(Continued-Chapter V-The Noonday Radiance of Messianic Glory)

Verses 4-9 record the Word of God which Isaiah was to deliver to the king. The heart of this message was that the plans of the enemies of Judah would not stand; hence no one should fear. The prophet concluded his speech with a warning to the king that if he did not believe he would not be established.

In verse 10 the statement is made that the Lord spoke again to Ahaz. Commentators agree that the Lord made a second revelation to Ahaz but differ as to time and place. Some hold that the second message was delivered at the time of the first one in the fuller's field; others think that it was spoken later--after the king returned to the palace and when he was with the royal family. If it was delivered at the first meeting, as seems most likely, when the king was on an inspection tour of the city's water system, the expression "house of David" signifies, not the royal family at that time, since it was not present, but future generations of the Davidic dynasty. On the other hand, if it was proclaimed to the king and his court, it pertained to conditions then present, for this interpretation would be the normal meaning in such a setting. A proper understanding of this seemingly trivial detail will assist greatly in a correct analysis and exegesis of this most important prediction.

As we have already seen, verse 3 informs us that the prophet went to the conduit of the upper pool and there met the king and delivered his message. Nothing is said concerning his leaving there and of meeting the king again when he was in the midst of the royal family within the palace. Verse 10 simply states that the Lord gave a second message to the king but says nothing as to place or time. In the absence of such information the logical inference is that the second message was delivered in the same place and at the same time as the first. Such is the impression that the chapter makes upon one who is reading it simply to get the details of the story. Inasmuch as there is no positive evidence indicating otherwise, we must allow the natural inference to govern our interpretation. Hence I believe that the oracle recorded in vss. 10f was given when the prophet met the king by the upper pool. I therefore conclude that Isaiah delivered his second message to Ahaz immediately after the first and in the same place. The sequence of thought favors this position.

An examination of verse 11 shows most clearly that it was spoken to Ahaz directly. The proof is found in the expression שְׁאַל לְךָ ask thee (literally, ask for thyself), which words (both verb and pronoun) are in the singular number and can refer to none other than the king. His response to this divine offer of favor is found in the following words, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord" (vs. 12). As seen in the preceding section, this reply was simply a pious, hypocritical dodge. Such a base reaction to the Word of God precipitated, humanly speaking, a sudden change in the attitude of the prophet who immediately ceased speaking to the faithless king and, looking toward the future, addressed the house of David, the future generations as if present. That he was no longer talking to Ahaz when he used the expression house of David is evident from the sudden change of the use of the singular number to that of the plural.*

In verse 13 the verbs hear and will weary are in the plural and have the house of David as their subject. Furthermore the pronoun combined in vs. 13 with the preposition מִן and translated for you and in vs. 14 united with the preposition לְ and rendered you is in the plural number. These facts show most clearly that these two verses were not spoken to King Ahaz but to a group of people whom the prophet calls the house of David. Since, as has been shown, the king was on his inspection tour and the royal family was not present, it is certain that by the Spirit of God Isaiah looked into the future, foresaw the birth of the child whose name should be Immanuel and made the announcement to the coming generations.

In verses 16 and 17 the prophet again begins to use the singular of the personal pronoun you. In verse 16 the nominative form אַתָּה occurs and in 17 the accusative in combination with the preposition, the resultant form of which is עָלֶיךָ appears. This reversion to the use of the singular indicates that the prophet was no longer looking out into the future and talking to the coming generations of the Davidic house but was directing his remarks to Ahaz specifically. The conjunction for which introduces vs. 16 connects it indissolubly with the preceding one. Hence verses 15-17 were spoken directly to King Ahaz.

With these facts before us we can be morally certain that Isaiah, a past master in dramatic oratory, looked directly at Ahaz when he offered, as is found in vs. 11, to perform a miracle for the confirmation of the King's faith. When, however, the latter spurned the divine suggestion, the prophet, turning from him, looked in a different direction and spoke to the future generations, as if they were present, and uttered the glorious promise found in verses 13 and 14. This oracle was too sacred to fall upon such deceitful ears as those of Ahaz. Having made the divine disclosure for the benefit of later generations, he instantly turned to the unworthy sovereign and made a less sacred prediction, one concerning the downfall of the enemies of Judah.

2. Significance of אוֹת

The verbal form from which אוֹת is derived occurs in Numbers 34:10 and is rendered mark out. This example indicates clearly the root idea which underlies its meanings: "sign, mark, describe with a mark." Of course, the noun derived from this root carries the inherent idea of the parent form. It may refer to a natural event, an ordinary object, or to a miraculous occurrence. The context alone is to decide its meaning in each case. In Genesis 1:14 the heavenly bodies are said to be for signs, seasons etc. The word under discussion is rendered signs. In this instance the context indicates that the heavenly bodies have been placed in their respective positions, not only to control the seasons, days, and years, but also to serve as signs to men, that is, their arrangement into constellations was designed to convey a certain meaning to the children of men.¹

Sign אוֹת has another shade of meaning in Exodus 3:12. "And he said, certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be the token unto thee, that I have sent thee: when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain." Here its meaning is practically that of proof and its use is akin to that of fulfilled prophecy. The thought is that Moses was to go to Egypt and to deliver the children of Israel from their oppressive bondage. At this appearance of the Angel of the Lord there was left a wide margin for the exercise of Moses' faith. To be sure, the proof that a divine manifestation had been granted him was sufficiently clear and strong to convince him; yet at the same time the vision did not coerce his will. Had he chosen to discount the miraculous element of the appearance and preferred to follow his own will, there was sufficient margin left for the exercise of unbelief. God always leaves every case open in order that each person may have the opportunity of choosing whom he will serve. Guided by the rule that if he should make a mistake he wished to make it on the right side and knowing that Satan always tries to create doubt, Moses was willing to step out upon the positive evidence and to obey the divine call. In order to vouchsafe to His servant final, perfect, and positive assurance after he had given Him the advantage of every doubt, the Lord foretold the fact that he would lead Israel out of Egypt and that she should serve Him in the mountain where he was at that time--humanly speaking, an impossible task. Thus the fulfillment of this prediction was to serve as the crowning bit of evidence that he was not mistaken in his interpretation of the divine call. אוֹת, therefore, is used here to express the idea of positive proof.

On the other hand, this same word has a miraculous meaning in many instances, one of which is found in Exodus 4:8. In the preceding verses appears the record of Moses' rod's becoming a serpent and his hand leprous. In this verse God gave him instructions how he should act when he presented himself to his brethren as their deliverer. "And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign." Hence the context must be examined to ascertain its significance in any given case.

What is the evidence borne by the context of Isaiah 7:14? As seen above, the king's faith was wavering. God wished to strengthen him but could not do so as long as he entertained doubts and looked to men. Therefore God proposed to give him a sign. Sign in this instance could not refer to a natural object whether in the heavens above or on the earth beneath, because the giving of some special significance to it could not stay the King's faith in God and prepare him for the emergency which was confronting the nation at that time. Hence the Lord's proposal to give a sign must be considered as His offer to perform a miracle. In order to make it the more manifest that the sign was to be absolute proof of divine presence and special activity the Lord insisted that the king should designate the sphere in which He would graciously perform the miracle. That this interpretation is correct is clear from the parallel case of Hezekiah found in Isaiah 38:1-8. To confirm His promise of extending the king's life fifteen years the Lord said, "And this shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing that he hath spoken: Behold, I will cause the shadow on the steps which is gone down on the dial of Ahaz with the sun, to return backward ten steps. So the sun returned ten steps on the dial whereon it was gone down" (Isa. 38:7-8). There was perfect congruity between the promise and the miracle proposed to confirm it. The sun of Hezekiah's life was about to set. To convince him that the course of nature in his case would be reversed and that his life would be prolonged, the Lord offered to reverse nature as it were, by causing the declining shadow falling upon the dial or steps of Ahaz to return ten steps. Accordingly the miracle² was performed and the King's faith strengthened.

הִנֵּה is a demonstrative particle which directs special attention to a person or an object. Sometimes it refers to the past or present but always emphasizes a truth newly declared or lately recognized, as in Gen. 1:29: "Behold, I have given you every herb," etc. It likewise has a future signification. On this point I wish to quote from Brown, Driver and Brigg's Hebrew Lexicon: "Here it serves to introduce a solemn or important declaration, Ex. 32:34; 34:10; Isa. 7:14 and is used especially with the perfect participle (the fut. Instans)" etc. It is to be noted that this lexicon cites Isa. 7:14 as an illustration of the future significance of this particle. On its significance the late Dr. Delitzsch comments: "The question as to whether the clause is to be translated: Behold, the Virgin is with child, or shall be with child, ought not to have been raised. הִנֵּה with the following participle (here participial adjective: cf. 2 Sam. 11:5) is always presentative, and the thing presented is always either a real thing, as in Gen. 16:11 and Judg. 13:5; or it is an ideally present thing, as it is to be taken here; for except in Chap. 48:7, הִנֵּה always indicates something future in Isaiah." From these scholarly quotations it is absolutely certain that behold in our passage has a future significance. Hence, the first word of the prediction directs our minds toward a time future to Isaiah's day. This fact established, we are better prepared to enter into the quest for the truth set forth in the prophet's message.

There are two words that call for special attention in connection with the investigation of the meaning of עַלְמָה. The first is נַעֲרָה. It is usually rendered damsel in the ordinary English translations. Its root form is נער from which נַעַר boy, lad, youth is derived. It is simply the feminine form which is built up from the masculine by the addition of the feminine ending. Hence it of necessity has the same fundamental meaning of youth and vigor. The idea of purity and chastity do not necessarily inhere in the root form, though one naturally associates the idea of purity with youth. In II Kings 5:2 the little maiden taken captive by the Syrians from the land of Israel is called a נַעֲרָה little maiden. In Deuteronomy 22:23,24 appears this statement: "If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee." The words נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה מְאֹרָשָׂה לְאִישׁ are rendered a damsel that is a virgin betrothed. In this instance the context favors the translation given above; but the words inherently do not demand such a rigid significance. In I Kings 1:2 נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה occur in combination. They refer to Abishag the Shunamite. The context likewise favors interpreting these words as signifying a virgin. The same is true with reference to Esther 2:2,3. This word, however, has a different shade of meaning in Ruth 2:6. Here it refers to Ruth the widow of Mahlon and daughter-in-law to Naomi. From the facts given above and many others that could be presented the only conclusion which may be drawn is that נַעֲרָה primarily means a little girl or young lady without any reference to her chastity or virginity but that it sometimes does refer to a young widow.

The second word for consideration is בְּתוּלָה. This word primarily means virgin and is usually so rendered. An excellent passage which sets forth this meaning is Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Even in figurative expressions referring to cities and nations that have not been conquered the inherent idea is clearly seen. But from Joel 1:8 it is clear that it was also used in referring to a young widow: אֱלִי כִּבְתוּלָה חֲגֻרַת־שַׂק עַל־בַּעַל נְעוּרֶיהָ׃ "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." This passage calls upon the children of Israel to weep because of the judgment just described as a young widow בְּתוּלָה laments the death of her husband. This passage shows that, though its primary meaning is that of a virgin, it was used to refer to a widow. Originally and usually it does refer to a virgin but in time it, as Joel 1:8 shows, took on a broader meaning and included widows. In view of this enlarged meaning both Moses and the writer of the book of Judges felt that it was necessary to add a restrictive clause in order to make their meaning clear beyond a doubt. The record of the selection of a wife for Isaac is given in Genesis 24. Moses in writing the story said that Rebekah, "the damsel וְהַנַּעֲרָ was very fair to look upon, a virgin בְּתוּלָה neither had any man known her," etc. (vs. 16). He first called her a נַעֲרָה, then בְּתוּלָה; but to his mind these words were not sufficiently definite to affirm her virginity; hence he added: "neither had any man known her." If either or both of these terms had unquestionably indicated her purity and chastity, there would have been no necessity of stating that she had not known man. This fact proves that Moses felt it necessary to show that he was using the latter word in its original and limited sense of virgin and not in the later and broader meaning which might in a given context include widows. The inspired writer of Judges likewise understood that a larger and less definite meaning had attached itself to בְּתוּלָה virgin and felt that it was necessary also for him to use the explanatory clause, "who had not known man by lying with him," in order to indicate exactly what he meant by the use of (21:12) בְּתוּלָה. God never uses unnecessary or superfluous words but states clearly and concisely what he means. These facts demonstrate plainly that God recognized the necessity of qualifying בְּתוּלָה at times to make it mean a virgin.

In the preceding paragraphs we have seen that נַעֲרָה primarily means a young female without any intimation as to her purity and in some instances refers to a married woman; that originally בְּתוּלָה meant a true virgin but was sometimes used in referring to a widow; and that two of the inspired writers felt it necessary to use a limiting clause to define what they meant by it. It is now proper to investigate the meaning of עַלְמָה, which occurs in the passage under consideration and upon the meaning of which the import of the prediction depends. It occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is also found in I Chronicles 15:20; Psalms 9:1; 46:1; 48:15 as a musical notation indicating that the poem to which it is attached is to be sung by soprano or falsetto voices. Hence these notations can throw no light upon the use of the term. Our investigation must be confined to the seven other occurrences of the word.

As seen above, Moses described Rebekah as נַעֲרָה and בְּתוּלָה which terms he immediately defined as a young lady who had not known man (Gen. 24:16). In verses 42, 43 of this chapter he gave us the gist of a prayer which Eleazar uttered when he came to the fountain of water where he met her and in which he cried out to God. "Behold, I am standing by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that עַלְמָה the maiden that cometh forth to draw water ... let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master's son." It is certain that Eleazar prayed very definitely that he might be led to find a true virgin for Isaac: hence in his petition he chose the word that conveyed that definite meaning. These facts show clearly that this occurrence of our word means a true virgin.

The second appearance of this word is in Exodus 2:8. In this chapter appears the record of Moses' being rescued from the river's brink by Pharaoh's daughter and her attendants. The writer of the article Miriam in the Jewish Encyclopedia says: "When Moses was left at the river Miriam watched from a distance until Pharaoh's daughter took him up, whereupon she proposed to the princess to find a Hebrew nurse; the princess assenting to this, Miriam returned with her mother (Ex. 2:4-11)." She was a young girl at the time referred to; hence was not married. The indications of all the data available point to the conclusion that she never did marry. From the fact that she was honored and used of the Lord at the time of Israel's coming out of Egypt one may be absolutely certain that she had lived a clean and pure life. עַלְמָה was the only proper word about which there could be no doubt as to its meaning a virgin. Hence Moses correctly designated her as such.

The next occurrence of this word in the singular is in Proverbs 30:18,19.

"There are three things which are too wonderful for me, Yea, four which I know not: the way of an eagle in the air; The way of a serpent upon a rock; The way of a ship in the midst of the sea; And the way of a man with a maiden."

The wise man enumerates four things which are too wonderful for him. In the verse quoted above he affirms that he is unable to foretell the course of the eagle in the air, the serpent on the rock, the ship in the sea, and a man with a maiden. דֶרֶךְ literally means-way. It is clear from the context that the writer is not speaking of the principles of physics involved in the eagle's flight but rather of the direction he will take, since he is in the air and may select his own course. In other words, the eagle has the power of choice and being unhindered may decide to go in any direction. Hence the observer on the ground, being unable to read the mind of the eagle, cannot foretell in what direction he may fly or when he may change his course. In the same way, the serpent on the rock being unhindered can turn and go in any direction. In this case man looking on cannot read the reptile's mind and know in what direction he will go. The same truth holds good with reference to the ship in the midst of the sea. There being no obstacles in any direction the pilot can change the course of his ship at will. The onlooker not knowing the mind of the pilot cannot foretell the direction in which the latter will steer his vessel. Thus it is with a man and עַלְמָה a maiden. The parallel structure of the four statements indicates that the same principle holds in each. In the first three the power of the will to choose the course to be taken is the only point in common. Since, therefore, the four statements are parallel in structure, the fourth case is an illustration of the same principle. This parallelism demands that we think of the man and the maiden as being alone and free from all restraining forces--the presence of others and every moral and religious influence. The presence of another certainly would serve as a check upon them and prevent their pursuing an immoral course which they might otherwise choose. It is clear from the following verse, up to which the statement concerning the man and maiden leads, that the writer is discussing immoral, sinful relations between man and woman. Such being the case, it is certain that עַלְמָה the maiden and the man of this verse are not man and wife. Can we think of her as being another man's wife? It is impossible, for the married woman who would associate with a man other than her own husband in the way presented in this passage is loose in her moral life and we know what she would probably do. This point becomes the more apparent when we remember the extreme seclusion of woman from social life in the ancient orient. Can we then think of this woman as a harlot? No. Every one knows how she would act. There remains after this logical process of elimination, only one other possible meaning of עַלְמָה, namely: a virgin.

Why did the wise man state that he could not foretell the conduct of a young man and a virgin when they are free from all restraining influences? He knew the weaknesses of the flesh. Likewise he understood the emotions and feelings that might be aroused under such conditions and surge like billows through the very beings of young people full of vigor and life. He was also aware that many young couples had, under similar conditions, fallen and blighted their entire lives. The experience of the race proves that no one can foretell whether a young virgin will withstand the temptation of such a situation and maintain her purity. Though she might draw upon all her moral and spiritual strength to withstand, it is quite possible that she would be overpowered by the stronger personality of the young man. The statement emphasizes the uncertainty as to what the young man will do to her in this case. The facts therefore show conclusively that עַלְמָה in this instance can mean only a virgin.

The next occurrence of עַלְמָה to which I wish to direct attention is in the plural number and is found in Psalm 68:25. "The singers went before, the minstrels followed after, in the midst of the damsels playing with timbrels." The words, singers and minstrels, are in the masculine gender and doubtless refer to the men performing those parts. But עַלְמוֹת damsels is in the feminine plural number. Since those damsels are in the procession of Messiah when he enters the sanctuary, as the context indicates, it is certain that they are not harlots but are chaste servants of God. The only question that remains to be decided is whether or not they are married or single women. The context furnishes no data whereby one can absolutely settle this question. Hence this psalm is neutral in its testimony as to the exact import of this word. Fortunately, ancient customs in the Semitic world throw a bright light upon its probable meaning in this connection. In bridal processions and on festive occasions single women generally participated. Hence on the occasion set forth in Psalm 68 one logically concludes that the women who participate are, according to custom, virgins. In the light of these facts one would say that, while the testimony of this passage is not absolute, it very decidedly favors the meaning of virgin.

The fifth appearance of our word is found in the Song of Solomon (1:3). A careful study of this book shows that it is a poem which celebrates the divine love and relation existing between God and Israel. These truths are symbolically set forth in the form of a dialogue between lovers. In the first section (1:2-4) the maiden speaks to her lover and declares that because of his graciousness and personality עַלמְוֹת , the virgins, love him. The speech would lose its force if these virgins are considered other than pure attractive girls. Furthermore in a dramatic poem that glorifies divine love we may be certain that the inspired writer introduces into his caste of actors only those whose characters and lives accord with the holiness of the Almighty. Therefore, these עַלְמוֹת evidently are pure, chaste virgins as that word is understood today.

The sixth time this word occurs in the Scriptures is Song of Solomon 6:8. "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, And virgins without number." This quotation presents three classes of females, the first two of which are clearly understood. The עַלְמוֹת are distinguished from them. Since it is unthinkable to consider them as harlots, the only conclusion to be drawn is that this word here has the same meaning which it has in the other instances already examined, namely, virgins in the true sense.

The remaining instance is the one under consideration, namely, Isaiah 7:14. What does the context indicate is the meaning in this passage? In section 2 we saw that אוֹת sign in verse 11 signifies a miracle in the proper sense of that term. As seen above, when Ahaz refused to designate the sphere in which the Lord should perform a miracle for the confirmation of his faith, the prophet turned from him and addressed the house of David of the future and promised to give it a sign. Since in verse 11 sign indicates a genuine miracle, we must understand that it has the same meaning in verse 14. To accept this conclusion is a logical necessity since there is nothing in the context to indicate that he put a different meaning into this word the second time he used it. Therefore the context demands that we understand verse 14 to be the promise of the performance of a miracle. But what is this proffered miracle? The following words answer: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." A paraphrase of this verse most accurately represents the original thought: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign, אוֹת namely: Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The flow of thought demands this interpretation. Since עַלְמָה never indicates a married woman but always positively connotes a virgin (even in Ps. 68:25 when read in the light of the times), and since the facts of this context show that אוֹת means a genuine miracle, the inevitable conclusion demanded by all of the facts is that this prediction foretells the miraculous conception and virgin birth of the child here promised. To attempt to make עַלְמָה in this verse, contrary to its universal usage, mean a young married woman is to ignore the miraculous element stamped indelibly upon sign by the facts of this context. The thought of natural generation and ordinary birth is foreign to this context; in fact, such an idea clashes with all the data of the passage.


Footnotes:

* One may call attention to the fact that the plural form was once used by the prophet in his conversation with Ahaz: "If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established" (v. 9). True. One may be absolutely certain that the king was accompanied by officials of the government as he inspected the water supply of the city in contemplation of the threatening siege. They shared the same fear as did the king. Hence in this instance the use of the plural pronoun was proper. But immediately after speaking to the entire company, Isaiah directed his remarks to the king personally and used the singular pronoun. When he, the controlling spirit of the party, refused the divine offer, the prophet immediately turned and looking into the future addressed the House of David and used the plural form of the pronoun. Hence the seeming objection vanishes.

¹ For men in the early days of the human race the constellations had their meaning. Later, their minds became engrossed with carnal things and they lost the significance attached to these heavenly bodies by the Almighty. Out of their distorted knowledge developed the system of monthly prognostications and astrology, which things were condemned by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 47:13-15). Fortunately the divine significance of the rainbow has never been perverted and men continue to retain its original interpretation. The bow (Gen. 9) is said to be a sign to all flesh.

² In our modern world the proposition that the universe is a closed system and that everything is unchangeably and unalterably under the reign of blind law which will not permit of the least variation from the regular order is considered as axiomatic. This philosophical deduction, for it is not a scientific one, overlooks many phenomena which absolutely cannot be classified under any natural law, but must be explained in terms of personal actions and relations. As an illustration, note the instantaneous and complete transformation of many men who have turned to God and have been delivered from sinful lives of the darkest hues. No laws in the natural world, not even in the psychic, can explain these genuine and thorough clean-ups, both morally and spiritually, upon the basis of law and apart from divine interposition. To attempt to do so is to ignore many facts. All of the data, however, can be satisfactorily explained only upon the hypothesis of the existence, interposition, and assistance of a personal God. All other theories fail adequately to account for the various elements entering into such a transformation and reformation.

Further proof that there is a personal God who does interpose in behalf of His people may be seen from the evidence found in the material world. The basic principle of matter, light, sound, snow flakes, etc., is "the law of the octave." The revelation made by the telescope, spectroscope, microscope and other instruments in the laboratory is that every particle of the universe is an exemplification of order, system, and design. To show that "blind nature" could not by chance bring into existence such order, symmetry, beauty, etc., as we see everywhere, one may note a simple little illustration. There are twenty-six letters in our alphabet all of which are made by the typewriter that I am using in writing this book. Besides the letters, both small and capital, there are other symbols, figures, and punctuation marks which are necessary for modern composition. There likewise appear quotations from the Hebrew which are written with the twenty-two letters of its alphabet. According to the law of chance, as set forth in works on mathematics, the possibility that the writing of this book is the result of blind chance and so-called evolutionary processes is so infinitesimally small that no rational person would for a second affirm such an absurd proposition. Again, one might as well believe that Bryant's Thanatopsis or Grey's Elegy in a Country Church Yard is the result of accidental spilling of trays of printers type, as to assume that the world with its multitudinous forms evolved from some primeval star-dust by resident forces inhering in matter. Design and order that are stamped indelibly upon all creation prove positively that there is a personal God who is the creator and sustainer of the Universe.

(Continued on next page)