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

It is evident that the Babylonians did not fulfill the prediction of verse 12, "And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise; and they shall break down thy walls and destroy thy pleasant houses; and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the waters." Nebuchadnezzar did not completely vanquish the Tyrians but reduced them to the point of submitting to humiliating conditions of peace and laid upon them a heavy tribute. Obviously he did not fulfill the prediction of this verse. According to the Greek historian, it was Alexander who literally fulfilled the prophecy. In order to reach insular Tyre, he used all of the material of the deserted city and even scraped the earth from the rocks in constructing a causeway from the mainland through the sea to the island. Over this road he sent his engines of war and took the city. The walls, pleasant houses, stones, and timbers of the city which Nebuchadnezzar had attacked were literally cast into the sea by Alexander. Thus all her mirth and songs, according to vss. 13, 14, ceased. Neither has she been built again.

The facts presented above show conclusively that the predictions concerning the two different sieges separated by approximately three hundred years blend as if they constituted a single event. These facts also show that the nouns immediately preceding and agreeing with they of verse 12, which according to the rules of grammar are its antecedents, in reality cannot be. In ordinary narration one is logically bound to apply this rule of grammar, but these examples and many others which might be given show positively that in certain prophetic utterances there is this higher principle of the double fulfillment of prophecy which has the precedence over even the fundamental rules of grammar and which holds them in abeyance. The context, however, is the guide as to whether or not this superior law controls in a given case. One must scrutinize all of the facts of a given passage and know positively that they favor the application of this law before he is justified in concluding that it governs the case in hand and supersedes all other principles.

What do the facts of the context of Isaiah 7:14 indicate? In the preceding discussion it has been seen that verses 10-14 are surcharged with the miraculous element and look into the future from the prophet's time and that verses 15-17 are on the natural plane and found their fulfillment in Isaiah's day. Also it was learned that both boys prove to be signs--each one, however, in a different way. The miraculous conception and virgin birth of Immanuel constitute the manner in which He serves as a sign to the house of David. Quite different is the case of the boy of Isaiah's time whose infant life served as a sign to his contemporaries in a way similar to that of Shear-jashub. Hence there was no miraculous element in his case. In ordinary narrative the pronoun he of verse 15 should have the noun Immanuel as its antecedent. But it is clear that this pronoun refers to a boy whose birth is by natural generation and who lived at that time. Evidently, in view of the facts mentioned above, this higher law of the double fulfillment of prophecy comes into operation also in this case.

Therefore the prediction concerning the miraculous birth of Immanuel in the distant future blends imperceptibly with the forecast of the boy who served as a sign to that generation. In the thought of the illustration given above, we would say that the picture of Immanuel is first thrown upon the screen. It begins to fade and at the same time the dim outlines of the boy of the immediate future appear. By the time the first has entirely faded the second is in full view. Upon no other principle can the prediction be explained. Since this interpretation fully accounts for all of the facts and data of the context without warping a single one, we must conclude that it is correct.

In the foregoing discussion it has been shown that the first part of the prediction is elevated to the plane of the supernatural but that suddenly the prophecy descends to the level of the natural. Under the existing circumstances such a change was to be expected. After the king had shown his unworthiness to receive such a solemn and holy announcement, the prophet, turning to the future, gave to the house of David the infallible sign of the Lord's coming to earth. To the king he gave a less sacred oracle which pertained to his own day and generation.

Since the word sign in its first occurrence in this passage connotes the supernatural, as demanded by the context, its second mention must likewise indicate the same thing. For a true virgin, as עַלְמָה undoubtedly means, to conceive a child is nothing short of a miracle. For God to name the child Immanuel under the conditions stated in the passage is an affirmation that the boy is indeed what the name implies, namely, God in human form and in association with men.

Some have objected to the doctrine of the incarnation upon the ground that it is not in harmony with the dignity of divine holiness for God to enter the world in any such manner as set forth in this passage. In explanation of this objection it is stated that, according to the law of Moses, childbirth rendered a woman unclean and that she had to cleanse herself ceremonially before she was pronounced clean. This statement is true. Let it not be forgotten that the God who created man and ordained the method of the propagation of the human race is the author of the ceremonial of cleansing referred to and also the one who foretold that He would thus enter the world.

Another factor must be taken into account when we consider this objection. Sin is a reality and must be reckoned with. Whatever uncleanness attaches to childbirth is the result of the entrance of sin into the world. Such was not the original state of man. In dealing with the sin problem God has to take things and persons as they are and not as they ought to be. Hence the objection, in the light of these facts, loses its force.

But why the incarnation? Could not God have dealt with sin and saved man without His coming into the world by virgin birth? In answering this objection it may be stated that if the sin question were simply a matter of omnipotence the problem would be an easy one. But other facts must be taken into consideration. God's holiness is a check on His righteousness. Likewise His righteousness is a check on His love.

Another fact must be considered in connection with this objection. Man is his own free moral agent. God never forces his will. To do so is to thwart His divine purposes. Speaking in human terms, I would say that the problem which faced the Almighty was to reveal Himself to man in such a way as not to overpower his will but to allow him to exercise his own freedom of choice. When all of the facts are taken into consideration, it will be seen that the incarnation by virgin birth is the only way that would meet the problem completely and satisfactorily. Hence every objection launched against the miraculous element of this prediction falls of its own weight.

There are those who cannot accept the miraculous intervention of the Almighty into human affairs since, as they believe, the world is a closed system. Scientific investigation has led them to believe that the entire universe is under the rigid control of unchangeable laws. What is sometimes called scientific is misnamed. Science is classified knowledge. Any investigation which overlooks the personal element is pseudo-scientific. As stated above, there are certain laws and principles for each of the different realms of nature. Likewise there are certain laws that obtain only in the psychic or spiritual realm. That system of science or philosophy which interprets the universe in terms of the material world and never rises to the personal plane is without doubt unscientific. An axiomatic classification of the universe is that of mind and matter. All experience affirms that the former has supremacy over the latter. The fingerprints of the great I AM are in evidence on all creation. It is His handiwork. Nevertheless הַשָּׂטָן the Satan, the adversary, has marred it. God is still interested in it and will redeem it from its present wrecked condition. Hence we are not surprised when He tells us that He is going to enter the world by virgin birth to make atonement for all who will accept Him and His plan of redemption.

9. Naturalistic interpretations examined

In the preceding discussion we have seen the only possible and logical interpretation of the language. The investigation would not be complete, however, if we did not examine conscientiously the rival interpretations which are honestly advocated by able expositors.

The usual rabbinic explanation of Isaiah 7:14 is that it was fulfilled in the birth of Hezekiah. This position is of special interest inasmuch as it correctly identifies this child as coming of the Davidic line. A careful reading of chapters 7 to 12 shows that the child whose birth is foretold in 7:14 is the divine-human king of Isaiah 9:6 who sits upon the throne of David and the stem of Jesse whose benign reign is pictured in chapters 11 and 12. Furthermore, in Isaiah 8:8 Palestine is said to be the land of Immanuel, which statement, in its connection, assumes His Davidic origin and regal power. Since He, according to this interpretation, is of the regal line and sits upon the throne of David, is it possible to see in Hezekiah the fulfillment of the prediction? According to II Kings 16:2 and II Chronicles 28:1, Ahaz reigned sixteen years and was succeeded by his son Hezekiah who was twenty-five years old at his accession (II Kings 18:2; II Chron. 29:1). Therefore Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign and still older when the prophecy was made. Hence this interpretation is impossible.

Other commentators identify Immanuel with Isaiah's second son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The reason advanced for this position is that Maher-shalal-hash-baz' birth is recorded in the following chapter and that the prediction concerning the child in 7:15-17 is very similar to the account concerning the prophet's son (8:4). It has already been shown that the child of 7:15-17 was born in the prophet's time, whereas Immanuel is to be born in the distant future from that point of view. Therefore it is impossible to identify Immanuel as Maher-shalal-hash-baz. It is quite possible to see the fulfillment of 7:15-17 in the birth of the prophet's son because of the great similarity of the language to that concerning Isaiah's son. Yet such an identification is not absolutely certain.

A thorough study of chapters 7 to 12 shows that Immanuel of the seventh chapter is the child who mounts the throne of David (9:6) and who is the stem of Jesse of chapter eleven. Since Isaiah was not of the regal family and since Immanuel is presented as being of the seed royal, it is absolutely impossible to see in the birth of Isaiah's second son the fulfillment of the Immanuel portion of the prediction.

Another fact weighs heavily against this interpretation. It is highly improbable that the prophet would speak of his wife, the mother of Shear-jashub, as עַלְמָה a virgin in the first statement and then later call her the prophetess as he does in 8:3.

A third interpretation is sometimes advanced which sees in the Immanuel passage a reference to a woman in the prophet's audience who was already pregnant. This explanation claims that Isaiah, noticing this expectant mother, called attention to her condition and declared that before her child would be able to distinguish between good and evil the threatening danger would be past and the countries whose kings Ahaz abhorred would be laid waste. This explanation is quite plausible for the latter part of the prediction (7:15-17) but it cannot satisfy the first half (vs. 14). "The most common usage of the article in Hebrew is to designate a person or thing which has been mentioned or is well known." Since there is nothing in the context that indicates a specialized meaning of the article, we must take it at its usual significance. Prior to this time Isaiah had not mentioned any woman. Suddenly turning from Ahaz to the house of David of the future, he spoke of הָעַלְמָה the virgin. His use of the definite article shows that he assumed on the part of the audience a knowledge of this woman. Was there any woman who constituted the subject of former predictions? Yes. In Genesis 3:15 Moses spoke of "the seed of the woman." Such an expression evidently created in the mind of every Hebrew a profound and unique impression inasmuch as posterity, in pure Hebraic style, is never reckoned after the female but always after the male. In this instance, however, the case is different. Here is a clear prediction of an unusual birth of an extraordinary person. Undoubtedly this forecast had formed the subject of many discussions from the time it was given to Isaiah's day. Again, in Psalm 22:9,10 the writer mentions the mother of the sufferer but says nothing of a father. Isaiah (49:1) also mentions Messiah's mother but says nothing of a father. These facts indicate that there was a common expectation in Israel of the appearance of a child who in an unusual and unique sense would be "the seed of the woman." The doctrine of the miraculous conception and virgin birth is a corollary to this hope. Therefore the use of the article with virgin was immediately understood as a reference to the virgin-mother of the child of this common national expectation. In the light of these facts the interpretation which makes the prophecy of Immanuel's birth a reference to an expectant mother of Isaiah's day is impossible.

Another interpretation, a shade different from the last one under review, is that the prediction relates to any Jewish woman, then an expectant mother, who might express her faith in the providential protection of the nation by naming her child Immanuel. Viewed from this angle the oracle would mean that the woman whose faith in God leads her to name her son Immanuel will, together with her child, constitute a sign of God's protection of the nation during the crisis. Parallels to this use of the article may be found. But this interpretation violently tears the oracle away from the prediction of 9:6 and 11:1f, which undoubtedly refer to the same person. This fact alone nullifies the explanation.

A fifth hypothesis, advanced by certain modern scholars, is that Zion or the house of David is personified in this passage. As proof, attention is called to Amos 5:2; Jeremiah 18:13; and 31:4,21 where the phrase, "virgin of Israel," occurs and refers to the nation. In answer to this theory I wish again to call attention to the fundamental rule of interpretation of all languages, namely, that every word is to be taken at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning if the context permits. In case it demands a figurative significance we must use that definition which accords with all of the data. The context of these references shows clearly that Zion is in view. The context of Isaiah 7:14, instead of indicating such a view, points to the personal, primary meaning of every word. Another fact likewise is fatal to this interpretation. In the "virgin of Israel" passages בְּתוּלָה is used; but in Isaiah עַלְמָה occurs. Finally, this interpretation illogically wrenches this passage from 9:6 and 11:1f with which it is inextricably connected. For these reasons it must be rejected.

In concluding the investigation of rival interpretations, we must now examine the prevailing one which is advocated by Gressman, Jeremias, and other advanced scholars. According to these men, this passage is in truth a prophecy of the virgin birth of Messiah and is similar to those found in ancient mythology. This incorrect interpretation is not an unmitigated evil. The Lord makes even the mistakes of men to praise Him. These students with fine, analytical minds recognize the supernatural character of the prophecy. Their integrity and scholarship will not allow them to attempt a forced and strained explanation of the words. At the same time, their rationalistic, philosophical interpretation of history and nature blinds their eyes to the positive evidence of the supernatural intervention of the Almighty at various times. Hence they must seek an explanation that will allow the oracle to give its original meaning but that will accord with their philosophical preconceptions. They are scientific in allowing the passage to mean exactly what it says but wholly unscientific in their attempt to interpret both nature and history below the plane of the personal and in denying the miraculous.

Attention is called to the Babylonian myth concerning Sargon of Agade and his being considered the son of the goddess Ishtar. At first glance there appears to be a parallel between this myth and the prediction of Immanuel's birth, but a second look causes this seeming analogy to vanish. In the Babylonian pantheon there was no male deity who was the consort of this goddess. It is inferred from this myth that Sargon was born of a virgin. Since Ishtar was a goddess and not a woman, this birth cannot be literal but figurative. On this score the supposed analogy breaks down. Parallels with other heathen myths are eagerly sought, but upon investigation it is seen in every case that the similarity vanishes. It is true that there are some few points common to both cases but the dissimilarities are so very great that the connection is exceedingly faint and remote.

But how account for these seeming parallels with the Isaianic prediction? For the sake of investigation, let us assume temporarily that there is a real kinship between the heathen myths and Isaiah's oracle. On this hypothesis the connection must be accounted for upon the basis of one of three possibilities: first, that the heathen borrowed from Isaiah; second, that Isaiah borrowed his thought from heathen sources; and third, that both Isaiah's prediction and these myths point backward to a primitive and original source. Let us follow the process of elimination.

Did the Babylonians and other ancient peoples borrow from Isaiah? No. Many of their accounts antedate the time of this prophet by centuries. Thus we can easily and forever dismiss this theory. Did Isaiah borrow from them? To answer this question properly we must remember that the great contribution of the Hebrew people to the world was the sublime doctrine of monotheism--the existence of one true and living God beside whom there is no other. None of the prophets emphasized this doctrine more than Isaiah. Throughout his ministry he preached the doctrine of the nation's complete separation from all heathen teachings, customs, and practices. In times of great national crises he insistently urged the policy of avoiding all foreign alliances. In all of his deliverances he emphasized the holiness of God and stressed its correlative idea, namely, the purity of His people. With boldness he hurled challenge after challenge to those in Israel who were inclined toward idolatry.* Many statements throughout his entire work are conclusive on this point.

The remaining possibility, namely, that there was a common source from which both the heathen myths and Isaiah's prediction were derived, must now be considered. It has already been shown that the hope expressed in Genesis 3:15 concerning "the seed of the woman" is a promise of an unusual child whose birth is so very unique that Moses had to use a phrase which was foreign to Hebrew thought. This fact shows that in some special way this promised child is the seed of the woman. A human father being eliminated by the promise, the ancient reader could easily infer that the passage foretold the birth of a child supernaturally conceived. A second inference would be that since this one is to crush the serpent, which promise goes far beyond the physical act of slaying a mere reptile, he must be in a special sense a divinely appointed deliverer. This fact leads to the further assumption that the mother of such a one must be pure and holy. Hence she must of necessity be a chaste virgin.

In this original promise, therefore, lay the germinal thought of the virgin birth of a world redeemer. The inspired Hebrew prophets in the process of time were led to explain this marvelous prediction. In their writings occur various allusions to the uniqueness of His birth and life. Thus in Israel the promise was handed down without corruptions or additions. On the other hand, in the dark heathen world this original promise was distorted and many gross, foreign elements became mixed with it. The fact that there appear in all the mythologies of ancient nations stories of unusual and supernatural births of heroes is proof that these were handed down from earliest times. Evidently the human family possessed such a hope before the progenitors of the various tribes were scattered over the face of the earth. Each nation in its own environment and peculiar circumstances distorted the tradition to suit her own notions.

In view of the facts we may be sure that the theory affirming that Isaiah borrowed his idea of the virgin birth of the Redeemer from the heathen is absolutely groundless. These facts, on the contrary, point to a common origin of this expectation which is found throughout the ancient world. The Hebrews preserved the promise intact and gave it to the world, whereas the heathen nations distorted this original and glorious hope.

10. The conclusion

The facts which we have learned in this investigation may be summarized briefly as follows: the word אוֹת sign in Isaiah 7:14 has a miraculous connotation; עַלְמָה indicates a virgin and with the article is a definite reference to the mother of the promised world Redeemer; עִמָּנוּאֵל means God with us and in this connection can signify nothing less than that this child shall be God in human form; verses 15 to 17 refer to a child born by natural generation who, like Shear-jashub, served as a sign to his generation; the law of double fulfillment blends the picture of the promised Redeemer with that of the child of the prophet's day; all rival theories which force upon the oracle a strained meaning must be rejected; and finally this passage is but an expansion of the original promise of the world's Redeemer (Gen. 3:15). How greatly the mention of this hope must have stirred the prophet's audience! How it moves our hearts today!

D. Prophecy of the Prince of Peace

1. Examination of the context

As stated before, chapters 7 to 12 of Isaiah have been properly called the Book of Immanuel. The future Messiah occupies the central position in this section of Scripture. Professor Delitzsch in his comment on Isaiah 7:14 has correctly said that "It is the Messiah whom the prophet here beholds as about to be born, then in chapter 9 as born, and in chapter 11 as reigning--three stages of a triad which are not to be wrenched asunder, a threefold constellation of consoling forms, illuminating the three stadia into which the future history of his people divides itself in the view of the prophet."

In order to appreciate the force of the prediction concerning the Prince who is to mount the throne of David, we must study the circumstances out of which it grew. In 8:5-8 appears the warning concerning the invasion of Palestine by the great king of Assyria. This calamity is explained as the judgment of God upon the nation because of its having rejoiced in Rezin and Remaliah's son and having refused to trust in the Lord and remain loyal to the house of David. This fact is set forth in the following quotation:

"Forasmuch as this people have refused the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the River, strong and many, even the king of Assyria and all his glory... and the stretching out of its wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel." This prediction was completely and literally fulfilled in the invasion of the land by Sennacherib, one of the most powerful kings of Assyria.

The couplet, "'Tis the sunset of life gives me mystical lore, And coming events cast their shadows before," finds frequently a perfect illustration in the messages of the prophets. This invasion with all of its attendant evils and sorrows suggested to the prophet's mind the final crisis through which the nation would have to pass when the armies of the peoples of earth enter the land of Israel like a roaring torrent. This final invasion is described in verses 9f. Thus two widely separated events melt into a single picture.

In verses 16-18 the prophet spoke of the symbolic significance of himself and his family. The last paragraph of chapter 8 describes the prevalence of spiritism during the time of crisis which lay in the immediate future. This picture also blends with that of the final distress of the nation.

2. "The former time" and "The latter time"

Beginning with chapter 9 the conditions of "the former time" are contrasted with those of the "latter time." "In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali; but in the latter time hath he made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations." What is meant by "the former time" and "the latter time"? The context will have to determine the answer. As noted above, the last paragraph of chapter 8 speaks of spiritism and consequent darkness in connection with a time of great sorrow and distress. This spiritual night is spoken of as settling down upon the northern portions of Palestine and also upon the region beyond the Jordan. Jerusalem was the center of the worship of the true God. The people living in close proximity to it, of course, enjoyed greater blessings and had superior opportunities of knowing the truth. The darkness increased in proportion to the distance from this center of light. The aggression of heathenism made its influence felt more and more in these distant regions. Especially did the darkness begin to settle down over the tribes which formed the northern kingdom upon their breaking away from the house of David. The political situation was continually changing. One war after another devastated this northern region. The war clouds of the impending invasion and certain deportation to a heathen land were in Isaiah's day increasing the darkness. We can, therefore, be certain that the former time began with the disruption of the kingdom and continued throughout the period of Israel's national life (982 to 722 B.C.).

But when did the "latter time" begin,--if indeed it has begun? The expression, "the latter days," was considered by the ancient rabbis as a reference to the era of Messiah. At that time, according to this prophecy, a great light shines upon the people who formerly sat in gross darkness. What is the significance of this prophecy? The meaning of light probably may be the thread that will unravel the prediction. What is its significance in this connection? Is it to be taken literally as in the case of 13:10 where it refers to the light of the heavenly bodies? In this passage the context shows that the usual meaning is intended. But in other connections the literal significance is forbidden by the context; hence a figurative or symbolic import must be understood. For instance, in Isaiah 60:1 the drift of thought shows clearly that the literal meaning is impossible. "Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." The parallel structure of these lines shows that light in the first statement corresponds to the glory of the Lord in the second. The second and third verses, which are explanatory of the first, make the prediction still more lucid: "For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the peoples; but the Lord will arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." The light in the first verse, which is the glory of the Lord, is seen in the second to be, not the Shekinah of Glory, which during the period of the first temple hovered over the mercy seat, but the Lord Himself who comes personally to Zion. The use of the expression, "thy light," in this prediction shows that it is used as a proper name. A comparison of its significance with that found in Isaiah 10:17 confirms this conclusion.

My interpretation of Isaiah 60:1-3 is strengthened by the preceding passage (59:15-21). A glance at these verses shows that the prophet, in vision, saw the Lord coming as a warrior to Zion in order to liberate her. (Cf. Deut. 32:40-43.) In view of His appearing on the scene as deliverer and redeemer, the prophet, comparing Zion to a woman sitting stricken with grief and distress, exhorts her to arise and to welcome Him. Taking the entire scope of the passage into consideration, some of the ancient rabbis in their Midrashic literature correctly interpreted light here as a messianic reference.

Messiah shall come in fulfillment of this definite prediction when the nation of Israel is wholly given over to sin and unbelief. (See Isa. 59:1-14.) From other passages, parallel to this one, it is clearly seen that at this same time Israel shall be in the direst distress imaginable. For instance compare Jer. 30:4-7; Zeph.1:14-18; Zech. 14:1-8. Foreseeing her predicament and graphically picturing her sorrow, Isaiah represented Zion as a forsaken woman sitting or lying prostrate upon the ground, whom he encourages to arise and to welcome this long-expected deliverer.


Footnotes:

* The unity of Isaiah has been called in question by many advanced critics. The considerations leading to such a position are purely a priori: a predisposition against predictive prophecy and miracles. The exile and restoration are clearly reflected in the latter half of the book. The name of Cyrus appears as the one who would grant freedom to the captives and order the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple (Isa. 44:24-45:13). Isaiah lived and engaged in his ministry during the latter half of the eighth century before the present era. The beginning of the captivity was in 606 and ended in 536 B.C. From the rationalistic point of view it was impossible for Isaiah to foretell the exile and restoration approximately one hundred and fifty years in advance. Obviously these objections are grounded purely and exclusively upon a predilection against the supernatural. When one assumes that there is no such thing as predictive prophecy, it is natural for him to deny the Isaianic authorship of the latter half of that book. The next step is to affirm that it was written by one or more persons who lived either at the beginning of the exile or during it. The next link in the chain of reasoning is to find some evidence that supports a diversity of authorship and late date of composition. There is absolutely no positive evidence to support the theory. Guesses and suppositions are the only support that can be advanced for repudiating the positive evidence of the Isaianic authorship. One does well to take the facts and accept the statements of the prophets of God at their face value. Hundreds of predictions by the prophets of Israel have been literally fulfilled in the past and are at the present day coming to pass exactly as written centuries ago by the Hebrew prophets. Therefore we may have absolute confidence in everything that they have said.

(Continued on next page)