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

One is irresistibly led to the conclusion that in this passage, as in all other instances, עַלְמָה means a young, pure virgin. Further strength is added to the conclusion given above by the fact that the Hebrew scholars who translated the Tenach (O.T.) in the third century before the common era rendered עַלְמָה in this passage by the Greek word παρθένος the meaning of which, without dispute, is virgin. It is to be remembered that this translation was made before the rise of the controversy concerning its meaning. Therefore those making this translation were free from the bias which always results from controversy. All things being equal, there must be positive, overwhelming proof to the contrary before we can logically discard their rendering. Since, as seen above, their translation is in harmony with the facts which the Hebrew text in all instances affords, we are logically bound to accept their interpretation. Even the Targum translates this word in Isaiah 7:14 by the Aramaic bethula, virgin.

5. The significance of הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה.

Having studied and ascertained the meaning of the pivotal word and associated terms in the first part of this prophecy, we must now turn our attention to the phrase הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." In the footnote of the American Revised Version the instead of a is given and is with child, and beareth is offered as an alternative reading of shall conceive, and bear. Rabbi Isaac Leeser renders the statement, "Behold this young woman shall conceive and bear a son."

What justification is there for translating the virgin instead of a virgin? According to the critical text of Kittel, the manuscripts prove that the original text had the definite article. Also the Greek translation of the LXX has the definite article, which fact shows that the was in the text from which that translation was made. Leeser renders the passage this young woman as if the demonstrative pronoun הַזֹּאת this were in the text. There is no manuscript authority for changing the definite article the to the demonstrative pronoun this. Hence this rendering must be rejected.

What authority have we for offering is with child and beareth as an alternative rendering of shall conceive and bear etc.? The clue to the answer is to be found in the fact that the Hebrew verb, unlike the Greek and Latin, does not have the time element but only gives the state and kind of action. The context alone furnishes the data as to time. For instance, in Genesis 16:11 appears the statement: וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵאל כִּי־שָׁמַע יְהוָה אֶל־עָנְיֵךְ "And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction." According to verse 4 Hagar, to whom the Lord spoke, was already pregnant. Hence in her case this statement had a backward look so far as pregnancy was concerned. The same thing was true in Bath-sheba's case. According to II Samuel 11:5, when she realized that she was pregnant, she sent word to David saying, הָרָה אָנֹכִי I am with child. On the other hand, words identical with those to Hagar were spoken to the wife of Manoah concerning her promised son Samson who at that time, according to the context, had not been conceived. "But he (the angel of the Lord) said unto me, הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son" (Judges 13:7). From verses 2 and 3 of this chapter it is evident that the woman at that time was barren. In the Genesis passage הָרָה is correctly translated into English as a past tense--"thou art with child." The facts in the context demand this rendering; but in the Judges passage the same word is accurately translated by the future tense, shall conceive. These three examples show that the same words in different settings yield dissimilar renderings, especially in the matter of the time element. The same idiom appears in the prediction under discussion. The only difference between this prediction and Hagar's case is that the former is in the third person, whereas the latter is in the second. In our passage Isaiah spoke to the house of David concerning the virgin that would conceive and bear a son; in the other two instances the angel of the Lord spoke directly to those who were to become mothers. Barring the difference of person, therefore, we see that the idioms are identical.

The context alone will have to decide whether the prophet was speaking of some woman then alive or of one in the future. A quotation from Professor Delitzsch, already given, will answer this question. "הִנֵּה with the following participle (here participial adjective: cf. II Sam. 11:5) is always presentative, and the thing presented is always either a real thing, as in Genesis 16:11 and Judges 13:5; or it is an ideally present thing, as is to be taken here; for except in Chap. 48:7 הִנֵּה always indicates something future in Isaiah." Since the prophet Isaiah with one exception used הִנֵּה with a future signification, we must understand that it has the same import here unless there is something in the passage that indicates otherwise. But there is nothing of that sort. Hence from this consideration we are led to believe that the woman, the subject of the prediction, did not live in the prophet's time but that he saw her in the future. Another consideration strengthens this view. It has already been seen that the prediction affirms that a true virgin shall conceive miraculously and bear a son. Had there been such a stupendous miracle at that time, it would have been recorded. Some one would have known it and declared it to the world. Such a manifestation of divine power could not be concealed. Since there is no record of its having taken place in the prophet's day, we logically conclude that the prediction did not pertain to that day but to a later time.

The prediction, therefore, looks out into the future (from the prophet's time) and foretells the miraculous conception and virgin birth of a child whom his mother calls Immanuel.

6. Significance of עִמָּנוּאֵל

The next question for consideration is, What is the meaning of Immanuel? Among the Hebrews names were especially significant. Children were usually given names to commemorate some providential working of the Almighty, to express a hope reaching out into the future, or to give a warning. For instance, Isaiah means the Lord hath saved; Jeremiah, the Lord doth establish; Zephaniah, the Lord hath hidden; Zechariah, the Lord hath remembered; Ezekiel, God is strong; Daniel, God is my judge; Joel, the Lord is God; and Immanuel, God with us. It is presupposed that the persons bearing these names will exemplify, in a limited degree at least, the characteristics set forth in their names. No one thinks that, because Daniel's name means God is my judge, the prophet was God who judges. Likewise no one concludes that Joel whose name means the Lord is God was divine in any way more than other men. Is not then the giving of the name Immanuel to a child, one asks, simply an expression, on the part of the one suggesting the name, that God is with His people and will aid and protect them? If this child were an ordinary person to whom his parents give a name expressive of their faith in God, the answer would be in the affirmative. But we have already learned in the foregoing discussion that he is not conceived by natural generation but miraculously and is born of a virgin. It is the Lord who foretells what his name shall be. God names things and persons according to their true character and not according to what He desires that they be. Therefore when we recognize the fact that his birth involves a stupendous miracle, that it is God who foretells what His name shall be, and that the Lord always correctly names things and persons, we are forced to the conclusion that this child is what his name declares, namely, God with us.

The conclusion reached in the last paragraph is strengthened by other references found in this Book of Immanuel. For instance, in 8:5-8 appears the prediction that the great Assyrian army would invade the land of Palestine. This overrunning of the country by alien forces is compared to the overflowing of the Euphrates River and of the waters' covering the country of Palestine which is called Immanuel's land (8:8). This language has practically no meaning if it refers to someone who was born in the time of the prophet. The land of Israel in a peculiar way is called Immanuel's. In the prediction of 9:6 the statement is made that the child to whom the series of divine names will be given is in a very special sense born to the Jewish nation. Such language goes far beyond the relation sustained by any one in Israel who was born during the reign of the kings of Judah and Israel. Hence it looks to the future.

All of these facts read in the light of many parallel statements found in other portions of the Scriptures prove that the child whose birth is foretold in this passage is just what His name indicates, namely, God come to earth in the form of a little child.

7. The principle of the Double Fulfullment of prophecy

In the foregoing sections we have seen that the data found in 7:1-14 unquestionably show that the child whose birth is foretold in this last verse is God in human form. If the prediction stopped there, all would be plain to those who believe that the Tenach is the very Word of God. A seeming difficulty, however, is encountered when we read the following verses: "Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken. The Lord will bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah--even the king of Assyria." This quotation undoubtedly refers to a time immediately before the prophet's eyes.

A casual glance at the context of this passage and contemporary history reveals the fact that verses 15-17 foretell the invasion of the countries of Syria and Ephraim by the great king of Assyria and the desolations resulting therefrom, which predictions were literally fulfilled in the campaigns of Tiglath-pileser in 734-732. That there was a child whose birth and infant life served that generation as a sign of the impending calamity is certain from the plain statements of these verses. Had there been in the prophet's time the miraculous conception and birth of such a one as is described in verse 14, it is only reasonable to believe that some record of such a stupendous manifestation of divine power would have been preserved to us until this day. In the absence of testimony it is logical to believe that such a miracle did not then occur. These verses, therefore, must be considered as the prediction of a child born by natural generation who served as a sign of the desolation of the lands ruled by the hostile kings.

The facts just noted seem to shroud the entire prediction in mystery inasmuch as the birth of the child described in verses 13 and 14 is undoubtedly supernatural, whereas that of the one pictured in verses 15-17 is by natural generation. Those who hold fast to the rationalistic interpretation of history, especially of the Biblical narrative, and rigidly to the historico-grammatical system of exegesis see the birth of only one child in the entire prediction of verses 10-17. To support their position they call attention to the following facts: first, a rule common to all languages insists that a noun immediately preceding a pronoun and agreeing with it in gender and number is to be recognized as its antecedent; and secondly, the fact that in this case the noun and pronoun meeting these conditions are Immanuel of verse 14 and he of verse 15. This rule and its unquestioned application in this instance, they point out, are proof that in these verses there are not separate predictions of two different boys but a single prophecy concerning the birth of a child who would be a sign to the prophet's contemporaries. Every scholar must admit the seeming soundness of this reasoning and its strict adherence to the historico-grammatical method of interpretation. In this connection I wish to emphasize that an exegesis of any passage of literature, either sacred or profane, which is not in rigid conformity with the syntax of the language and which is presented apart from the light of the historical circumstances connected with the statements is utterly unreliable.

On the other hand, one must not conclude that mere logic and the application of the rules of grammar will invariably lead to the correct conclusion in every instance. Especially is this statement true in regard to the sacred Tenach, which deals with the spiritual aspect of life. Thought cannot be measured with the yardstick nor weighed on the druggist's scales. Solids and liquids are not amenable to the law of gases. One cannot express psychological data and phenomena in terms of chemical or algebraic formulae. No man can ascertain spiritual truth simply by the aid of history, philology, and the correct application of rules of grammar and rhetoric. Though these branches of learning are indispensable in our quest for the truth, they can account for only a part of the data which appear in the spiritual realm. The truth is that every substance and all phenomena must be judged by the laws of the sphere to which they belong. Therefore let it be recognized that the spiritual realm and the phenomena connected therewith are governed by laws peculiar to them.

In order to ascertain the law that is especially applicable to the passage under consideration, it is necessary for me to restate briefly the findings up to the present stage of this investigation. As seen above, the first section of the prophecy (vss. 10-14) is located upon the high plane of the supernatural; on the other hand, the latter half of the prediction is unquestionably placed on the lower plane of the natural. Since, according to our previous findings, the two parts of this oracle seem to be bound indissolubly together by the bond uniting he of verse 15 to its seeming antecedent, Immanuel of verse 14, shall we in our explanation expunge the supernatural element from the first half and allow it to fall of its own weight to the lower plane of the natural along with the latter part? Or shall we permit the first part to remain upon the higher level of the supernatural and then, by forced reasoning, elevate the latter part to the level of the first half? If we cannot logically and conscientiously adopt either of the methods of solving the difficulty suggested in these two questions, there yet remains one other course of procedure, namely, to seek to discover a fundamental law governing the prophetic Word that will throw light upon our problem.

Shall we extract the supernatural element from the first part by taking a specialized meaning of אוֹת, by forcing upon עַלְמָה a meaning which it never has in any other context, and by ignoring the crisis which called forth this prediction and which it was given to meet? To do so is folly. The reaction of such a procedure upon one's own self would be disastrous in that it would dull the sense of spiritual perception and soon render one incapable of handling facts and truth conscientiously. No mechanic who knows his trade will attempt, after he has made all proper adjustments, to use undue force in order to make a certain part fit a given place in a machine. To do so would be to injure the entire mechanism and to impair its usefulness. The same is true with reference to forcing a strained meaning upon the words of this or any passage. Genuine scholarship and love for the truth will not allow one to attempt to extract the original meaning from these words and to inject into them an import foreign to the thought of the prophet. In view of the unmistakably miraculous elements in the first part of this passage, one cannot try to lower it to the level of the natural.

Shall we then raise the second half of the prediction from the plane of the natural to the high elevation of the supernatural in order to effect a possible harmony? In other words, can we by any possible method inject a miraculous element into this latter half and interpret it as a reference to the same child whose miraculous birth is foretold in the first half of the oracle? Since verses 15-17 cannot by any mental gymnastics be made to apply to a time other than that of the prophet and, possibly, the succeeding generation, and since the silence of history concerning a supernatural birth in that day speaks out most eloquently and emphatically in the negative, we must content ourselves with the plain meaning of this part of the prediction and believe that a child was born shortly after the prediction who, like Shear-Jashub, served as unimpeachable testimony to that generation. Hence we cannot logically lift this part of the passage to the level of the super-natural.

The first two methods being impossible, it is now for us to try to discover some principle which obtains in the prophetic message and which will aid us in solving the problem. There are three facts peculiar to the genius of the Hebrew language, people, and religion which may offer clues to this problem: first, the peculiarity of the verb; secondly, the occasion of new prophetic messages; and thirdly, the large place filled by types and shadows in Israel's ritual.

The Hebrew verbs, unlike those of the Indo-European languages, do not express the time element, which in all instances must be gathered from the context. This peculiarity of their speech largely deprived the Hebrews of the proper perspective, except by special circumlocution. The principle idea expressed by the verb is that of completed or incompleted action. This characteristic obtains in all seven conjugations. It was inevitable, therefore, that the prophets, hampered by this limitation of their language, blended in their descriptions of future events, the near with the more remote, so that in some instances it is almost impossible to separate them in point of time. The distinction between the ability of the ancient Hebrew with its limitations and that of modern languages with their highly developed tenses to delineate the future may be illustrated by the difference between the old flat-surface stereoscopic views and the new binocular ones. The former give the appearance of flat surfaces without any perspective, whereas the latter with their "third dimension" present things accurately as they are in reality.

The second fact contributing to the blending of present events with those of the distant future lay rather in the field of psychology. Especially during times of calamity, when people's hearts were in a highly receptive mood to give heed to spiritual things, the Lord explained the causes of their present judgment and encouraged the hearts of His people by giving them promises of complete deliverance from all their sorrows in the future. The length of time before this final deliverance was withheld in order to keep the people upon the tiptoes of expectation. This hopeful attitude always had a most salutary effect upon their lives. Hence the oft-repeated refrain of "How long, O Lord?" reverberates throughout the Tenach.

The third fact is discovered in the realm of Israel's ritual and the evident typical character of her history. Sacrifices, especially of animals, bulked largely in the ritual. To every thinking person it was evident that such oblations could not really remove the guilt of sin. The character of such sacrifices showed clearly that they could not reach the cause of evil, effect a cure, and allay the lashings of a guilty conscience. The recurrence of the sacrifices on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) also demonstrated that those sacrifices could not make complete satisfaction for sin. To the correctness of this conclusion the innermost conscience of the individual bore silent testimony. Hence the nation looked forward to a perfect sacrifice that would make complete and perfect satisfaction for all sins. The prophet Isaiah, therefore, foretold such an offering which would be made for the nation (Isa. 53). In the same way Moses pointed forward to a lawgiver greater than himself (Deut. 18:15-18); Jeremiah, to a greater deliverance than that from Egypt (Jer. 23:7, 8); and Ezekiel, to a temple far more magnificent than Solomon's (Ezek. 40-48). Thus Israel's entire history had a typical significance.

There is, then, no wonder that the Hebrews, living in such an atmosphere which linked the present with the future, did blend the near with the remote. These facts unquestionably gave rise to what is known among Biblical students as the law of the double or manifold fulfillment of prophecy. The statement of this law is that there may be several partial, limited, or incomplete fulfillments of a given prediction, but there will finally be a perfect and complete fulfillment which will correspond exactly to the original forecast in every detail. Thus the nearer and limited fulfillment always blends with the more remote and complete. This principle has been beautifully illustrated by the stereopticon which presents the dissolving effect. One picture is thrown upon the screen and presently begins to fade. At the same time there appear the dim outlines of another. By the time the first has completely faded the second is in full view. A second illustration sets forth a slightly different phase of this marvelous principle. From certain places near my home I can see ranges of mountains. The more distant ones mount above these nearer and appear as if they were located immediately behind these in the foreground. Upon reaching the top of the nearer ones, I can clearly see that, instead of their being close together, these mountains are separated by great valleys. The valley from my point of view is invisible. In the same way the interval of time separating near and remote events was not, as a rule, seen and explained by the prophets. An exception to this rule, however, is found in Psalm 110, an exposition of which appears in my book, Messiah: His Redemptive Career.

In order to demonstrate the principle of the double fulfillment of prophecy and the blending of widely separated events, I wish to call attention to three different examples. In Leviticus 26 appears the forecast of Israel's checkered history. Verses 3-13 set forth the countless blessings which she was to enjoy if she remained faithful and obedient to the Lord. In verses 14-39 threats of four different judgments, in case of continued disobedience, are solemnly pronounced. In the event the first three failed, the Lord warned Israel that, as a last resort, He would bring the following judgment:

"And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; then I will walk contrary unto you in wrath; and I also will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your sun-images, and cast your dead bodies upon the bodies of your idols; and my soul shall abhor you. And I will make your cities a waste, and will bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savor of your sweet odors. And I will bring the land into desolation; and your enemies that dwell therein shall be astonished at it. And you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste. Then shall the land enjoy its sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye are in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest and enjoy its sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest, even the rest which it had not in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. And as for them that are left of you, I will send a faintness into their heart in the lands of their enemies: and the sound of a driven leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as one fleeth from the sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth. And they shall stumble one upon another, as it were before the sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. And ye shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up. And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them" (Lev. 26:27-39).

Verses 27-33 undoubtedly foretell the national overthrow and world-wide dispersion of Israel. A graphic description of the desolation of the land of Israel and of her sufferings in the countries of her enemies is given in verses 34-39. If there were no parallel passage one would conclude that this quotation foretells a single overthrow and dispersion of the nation. When, however, the parallel account (Deut. 28) is read, it becomes apparent at once that the fall of Jerusalem under the Babylonians and the national overthrow seven hundred years later by the Romans are here blended into one descriptive prediction. The downfall of the Jewish kingdom by the Babylonians was caused largely by the idolatry that had crept into the nation. This fact is seen by a study of the predictions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (see especially chapter 8). Verses 29 and 30 were fulfilled at the capitulation of Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to it. "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your sun-images, and cast your dead bodies upon the bodies of your idols; and my soul shall abhor you." This passage was literally fulfilled when the Babylonians took Jerusalem. After that calamity idolatry disappeared from Israel. These verses unquestionably refer to the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. This passage is immediately followed by those which foretell a world-wide dispersion of the nation. Thus verse 33 affirms, "And you will I scatter among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste. The historical facts prove that Israel was cleansed of gross idolatry by the Babylonian overthrow and that she was never scattered among the nations until the Romans conquered Jerusalem and dispersed those surviving that calamity throughout the world some seven hundred years later. Nevertheless, these two widely separated calamities are blended in this single prediction. They are, however, clearly separated in Moses' account found in Deuteronomy 28. In verses 36-46 of this chapter appears the description of the fall of Jerusalem (606-585 B.C.) and the Babylonian exile. Verses 47-68 describe the Roman occupation of Palestine (70 A.D.) and the national dispersion. These widely separated events, blended in the first passage and separated in the latter, illustrate the law of double fulfillment of prophecy.

Another excellent illustration of the principle is found in Jeremiah 29:10-14.

"For thus saith the Lord, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope in your latter end. And ye shall call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you, saith the Lord, and I will turn again your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will bring you again unto the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive."

It is clear from verse 10 that the restoration from Babylon after the seventy years of captivity is the subject which gave rise to the entire prophecy. This part of the prediction was fulfilled in 536 before the common era when Zerubbabel led the captives back to the homeland. But in verse 11 the prophet swings out into the distant future to Israel's "latter end." Here he mentions the restoration from Babylon as being prerequisite to the Lords carrying out His plan to give Israel hope in the latter end. It was necessary, therefore, to bring the captives back at the expiration of the seventy years in order to carry out the divine plan of giving her this hope. In other words, Israel must be in the land* at the time of the end in order that God may bring to complete fruition the promises of blessing vouchsafed to Abraham and the fathers.

If the prediction had ended with this verse, the Jews of the captivity could have logically concluded, apart from all other statements, that the "latter end" would follow the seventy years of captivity and that they themselves would enter into the enjoyment of all the promised blessings. But the following verses, especially 14, presuppose a world-wide dispersion: "I will gather you from all the nations." It is clear, therefore, from all of these facts, when they are fully understood, that there would be a world-wide dispersion of Israel after the post-exilic restoration. Nevertheless the promise of restoration after the captivity blends imperceptibly with the prediction of a partially restored Israel in the homeland at the latter end--the time of Jacob's trouble. We may not be able to see why it is necessary that there should be such a remnant of the Chosen People in the land at that time in order to the carrying forward of the divine program but, inasmuch as the Scriptures affirm it, we believe that it will be exactly as it is written.

By a close study of this prediction and by comparing it with other statements of Scripture, it has become clear that descriptions of similar situations separated by centuries blend into a single picture. This passage is, therefore, an example of the double fulfillment of prophecy.

A third illustration of this principle may be seen in Ezekiel 26:7-14. In verses 7-11 is found the prediction of the siege of Tyre under Nebuchadnezzar in the latter part of the seventh century B.C. In these verses the singular pronoun he frequently occurs and refers to Nebuchadnezzar, but with verse 12 the plural pronoun they is suddenly injected into the narrative. What noun is the antecedent of this plural pronoun? Grammatically it could refer either to the horses or horsemen mentioned in the preceding verses. But when we study the entire prediction in the light of history, we see clearly that such cannot be the case. Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre on the mainland and reduced it to such dire extremities that the people, profiting by their experience, did not want to pass through another similar trial. Hence they abandoned this site and built their city on an island about a half-mile from shore. This new position was so strongly fortified that the city was well-nigh impregnable. The first enemy to attack insular Tyre was Alexander, whose conquests began approximately three hundred years after Nebuchadnezzar.


Footnote:

* It is not necessary that all of the Jews should be restored to the homeland in the time of the end in order to the fulfilling of the promise. This prediction, however, does contemplate the reorganization and reestablishment of Israel nationally in Palestine. The granting of an autonomous government to the present Zionistic movement by the League of Nations will satisfy the demands of this prediction. The correctness of this statement is seen in the light of the fact that only about 50,000 returned from Babylon after the captivity. This partial restoration of Israel nationally met the requirements of the prediction which foretold the return after the seventy years. Thus such a movement as Zionism may easily satisfy the conditions of the prophecy of the future partial restoration at the end-time. In fact, other utterances concerning Israel's great national rebirth at Messiah's glorious appearance presuppose a partial restoration with the majority of the people still dispersed throughout the world. For example see Isa. 66:18-21 and parallel passages.

(Continued on next page)