Why is the Prophet to seek out the king just at this place? The answer is given by chap. xxii. 2. "And a reservoir you make between the two walls for the waters of the old pool: and not do ye look unto him who makes it (viz., the impending calamity), and not do ye regard him who fashioned it long ago." When a siege of Jerusalem was imminent, in the lower territory, the first task was to cut off the water from the hostile army. This measure Hezekiah, according to 2 Chron. x.x.xii. 3, took against Sennacherib: "And he took counsel with his princes and his mighty men, to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city, and they helped him." That might be done in faith; but he who, like Ahaz, did not stand in the faith, sought in it, _per se_, his safety; his despairing heart clung to such measures. The stopping of the fountains was, in his case, on a level with seeking help from the a.s.syrians. It is thus in the midst of his sin that the Prophet seeks out the king, and recalls to his conscience: "take heed and be quiet."
But why did the Prophet take his son Shearjashub with him? It surely cannot be without significance; for otherwise it would not have been recorded, far less would it have been done at the express command of the Lord. As the boy does not appear actively, the reason can only be in the signification of the name. According to chap. viii., the Prophet was accustomed to give to [Pg 34] his sons symbolical names which had a relation to the destinies of the nation. They were, according to chap.
viii. 18, "for signs and for wonders in Israel." But as an interpretation of the name, the pa.s.sage chap. x. 21 is to be considered: "The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob unto the mighty G.o.d." The word ??? can, accordingly, be understood of returning to the Lord, of repentance only, comp. chap. i. 27; Hos. iii. 5. But with repentance the recovery of salvation is indissolubly connected.
The reason why it is impossible that they who commit the sin against the Holy Ghost shall never recover salvation lies solely in the circ.u.mstance, that it is impossible that they should be renewed to repentance. The fundamental pa.s.sage, which is comprehended in the name of the Prophet"s son: "And thou returnest unto the Lord thy G.o.d.... And the Lord thy G.o.d turneth thy captivity (_i.e._, thy misery), and hath compa.s.sion upon thee, and returneth and gathereth thee from all the nations" (Deut. x.x.x. 2, 3), emphatically points out the indissoluble connection of the return to the Lord, and of the return of the Lord to His people. This connection comes out so much the more clearly, when we consider that, according to Scripture, repentance is not the work of man but of G.o.d, and is nothing else but the beginning of the bestowal of salvation; comp. Deut. x.x.x. 6: "And the Lord thy G.o.d circ.u.mciseth thine heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy G.o.d with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live;" Zech.
xii. 10. King and people feared entire destruction; and it was at this that their powerful enemies aimed. Isaiah took his son with him, "as the living proof of the preservation of the nation, even amidst the most fearful destruction of the greater part of it." After having in this manner endeavoured to free their minds from the extreme of fear, he seeks to elevate them to joyful hopes, by the prophetical announcement proper, which showed that, from this quarter, not even the future great judgment, which would leave a portion only, was to be feared.
Ver. 4. "_And say unto him: Take heed and be quiet; fear not, nor let thy heart be tender for the two ends of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah._"
[Pg 35]
The words "_Take heed_" point to the dangerous consequences of fear; comp. ver. 9: "If ye do not believe, ye shall not be established." On the words "_be quiet_," lit., make quiet, viz., thy heart and walk, comp. chap. x.x.x. 15: "For thus saith the Lord: By returning and rest ye shall be saved; in _quietness_ and confidence shall be your strength; and ye would not." Such as he was, Ahaz could not respond to the exhortations to be quiet. Quietness is a product of _faith_. But the way of faith stood open to Ahaz every moment, and by his promising word and by his example, the Prophet invited him to enter upon it. In the words: "Fear not," &c., there is an unmistakable reference to Deut. xx.
1, ff., according to which pa.s.sage the priest was, on the occasion of hostile oppression, to speak to the people: "Let not your hearts be tender, and be not terrified." That which, in the Law, the priest was commanded to do, is here done by the Prophet, who was obliged so often to step in as a subst.i.tute, when the cla.s.s of the ordinary servants fell short of the height of their calling.--The "firebrand" is the image of the conqueror who destroys countries by the fire of war, comp.
remarks on Rev. viii. 8. The Prophet is just about to announce to the hostile kings their impending overthrow; for this reason, he calls them _ends_ of firebrands, which no longer blaze, but only glimmer. He calls them thus because he considers them with the eye of _faith_; to the bodily eye a bright flame still presented itself, as the last words: "For the fierce anger," &c., and vers. 5 and 6 show. _Chrysostom_ remarks: "He calls these kings "firebrands," to indicate at the same time their violence, and that they are to be easily overcome; and it is for this reason, that he adds "smoking," _i.e._, that they were near being altogether extinguished."
Vers. 5, 6. "_Because Aram meditates evil against thee, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: Let us go up against Judah, and drive it to extremity, and conquer it for us, and set up as a king in the midst of it the son of Tabeal._"
We have here, farther carried out, the thought indicated by the words: "for the fierce anger," &c. The interval, in the original text, between vers. 6 and 7, is put in to prevent the false connection of these verses with ver. 7 (_Hitzig_ and _Ewald_).--??? always means "to loathe," "to experience disgust;" here, [Pg 36] in Hiph., "to cause disgust," "to drive to extremity;" comp. my work on Balaam, Rem. on Num. xxii. 3.--??? means always: "to cleave asunder," "to open," "to conquer."--The words: "_For us_," show that Tabeal is to be the va.s.sal only of the two kings. The absolute confidence with which the Prophet recognizes the futility of the plan of the two kings, forms a glaring contrast to the modern view of Prophetism, Ver. 2 shows in what light ordinary consciousness did, and could not fail to look on the then existing state of things.
Ver. 7. "_Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pa.s.s._" (A plan stands when it is carried out.)
Ver. 8. "_For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin, and in threescore and five years more, Ephraim shall be broken, and be no more a people._"
Ver. 9. "_And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah"s son. If ye believe not, ye shall not be established._"
Each of these two verses forms a complete whole.--The words: "For the head of Aram," &c., to "Rezin" receive their explanation from the ant.i.thesis to vers. 5 and 6, where the king of Aram and the king of Ephraim had declared their intention of extending their dominion over Judah. As, concerning this intention and this hope, the Lord has declared His will that it shall not be, we must understand: Not as regards Judah, and not as regards Jerusalem. It is in vain that men"s thoughts exalt themselves against the purposes of G.o.d. From Aram, the Prophet turns, in the second part of the verse, to Ephraim: "And even Ephraim! What could it prevail against the Lord and His Kingdom! It surely should give up all attempts to get more; its days are numbered, the sword is already suspended over its own head." But inasmuch as it is possible, although not likely, that Ephraim, before its own overthrow, may still bring evil upon Judah, this is expressly denied in ver. 9: Samaria, according to the counsel of G.o.d, and the limit a.s.signed to it, is the head of Ephraim only, and not, at the same time, of Judah, &c. With this are then connected the closing words: "If ye believe not, ye shall not be established" (properly, the consequence will be that ye do not continue), which are equivalent to it: it is hence not Samaria [Pg 37] and the son of Remaliah that you have to fear; the enemy whom you have to dread, whom you have to contend against with prayer and supplication, is in yourselves. Take heed lest a similar cause produce a similar effect, as in the last clause of ver.
8 it has been threatened against Ephraim.--This prophecy and warning, one would have expected to have produced an effect so much the deeper, because they were not uttered by some obscure fanatic, but by a worthy member of a cla.s.s which had in its favour the sanction of the Lawgiver, and which in the course of centuries had been so often and so gloriously owned and acknowledged by G.o.d.[3]
[Pg 38]
Vers. 10, 11. "_And the Lord spoke farther unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy G.o.d; 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 G.o.d. But in order that the depth of his apostacy, the greatness of his guilt, and the justice of the divine judgments may become manifest, G.o.d 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 G.o.d"s omnipotence, and the Divine mission of the Prophet. As Ahaz refused the offered sign, the word 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13: e? ?????e?a, ???e????
????seta? ??? e? ?p?st??e?, ??e???? p?st?? ??e??--????sas?a? ???
?a?t?? ?? d??ata? came into application. According to Deut. vii. 9 ff.
the truth and faithfulness of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d. This was to him a _sign_ that G.o.d was in earnest in calling him. 2. In other instances the a.s.surance given by the sign consists in its perceptibility and corporeality; so that the word a.s.sumes, 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 G.o.d, 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 cla.s.s of signs, a fact is announced which is, in itself, natural, but not to be foreseen by any human combination, the coming to pa.s.s 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.ses 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 pa.s.s. 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 pa.s.s, 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 pa.s.s. 4. In other cases, the a.s.surance 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 pa.s.sage before us, no other sign can possibly be spoken of than one of the _two last cla.s.ses_. 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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,--???? and ???? are _Infin. absol._ "going high," "going low." The Imperat. ???? must be understood after ???? also. Some explain ???? by "to h.e.l.l," "down to h.e.l.l;" 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 pa.s.sages, 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 a.s.syrians, 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 pa.s.sage 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 circ.u.mstance 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 a.s.suming the guise of reverence for G.o.d 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 G.o.d, Matt. iv. 7. That would really have been a tempting of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d who grants the miracle is really the highest G.o.d? comp. Is. x. 10, 11, x.x.xvi. 18-20, x.x.xvii.
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 a.s.syrians; 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 G.o.d?_"
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 amba.s.sador, 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, _G.o.d 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 c.u.m hominibus conversabatur_), and the sin against the Holy Ghost who powerfully glorifies Him outwardly and inwardly. It is the ant.i.thesis [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 G.o.d, and spoke G.o.d"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 G.o.dlessness is the highest folly is here seen in a very evident manner. The same Ahaz who rejects the offer of the living G.o.d, who palpably wishes to reveal to him that He is a living G.o.d, 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 circ.u.mstance 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 G.o.d_," _i.e._, the G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sage, a.s.signs to ??? the signification, "nevertheless," which is not supported by the _usus loquendi_.--??? 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.--??? _He_, _i.e._, of His own accord without any co-operation, such as would have taken place if Ahaz had asked the sign.--??? 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 unG.o.dly Ahaz is destined for believers only.--??? "behold"
indicates the energy with which the Prophet antic.i.p.ates the future; in his spirit it becomes to him the immediate present. Thus it was understood as early as by _Chrysostom_: ???? ??? ??? ????t?? ?? t?
????e?a ?a? fa?ta?????? ?a? p????? ????t?? ?pe? t?? e???????
p????f???a?, t?? ??? ?et???? ?f?a??? ??e???? saf?ste??? t? ? ???e?a ??ep??.--The article in ????? cannot refer to _the_ virgin _known_ as the mother of the Saviour; for, besides the pa.s.sage before us, it is only Micah v. 2 (3) which mentions the mother of the Saviour, and it is our pa.s.sage only which speaks of her as a _virgin_. In harmony with ???, the article in ????? might be explained from the circ.u.mstance 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 circ.u.mstance that, in the parallel pa.s.sage, Mic. v.
2 (3) ????? "a bearing woman" is used without the article.--???? is, by old expositors, commonly derived from ??? in the signification "to conceal" A virgin, they a.s.sume, 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 ???, 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 pa.s.sage of Scripture _Almah_ means "a married woman," I will give him a hundred florins, although G.o.d alone knows where I may find them." It is true that ???? is distinguished from ?????, 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 chast.i.ty is, in itself, not implied in the word. But certain it is that ???? designates an unmarried person in the first years of youth; and if this be the case, un violated chast.i.ty 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 ???, "to grow up," "to become marriageable," ???? 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 ????. Besides in the pa.s.sage 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. x.x.x. 19); but in all these pa.s.sages the word is undeniably used of unmarried persons. In the two pa.s.sages of the Song of Solomon, the ????? 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 cla.s.s. Marriage forms the boundary; the _Almah_ appears here distinctly as the anti-thesis to a married woman. It is the pa.s.sage in Proverbs only which requires a more minute examination, as the opponents have given up all the other pa.s.sages, and seek in it alone a support for their a.s.sertion that ????
may be used of a married woman also. The pa.s.sage 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 ill.u.s.trate 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 circ.u.mstance that she safely pa.s.ses 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 ???, 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 pa.s.sage, Jer. x.x.xi. 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.--????? is the femin. of the verbal adj. ?????. The fundamental pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d is with them. If the _Almah_ represents herself to the Prophet as being already with child, then pa.s.sages 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 ???? may be 3d fem. for ????, comp. Jer. xliv. 23; but the fundamental pa.s.sage 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 circ.u.mstance, therefore, that the giving of the name is a.s.signed 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. ?a??s??s?, _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 pa.s.sages such as Ps. xlvi. 8, lx.x.xix. 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 G.o.d"s becoming man in the Messiah; thus _Theodoret_ says: "The name reveals the G.o.d who is with us, the G.o.d who became man, the G.o.d who took upon Him the human nature." In a similar manner _Irenaeus_, _Tertullian_, _Chrysostom_, _Lactantius_, _Calvin_, and others, express themselves.
But those very parallel pa.s.sages just quoted show that the name in itself has no distinct reference to the incarnation of G.o.d in Christ.
But from the pa.s.sage chap. ix. 5, (6), which is so closely connected with the one before us, and in which the Messiah is called _G.o.d-hero_, (the mighty G.o.d), 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 G.o.d"s being with His people, such as was made manifest when the word became flesh. (Chrysostom says: "Then, above all, G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage 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, a.s.sumed 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 pa.s.sage, chap. ix.
5 (6). That pa.s.sage presents so remarkable an agreement with the one now under consideration, that we cannot but a.s.sume 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 G.o.d will be with us in the truest manner--"They call Him [Pg 49] Wonder-Counsellor, the G.o.d-Hero, Ever-Father, the Prince of Peace."
Both of these pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sage it is said of the _world"s power_, which in the meantime, and in the first place, was represented by _a.s.shur_: "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, a.s.shur, 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 a.s.sign the Immanuel to the lower sphere, must by this pa.s.sage be rendered futile.
For how, in that case, could Canaan be called _His_ land? The signification "native country" which ???, it is true, sometimes receives by the context, does not suit here. For the pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 ill.u.s.trate one another. "Micah designates the Divine origin of the Promised One; Isaiah, the miraculous circ.u.mstances of His birth"
(_Rosenmuller_) 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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstances." 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.surance, 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 circ.u.mstance 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 ??? is elsewhere used in Scripture, is altogether disregarded by this interpretation. For, according to it, ??? would refer to a future event; but according to the _usus loquendi_ elsewhere observed, ??? "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 G.o.d upon this mountain." In chap.
x.x.xvii. 30, our Prophet himself, as a confirmation of the word spoken in reference to the king of a.s.shur: "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_ ??? is not used of future things; but this has its reason not in the idea of ???, but solely in the circ.u.mstance that, ordinarily, the future cannot serve as a sign of a.s.surance. 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. x.x.xvii. 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 pa.s.sage, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 a.s.syria, 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_,) a.s.sume the ident.i.ty of Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz; but this is altogether inadmissible, even from the difference of the names. It is the less admissible to a.s.sume 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 a.s.signed several names to one child would have weakened their power. The agreement must, therefore, rather be explained from the circ.u.mstance, 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 ?????, 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 circ.u.mstance 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 circ.u.mstances that in neither of them [Pg 54] is the father of the child designated; and, farther, in the correspondence of Immanuel with ?? ????, G.o.d-Hero.
(5.) "Against the Messianic explanation, and in favour of that of a son of the Prophet, is the pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d_, so the second name announces near _destruction_ to the triumphing _world_ hostile to G.o.d; 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 circ.u.mstance 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 a.s.sume 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 b.u.t.ter 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 _Rosenmuller_ speak.--But this explanation [Pg 55] is altogether overthrown by ver. 16. Most interpreters a.s.sume, in the latter verse, a change of subject; by ???, 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 ???; 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 circ.u.mstance 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 embara.s.sment. 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 antic.i.p.ation of the real incarnation_, the right of which lies in the circ.u.mstance, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 s.p.a.ce 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 s.p.a.ce of about a twelvemonth, he will not have any want of n.o.bler food,_ ver.
15, _for before he has entered upon this stage, the land of_ [Pg 56]