III. That the whole passage relates both to Isaiah's son and to
CHRIST; to the former in a primary and literal sense, and in a
secondary sense to the latter.
IV. That there are here _two_ prophecies, each literal, and each to
be understood in one sense only: the first relating to CHRIST, the
second to Isaiah's son.
The first of these opinions is strenuously contended for by Jews and
Deists, who, by confining this passage wholly to Isaiah's son, have
attempted to derogate from the authority of St. Matthew, who applies
it as a prophecy to CHRIST. But the word here translated _virgin_
signifies, in every other part of the Old Testament, a _woman who
hath not known man._ And the consequence from hence is, that the
words "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son," cannot be applied
properly to Isaiah's wife. As it is here affirmed that the original
word signifies a _virgin_ in every other text, it should be just
observed that the text in the book of Proverbs (xxx. 18, 19), which
has been often brought to prove the contrary, is not here forgotten;
and that even _that_ text might (if the nature of this discourse
would permit) be explained fairly and to satisfaction, in a manner
perfectly consistent with the preceding assertion.
If it should be objected, that the original words are not future, and
therefore not likely to point out an event so very distant as the
birth of CHRIST, it may be answered that the words are, strongly
translated, "Behold! a virgin is conceiving and bearing a son," &c.
This mode of speech is the animated but customary style of prophetic
Scripture, which, in order to express the greatest certainty,
describes future events as _past,_ or paints future scenes as
_present_ to the eye. Thus the same prophet, in his most magnificent
predictions of the Messiah's birth, exultingly cries, "Unto us a
child IS BORN, unto us a son IS GIVEN:" and afterwards, in his
pathetic description of the Messiah's sufferings, "He is despised and
rejected of men. . . . Surely He HATH BORNE our griefs," &c. But
though no argument can be drawn against the Christian sense of these
prophetic words from their expressing the then present time, yet an
argument of great weight may, and must be, formed upon this very
circumstance, in proof of what is here contended for. And certainly,
if the words mean _"a virgin is conceiving,"_ a woman conceiving was
yet a virgin! this wonderful circumstance was true as to the Virgin
Mary, but it was true as to no other woman.
To these remarks upon the original language must be added one arising
from the circumstances of the text, for we learn from thence likewise
that Isaiah's wife and the birth of a child in the common way cannot
have been here intended. And an appeal may safely be made to persons
of sense, though wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew language,
whether it is at all probable that the prophet should address himself
to the house of David so solemnly, on so interesting an occasion;
should awaken their attention; should raise their wonder; should
promise them in the name of GOD _a sign_ or _miracle;_ should mention
the future son, not of a _man_ (as usual) but of a _woman,_ and call
that woman _a virgin;_ and should foretell the Birth of IMMANUEL,
_i.e.,_ GOD WITH US--and yet that no more was meant by all this than
that _a son should be born of a young married woman,_ which is
evidently no wonder, no miracle, at all.
If then, from this constant signification of the noun for _virgin,_
from the expression of the words in the _present_ tense, and from the
nature of the context, a son of Isaiah by his wife cannot have been
here meant; and if the first opinion be consequently proved
indefensible, we may now proceed to consider the _second,_ which is
that the whole passage of the text relates only to CHRIST.
But these words cannot be wholly applied to an event distant by more
than seven hundred years, because the concluding clause speaks of a
child either then born, or to be born soon; and before the child so
spoken of should be old enough to distinguish natural good from evil,
the two kings then advancing against Jerusalem were to be themselves
destroyed.
The _third_ is the option of those who contend for a _double_
completion of some prophecies, and insist that this whole passage
relates both to Isaiah's son and to CHRIST; to the former in a
primary and literal sense, and in a secondary sense to the latter.
But--not to enter into that extensive question, whether though some
prophecies relate solely to the Messiah, others may, or may not, be
doubly fulfilled--I shall only observe, that no such double
completion can possibly take place here.
Whether a secondary sense is insisted on, there we must have a
primary sense also which is at least _true._ But the present case
renders that impossible. Because, if the principle noun does
everywhere else signify a _virgin;_ and if it be here meant of the
Virgin Mary, and was afterwards properly applied to _her,_ it cannot
with any truth be applied to the wife of Isaiah. And further, if it
were possible for _every other_ prophecy to admit of a double
completion, yet will not _this_--because a child's being conceived
and born of a virgin happened in the world only _once;_ and
therefore, as this prophecy derives its force from specifying a case
_singular and without example,_ it can be fulfilled in _one_ sense
only.
There remains then the _fourth_ opinion, which is, that the text
contains _two_ distinct prophecies, each literal, and each to be
understood in one sense only; the first relating to CHRIST, the
second to Isaiah's son. This, which is the opinion of some eminent
defenders of Christianity, will (I presume) appear true and
satisfactory, when the end of the first prophecy, and the beginning
of the second, shall have been properly considered; and when some
proofs which seem absolutely necessary, but perhaps were never yet
produced, shall have been added to former observations.
The genuine sense of this passage depending greatly on the
circumstances of those to whom it was delivered, it is here necessary
to state the history.
Ahaz became King of Judah when the people were greatly corrupted, and
he himself was strongly inclined to idolatry. To correct, therefore,
both king and people, God permitted a powerful confederacy to take
place between Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel; who,
growing jealous of their formidable neighbour, invaded Judæa in the
first year of Ahaz; and so successfully, that above 100,000 of the
men of Ahaz were slain in the battle, and above 200,000 of his people
were carried captives into the land of Israel.
Flushed with these successes, the two kings thought that Jerusalem
itself would soon become an easy prey to their power; and in the
second year of Ahaz marched towards it, with a resolution totally to
abolish the royal succession, which had been for twelve generations
in the house of David, and to establish, in the holy city, a heathen
king, a Syrian, "the son of Tabeal."
At the approach of these confederates, "the heart of Ahaz was moved,
and the hearts of all his people, as the trees of the wood are moved
with the wind." The consternation was universal, and no wonder. For
the young king and the corrupt part of his people would easily be
led, from the sufferings they had felt, to fear greater. And the
religious part of the nation would entertain fears still more
alarming, fears of the extinction of the house of David; for were
that house to fall, then farewell to all their glorious hope of a
Messiah, a son of David, who was to reign for ever. These men,
therefore, no doubt, "cried unto the Lord in their distresses," and
expostulated with Him concerning "the sure mercies of David:" "Lord,
where are Thy old loving-kindnesses, which Thou swearest unto David
in Thy truth?"
Amidst these distresses, we find Ahaz "at the end of the conduit of
the upper pool," probably surveying that chief source of their water,
and contriving how to secure that water to the city, and defend it
against the enemy. At this place, constantly frequented by the
people, and then visited by the king, attended probably by the chiefs
of his family, Isaiah is commanded to meet him, taking with him
Shear-jashub, and to declare in the name of Jehovah, that the evil
counsel against Jerusalem should not come to pass.
The counsel of these kings was evil, because, in opposition to God's
appointment of the royal house of David, and His promises thereto
(particularly of Messiah, the Prince, to spring from thence), their
compact was, probably, like Eastern conquerors, to destroy the house
of David; certainly, to remove the house of David from the throne,
and to fix in the holy city a heathen king.
The prophet, having declared to Ahaz that the scheme of the
confederates should be frustrated, bids him, at the command of God,
ask some sign or miracle, either in heaven or on earth. "But Ahaz
said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah."
The king's disobedience, however coloured over with a specious piety
in his allusion to a text of Scripture, appears from the next words
of the prophet to have been highly censurable. And it probably
proceeded from his distrust either of the power or the favour of
Jehovah, after Judæa had suffered so much from these same enemies who
worshipped other gods.
Thus repulsed by the king, the prophet addresses himself at large to
"the house of David;" and probably there were then present other
persons of the royal family. "Hear ye now, O house of David," &c.
The word _"Therefore"_ (ver. 14) may, upon good authority, be
translated _"nevertheless,"_ a sense very applicable to this place. A
sign or miracle hath been now offered at the command of God, but is
refused; and can _you_ think it of little moment to treat with such
contempt both the prophet and his God? "_Nevertheless,_ the Lord
Himself will give to _you_ the sign following: Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and call His name IMMANUEL. Butter and
honey shall He eat, that He may know to refuse the evil, and choose
the good."
Here, I presume, ends this first prophecy, and the meaning may be
stated thus: "Fear not, O house of David, the fate threatened you.
God is mindful of His promise to your father, and will fulfil it in a
very wonderful manner. Behold, a virgin (rather, THE virgin, the only
one thus circumstanced) shall conceive, and bear a son; which son
shall therefore be what no other has been or shall be, the seed of
the woman, here styled THE VIRGIN; and this son 'shall be called'
(_i.e.,_ in Scripture language, _He shall be_) IMMANUEL, God with us.
But this great Person, this GOD visible amongst men, introduced into
the world thus, in a manner that is without example, shall yet be
truly _Man:_ He shall be born an infant, and as an infant shall He be
brought up; for 'butter and honey' (rather, milk and honey) shall He
eat,--He shall be fed with the common food of infants, which in the
East was milk mixed with honey, till He shall know (_not_ that He
_may_ know, as if such food were to be the cause of such knowledge,
but _till_ He shall grow up to know) how to refuse the evil and
choose the good."
Here, then, we find a comprehensive description of the Messiah, of
the "Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us." His Divinity is
marked by His being GOD; His residence upon earth, by His being GOD
WITH US; and His Humanity, by His being born of a woman, and fed with
the usual food of infants during His infant state. How perfect is the
harmony between the parts of this description and the marks of the
true Messiah in other sacred passages; and also between the first
prophecy in the very beginning of the Old Testament and the
completion of it, first mentioned in the very beginning of the New!
For the first promise of a Messiah was, that He should be (not the
seed of Adam, as He would have been called, if to descend from a
human father, but) "the seed of the woman," because He was to be born
of a virgin. Therefore, the Apostle says, "When the fulness of time
came, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." And that it was GOD,
not man, who was to "prepare a body" for the Messiah, appears from
the fortieth Psalm, according to the Apostle's very remarkable
quotation of it, where the Messiah is prophetically represented as
saying unto God: "A body didst Thou prepare for Me; then said I, Lo,
I come; as in the volume of the Book it is written concerning Me."
Having thus endeavoured to illustrate the first prophecy contained in
the text, and to defend the application of it to the Virgin Mary's
conception and birth of Jesus Christ, I shall now briefly state the
second prophecy, which is thus expressed in our present translation,
"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the
good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings."