Isaiah 7:14 Kommentar

This chapter is an occasional sermon, in which the prophet sings both of mercy and judgment to those that did not perceive or understand either; he piped unto them, but they danced not, mourned unto them, but they wept not. Here is, I. The consternation that Ahaz was in upon an attempt of the confederate forces of Syria and Israel against Jerusalem (Isa 7:1, Isa 7:2). II. The assurance which God, by the prophet, sent him for his encouragement, that the attempt should be defeated and Jerusalem should be preserved (Isa 7:3-9). III. The confirmation of this by a sign which God gave to Ahaz, when he refused to ask one, referring to Christ, and our redemption by him (Isa 7:10-16). IV. A threatening of the great desolation that God would bring upon Ahaz and his kingdom by the Assyrians, notwithstanding their escape from this present storm, because they went on still in their wickedness (Isa 7:17-25). And this is written both for our comfort and for our admonition.

INTRODUCTION TO ISAIAH 7 This chapter contains a prophecy of the preservation of the kingdom of Judah, from its enemies; a confirmation of it by a sign; and a prediction of various calamities that should come upon it, antecedent to the accomplishment of that sign. The enemies of Judea are named, and the besieging of Jerusalem by them, and the date of it, which was without effect, are mentioned, Isa 7:1 the fear and dread which seized the house of David upon the news of this confederacy, Isa 7:2 the orders given by the Lord to the Prophet Isaiah, to take with him his son, and meet Ahaz, at a certain place pointed at, Isa 7:3 whose errand was to comfort him, and exhort him to be quiet and easy; since the conspiracy formed against him should be fruitless, and the kingdom of Israel should be broken to pieces, Isa 7:4 after which the king is put upon asking a sign of the Lord, for the confirmation of it; which he refusing to do, under a pretence of tempting the Lord, is reproved; and a sign nevertheless is given; which is that of the birth of the Messiah of a virgin, who would be truly God, as his name Immanuel shows, and truly man, as his birth, his food, and gradual knowledge of good and evil, prove, Isa 7:10 yea, it is suggested that the deliverance of Judea from the two kings of Syria and Israel should be very speedy; even before the young child Isaiah had with him was capable of knowing to refuse evil, and chose good, Isa 7:16 but as a chastisement of the house of David for their incredulity in this matter, and slight of the divine goodness, various things are threatened to befall them, before the birth of the Messiah; even such as had not been since the revolt of the ten tribes; as that their enemies, the Assyrians and others, should come upon them in great numbers, and fill all places, so that they would be in the utmost distress, and not be able to escape, Isa 7:17 there would be a great consumption of men of all sorts, high and low, signified by shaving off the hair of the head, beard, and feet; so that the few that remained would enjoy plenty, Isa 7:20 and for want of men to till the land, it would be covered with thorns and briers; and because of wild beasts, the few men in it would be obliged to defend themselves with bows and arrows, Isa 7:23 and yet, after this, the land should become fruitful again, before the Messiah's coming, Isa 7:25, as some interpret it.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign,.... Whether they would ask one or not; a sign both in heaven and earth, namely, the promised Messiah; who being the Lord from heaven, would take flesh of a virgin on earth; and who as man, being buried in the heart of the earth, would be raised from thence, and ascend up into heaven; and whose birth, though it was to be many years after, was a sign of present deliverance to Judah from the confederacy of the two kings of Syria and Israel; and of future safety, since it was not possible that this kingdom should cease to be one until the Messiah was come, who was to spring from Judah, and be of the house of David; wherefore by how much the longer off was his birth, by so much the longer was their safety. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a "virgin": and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in Isa 8:8 nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah's wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a "virgin", who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but rather "the prophetess", as in Isa 8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as Gen 24:43 and even in Pro 30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see Deu 22:28 to which may be added, that not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by "a virgin"; but the Septuagint interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root which signifies to "hide" or "cover"; virgins being covered and unknown to men; and in the eastern country were usually kept recluse, and were shut up from the public company and conversation of men: and now this was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a "behold" is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz's or Isaiah's wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are repeated instances every day; nor was it that the young woman was unfit for conception at the time of the prophecy, which was the fancy of some, as Jarchi reports, since no such intimation is given either in the text or context; nor did it lie in this, that it was a male child, and not a female, which was predicted, as R. Saadiah Gaon, in Aben Ezra, would have it; for the sign or wonder does not lie in the truth of the prophet's prediction, but in the greatness of the thing predicted; besides, the verification of this would not have given the prophet much credit, nor Ahaz and the house of David much comfort, since this might have been ascribed rather to a happy conjecture than to a spirit of prophecy; much less can the wonder be, that this child should eat butter and honey, as soon as it was born, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi suggest; since nothing is more natural to, and common with young children, than to take down any kind of liquids which are sweet and pleasant. And shall call his name Immanuel; which is, by interpretation, "God with us", Mat 1:23 whence it appears that the Messiah is truly God, as well as truly man: the name is expressive of the union of the two natures, human and divine, in him; of his office as Mediator, who, being both God and man, is a middle person between both; of his converse with men on earth, and of his spiritual presence with his people. See Joh 1:14.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [Isaiah 7:14]

And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin; for he spoke thus: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, `God with us.'" For things which were incredible and seemed impossible with men, these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction. But lest some, not understanding the prophecy now cited, should charge us with the very things we have been laying to the charge of the poets who say that Jupiter went in to women through lust, let us try to explain the words. This, then, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive. And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time brought her good news, saying, "Behold, thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost, and shalt bear a Son, and He shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins,"--as they who have recorded all that concerns our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, whom we believed, since by Isaiah also, whom we have now adduced, the Spirit of prophecy declared that He should be born as we intimated before. It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power. And the name Jesus in the Hebrew language means Saviour in the Greek tongue. Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." And that the prophets are inspired by no other than the Divine Word, even you, as I fancy, will grant.

Moreover, the prophecy, "Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," was uttered respecting Him. For if He to whom Isaiah referred was not to be begotten of a virgin, of whom did the Holy Spirit declare, "Behold, the Lord Himself shall give us a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son?" For if He also were to be begotten of sexual intercourse, like all other first-born sons, why did God say that He would give a sign which is not common to all the first-born sons? But that which is truly a sign, and which was to be made trustworthy to mankind,--namely, that the first-begotten of all creation should become incarnate by the Virgin's womb, and be a child,--this he anticipated by the Spirit of prophecy, and predicted it, as I have repeated to you, in various ways.

And when He says, "Hear, O house of David," [Isaiah 7:13] He performed the part of one indicating that He whom God promised David that He would raise up from the fruit of his belly (ventris) an eternal King, is the same who was born of the Virgin, herself of the lineage of David. For on this account also, He promised that the King should be "of the fruit of his belly," which was the appropriate [term to use with respect] to a virgin conceiving, and not "of the fruit of his loins," nor "of the fruit of his reins," which expression is appropriate to a generating man, and a woman conceiving by a man. In this promise, therefore, the Scripture excluded all virile influence; yet it certainly is not mentioned that He who was born was not from the will of man. But it has fixed and established "the fruit of the belly," that it might declare the generation of Him who should be [born] from the Virgin, as Elisabeth testified when filled with the Holy Ghost, saying to Mary, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your belly;" [Luke 1:42] the Holy Ghost pointing out to those willing to hear, that the promise which God had made, of raising up a King from the fruit of [David's] belly, was fulfilled in the birth from the Virgin, that is, from Mary. Let those, therefore, who alter the passage of Isaiah thus, "Behold, a young woman shall conceive," and who will have Him to be Joseph's son, also alter the form of the promise which was given to David, when God promised him to raise up, from the fruit of his belly, the horn of Christ the King. But they did not understand, otherwise they would have presumed to alter even this passage also.

For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fullness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn near, and that He was dwelling within those that believe in Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;" [Matthew 1:18] and that the angel Gabriel said to her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God;" [Luke 1:35] and that the angel said to Joseph in a dream, "Now this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, Behold, a virgin shall be with child." [Matthew 1:23] But the elders have thus interpreted what Esaias said: "And the Lord, moreover, said to Ahaz, Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord your God out of the depth below, or from the height above. And Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. And he said, It is not a small thing for you to weary men; and how does the Lord weary them? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and you shall call His name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat: before He knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good." [Isaiah 7:10-17] Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, "Butter and honey shall He eat;" and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] "before He knows good and evil;" for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He "will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,"— this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.

What is the sign? “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” In fact, a virgin did conceive and gave birth to “Emmanuel, God with us.” This is the new birth: a man born from God. God was born in the man, taking the flesh of the old human race without the help of the old human seed. God took the flesh in order to reform the old human race with a new seed. In other words, he spiritually cleansed the old human race by removing its old stains.

House of David, from this time on when you encounter your enemies, call upon the one who is named Immanuel. The meaning of the title, which is “God with us,” reveals the power of the Word. Believe this sign, be courageous, and do not call upon the gods of Damascus. Do not enlist those who have no assistance to offer. Rather, call upon Immanuel, the God who will “be with” people at the appropriate time. Take heart with confidence, trusting in the power of the title.… If the prophet had said, “They will call his name Immanuel,” he would have been speaking only of a future time. This would have caused doubt for some, because when the Savior was born of the virgin his name was not Immanuel but Jesus, as the angel had instructed Joseph, saying, “Do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” If the prophecy was “they will call his name Immanuel,” then how would the Savior had fulfilled it, when his name was Jesus and not Immanuel? But this is not how it was written, because not everyone would call him by this title. The prophetic word says accurately, “You shall call.” … Some scribes, because they did not understand this, wrote, “they will call” rather than “you shall call” in the Gospel of Matthew, even though the prophecy does not read this way. The Hebrew word translated in the passage is “you shall call,” as is used by all the translations. Some translators translate the word for “virgin” as “young woman.” There is no reason to think that the virgin was not also a young woman; in fact it is likely that the virgin who conceived the Savior was not fully grown but a young maiden.

But what does this passage mean, if not that God has come in the flesh?

He [God] was with us on the earth, when he assumed flesh; and he was no less God in man, and man in God. That he was both God and man was declared before by the prophets.

Humanity was blended with God, and he was one. The more powerful predominated in order that I might become god just as he became human. Although he was already begotten, he was born of a woman, who was a virgin. Because his birth was from a woman, it was human. Because she was a virgin, it was divine. He had neither a human father nor a divine mother.

You have heard, therefore, that the Father is called Lord. Come now, and let me show you that the Son is called God. “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which means, ‘God is with us.’ ” Did you see how both the name Lord is given to the Father and the name God is given to the Son? In the psalm, the sacred writer said, “Let them know that Lord is your name.” Here Isaiah says, “They shall call his name Immanuel.”

To prevent you from thinking that his coming to earth was an accommodation, as those others were, and to give you solid grounds for truly believing that his was real flesh, he was conceived, born and nurtured. That his birth might be made manifest and become common knowledge, he was laid in a manger, not in some small room but in a lodging place before a throng of people. This was the reason for the swaddling clothes and also for the prophecies spoken long before. The prophecies showed not only that he was going to be a man but also that he would be conceived, born and nurtured as any child would be. Isaiah proclaimed this when he said, “Behold, the virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name Immanuel.” He eats butter and honey. And again, the same prophet said, “A child is born to us, a son is given to us.” Do you see how these prophecies foretold his infancy?

What precedes this passage also gives us its meaning. He does not simply say, “Behold, the virgin will conceive.” First he said, “Behold, the Lord will give you a sign,” and then he adds to it, “Behold, the virgin will conceive.” If the one who was to give birth was not a virgin but the conception occurred in the natural manner, then what sort of sign would this be? A sign must be extraordinary and strange, or how else could it be a sign?

Were she not to be a virgin, the birth would not have been a sign. A sign is something that differs from the normal way things happen, that is outside the natural manner. A sign is so unusual and unexpected that someone who sees it or hears of it sees that it is out of the ordinary. It is called a “sign” because it is significant. Were the birth to be like normal births, it would not have been significant. If the prophecy is about a woman giving birth in the normal manner, like what happens every day, then why call it a sign?

By no means will God speak in many and various ways, according to the apostle Paul, nor according to another prophet will he be represented through the hands of the prophets, but he who previously spoke through others will himself say “Here I am.” The bride in the Song of Songs also asked in this regard: “O that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth!” For “the Lord of hosts is himself the King of glory.” He will descend to a virginal womb and will enter and exit through the eastern gate that always remains closed, concerning which Gabriel said to the virgin: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the one who will be born to you is holy and will be called the Son of God.” And Proverbs writes, “Wisdom built itself a home.” Thus when it is said, “The Lord himself will give you a sign,” this should refer to something new and marvelous.

Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word almah does not mean a virgin but “a young woman.” And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not almah but naarah! What then is the meaning of almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men.

(Verse 14) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Emmanuel. In no way does God speak in various ways according to the Apostle Paul (Hebrews 1), nor according to any other prophet (Hosea 12), nor is He likened to the hands of prophets, but He who formerly spoke through others will say Himself, 'I am present' (Isaiah 58). This is the One whom the Bride was asking for in the Song of Solomon: 'Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth' (Song of Solomon 1:2). For the Lord of hosts, he is the king of glory (Ps. 23:10): He himself shall descend into the virgin's womb, and shall enter and depart from the Eastern gate, which is always closed (Ezek. 44); of which Gabriel says to the Virgin: The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you: therefore the holy one who shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). And in Proverbs: Wisdom has built herself a house (Prov. 9:1). But when it is said, 'The Lord himself will give you a sign,' it must be new and marvelous. But if a young woman, as the Jews want, and not a virgin, were to give birth, what sign could it be called, since this name refers to age, not integrity? And indeed, so that we may compare our understanding with that of the Jews and not offer them the mockery of our ignorance, the Hebrew word for 'virgin' is 'Bethula' (), which is not written here in the present passage: instead, the word used is 'Alma' (), which all except the Septuagint translated as 'young woman.' Furthermore, the word 'alma' is ambiguous among them: for it is said both 'adolescentula' (young girl) and 'abscondita' (hidden), that is, 'ἀπόκρυφος' (secret).... Hence, in the title of the ninth psalm, where it is written in Hebrew as 'Alamoth' (), other translators have rendered it as 'adolescence', which the LXX interpreted as 'absconditis' (hidden things). And in Genesis we read: when Rebecca is said to be 'alma' (Gen. XXIV), Aquila did not translate it as 'adolescentula' or 'puella', but as 'abscondita' (hidden). Moreover, the Shunammite woman, having lost her son, fell at the feet of Elisha, and Jezi forbade her, but she heard from the Prophet: Let her go, for she is in pain, and the Lord hides from me (2 Kings 4:27). Because in Latin it is said 'hides from me', in Hebrew it is written 'Eelim Memmenni'. Therefore, a chaste woman, not only a girl or a virgin, but with great care is said to be hidden and secret, which has never been exposed to the gaze of men; but she has been guarded with great diligence by her parents. The Punic language, which is said to originate (or derive) from Hebrew sources, is properly called alma virgo. And to make the Jews laugh, alma is also called sancta in our language. And the Hebrews use the words of almost all languages: as in the Song of Songs (Song 3:9) where the Greek word φορεῖον, meaning litter, is used and it is also found in Hebrew. The Hebrews also use the words nugas (trifles) and mensuram (measure) in the same way and with the same meanings. And as far as my memory serves me, I never think I have read of a married woman having nourished men. but of a woman who is a virgin: not only a virgin, but a virgin of youthful age, and in the years of adolescence. For it is possible that an old woman may be a virgin, but this woman was a virgin in her girlhood. Or certainly a virgin, not a little girl, and one who could not yet know a man: but already marriageable. Finally, in Deuteronomy (Deut. XXII, 25 et seqq.) a virgin is understood under the name of a girl and a young girl. If, he said, a man finds a betrothed girl in the field and forces her, and lies with her, you shall kill only the man who lay with her, and the girl shall not be put to death. For just as when someone rises up against his neighbor in ambush and kills him, so this matter happened. In the field he found her: the betrothed girl cried out, and there was no one to save her. And in the volume of Kings (3 Kings 1), we read that they sought a virgin girl named Abishag, and they brought her to the king, who slept with her, and she cared for him, and the girl was very beautiful, and she served him, and the king did not know her. And what follows: And you shall call his name Emmanuel, and the seventy and three likewise translated it, for which it is written in Matthew, they shall call: which is not found in Hebrew. Therefore, this child who will be born of a Virgin, O house of David, shall now be called Emmanuel, which means, God with us, because you will prove to have God present by the very fact that you are freed from two enemy kings: and he who will be called Jesus afterwards, which means, Savior, because he will save the entire human race, shall now be called by you the name of Emmanuel. The Word of God, which all the interpreters have translated, you can understand and name: which is namely that the Virgin herself who will conceive and give birth, shall be called by this name, Christ. In many testimonies that the Evangelists or Apostles took from the ancient books, it should be carefully observed that they did not follow the order of the words, but the meaning. Hence, in the present passage, Matthew used 'in utero habebit' instead of 'concipiet in utero' (Matthew 1:13) and 'vocabunt' instead of 'vocabis'. The Hebrews believe that this is prophesied about the son of Hezekiah, Ahaz's son, that Samaria will be captured during his reign, which cannot be proven at all. Indeed, Ahaz, the son of Jotham, reigned over Judah and Jerusalem for sixteen years (2 Kings 16): and his son Hezekiah succeeded him as king, being twenty-five years old, and reigned over Judah and Jerusalem for twenty-nine years. So, how is it that in the first year of Ahaz, this prophecy about Hezekiah's conception and birth is said to have been given to him, when at that time when Ahaz began to reign, Hezekiah was already nine years old, unless perhaps they say that his infancy, not his age, is being referred to in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, when Samaria was captured? That it is forced and violent is evident even to fools. Some of us argue that the prophet Isaiah had two sons, Jasub and Emmanuel, and that Emmanuel was generated from his prophetess wife, as a symbol of the Lord Savior, so that the first son Jasub, which means abandoned or converted, signifies the Jewish people who were abandoned and will later return. And the second son, that is, Emmanuel, meaning God with us, signifies the calling of the Gentiles after the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Christ was born a visible man of a human virgin mother, but he was a hidden God because God was his Father. So the prophet had foretold: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son; and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us.” To prove that he was God, Christ worked many miracles, some of which—as many as seemed necessary to establish his claim—are recorded in the Gospels. Of these miracles the very first was the marvelous manner of his birth; the very last, his ascension into heaven in his body risen from the dead.

But who shall say that Christ and Christians have no connection with Israel, seeing that Israel was the grandson of Abraham, to whom first, as afterwards to his son Isaac, and then to his grandson Israel himself, that promise was given, which I have already mentioned, namely: “In your seed shall all nations be blessed”? That prediction we see now in its fulfillment in Christ. For it was of this line that the Virgin was born, concerning whom a prophet of the people of Israel and of the God of Israel sang in these terms: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” For by interpretation, Emmanuel means “God with us.” This God of Israel … has forbidden the worship of other gods, … has forbidden the making of idols, … has commanded their destruction, … has by his prophet predicted that the Gentiles from the ends of the earth would say, “Surely our fathers have worshiped lying idols, in which there is no profit.” This same God is he who, by the name of Christ and by the faith of Christians, has ordered, promised and exhibited the overthrow of all these superstitions.

You must appreciate, brothers and sisters, what a tremendous desire possessed the saints of old to see the Christ. They knew he was going to come, and all those who were living devout and blameless lives would say, “Oh, if only that birth may find me still here! Oh, if only I may see with my own eyes what I believe from God’s Scriptures!” The saints who knew from the holy Scripture that a virgin was going to give birth as you heard when Isaiah was read: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” What Emmanuel means the Gospel declares to us, saying, “which is interpreted, God with us.” So do not let it surprise you, unbelieving soul, whoever you are, do not let it strike you as impossible that a virgin should give birth, and in giving birth remain a virgin. Realize that it was God who was born, and you will not be surprised at a virgin giving birth. So then, to prove to you how the saints and just men and women of old longed to see what was granted to this old man Simeon, our Lord Jesus Christ said, when speaking to his disciples, “Many just men and prophets have wished to see what you see and have not seen it; and to hear what you hear and have not heard it.”

Do you hesitate or refuse to believe his birth of a virgin, when you ought rather to believe that thus it was fitting for God to be born man? Learn that this, too, was foretold by the prophet: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us.” You will not doubt, therefore, the motherhood of a virgin if you want to believe the nativity of a God who does not relinquish the government of the universe and comes in flesh among human beings; who bestows fecundity on his mother yet does not diminish her integrity.

The manner of his birth proves the truth about the Lord: a virgin conceived without knowing a man; her belly was filled, having been touched by no embrace; and her chaste womb received the Holy Spirit, whom her pure members preserved and her unsullied body carried. Behold the miracle of the mother of the Lord! She is a virgin when she conceives, a virgin when she brings forth, a virgin after birth. What glorious virginity! What splendid fruitfulness! The world’s goodness is born, and there is no pain of childbirth. The womb is emptied, a child is brought forth, and still virginity is not violated. For it was fitting that when God was born, the value of chastity should increase, and that one who was untouched should not be violated by his coming—he who came to heal what was injured—and that bodily purity should not be harmed by him who bestows virginity on those who have been baptized and had formerly been unchaste. The child who has been born, then, is placed in a crib. This is God’s first dwelling place, and the ruler of heaven does not disdain these straitened circumstances—he whose home was the virginal womb. Clearly Mary was a fit habitation for Christ not because of the nature of her body but because of the grace of her virginity.

The Savior’s name, because of which he is called “God with us” by the prophet, signifies both natures of his one person. For he who, born before time from the Father, is God himself in the fullness of time, became Emmanuel (that is, “God with us”) in his mother’s womb, because he deigned to take the weakness of our nature into the unity of his person when “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” In a wonderful manner he began to be what we are, while not ceasing to be what he had been, assuming our nature in such a way that he himself would not lose what he had been.

Therefore. Here the sign for belief is given. And first, the sign of liberation is conferred; second, he threatens the unbelieving with the punishment of destruction: the Lord shall bring upon you (Isa 7:17). Now this is the sign of the Incarnation of Christ. But the Jews object against this in many ways. First, that the Lord was giving a sign of the liberation of the Jews at that time, with which the Incarnation of Christ agrees in nothing. To which is to be said that the Incarnation of Christ signifies that liberation by an argument from the greater: for if God will give his son for the salvation of the whole world, much more can he save you from these enemies? He that spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom 8:32); or as a motive cause, for this moves the Lord, as it were, since many good things are conceded to this people, however unjust they were, because he had provided for his Son to be made incarnate from them. Likewise they object that the sign that follows is given to those who are present, but the Incarnation did not happen in their time, and so it would appear that no sign was given. To which is to be said that, although the Incarnation did not happen in the presence of those men, it nevertheless did happen in the presence of the abiding house of David: hence he says, hear, O house of David (Isa 7:13), but not, "hear, Achaz." Likewise they object that a sign ought to precede the thing signified; but the Incarnation happened long after this liberation; therefore it was not a sign of it. To which is to be said that sometimes a sign follows the thing signified, as Deuteronomy 18:22: you shall have this sign: whatsoever that same prophet foretells in the name of the Lord, and it comes not to pass: that thing the Lord has not spoken; sometimes it occurs at the same time: when you shall hear the sound of one going in the tops of the pear trees, then shall you join battle (2 Sam 5:24); sometimes the sign precedes the thing signified, as with Gideon in Judges 7:5–7, when the sign was given that he ought to conquer with those who had lapped up water with their hands. And it is necessary that this sign should follow the thing signified, even as they themselves explain: for if it preceded it, then the child was born before the death of Phacee, who reigned twenty years; in the seventeenth year of his reign, Achaz began to reign, and Achaz reigned sixteen years; therefore, Achaz reigned thirteen years after the death of Phacee. And in the twelfth year of Achaz, Osee began to reign. In the ninth year of his reign, Samaria was captured, which was six years after the death of Achaz. Therefore, at the capture of Samaria, the child would have been at least nineteen years old; and thus what is said below in 8:4, that the child did not know to call his father and mother, would be false. Likewise they object that in Hebrew it does not say virgin, but alma, which, according to them, signifies a marriageable young girl, as is found in Genesis 24:16 concerning Rebecca; where we have an exceeding comely maid, they also have alma. And even if it said bethula, which, according to them, signifies a virgin, this does not necessarily mean that she conceives while remaining a virgin, because it may be that she who was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, should conceive afterwards, having been corrupted by the seed of a man. To which is to be said that it would be no sign at all if a young woman should conceive, and even a corrupted virgin. The Lord, however, wished to signify something great, when he said: unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above (Isa 7:11). Therefore, according to us, alma is used rather than young girl, because alma signifies a virgin, according to the origin of the word, and still more, it means one who is protected, about whom there can be no suspicion of evil. But bethula signifies virgin according to a later manner of speaking. The Jews, however, explain this verse in two ways. Some say it concerns Ezechias; some say it concerns the son of Isaiah, whom they imagine to have been called Emmanuel. But that the first cannot stand is thus shown, because Ezechias was twenty-five years old when he began to reign (2 Kgs 18:2), and Achaz reigned sixteen years (2 Kgs 16:2); therefore Ezechias was ten years old when his father began to reign; and thus he could not be promised to be born here. Moreover, how would he not know to call his father and mother, when, in the sixth year of his reign, Samaria was captured? Likewise, that the second cannot stand is shown because this would be no sign at all. And moreover the son of Isaiah was not Lord of Judea, and yet, in Isaiah 8:8, the land of Judea is spoken of as a possession of Emmanuel. And therefore it is necessary to understand this to be speaking of the son of God. Following this, therefore, he does three things. First, he promises the sign: therefore, because you do not wish to ask, the Lord himself shall give you a sign, of your liberation. This sign is also given to the shepherds in Luke 2:12: and this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes. Second, the sign itself is set out, behold a virgin. And first, the miraculous conception is set out: behold a virgin, remaining a virgin, shall conceive, in giving birth, bear a son. Second, the naming of the miraculously begotten child; and first, as to his divinity: shall call, namely, the virgin shall call, or you yourself, Judah, shall call, in danger; his name Emmanuel, which is translated: "God with us." You shall call his name Emmanuel (Matt 1:23). And this entire occurrence has nothing like it elsewhere, for it is a new thing: the Lord has created a new thing upon the earth: a woman—or a female—shall compass a man (Jer 31:22); hence, a man perfect in conception itself, although not according to perfection of quantity, as Augustine says on John 2:20: six and forty years was this temple in building; and therefore, it is above man, for there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:10). Hence there cannot be found another event that corresponds to this prophecy besides this story: behold you shall conceive and shall bring forth a son (Luke 1:31). This is signified in Ezekiel 44:2: this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel has entered in by it. It is to be noted on the words, his name shall be called Emmanuel, that is, "God with us," that Christ is with us in many ways. First, as a brother, through fellowship of nature: who shall give you to me for my brother, sucking the breasts of my mother, that I may find you without, and kiss you? (Song 8:1). Second, as a bridegroom, through the bond of love: if any one love me, he will keep my word (John 14:23). Third, as a shepherd, through the solace of inner consolation: behold, I stand at the gate and knock. If any man shall hear my voice and open to me the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him (Rev 3:20). Fourth, as a savior, through the help of defense: therefore fear you not, my servant Jacob, says the Lord, neither be dismayed, O Israel: for behold, I will save you from a country afar off (Jer 30:10). Fifth, as a leader, through the example of his work: the Lord alone was his leader (Deut 32:12). It is to be noted on the words, behold a virgin, that behold is said because of her singular eminence: first, because she is above women because of her virginity: hence he says, behold a virgin; second, she is above virgins because of her fruitfulness: hence he says, she shall conceive; third, she is above all angels because of the worthiness of her fruit: hence he says, she shall bear a son: never doth he take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham he takes hold (Heb 2:16).

Mere begins another section of prophecy, ending with the ninth chapter. It opens with exhorting to amendment of life, without which the confidence of the Jews in their temple is declared vain, Jer 7:1-11. God bids them take warning from the fate of their brethren the Israelites, who had been carried away captive on account of their sins without any regard to that sacred place, (Shiloh), where the ark of God once resided, Jer 7:12-15. The iniquities of Judah are so great in the sight of God that the prophet is commanded not to intercede for the people, Jer 7:16; the more especially as they persisted in provoking God by their idolatrous practices, Jer 7:17-20. The Jewish sacrifices, if not accompanied with obedience to the moral law, are of no avail, Jer 7:21-24. Notwithstanding the numerous messages of mercy from the time of the exodus, the people revolted more and more; and have added to their other sins this horrible evil, the setting up of their abominations in the temple of Jehovah; or, in other words, they have encumbered the Mosaic economy, which shadowed forth the glorious truths of Christianity, with a heterogeneous admixture of the idolatrous, impure, and cruel rites of heathenism; consequently, the whole land shall be utterly desolated, Jer 7:25-34.

The Lord "Jehovah" - For אדני Adonai, twenty-five of Kennicott's MSS., nine ancient, and fourteen of De Rossi's, read יהוה Jehovah. And so Isa 7:20, eighteen MSS. Immanuel - For עמנואל Immanuel, many MSS. and editions have עמנו אל immanu El, God with us.

PREDICTION OF THE ILL SUCCESS OF THE SYRO-ISRAELITISH INVASION OF JUDAH--AHAZ'S ALLIANCE WITH ASSYRIA, AND ITS FATAL RESULTS TO JUDEA--YET THE CERTAINTY OF FINAL PRESERVATION AND OF THE COMING OF MESSIAH. (Isa. 7:1-9:7) Ahaz--In the first years of his reign the design of the two kings against Judah was carried out, which was formed in Jotham's reign (Kg2 15:37). Syria--Hebrew, Aram (Gen 10:22-23), originally the whole region between the Euphrates and Mediterranean, including Assyria, of which Syria is an abbreviation; here the region round Damascus, and along Mount Libanus. Jerusalem--An actual siege of it took place, but was foiled (Kg2 16:5).

himself--since thou wilt not ask a sign, nay, rejectest the offer of one. you--for the sake of the house of believing "David" (God remembering His everlasting covenant with David), not for unbelieving Ahaz' sake. Behold--arresting attention to the extraordinary prophecy. virgin--from a root, "to lie hid," virgins being closely kept from men's gaze in their parents' custody in the East. The Hebrew, and the Septuagint here, and Greek (Mat 1:23), have the article, the virgin, some definite one known to the speaker and his hearers; primarily, the woman, then a virgin, about immediately to become the second wife, and bear a child, whose attainment of the age of discrimination (about three years) should be preceded by the deliverance of Judah from its two invaders; its fullest significancy is realized in "the woman" (Gen 3:15), whose seed should bruise the serpent's head and deliver captive man (Jer 31:22; Mic 5:3). Language is selected such as, while partially applicable to the immediate event, receives its fullest, most appropriate, and exhaustive accomplishment in Messianic events. The New Testament application of such prophecies is not a strained "accommodation"; rather the temporary fulfilment of an adaptation of the far-reaching prophecy to the present passing event, which foreshadows typically the great central end of prophecy, Jesus Christ (Rev 19:10). Evidently the wording is such as to apply more fully to Jesus Christ than to the prophet's son; "virgin" applies, in its simplest sense, to the Virgin Mary, rather than to the prophetess who ceased to be a virgin when she "conceived"; "Immanuel," God with us (Joh 1:14; Rev 21:3), cannot in a strict sense apply to Isaiah's son, but only to Him who is presently called expressly (Isa 9:6), "the Child, the Son, Wonderful (compare Isa 8:18), the mighty God." Local and temporary features (as in Isa 7:15-16) are added in every type; otherwise it would be no type, but the thing itself. There are resemblances to the great Antitype sufficient to be recognized by those who seek them; dissimilarities enough to confound those who do not desire to discover them. call--that is, "she shall," or as Margin, "thou, O Virgin, shalt call;" mothers often named their children (Gen 4:1, Gen 4:25; Gen 19:37; Gen 29:32). In Mat 1:23 the expression is strikingly changed into, "They shall call"; when the prophecy received its full accomplishment, no longer is the name Immanuel restricted to the prophetess' view of His character, as in its partial fulfilment in her son; all shall then call (that is, not literally), or regard Him as peculiarly and most fitly characterized by the descriptive name, "Immanuel" (Ti1 3:16; Col 2:9). name--not mere appellation, which neither Isaiah's son nor Jesus Christ bore literally; but what describes His manifested attributes; His character (so Isa 9:6). The name in its proper destination was not arbitrary, but characteristic of the individual; sin destroyed the faculty of perceiving the internal being; hence the severance now between the name and the character; in the case of Jesus Christ and many in Scripture, the Holy Ghost has supplied this want [OLSHAUSEN].

As the following prophecies could not be understood apart from the historical circumstances to which they refer, the prophet commences with a historical announcement."It came to pass, in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah (Uziyhu), king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aramaea, and Pekah (Pekach) the son of Remaliah (Remalyhu), king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, and (he) could not make war upon it." We have the same words, with only slight variations, in the history of the reign of Ahaz in Kg2 16:5. That the author of the book of Kings copied them from the book of Isaiah, will be very apparent when we come to examine the historical chapters (36-39) in their relation to the parallel sections of the book of Kings. In the passage before us, the want of independence on the part of the author of the book of Kings is confirmed by the fact that he not only repeats, but also interprets, the words of Isaiah. Instead of saying, "And (he) could not make war upon it," he says, "And they besieged Ahaz, and could not make war." The singular yâcol (he could) of Isaiah is changed into the simpler plural, whilst the statement that the two allies could not assault or storm Jerusalem (which must be the meaning of nilcham ‛al in the passage before us), is more clearly defined by the additional information that they did besiege Ahaz, but to no purpose (tzur ‛al, the usual expression for obsidione claudere; cf., Deu 20:19). The statement that "they besieged Ahaz" cannot merely signify that "they attempted to besiege him," although nothing further is known about this siege. But happily we have two accounts of the Syro-Ephraimitish war (2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron 28). The two historical books complete one another. The book of Kings relates that the invasion of Judah by the two allies commenced at the end of Jotham's reign (Kg2 15:37); and in addition to the statement taken from Isa 7:1, it also mentions that Rezin conquered the seaport town of Elath, which then belonged to the kingdom of Judah; whilst the Chronicles notice the fact that Rezin brought a number of Judaean captives to Damascus, and that Pekah conquered Ahaz in a bloody and destructive battle. Indisputable as the credibility of these events may be, it is nevertheless very difficult to connect them together, either substantially or chronologically, in a certain and reliable manner, as Caspari has attempted to do in his monograph on the Syro-Ephraimitish war (1849). We may refer here to our own manner of dovetailing the historical accounts of Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitish war in the introduction to the present work (p. 23ff.). If we could assume that יכל (not יכלוּ) was the authentic reading, and that the failure of the attempt to take Jerusalem, which is mentioned here, was occasioned by the strength of the city itself, and not by the intervention of Assyria - so that Isa 7:1 did not contain such an anticipation as we have supposed, although summary anticipations of this kind were customary with biblical historians, and more especially with Isaiah - the course of events might be arranged in the following manner, viz., that whilst Rezin was on his way to Elath, Pekah resolved to attack Jerusalem, but failed in his attempt; but that Rezin was more successful in his expedition, which was a much easier one, and after the conquest of Elath united his forces with those of his allies.

"Therefore the Lord, He will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin conceives, and bears a son, and calls his name Immanuel. Butter and honey will he eat, at the time that he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good." In its form the prophecy reminds one of Gen 16:11, "Behold, thou art with child, and wilt bear a son, and call his name Ishmael." Here, however, the words are not addressed to the person about to bear the child, although Matthew gives this interpretation to the prophecy; (Note: Jerome discusses this diversity in a very impartial and intelligent manner, in his ep. ad Pammachium de optimo genere interpretandi.) for קראת is not the second person, but the third, and is synonymous with קראה (according to Ges. 74. Anm. 1), another form which is also met with in Gen 33:11; Lev 25:21; Deu 31:29, and Psa 118:23. (Note: The pointing makes a distinction between קראת (she calls) and קראת, as Gen 16:11 should be pointed (thou callest); and Olshausen (35, b) is wrong in pronouncing the latter a mistake.) Moreover, the condition of pregnancy, which is here designated by the participial adjective הרה (cf., Sa2 11:5), was not an already existing one in this instance, but (as in all probability also in Jdg 13:5, cf., Jdg 13:4) something future, as well as the act of bearing, since hinnēh is always used by Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence. This use of hinneh in Isaiah is a sufficient answer to Gesenius, Knobel, and others, who understand hâ‛almâh as referring to the young wife of the prophet himself, who was at that very time with child. But it is altogether improbable that the wife of the prophet himself should be intended. For if it were to her that he referred, he could hardly have expressed himself in a more ambiguous and unintelligible manner; and we cannot see why he should not much rather have said אשׁתּי or הנּביאה, to say nothing of the fact that there is no further allusion made to any son of the prophet of that name, and that a sign of this kind founded upon the prophet's own family affairs would have been one of a very precarious nature. And the meaning and use of the word ‛almâh are also at variance with this. For whilst bethulâh (from bâtthal, related to bâdal, to separate, sejungere) signifies a maiden living in seclusion in her parents' house and still a long way from matrimony, ‛almâh (from ‛âlam, related to Châlam, and possibly also to אלם, to be strong, full of vigour, or arrived at the age of puberty) is applied to one fully mature, and approaching the time of her marriage. (Note: On the development of the meanings of ‛âlam and Châlam, see Ges. Thes., and my Psychol. p. 282 (see also the commentary on Job 39:4). According to Jerome, alma was Punic also. In Arabic and Aramaean the diminutive form guleime, ‛alleimtah, was the favourite one, but in Syriac ‛alı̄mto (the ripened).) The two terms could both be applied to persons who were betrothed, and even to such as were married (Joe 2:16; Pro 30:19 : see Hitzig on these passages). It is also admitted that the idea of spotless virginity was not necessarily connected with ‛almâh (as in Gen 24:43, cf., Gen 24:16), since there are passages - such, for example, as Sol 6:8 - where it can hardly be distinguished from the Arabic surrı̄je; and a person who had a very young-looking wife might be said to have an ‛almah for his wife. But it is inconceivable that in a well-considered style, and one of religious earnestness, a woman who had been long married, like the prophet's own wife, could be called hâ‛almâh without any reserve. (Note: A young and newly-married wife might be called Callâh (as in Homer νύμφη = nubilis and nupta; Eng. bride); and even in Homer a married woman, if young, is sometimes called κουριδίη ἄλοχος, but neither κούρη nor νεῆνις.) On the other hand, the expression itself warrants the assumption that by hâ‛almâh the prophet meant one of the ‛alâmoth of the king's harem (Luzzatto); and if we consider that the birth of the child was to take place, as the prophet foresaw, in the immediate future, his thoughts might very well have been fixed upon Abijah (Abi) bath-Zechariah (Kg2 18:2; Ch2 29:1), who became the mother of king Hezekiah, to whom apparently the virtues of the mother descended, in marked contrast with the vices of his father. This is certainly possible. At the same time, it is also certain that the child who was to be born was the Messiah, and not a new Israel (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, 87, 88); that is to say, that he was no other than that "wonderful" heir of the throne of David, whose birth is hailed with joy in chapter 9, where even commentators like Knobel are obliged to admit that the Messiah is meant. It was the Messiah whom the prophet saw here as about to be born, then again in chapter 9 as actually born, and again in chapter 11 as reigning - an indivisible triad of consolatory images in three distinct states, interwoven with the three stages into which the future history of the nation unfolded itself in the prophet's view. If, therefore, his eye was directed towards the Abijah mentioned, he must have regarded her as the future mother of the Messiah, and her son as the future Messiah. Now it is no doubt true, that in the course of the sacred history Messianic expectations were often associated with individuals who did not answer to them, so that the Messianic prospect was moved further into the future; and it is not only possible, but even probable, and according to many indications an actual fact, that the believing portion of the nation did concentrate their Messianic wishes and hopes for a long time upon Hezekiah; but even if Isaiah's prophecy may have evoked such human conjectures and expectations, through the measure of time which it laid down, it would not be a prophecy at all, if it rested upon no better foundation than this, which would be the case if Isaiah had a particular maiden of his own day in his mind at the time. Are we to conclude, then, that the prophet did not refer to any one individual, but that the "virgin" was a personification of the house of David? This view, which Hofmann propounded, and Stier appropriated, and which Ebrard has revived, notwithstanding the fact that Hofmann relinquished it, does not help us over the difficulty; for we should expect in that case to find "daughter of Zion," or something of the kind, since the term "virgin" is altogether unknown in a personification of this kind, and the house of David, as the prophet knew it, was by no means worthy of such an epithet. No other course is left, therefore, than to assume that whilst, on the one hand, the prophet meant by "the virgin" a maiden belonging to the house of David, which the Messianic character of the prophecy requires; on the other hand, he neither thought of any particular maiden, nor associated the promised conception with any human father, who could not have been any other than Ahaz. The reference is the same as in Mic 5:3 ("she which travaileth," yōlēdah). The objection that hâ‛almâh (the virgin) cannot be a person belonging to the future, on account of the article (Hofmann, p. 86), does not affect the true explanation: it was the virgin whom the spirit of prophecy brought before the prophet's mind, and who, although he could not give her name, stood before him as singled out for an extraordinary end (compare the article in hanna‛ar in Num 11:27 etc.). With what exalted dignity this mother appeared to him to be invested, is evident from the fact that it is she who gives the name to her son, and that the name Immanuel. This name sounds full of promise. But if we look at the expression "therefore," and the circumstance which occasioned it, the sign cannot have been intended as a pure or simple promise. We naturally expect, first, that it will be an extraordinary fact which the prophet foretells; and secondly, that it will be a fact with a threatening front. Now a humiliation of the house of David was indeed involved in the fact that the God of whom it would know nothing would nevertheless mould its future history, as the emphatic הוּא implies, He (αὐτός, the Lord Himself), by His own impulse and unfettered choice. Moreover, this moulding of the future could not possibly be such an one as was desired, but would of necessity be as full of threatening to the unbelieving house of David as it was full of promise to the believers in Israel. And the threatening character of the "sign" is not to be sought for exclusively in Isa 7:15, since both the expressions "therefore" (lâcēn) and "behold" (hinnēh) place the main point of the sign in Isa 7:14, whilst the introduction of Isa 7:15 without any external connection is a clear proof that what is stated in Isa 7:14 is the chief thing, and not the reverse. But the only thing in Isa 7:14 which indicated any threatening element in the sign in question, must have been the fact that it would not be by Ahaz, or by a son of Ahaz, or by the house of David generally, which at that time had hardened itself against God, that God would save His people, but that a nameless maiden of low rank, whom God had singled out and now showed to the prophet in the mirror of His counsel, would give birth to the divine deliverer of His people in the midst of the approaching tribulations, which was a sufficient intimation that He who was to be the pledge of Judah's continuance would not arrive without the present degenerate house of David, which had brought Judah to the brink of ruin, being altogether set aside. But the further question arises here, What constituted the extraordinary character of the fact here announced? It consisted in the fact, that, according to Isa 9:5, Immanuel Himself was to be a פּלא (wonder or wonderful). He would be God in corporeal self-manifestation, and therefore a "wonder" as being a superhuman person. We should not venture to assert this if it went beyond the line of Old Testament revelation, but the prophet asserts it himself in Isa 9:5 (cf., Isa 10:21): his words are as clear as possible; and we must not make them obscure, to favour any preconceived notions as to the development of history. The incarnation of Deity was unquestionably a secret that was not clearly unveiled in the Old Testament, but the veil was not so thick but that some rays could pass through. Such a ray, directed by the spirit of prophecy into the mind of the prophet, was the prediction of Immanuel. But if the Messiah was to be Immanuel in this sense, that He would Himself be El (God), as the prophet expressly affirms, His birth must also of necessity be a wonderful or miraculous one. The prophet does not affirm, indeed, that the "‛almâh," who had as yet known no man, would give birth to Immanuel without this taking place, so that he could not be born of the house of David as well as into it, but be a gift of Heaven itself; but this "‛almâh" or virgin continued throughout an enigma in the Old Testament, stimulating "inquiry" (Pe1 1:10-12), and waiting for the historical solution. Thus the sign in question was, on the one hand, a mystery glaring in the most threatening manner upon the house of David; and, on the other hand, a mystery smiling with which consolation upon the prophet and all believers, and couched in these enigmatical terms, in order that those who hardened themselves might not understand it, and that believers might increasingly long to comprehend its meaning. In Isa 7:15 the threatening element of Isa 7:14 becomes the predominant one. It would not be so, indeed, if "butter (thickened milk) and honey" were mentioned here as the ordinary food of the tenderest age of childhood (as Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and others suppose). But the reason afterwards assigned in Isa 7:16, Isa 7:17, teaches the very opposite. Thickened milk and honey, the food of the desert, would be the only provisions furnished by the land at the time in which the ripening youth of Immanuel would fall. חמאה (from המא, to be thick) is a kind of butter which is still prepared by nomads by shaking milk in skins. It may probably include the cream, as the Arabic semen signifies both, but not the curds or cheese, the name of which (at least the more accurate name) if gebı̄nâh. The object to ידע is expressed in Isa 7:15, Isa 7:16 by infinitive absolutes (compare the more usual mode of expression in Isa 8:4). The Lamed prefixed to the verb does not mean "until" (Ges. 131, 1), for Lamed is never used as so definite an indication of the terminus ad quem; the meaning is either "towards the time when he understands" (Amo 4:7, cf., Lev 24:12, "to the end that"), or about the time, at the time when he understands (Isa 10:3; Gen 8:11; Job 24:14). This kind of food would coincide in time with his understanding, that is to say, would run parallel to it. Incapacity to distinguish between good and bad is characteristic of early childhood (Deu 1:39, etc.), and also of old age when it relapses into childish ways (Sa2 19:36). The commencement of the capacity to understand is equivalent to entering into the so-called years of discretion - the riper age of free and conscious self-determination. By the time that Immanuel reached this age, all the blessings of the land would have been so far reduced, that from a land full of luxuriant corn-fields and vineyards, it would have become a large wooded pasture-ground, supplying milk and honey, and nothing more. A thorough devastation of the land is therefore the reason for this limitation to the simplest, and, when compared with the fat of wheat and the cheering influence of wine, most meagre and miserable food. And this is the ground assigned in Isa 7:16, Isa 7:17. Two successive and closely connected events would occasion this universal desolation.