window and say: nothing will come of it.”—Luther.—“Christ, who is our Immanuel, is with us by His becoming man, for us by His office of Mediator, in us by the work of His sanctification, by us by His personal, gracious presence.”—Cramer.

9. On Isaiah 8:14-15. Christ alone is set by God to be a stone by which we are raised up. That He is, however, an occasion of offence to many is because of their purpose, petulance and contempt ( 1 Peter 2:8). Therefore we ought to fear lest we take offence at Him. For whoever falls on this stone will shatter to pieces ( Matthew 21:44).” Cramer.

10. On Isaiah 8:16 sqq. He warns His disciples against heathenish superstition, and exhorts them to show respect themselves always to law and testimony. “They must not think that God must answer them by visions and signs, therefore He refers them to the written word, that they may not become altogether too spiritual, like those now-a-days who cry: spirit! spirit! … Christ says, Luke 16 : They have Moses and the prophets, and again John 5:39 : Search the Scriptures. So Paul says, 2 Timothy 3:16 : The Scripture is profitable for doctrine. So says Peter, 2 Peter 1:9 : We have a sure word of prophecy. It is the word that changes hearts and moves them. But revelations puff people up and make them insolent.” Heim and Hoffmann after Luther.

Chap9–11. On Isaiah 9:1 sqq. (2). “Postrema pars, etc. The latter part of chap8 was νομικὴ καὶ ἀπειλητική (legal and threatening) Song of Solomon, on the other hand, the first and best part of chap9 is εὐαγγελικὴ καὶ παραμυθητική, (evangelical and comforting). Thus must ever law and gospel, preaching wrath and grace, words of reproof and words of comfort, a voice of alarm and a voice of peace follow one another in the church.” Foerster.

12. On Isaiah 9:1 (2). Both in the Old Testament and New Testament Christ is often called light. Thus Isaiah calls Him “a light to the gentiles,” Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6. The same Prophet says: “Arise, shine (make thyself light), for thy light is come,” Isaiah 60:1. And again Isaiah 9:19 : “The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light.” In the New Testament it is principally John that makes use of this expression: “The life was the light of men,” John 1:4, “and the light shined in the darkness,” John 9:5. John was not that light, but bore testimony to the light, John 9:8. “That was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” John 9:9. And further: “And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,” John 3:19. “I am the light of the world,” ( John 8:12; John 9:5; comp. John 12:35).

13. On Isaiah 9:1 (2). The people that sit in darkness may be understood to comprise three grades. First, the inhabitants of Zebulon and Naphtali are called so ( Isaiah 8:23), for the Prophet’s gaze is fixed first on that region lying in the extreme end of Palestine, which was neighbor to the heathen and mixed with them, and on this account was held in low esteem by the dwellers in Judah. The night that spreads over Israel in general is darkest there. But all Israel partakes of this night, therefore all Israel, too, may be understood, as among the people sitting in darkness. Finally, no one can deny that this night extends over the borders of Israel to the whole human race. For far as men dwell extends the night which Christ, as light of the world, came to dispel, Luke 1:76 sqq.

14. On Isaiah 9:5 (6). Many lay stress on the notion “child,” inasmuch as they see in that the reason for the reign of peace spoken of afterwards. It is not said a man, a king, a giant is given to us. But this is erroneous. For the child does not remain a child. He becomes a man: and the six names that are ascribed to Him and also the things predicted of His kingdom apply to Him, not as a child, but as a man. That His birth as a child is made prominent, has its reason in this, that thereby His relation to human kind should be designated as an organic one. He does not enter into humanity as a man, i.e. as one whose origin was outside of it, but He was born from it, and especially from the race of David. He is Son of man and Son of David. He is a natural offshoot, but also the crowning bloom of both. Precisely because He was to be conceived, carried and born of a human mother, and indeed of a virgin, this prophecy belongs here as the completion and definition of the two prophetic pictures Isaiah 7:10 sqq.; Isaiah 8:1 sqq.—“He came down from heaven for the sake of us men, and for our bliss ( 1 Timothy 1:15; Luke 2:7). For our advantage: for He undertook not for the seed of angels, but for the seed of Abraham ( Hebrews 2:16). Not sold to us by God out of great love, but given ( Romans 5:15; John 3:16). Therefore every one ought to make an application of the word ‘to us’ to himself, and to learn to say: this child was given to me, conceived for me, born to me.”—Cramer.—“Cur oportuit, etc. Why did it become the Redeemer of human kind to be not merely man nor merely God, but God and man conjoined or θεάνθρωπον? Anselm replies briefly, indeed, but pithily: Deum qui posset, hominem, qui deberet.” Foerster.

15. On Isaiah 9:5 (6). “You must not suppose here that He is to be named and called according to His person, as one usually calls another by his name; but these are names that one must preach, praise and celebrate on account of His Acts, works and office.” Luther.

16. On Isaiah 9:6. “Verba pauca, etc. A few words, but to be esteemed great, not for their number but for their weight.” Augustine. “Admirabilis in, etc. Wonderful in birth, counsellor in what He preaches, God in working, strong in suffering, father of the world to come in resurrection, Prince of peace in bliss perpetual.” Bernard of Clairvaux. In reference to “a child is born,” and “a son is given,” Joh. Cocceius remarks in his Heb. Lex. s. v. יֶלֶד: “respectu, etc., in respect to His human nature He is said to be born, and in respect to His divine nature and eternal generation not indeed born, but given, as, John 3:16, it reads God gave His only begotten Son.”

“In the application of this language all depends on the words is born to us, is given to us.” The angels are, in this matter, far from being as blessed as we are. They do not say: To us a Saviour is born this day, but; to you. As long as we do not regard Christ as ours, so long we shall have little joy in Him. But when we know Him as our Wisdom of Solomon, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, as a gift that our heavenly Father designed for us, we will appropriate Him to ourselves in humble faith, and take possession of all His redeeming effects that He has acquired. For giving and taking go together. The Son is given to us; we must in faith receive Him.” J. J. Rambach, Betracht. über das Ev. Esaj, Halle, 1724.

On Isaiah 9:6 (7). “The government is on His shoulders.” “It is further shown how Christ differs in this respect from worldly kings. They remove from themselves the burden of government and lay it on the shoulders of the privy counsellors. But He does not lay His dominion as a burden on any other; He needs no prime minister and vicegerent to help Him bear the burden of administration, but He bears all by the word of His power as He to whom all things are given of the Father. Therefore He says to the house of Jacob ( Isaiah 46:3 sq.): Hearken unto me ye who were laid on my shoulders from your mothers’ womb. I will carry you to old age. I will do it, I will lift, and carry and deliver,—on the contrary the heathen must bear and lift up their idols, ( Isaiah 46:1; Isaiah 46:7).”—Rambach. “In the first place we must keep in mind His first name: He is called Wonderful. This name affects all the following.” “All is wonderful that belongs to this king: wonderfully does He counsel and comfort; wonderfully He helps to acquire and conquer, and all this in suffering and want of strength. (Luther, Jen. germ. Tom. III. Fol. 184 b.). ” “He uses weakness as a means of subduing all things to Himself. A wretched reed, a crown of thorns and an infamous cross, are the weapons of this almighty God, by means of which He achieves such great things. In the second place, He was a hero and conqueror in that just by death, He robbed him of his might who had the power of death, i.e., the devil ( Hebrews 2:14); in that Hebrews, like Samson, buried His enemies with Himself, yea, became poison to death itself, and a plague to hell ( Hosea 13:14) and more gloriously resumed His life so freely laid down, which none of the greatest heroes can emulate.”—Rambach.

17. On Isaiah 9:18 (19) sqq. True friendship can never exist among the wicked. For every one loves only himself. Therefore they are enemies one of another; and they are in any case friends to each other, only as long as it concerns making war on a third party.

Isaiah 10-18. On Isaiah 10:4. (Comp. the same expression in chap10). God’s quiver is well filled. If one arrow does not attain His object, He takes another, and so on, until the rights of God, and justice have conquered.

19. On Isaiah 10:5-7. “God works through men in a threefold way. First, we all live, move and have our being in Him, in that all activity is an outflow of His power. Then, He uses the services of the wicked so that they mutually destroy each other, or He chastises His people by their hand. Of this sort the Prophet speaks here. In the third place, by governing His people by the Spirit of sanctification: and this takes place only in the elect.”—Heim and Hoffmann.

20. On Isaiah 10:5 sqq. “Ad hunc, etc. Such places are to be turned to uses of comfort. Although the objects of temptation vary and enemies differ, yet the effects are the same, and the same spirit works in the pious. We are therefore to learn not to regard the power of the enemy nor our own weakness, but to look steadily and simply into the word, that will assuredly establish our minds that they despair not, but expect help of God. For God will not subdue our enemies, either spiritual or corporal, by might and power, but by weakness, as says the text: my strength is made perfect in weakness.” ( 2 Corinthians 12:9).—Luther.

21. On Isaiah 10:15. “Efficacia agendi penes Deum Esther, homines ministerium tantum praebent. Quare nunc sibilo suo se illos evocaturum minabatur (cap. Isaiah 5:26; Isaiah 7:18); nunc instar sagenae sibi fore ad irretiendos, nunc mallei instar ad feriendos Israelitas. Sed praecipue tum declaravit, quod non sit otiosus in illis, dum Sennacherib securim vocat, quae ad secandum manu sua et destinata fuit et impacta. Non male alicubi Augustinus ita definit, quod ipsi peccant, eorum esse; quod peccando hoc vel illud agant, ex virtute Dei esse, tenebras prout visum est dividentis (De praedest Sanctt.).”—Calvin Inst. II:4, 4.

22. On Isaiah 10:20-27. “In time of need one ought to look back to the earlier great deliverances of the children of God, as to the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, or later, from the hand of the Midianites. Israel shall again grow out of the yoke.”—Diedrich.

Isaiah 11-23. On Isaiah 11:4. “The staff of His mouth.” “Evidence that the kingdom of Christ will not be like an earthly kingdom, but consist in the power of the word and of the sacraments; not in leathern, golden or silver girdles, but in girdles of righteousness and faith.”—Cramer.

24. On Isaiah 11:10 sqq. If the Prophet honors the heathen in saying that they will come to Christ before Israel, he may be the more readily believed, when Isaiah 11:11 sqq, he gives the assurance that the return out of the first, the Egyptian exile, shall be succeeded by a return out of the second, the Assyrian exile, (taking this word in the wider sense of Isaiah). It is manifest that the return that took place under Zerubbabel and Ezra was only an imperfect beginning of that promised return. For according to our passage this second return can only take place after the Messiah has appeared. Farthermore, all Israelites that belong to “the remnant of Israel,” in whatever land they may dwell, shall take part in it. It will be, therefore, a universal, not a partial return. If now the Prophet paints this return too with the colors of the present ( Isaiah 11:13 sqq.), still that is no reason for questioning the reality of the matter. Israel will certainly not disappear, but arise to view in the church of the new covenant. But if the nation is to be known among the nations as a whole, though no more as a hostile contrast, but in fraternal harmony, why then shall not the land, too, assume a like position among the lands? But the nation can neither assume its place among nations, nor the land its place among lands, if they are not both united: the people Israel in the land of their fathers.

25. On Isaiah 11 “We may here recall briefly the older, Song of Solomon -called spiritual interpretation. Isaiah 11:1-5 were understood of Christ’s prophetic office that He exercised in the days of His flesh, then of the overthrow of the Roman Empire and of Antichrist, who was taken to be the Pope. But the most thorough-going of those old expositors must acknowledge, at Isaiah 11:4, that the Antichrist is not yet enough overthrown, and must be yet more overthrown. If such is the state of the case, then this interpretation is certainly false, for Isaiah 11:4 describes not a gradual judgment, but one accomplished at once. There have been many Antichrists, and among the Popes too, but the genuine Antichrist described 2 Thessalonians2, is yet to be expected, and also the fulfillment of Isaiah 11:4 of our chapter. Thereby is proved at the same time that the peaceful state of things in the brute world and the return of the Jews to their native land are still things of the future, for they must happen in that period when the Antichristian world, and its head shall be judged by Christ. But then, too, the dwelling together of tame and wild beasts is not the entrance of the heathen into the church, to which they were heretofore hostile, and the return of the Jews is not the conversion of a small part of Israel that took place at Pentecost and after. The miracles and signs too, contained in Isaiah 11:15-16 did not take place then. We see just here how one must do violence to the word if he will not take it as it stands. But if we take it as we have done, then the whole chapter belongs to the doctrine of hope (Hoffnungslehre) of the Scripture, and constitutes an important member of it. The Lord procures right and room for His church. He overthrows the world-kingdom, together with Antichrist. He makes of the remnant of Israel a congregation of believers filled with the Spirit, to whom He is near in an unusual way, and from it causes His knowledge to go out into all the world. He creates peace in the restless creatures, and shows us here in advance what more glorious things we may look for in the new earth. He presents to the world a church which, united in itself, unmolested by neighbors, stands under God’s mighty protection. All these facts are parts of a chain of hope that must be valuable and dear to our hearts. The light of this future illumines the obscurity of the present; the comfort of that day makes the heart fresh.” Weber, der Prophet Jesaja, 1875.

Chap12–26. On Isaiah 12:4 sq. “These will not be the works of the New Testament: sacrificing and slaying, and make pilgrimage to Jerusalem and to the Holy Sepulchre, but praising God and giving thanks, preaching and hearing, believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth. For to praise our God is good; such praise is pleasant and lovely” ( Psalm 147:1). Cramer.

27. On Chap12 “With these words conclude the prophetic discourses on Immanuel. Through what obscurity of history have we not had to go, until we came to the bright light of the kingdom of Christ! How Israel and the nations had to pass through the fire of judgment before the sun arises in Israel and the entire gentile world is illumined! It is the, same way that every Christian has to travel. In and through the fire we become blessed. Much must be burnt up in us, before we press to the full knowledge of God and of His Song of Solomon, before we become entirely one with Him, entirely glad and joyful in Him. Israel was brought up and is still brought up for glory, and we too. O that our end too were such a psalm of praise as this psalm!” Weber, Der Pr. Jes. 1875.

Footnotes