But if this preliminary assumption be unfounded, there will he no room for such variety of opinion, nor any need of having resource to such desperate expedients to get over the difficulty—to which, in fact, that supposition gives rise—how Isaiah's in tention in delivering the prediction and that of Matthew in quoting it arc to be brought into mutual harmony. That it is so, we think, will be ap parent from the following considerations : 1st, That it is inconsistent with the temper of Ahaz on the occasion. Not to insist on his habitual ungodli ness, it is clear, as Dr. Fairbairn well shews, that at the time referred to he was in no mood to listen to assurances of divine protection. The whole compass of nature is, as it were, placed at his dis posal, that he may exact from it a pledge of the faithfulness of Jehovah. But his earthly mind craves a more tangible dependence, his reliance must be on an arm of flesh, and his thoughts secretly turn to the King of Assyria, if indeed he was not already on terms with him (2 Kings xvi. 7 ; 2 Citron. xxviii. 16). His carnality and un belief seem to have been anticipated by the prophet in the concluding words of the preceding oracle (ver. 9), and are distinctly brought out by his hypocritical reply to this second message. 1.1e will not tempt the Lord,' forsooth, by asking ' what is freely offered. Would it have been, we ask, either a dignified or a salutary course, to have vouchsafed what was thus scornfully and impiously refused ? Must the incredulous monarch be con vinced against his will? It may indeed be doubted whether, in thc circumstances, any miracle, how ever surprising, would have induced him to re nounce the broken reed on which he trusted,' and rely simply on the word of God. And as we find that a disposition to question the divine veracity was always reproved, and often severely punished, we should rather expect, a priori, that, while the promise already given (ver. 7) would be performed, Ahaz would yet be made to feel the consequences of his unbelief, and be filled with his own devices ;' which leads us to remark, 2dly, That this aaump tion is at variance with the language of the prophet in the preceding and following context. The strain of the prophet's address to the king is that of threatening rather than of encouragement. Hear ye now' (a formula most frequently used in menace and reproof) 0 house of David ! Is it too little for you to weary men, that ye [proceed to] weary my God also ?' (ver. 13) ; and from ver. 17 he goes on to denounce against the sovereign and his people a severe chastisement at the hands of the very power on whose aid he relied, even days such a:3 had not come from the day that Ephraim departed from Judal-:.' 3dly, The position referred to hardly comports with what is rz!corded in the following chapter. We are there informed that a son, con ceived about the date of the previous announcemem to be named Maher-shalal-hash-baz, was to be born to the prophet, concerning whom it is intimated that before the child should have knowledge to cry my father !' and my mother !' the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria should be taken away before the King of Assyria.' But, according to the view commonly taken of the pre diction in chap. vii., the two signs must refer to one and the same event, viz., the invasion of Israel and Syria by Tiglath-pileser, and the contem porary destruction of their reigning sovereigns (nar rated 2 Kings xv. 29, 30 ; XVI. 9). They are also precisely analogous in character. In both cases a child is to be born ; each is to receive a significant name ; and the promised deliverance is to happen when each attains a certain age. Moreover, un less we adopt the hypothesis that both children were sons of the same parents (according to Gesenius, of Isaiah, by the 'Almah of chap. vii. 14), there is nothing to indicate the lapse of any interval of moment between the two oracles, which would not equally support the idea that they refer to different future events ; if therefore they refer to the same event, the births must have been as nearly as possible contemporary', and the children coetaneous. Such a tautological reitera tion, if we may so speak, in the matter of signs (unless we homologate Dr. Davidson's conclusion, that the same child is spoken of under different names) would not only be without a parallel in the sacred volume, but is in itself highly improbable. The improbability will be greater if, as Dathe supposes, the first child was born miraculously, and the second in the ordinary course of nature; and still more if, as Dr. Fairbairn plausibly argues, Maher-shalal-hash-baz was conceived and brought forth in vision merely ; for in either case the addi tional sign would be less remarkable, and there fore less convincing than that which preceded it, which is certainly reversing the natural order of things, and unlike the usual method of the divine procedure. Lastly, as the rendering in the com mon version of the last clause of ver. 16, which is very generally adopted by commentators, has gone a great way to foster the supposition in ques tion, it is proper here to remark that it is uncon formable to the genius and usage of the original language. The preposition ,.1.vD, from before,' or because of,' is regularly employed as the link between verbs of `fearing'—such as Tirrl, and rp, here translated abliorrest,' but which also signifies to fear,'—and the object dreadcd (see Exod. 12 ; Numb. xxii. 3 ; and comp. ver. 2 of this chap.) But our translators have anoma lously connected it with the verb ztvil, shall be forsaken,' and assigned to it a privative sense, such as it never bears. Dr. Henderson indeed re fers, in support of this construction, to ch. xvii. 9, where certainly the preposition in question follows the verb nip, adding, that 'it appears, in such con , nection, to have no more force than p in Lev. xxvi. 43.' On turning, however, to his comment on the former passage, we find that he there ex plains the juxtaposition by a consfructio prognans, or by an ellipsis, which, being supplied, he renders the clause thus : which they left (when they fled) before the children of Israel' (comp. a like use of
the preposition in Judg. ix. 2.1). On his own shewing, therefore, the passage quoted is not a case in point. The only sense, in fact, which could be elicited from such an arrangement of the words would be : 'the land, which thou abhorrest, shall be forsaken before,' or on account of its two kings.' This construction is therefore justly rejected by the most eminent scholars, as Schul tens, Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, etc., who translate : the land, of whose two kings thou art afraid,' or, according to Schultens, comparing ver. 6, where the same verb occurs, by whose two kings thou art vexed (i.e., besieged) shall be forsaken.' The idea of an express reference in these words to the slaughter of Pekah and Rezin, about two years after the delivery of the prophecy, is thus seen to be illusory.
This hypothesis then, regarding the primary intcntion of the omcle, being discarded, there will remain no valid excuse for either ignoring or depre ciating the authority of the evangelic record, cr undervaluing the explicitness of the declaration TOOT o '0AON 74-yovev 7,-Xnpa,01) TO kOev 6ra Toi.3 Kuptov, K. T. X. : to those who admit the inspiration of the Evangelist, the question, Of whom speaketh the prophet this ?' will, in that case, allow of br,t. one answer, whatever may be the difficulties that present themselves on a closer examination ; and the utmost that can reasonably be demanded is, that it can be shewn that the prophecy (vers. 14-16) admits of being applied to Christ throughout, and that, when so understood, it has an intelligible and appropriate bearing on the circumstances of those to whom it was originally addressed. We translate the verses thus :— Therefore Jehovah himself shall give you a sign : Behold the Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, And shall call his name Immanuel.
Milk and honey shall he eat Till he know to refuse the evil, and choose the good ; For before the child (or youth) shall know' To refuse the evil and choose the good, The land shall be forsaken, Of whose two kings thou art afraid.' Now, in the whole of this passage, there is at least nothing which does not tally with the Gospel his tory of our Saviour's infancy. (a) He was miracu lously boe-n, as we are there informed, of a virgin, betrothed, but not married. (b) He was namea' by his neather, according to divine direction. (c) Nor is there any real discrepancy in the names, as might at first sight appear ; for 1st, there is no necessity that Immanuel' should be taken as an appella tive, any more than Wonderful," Counsellor, ' Mighty God,' etc., in ch. ix. 6, which were never used as proper names of our Lord ; and, 2dly, there is a close approximation in significancy be tween the two designations (as pointed out under the article JEsus'), to which the Evangelist him self seems to refer : Immanetel,==` God with us,' conveying the sense God is on our side,' and 7esus or .7ashua, contracted for 2thashua (Num. xiii. the salvation ofJehovah' (Gesen.), being apparently tantamount, as in the case of the Israel itish leader, to he by whom Jehovah shall save.' (d) Although we have no historical notice of the diet of the infant Saviour, there is no presumption against its having been identical with that here mentioned, but the contrary, if we consider, 1st, that 'milk and honey are frequently mentioned by ancient writers as the food of tender children,' as in Callimachus' hymn to Jupiter (4S) : ci; JO7joao rlopa Aiy6s AgaX0eins, e-n-t Se 7Xurri.) rolpiov fgpcos, (comp. 1 Cor. 1, 2 ; I Pet. 1, etc.), and were recommended by the Greek physicians for this purpose' (Gcsen.); and, 2dly, that as the land uf our Saviour's birth was celebrated for the abun dance of these productions, they would be easily accessible even to persons in such bumble circum stances as Joseph and Mary. (e) It is scarcely ne cessary to add, that, in conformity with the predic tion, the calamity denounced against Ephraim and Syria—that the land should be forsaken' of its inhabitants (the two countries being spoken of as one, on account of the alliance between them, as in ch. xvii. 1-3)—took place long before the child Jesus attained the years of discretion.
Let tts next see how the passage thus translated and interpreted fits in to the connection in which it occurs. As all classes alike had been filled with alarm at the threatened invasion (ver. 2), and as the king had treated with contempt the gracious offer of Jehovah, we conceive that the direct and imme diate design of the prophet in these verses was— to speak comfort to those who alone were prepared to receive it, by a szgn which they at least would be able to appreciate, and which, taken in connection with Nvhat follows (ver. 17-end), might at the same time convey a tacit rebuke to the ungodly monarch. It is true the prophet was originally sent to Abaz (ver. 3), and continues ostensibly to address him, not personally, however, so much as officially, viz., as the lineal representative of the house of David, and vicarious head of the Jewish people (whose real sovereign was Jehovah). God's longsuffering with the king was due to his regard for David, just as his forbearance towards the nation is to be ex plained by his promise to Abraham. Considering the character of Ahaz, it may indeed be doubted whether, apart from his adventitious position, he would have been acknowledged at all on the occa sion. On the other hand, the undeniable fact that tbe grand aim of God's providence and the chief burden of his promises have ever been the advance ment of his spiritual kingdom in the oarth, and the happiness of his loyal subjects, sufficiently accounts both for the virtual change of parties addressed, and for the peculiar character of the prediction itself.