Father Joseph Knabenbauer's Commentary on Isaiah 7:10-14

The following was translated using Gemini. Boldface headings in purple are additions to the text.

II. The Second Series of Prophecies (Chapters 7-12)

This part is to be assigned to the time of King Ahaz. When Ahaz was attacked by King Rezin of Syria and King Pekah of Israel, he scorned the divine aid offered to him through the prophet in God's name and by His command. Instead, he resorted to imploring help from Tiglath-pileser, King of the Assyrians.

God uses this occasion through the prophet to declare what the divine plan has ordained. Because of David and the Messianic promises, the kingdom of Judah will indeed not perish. However, Syria and Israel will suffer punishment for the attack made against the theocratic kingdom and will be devoted to destruction. The very kingdom of Judah will be severely afflicted by the one whose help Ahaz implored, but because of the Messianic prophecies, it will eventually be rescued from danger, its enemies crushed with a signal defeat.

The prophet pursues this divine plan, which seems to spring from the promises given to the house of David and relates especially to the Messianic King, explaining to the pious Israelites what solace they have in times of distress, and teaching them clearly about the Messiah, His kingdom, and His glory.

This series of oracles is aptly divided into three chapters, each of which rebukes the infidelity of the Jews, presents the chastisement to be divinely inflicted, and describes the salvation reserved in the Messiah. These three points are explained with increasing richness and with the description of almost every detail as the prophetic discourse progresses (Chapters 7:1-9:6, 9:7-12:6).

Isaiah 7:1-25

Argument: When the King of Syria and the King of Israel, having formed an alliance, undertook a military expedition against Jerusalem to overthrow the house of David, King Ahaz and the people were struck with great terror. However, the Lord, through the prophet, commands the king to be of good courage and trust in divine aid, and announces to him that the enemies' plan will be futile, and salvation will belong to those who believe (Is 7:1-9). Indeed, to raise the king's spirit to hope and trust, the prophet commands him to test how surely the Lord will bring help by requesting a sign from the Lord. When Ahaz rejected this, the prophet himself prophesies a sign to be given by God—namely, the Messiah to be born of a Virgin Mother, who, just as He indicates the preservation of the house of David, also, in growing up in a desolate and humble condition in the land of Israel, shadows forth the humility of that house and the chastisement divinely inflicted (Is 7:10-16). To the king himself, who rejects the divinely offered aid, it is predicted how great the tribulations to be inflicted by the King of Assyria (whose help he trusts in) will be, and how great the solitude and devastation of the land of Judah (Is 7:17-25).

🕊️ The Divine Sign: Emmanuel, the Son of the Virgin (Is 7:10-16)

What about Ahaz? He had heard the divine promise that the enemies' plan would not be fulfilled. He had heard what would happen to the kingdom of Israel. He had also heard that for the kingdom of Judah, stability and salvation rested in faith alone, and he had heard this in those words that would recall a signal example of faith and the marvelous victory that followed it. What then? He is silent. This very silence after such promises manifests his unbelief, his contempt for God, and the confirmation of his mind in the wicked purpose. He rejects God and His help; it is fixed and certain in his mind to implore help from the Assyrians and to expect aid and salvation from them.

But God, with His characteristic benevolence (Chrysostom), approaches the proudly silent Ahaz in a new way to move him away from his infidelity (Is 10): "And the Lord added to speak to Ahaz, saying, 'Ask for a sign from the Lord your God, deep as the netherworld, or high as the sky.'" (The Hebrew word means literally: 'Make deep' or 'Make high in the sublime,' i.e., in asking for a sign, either descend to the depths of the underworld or raise yourself to the sublime—ask for any event you wish to be given to you as a sign, either in the deep or in the heavens.)

Saint Jerome rightly notes that when Ahaz did not believe, God Himself spoke to him: "Because," He says, "it seems difficult to you that the most powerful kingdoms should be ended in a short time and that you and your people should be delivered, ask for a sign for yourself from the Lord your God, who promises you help, and the sign itself is of your own choosing, from where you may ask it, either from the deep or from the high, so that when you receive a sign from the underworld or the high, you may believe the things I have said are future."

Thus, God's grace goes forth to meet him. If he cannot yet raise his mind to firm faith and trust because of the imminent danger, let him ask God for some pledge, a sign, a miracle by which all the senses of man and his whole mind may be struck and, as it were, spontaneously carried away to firm faith and hope in God. In that sign, most powerful aid and support are offered to him, by which he may conceive joyful confidence in divine help and, as it were, palpably grasp and hold the most present and potent aid of God.

And lest there be any appearance of evasion or doubt, no limits are set to his request. Everything is committed to his free will, from the sublimity of heaven to the depths of hell. Let him ask for something maximally wondrous, maximally apt to engender faith in divine power, maximally difficult—something he believes will suffice for divine hope and faith to flow into his heart.

O splendid evidence of divine benevolence! O truly excellent effort by which God's grace sought to soften, instruct, and draw to Himself that rebellious, hardened, and obstinate spirit! See to what extent God condescended! He Himself draws him and urges him to ask for a sign, even if this sign was not small—to reveal His secrets, to bring forth His whole judgment, and to detect all his pretense (St. Chrysostom).

Saint Cyril appropriately notes that since the king was curious to scrutinize events and inquire into the oracles of idols and seek the words of false prophets, God commanded him now to seek a sign from Himself. Thus, God decided to use this propensity of the king's mind for his own good (similar to Procopius).

The prophet depicts the ready will and faithfulness of divine mercy by saying, "from the Lord your God." This is said to move his heart, for Ahaz had given himself entirely to idols (2 Kings 16:3-4; 2 Chronicles 28:2-4). But God, preserving inviolate fidelity to the house of David, desires to bring the king back to duty and a sound mind by this title of supreme authority and this evidence of a will ready to provide aid.

In this admonition made to Ahaz, therefore, a clear and most firm proof is given to him that God absolutely wills to remedy the afflicted affairs of Judah and, moreover, wills to strengthen his weak and infirm hope and trust, and to fill and confirm the minds of His people with all certainty of salvation. Hence, for this very purpose, He now wishes to provide a pledge, whatever the king may request.

When Moses was going forth with the divine legation to the people, God equipped him with various signs, by which both Moses might know most certainly that he was sent by God, and the people might be indubitably taught. Gideon, having heard the promise from the angel appearing to him, asks for a sign: "If I have found grace before you, give me a sign that you are he who speaks to me" (Judges 6:17). Saul also receives various signs by which he is made certain that he will be king when the prophet Samuel predicts various imminent events to him (1 Samuel 10:1 seq.).

By these examples, it is clearly demonstrated what a sign is and why it is given. For $\text{אוֹת}$ (oth) is a sign either generally, serving to preserve the memory of some event (cf. Genesis 9:13; Gen 17:11; Exodus 13:9, etc.), or a proof or certain argument that something will happen, or a portent and miracle performed to confirm an event, or assumed as an image and type of a future event (cf. Deuteronomy 13:2; 1 Kings 2:27; Isaiah 8:18, etc.).

Therefore, from the events performed among the people of God, Ahaz should have clearly seen how signal a proof of divine benevolence and aid was offered to him in this choice.

Since the choice of what to ask is placed in the king's free will, interpreters seem to seek in vain what kind of sign could be understood in heaven or in hell. Some prefer the explanation of Saint Jerome: "Do you wish the earth to be split open and the abyss of the netherworld, which is said to be in the heart of the earth, to be exposed, or the heavens to be opened?" (similar to Haimo, Pint, Sasb, Lap, Men). Or a sign in heaven similar to that given to Joshua (Joshua 10:12). Others explain the sign in the deep by illustrating it with the prodigies done at the destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, or at the drowning of the Egyptians, or at the miraculous liberation of the prophet Jonah, or when thunder and storms suddenly broke out in the time of Samuel, or fire descended in the days of Elijah (1 Sam 12:17; 2 Kings 1:10; cf. S. Basil, Procop, Thom, Sanct, Calm).

This very request made by the prophet to the king is an illustrious proof of the certain conviction of the prophet's mind that he was sent and helped by God. For what audacity, rashness, indeed, what danger it would be to propose such a choice to a king ill-disposed to him! And when the king refuses to ask for a sign, the refusal itself shows that he believes such a sign can be given. For if he had not believed—i.e., if he could have hoped that the event would result in Isaiah's disgrace—King Ahaz, being wicked, would most certainly have embraced with both hands this excellent opportunity to silence an importunate monitor and annoying censor and to confound him with perpetual shame. Thus, the king's very silence is an argument for us that the divine mission of Isaiah was recognized by Ahaz.

What the rationalists say about such a proposal by Isaiah—which they, with the exception of de Lagarde, do not deny happened exactly as it is written—is laughable and clearly demonstrates how unfit men devoid of divine faith are to explain divine matters. Thus, Hitzig warns that the prophet is engaging in a very dangerous act here, which nevertheless turned out quite fortunately when Ahaz did not agree to the request. For if he had agreed, Jahve would probably not have helped His prophet—a man of keen judgment, perhaps conscious of the divine plans in this matter, determines and affirms this. Meier, however, holds for certain that Isaiah, given his prudence, could not have wished for a miracle to be performed. But what do the words mean? Knobel, asking what Isaiah would have done if Ahaz had agreed to the request, replies that he probably would have produced something very simple and obvious. But the clever man fails to see that the issue is not what Isaiah wanted to do, but that whatever Ahaz requested would have had to be performed. Finally, others maintain that the prophet thought he could certainly produce events similar to those performed by magicians and soothsayers. A truly excellent explanation of the matter! I think the rationalists have only one thing to lament: that Ahaz did not seize this opportunity to overwhelm the seer with confusion. They certainly would have seized it! But why did Ahaz not seize it? Here is the argument: the impious king himself knew that the prophet was of God, spoke the truth, and could divinely perform miracles.

Note on the Hebrew Text

Concerning the Hebrew text: $\text{הַעְמֵק}$ (ha'ameq, with a Dagesh in the kamo vowel, edited by Baer, Del.) and $\text{הַגְבַּהּ}$ (hagbah) can be explained either as an imperative or as an infinitive absolute. The former is more frequently assumed (cf. For, Vat, Malv, Rohl, Troch), while the latter is taken in the sense of a gerund (e.g., Naeg); the meaning is plainly the same.

But there is a greater dispute over the acceptance of the word $\text{שְׁאָלָה}$ (she'alah). As the Masoretic points render it, $\text{שְׁאָלָה}$ appears to be the form of the imperative, Ask (cf. Isaiah 32:11; 1 Kings 13:6; Daniel 9:19; Olshausen § 234; Naeg, Rohl), and thus it was already taken by the Syriac, Chaldean, and probably also the Septuagint, since nothing else is read in them but $\alpha\acute{\iota}\tau\eta\sigma\alpha\iota$ $\epsilon\acute{\iota}\varsigma$ $\beta\acute{\alpha}\theta o\varsigma$ $\hat{\eta}$ $\epsilon\acute{\iota}\varsigma$ $\ddot{\upsilon}\psi o\varsigma$ (Ask into the depth or into the height).

But, as Eusebius testifies, Symmachus translated it: $\beta\acute{\alpha}\theta\upsilon\nu o\nu$ $\epsilon\acute{\iota}\varsigma$ $\ddot{\alpha}\delta\eta\nu$ $\hat{\eta}$ $\epsilon\acute{\iota}\varsigma$ $\ddot{\upsilon}\psi o\varsigma$ $\ddot{\alpha}\nu\omega$ (Deepen into Hades or into the height above), and in the same way, Aquila and Theodotion also express Hades, as does Saint Jerome.

This interpretation seems altogether preferable. For thus, there is a perfect and pleasing harmony of the sentence: you have, after the phrase "Ask for a sign from Yahweh your God", a two-part phrase joined by the particle vel (or) and consisting of two corresponding words: "Make deep into the netherworld, or make high into the sublime." Each clause begins with a verb expressing descent or ascent, and ends with the region corresponding to the descent and ascent, which the king may enter by his request, or in which he is allowed to ask for the sign to be exhibited. Since, therefore, there are so many corresponding words and such a structure of the sentence in the Hebrew, $\text{שְׁאָלָה}$ should be read and explained as referring to the netherworld (Sheol).

For what, pray tell, is the point of abandoning that harmony and thrusting upon the text the weak meaning: "Ask for a sign, making it deep; ask, making it high into the sublime"? Why the repetition of ask? Why the addition only to the second clause? But the Masoretic pointing $\text{שְׁאָלָה}$ causes doubt for many. Yet, if this is the only obstacle, let it be disregarded or amended. For it certainly is not of such great authority that it should be considered sacrosanct (cf. Cornely Introd. I p. 269), and it is rightly amended if both the sense requires it and the witnesses of antiquity support the amendment, both of which certainly hold true here. But the matter here is perhaps even easier. For the Masoretic pointing $\text{שְׁאָלָה}$ can probably be conceived as the pausal form of the word $\text{שְׁאוֹל}$ (Sheol, the netherworld), with the locative $\text{ה}$ (he) instead of the usual form $\text{שְׁאֹלָה}$ (she'olah). (For this pausal form, see Ewald Lehrb. § 93 a 3, who moreover holds that for our passage, the reading shealah and this pausal form were selected so that there might be greater equality of sound with the other word, lemaelah [upwards]; similar to Delitzsch).

Forer already speaks similarly, assuming the name shealah is taken for the netherworld as opposed to the final word lemaelah (cf. Malv, Mald, Net, Ros). He thinks the Chaldean also recognized Sheol here. But this is certainly false. The Chaldean renders the entire verse as: "Ask for a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; ask that a sign be done for you upon the earth, or that a sign be seen by you in the heaven." From this explanation, it is plain that by repeating the word $\text{שְׁאָלָה}$ (ask), the Chaldean did not understand Sheol (the netherworld), but took the verb $\text{הַעְמֵק}$ (ha'ameq) to refer to a sign given upon the earth, just as he understood the other clause to refer to a sign from the heavens. Naegelsbach affirms that the Syriac also interpreted it as the netherworld, but this is certainly not true of the Syriac text as it is expressed in the London Polyglot and in the London edition of 1826; there, it is clearly expressed that ask is used even for $\text{שְׁאָלָה}$ . Finally, others, by shifting the accent to the last syllable, explain the word as $\text{שְׁאֵלָה}$ (she'elah), petition, which is found elsewhere.

It is worth mentioning that Diestel and Bredenkamp suspect that the original reading $\text{שְׁאוֹלָה}$ (Sheolah) was changed by the Masoretic punctuators to $\text{שְׁאָלָה}$ (she'alah, ask) to remove any suggestion that the prophet had practiced or recommended necromancy. And indeed, it can be said with probability that the punctuators were not infrequently troubled by such scruples (cf. Geiger Urschrift und Uebersetz. p. 259 seq.).

The King's Obstinacy and Rejection of Divine Aid

This second direct address, however, is also made in vain; the promise of any kind of sign is made in vain. King Ahaz cannot deny that God can and wills to perform such a sign and that the prophet, sent by God, promises true things in God's name and by His authority. For if Ahaz had believed the prophet was speaking vanity, he would certainly have demanded a wondrous feat impossible for human power to confuse the importunate monitor and reduce him to perpetual silence forever.

Thus, Ahaz, by his very obstinacy, is an argument that true miracles were sometimes performed by the prophets.

He responds, however, in a way that clearly demonstrates his mind is hardened in his purpose and rejects divine aid (Is 7:12): "And Ahaz said, 'I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord.'"

He reveals a mind plainly estranged from God. He wants to be delivered from danger, but refuses to be delivered by the Lord, perhaps lest, having been made accountable to a vow, he should have to return to the worship of God, abandoning the idolatry he loves, or lest he be forced to reject the Assyrian alliance and the imploring of help from Tiglath-pileser.

It is unnecessary to pursue further how much contempt for God lies hidden in such a course of action, and how great an aversion from the theocracy and a scorn for the theocratic kingdom. We have an example of this in what was said in Is 6:10. The alienation of the mind from God is made greater and provoked by the very promise of divine aid and the exhibition of a pledge of it.

It is attributed to pride (as S. Jerome, Haimo, Rupert say) that he does not want to ask a sign from God. St. Cyril, Forer, Sanctius, Lapide, Pintus detect pretense and manifest impiety and frivolous mockery of God in his statement, "I will not tempt the Lord." He feigned piety in wickedness, so that he might present a specious reason for his perfidy and rebellion (Osorius, similar to Sa, Men, Tirinus). As Estius puts it, he was, as it were, throwing back God's own precept at Him: God Himself forbade anyone to tempt Him, but now He wills that to be done by which He would be tempted; "but I will obey His prohibition and I will not tempt Him."

Indeed, God had prescribed: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 6:16). To tempt God is to take a risk as to whether God will bring help in an extraordinary way, manifest His power, etc. The measure of hope is the divine promises. One tempts God if, due to a lack of hope, he hopes less than he ought and therefore doubts whether God will exhibit His faithfulness, power, etc. But also, if one, out of presumption, expects and demands more from God than is allowed by the rule of divine promises and ordinary providence, he is said to tempt God (cf. Exodus 17:6; Numbers 14:22; Psalms 78:18; Acts 5:9, 15:10), challenging God's power, as it were, and putting it to the test.

Hence, since God Himself ordered the king to ask for a sign, how ineptly, indeed blasphemously, such things are thrown back is self-evident. Ahaz openly professes this: "It is not my intention to test the strength of that Jehovah, or to take a risk concerning His power" (Malvenda).

One who is stubborn and hardened in malice, and contemptuously rejects aid benevolently offered, certainly creates trouble for the monitor and scorns a friend. But if such things are done against the divine legate, as such (who is recognized and ought to be recognized), the contempt is reflected back upon God Himself.

Hence (Is 7:13): "And He said: 'Hear ye therefore, O house of David. Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also?'"

"It is not enough for you to scorn and afflict men, you go further, contemning My God, by whose command I speak, and you weary (or provoke to wrath and vengeance) Him."

Thus act those who are of the house of David; therefore, just as the people are seen in the same turmoil together with the king (Is 7:2), so the rest of the royal family was in the same impiety and stubbornness as Ahaz.

The appellation "house of David" has great emphasis here. To the house of David was promised an eternal throne (2 Sam 7:14); from this house the Messiah is to proceed, and salvation is to be diffused to all nations (cf. Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11-12). Yet, the heirs of these promises, having rejected God, turn aside to foreigners! "How far removed you are from your father David, from that man after God's own heart! O most ungrateful ones, degenerates from your father David, impious towards God, and forgetful of His greatest promises and benefits—you who boast of the family and lineage of David are most unworthy of that name!" (Malvenda).

By the force of the promises, the house of David ought to be preserved from destruction. Therefore, to reject this aid offered by God is nothing else than to wish to destroy the divine counsels and, in that way also, to weary and provoke God.

Saint Jerome notes that for labore (labor) and molestia (trouble), Aquila and Symmachus translated it as "you contend," while the Septuagint and Theodotion interpreted it as $\dot{\alpha}\gamma\tilde{\omega}\nu\alpha$ (agon, struggle or contest), because the contentious do not submit their neck to the service of the Lord, but reject health when He wishes to heal their wounds.

St. Chrysostom explains "to provide a struggle" ( $\dot{\alpha}\gamma\tilde{\omega}\nu\alpha$ $\pi\alpha\rho\acute{\epsilon}\chi\epsilon\iota\nu$ ): "Are these My words? Is this My judgment? If not to believe men without cause is grievous and worthy of accusation, how much more so not to believe God? Therefore, to provide a struggle is nothing else than to deny faith. Is this," He says, "a small crime, or a small cause for accusation, not to believe men? If this is grievous, how much more grievous not to believe God!" And Theodoret: "Is it not enough for you that you contradict the prophets and resist the servants of God, but you also openly disobey the Lord Himself who commands?"

👑 The Sign of Emmanuel: Punishment and Promise

Thus, the condition of things from the preceding events is such that, on the one hand, just as the house of David must continue in general, so it must be defended in these distresses from the machinations of the invading enemies (Is 7:2). On the other hand, this same house of David must be severely chastised because of the wicked mind of the king and his courtiers, which is so alien from the nature of the theocracy.

The former is generally evident from the prophecies already given, and specifically from the oracle just communicated to Ahaz (Is 7:4 seq.). The latter is contained in that maxim: "If you will not believe, you shall not remain" (Is 7:9). Therefore, a sign is given by God which, while it is on the one hand the highest pledge of salvation and a most august proof that the house of David is to be preserved, on the other hand, it also simultaneously declares the punishment to be inflicted on the house of David for the future time, and for the present, although the sign itself is an argument of the supreme divine power, it leaves those who refuse to believe in their infidelity.

I declare the matter briefly now by way of anticipation: the Messiah is promised to be born. Since He must arise according to His human nature from the house of David, this house will be preserved. The virginal conception and birth are promised, in which, just as a great miracle of God is seen, so a pledge and symbol are given by which it is most clearly established that God can effect things which cannot be done by the forces of nature, and that God can provide security even in the midst of the greatest dangers when human aids are entirely lacking.

But that Messiah is predicted to grow up in an afflicted condition, far from the royal seat and city, in the land of Israel (Is 7:15-16). This clearly suggests that the empire and splendor of the house of David would perish, that the royal house of David would be driven from the royal seat, deprived of rule, and lying hidden in obscurity and, as it were, in miserable exile.

But having set these general points down for the sake of clarity, let us now examine the individual details.

Since Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign—indeed, having received that exhortation and invitation, he hardens his mind even more in his aversion from the Lord (Is 7:14): "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel." (Hebrew: Behold, the virgin is conceiving and bearing a son, and she calls.)

The translation "Therefore" ( $\delta\iota\dot{\alpha}$ $\tau o\tilde{v}\tau o$ ) must certainly be retained, as the LXX rightly render it, and the Syriac, Chaldean, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion also express it as $\delta\iota\dot{\alpha}$ $\tau o\tilde{v}\tau o$ . This notion is immediately and inherently present in the Hebrew $\text{לָכֵן}$ (lachen), which is entirely appropriate in our passage. For God, since He wills to preserve the house of David, gives this house of David the most certain sign. And the more the king and the courtiers of the house of David reject divine aid, the more clearly is the salvation that will be given in the manner God wills expressed. Thus, the joyful and promissory aspects of this sign are aptly connected to the preceding context.

But with an equal connection, those things that carry threats also easily follow, because they expose infidelity and despise the grace offered. God exhibits a sign in which the announcement of punishment is simultaneously concealed, and which leaves the incredulous to their own infidelity. That such should be the effect of the given sign will no longer seem strange after [Is 6:10].

Therefore, most interpreters rightly connect: "Because you refuse, therefore the Lord Himself will give" (cf. S. Cyril, Thomas, Pintus, Osorius, Malvenda, Lapide, Sanctius, Menochius). And there is no need to establish another meaning for $\text{לָכֵן}$ (lachen), such as nevertheless (cf. Jeremiah 5:2; Gesenius), in which sense S. Basil nearly proposes the connection, and Sasbout commemorates and follows him, as does Reinke. For the notion of nevertheless does not suit the context; it is concocted in this place because they thought the sign was propitious for Ahaz and that God wished to exhibit a sign of imminent liberation even to the refusing and unwilling king.

But this opinion does not seem sustainable. For Ahaz plainly manifested his incredulity in v. 12; therefore, the rule from v. 9 begins to hold true for him: "If you will not believe, you shall not remain." The royal house creates trouble for the Lord by its infidelity; therefore, the announcement of ruin that can be reconciled with the promise given to David (2 Sam 7:14) should already be expected for this house from v. 9.

It was said to David: "I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever"; therefore, the Messiah, who will sit upon the throne of David forever, must be born from the descendants of David. Therefore, the house of David cannot be cut off. This promise is given absolutely. But the path by which that promise is to be reached is left to the descendants of David. God indicates this, saying: "If he commits iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy I will not take away from him" (2 Sam 7:14-15).

Now, Ahaz has fulfilled the proposed condition sufficiently and more than sufficiently; therefore, the threats "I will chastise him with the rod of men" are now valid for the house of David, and they are valid all the more because such punishment is clearly and distinctly proposed in Is 7:9: "if they will not believe." Therefore, a commemorative sign for the house of David is to be expected, and this indeed follows, for the Messiah who must be born from the house of David is shown, but one who will grow up in an afflicted condition in the land of Israel (Is 7:15-16), whereby the sign itself most certainly states that the "tabernacle of David will fall." Behold the rod and the stripe for the house of David! But at the same time, you have in v. 14, in the conception and birth of the Messiah, the words: "But my mercy I will not take away."

Ahaz wishes to defend the glory of the house of David by his anti-theocratic covenant, and he wishes to defend it in a way reprobated by God. As a just punishment for his stubbornness, it is told to him that the tabernacle of David will fall.

Since this is the force of the entire oracle for the king, $\text{לָכֵן}$ (lachen) cannot be taken in the sense of nevertheless, but "therefore" must be retained to refer to the preceding context. What comfort is nevertheless present in the sign itself for the pious will be explained later.

But the individual words must be weighed. Therefore, to expound the sign in its individual parts, we must first keep in mind the authentic explanation of this verse that the Holy Spirit Himself proposes to us through St. Matthew 1:23: namely, the virginal conception and birth by which the most blessed Virgin Mary, while retaining the glory of virginity, brought forth the Savior into this world.

But it is sufficient to have indicated this testimony. In order that the truth may be known from all sides more clearly, let us inquire into the way and manner of the interpreters concerning this sign and weigh the words.

🕊️ Interpretation of Emmanuel

Since plainly diverse opinions are advanced concerning this passage by heterodox scholars, the first thing to be established is that which is the hinge and foundation of this whole question, and which, once established, the rest easily follow. This point is contained in Emmanuel: Who is Emmanuel in the mind of the prophet?

In this chapter, who He is is only indicated by the fact that He is referred to as the sign to be given by God Himself, and that in the meaning of the name, "God with us," there is a most favorable omen. Both of these points indicate an event that is not common, but great, worthy of God, and congruent with that most ample option (Is 7:11). For a sign that is clothed with such a prologue plainly contradicts its being contained in an ordinary or daily event.

The name itself is entirely new, and although very many proper names composed with the name of God exist among the Hebrews, this name, otherwise unused, openly declares, in this state of affairs, that God will be with men in a special way through this child. Therefore, we are commanded to expect a great thing, an exceptional work of God, a most favorable event from these initial indications.

What Isaiah began in this chapter, he explains clearly in the following ones.

In Is 8:8, Emmanuel is named again, but in such a way that the land of Judah, which is otherwise called the land of the Lord or the inheritance of God, is called "Your land, O Emmanuel." By this address, not some royal boy, nor a human king, is greeted, but that one alone whose is the land of Judah, whose is the theocracy—Yahweh Himself, or the Messiah.
And this is immediately and excellently confirmed in Is 8:9-10, for in these verses, all the power of all peoples hostile to God is said to be destroyed because of Emmanuel, for "God is with us" (Emmanuel, Hebrew Is 8:10).
Now, it is solemn among the prophets to announce that all the power and pride of the nations will be cast down with the purpose and result of establishing and maintaining the Kingdom of God. If, therefore, the hostile attacks, efforts, and counsels of all peoples are to be reduced to nothing because of Emmanuel, Emmanuel Himself is clearly designated as the one who holds the chief authority in the Kingdom of God. Therefore, the prophet has the Messianic King before his eyes.

Furthermore, who Emmanuel is is taught even more openly and distinctly in Is 9:6 seq. For there, both the words themselves and the connected series of events send us back to Is 7:14 and Is 8:10. I say the words, for "A child is born to us, a son is given to us" clearly and undoubtedly refers back to that promise in Is 7:14, and the names by which that Son given to us is designated clearly explain that one name, Emmanuel, and in a signal way declare what kind of "God with us" He is.

Moreover, if you pay attention to the connection and series of events, you will find that here, too, just as in Is 8:8-10, the attack and arrogance of the enemies and their most vexing and powerful assaults against the people of God are described, but all these are to be cast down by a signal victory and triumph, because of Emmanuel (Is 8:10), because a child is born to us (Is 9:6).

Now, the names by which that Son is called (Is 9:6), and what is said about His everlasting dominion (9:7), are so perspicuous and so far above all doubt that the Rationalists themselves cannot but openly confess that the Messiah is described in Is 9:6.

But the one who is proposed to us in Is 9:6 is the same one exhibited to us both in reality and in words in Chapter 11, which chapter is equally uncontroversial among all regarding its treatment of the Messiah.

Hence, if anyone examines the connection of events even briefly, he must grant us two things: a) That Isaiah, in his customary manner (Is 7:14), laid down the first beginnings, as it were, which are most fertile in themselves and which are more clearly and fully explained and developed through the subsequent oracles. b) That in those three sections contained in Chapters 7, 8, and 9:7-12:6, all things converge toward the Messiah as to a center, so that the Messiah Himself, His work, His glory, and His splendor become more and more known, as if through distinct degrees.

All of which will become clear from the explanation itself. Meanwhile, it is sufficient to have indicated the matter and to have shown the way forward, so that we may discover from the prophet himself who he wished to propose to us by the name Emmanuel. The sacred seer himself plainly compels us to assent to this method, since in Is 8:8, Is 8:10, and Is 9:6, he places the matter from Is 7:14 before our eyes in the clearest possible light. Thus, what may seem begun or obscure and veiled in Is 7:14 is rendered open, undoubted, and perspicuous by the subsequent pronouncement and declaration of the oracles.

Therefore, Emmanuel is the Messiah; He is the mighty God.

With this foundation laid, which cannot be impugned because it rests on the declaration of the prophet himself, we can now safely weigh the remaining words of His sign, as if a torch is guiding us.

👑 The Significance of the Sign's Language

1. The Particle Ecce (Behold!)

It is solemn among Isaiah and other prophets also to introduce a prophecy of a future event that is grave in itself and is to be commended to the minds of the hearers with peculiar weight using the particle $\text{הִנֵּה}$ (hinneh - behold!). (Thus, see Is 3:1, Is 5:26, Is 8:7, Is 10:33, Is 13:9, Is 17:1, Is 19:1, Is 22:17, Is 24:1, Is 26:21, Is 30:27, Is 32:1, Is 33:7, Is 34:5, Is 37:7, Is 39:6, Is 40:10, Is 41:11, Is 44:11, Is 52:13, Is 54:11, Is 65:13, Is 66:12).

The particle is also used for a present event or one that is about to be accomplished, so that by this manner of speaking, the minds of the hearers may be aroused to conceive its gravity. This usage is also in use and requires no explanation.

Which of the two ways this particle is used in this passage is inferred from the words immediately preceding: "the Lord shall give you a sign." The sign itself is declared to be given in future time; therefore, $\text{הִנֵּה}$ is used in the former way, so often found in Isaiah.

Therefore, nothing is declared here about the time when this sign will truly be given, except that it will be in the future time.

Now, the sign that the Lord will give—but whose promise and description is already in itself a sign for the present time—is announced in the words: "Behold, a virgin is pregnant and bearing a son."

Similar words are spoken by the angel to Hagar, who is already pregnant: "Behold, you are pregnant and bearing a son, and you shall call his name Ishmael" (Genesis 16:11). In a similar manner, it is said of Tamar, who is already pregnant: "Behold, she is pregnant" (Genesis 38:24). But also in Judges 13:5, 7, the same words, "Behold, you are pregnant and bearing a son," are spoken concerning the wife of Manoah, who seems already to have conceived from v. 24, although the Vulgate version, ecce concipies (behold, you shall conceive), explains the words as referring to a future event.

What declares the future event in our passage is that word "shall give" and the particle $\text{הִנֵּה}$ (hinneh), which is so frequently used by Isaiah for a future event, as has already been proven above.

But while He announces a future event, the prophet Himself, by internal prophetic vision, sets the event before his mind's eye as though it were present, and he contemplates the mystery He is revealing with the intuition of his mind as if it were happening before him. Hence, he uses a way of speaking so determined and brief: "Behold, the virgin..." $\text{הָעַלְמָה}$ (ha'almah)—that is, with the definite article—the determined virgin, who has been chosen by God to become the Mother of Emmanuel, and who, as such, is "the Virgin" ( $\hat{\eta}$ $\pi\alpha\rho\theta\acute{\epsilon}\nu o\varsigma$ ) par excellence, a singular virgin. The addition of the article suggests to us that she was an exceptional person and the only one. For these were the words of someone seeing and having the image in his mind, and having great evidence of the things being spoken (St. Chrysostom).

2. The Word Almah ( $\text{עַלְמָה}$ )

The three ancient versions—the Septuagint (LXX), the Syriac, and St. Jerome's (Vulgate)—clearly and distinctly render the word as VIRGIN, while the other Greek versions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) translated it as $\hat{\eta}$ $\nu\epsilon\tilde{\alpha}\nu\iota\varsigma$ $\epsilon\nu$ $\gamma\alpha\sigma\tau\rho\grave{\iota}$ $\sigma\upsilon\lambda\lambda\alpha\mu\beta\acute{\alpha}\nu\epsilon\iota$ (the young woman is conceiving in the womb).

It is true that, as St. Jerome already noted, the strictly proper word for designating an intact virgin among the Hebrews is $\text{בְּתוּלָה}$ (bethulah). Yet, there can be no doubt that $\text{עַלְמָה}$ (almah) also designates a virgin, and a young and tender one at that, and can uniquely designate her in this passage. Both points will be demonstrated briefly.

a. Usage of $\text{עַלְמָה}$

All passages where the word is used prove that $\text{עַלְמָה}$ (almah) is spoken of a virgin girl, a girl of unblemished reputation, unmarried, and who is at least held by all to be a virgin.

Thus, in Genesis 24:43, when Abraham's servant wished to bring back none other than an intact virgin as a wife for his son Isaac.
Thus, in Exodus 2:8, concerning Moses' sister, who was an unmarried girl.
Thus, in Psalm 67:12, when in the public choirs instituted for religious purposes to sing sacred songs, certainly only girls of the most complete reputation and life, i.e., virgins, were admitted.
And if Song of Solomon 6:7 reads: "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and the maidens ( $\text{עֲלָמוֹת}$ alamot) are without number," there can be no doubt as to who the maidens are, since they are so carefully distinguished from those who have experienced married life—the queens and concubines.

It is equally certain that in Proverbs 30:19, the girl called $\text{עַלְמָה}$ (almah) is the one who is held as a virgin in the common opinion of men and as one who has not experienced a man. The sense of the proverbs recited in that place is that just as it cannot be detected whether the eagle has passed through the air, the snake over the rock, or the ship through the midst of the sea, because they leave no certain and permanent traces, so it cannot be thoroughly investigated whether she who is considered a virgin is truly free from all furtive intercourse with a man, for an adulterous woman also knows how to hide her crime and escape the eyes of men.

Hence, from the usage of the word, it is established that it signifies an unmarried girl, a virgin, and a young one, while $\text{בְּתוּלָה}$ (bethulah) means every virgin, even one who is superannuated and old. If the usage of the word is established, there will not be much labor in determining its etymology.

b. Etymology of $\text{עַלְמָה}$

The etymology proposed by St. Jerome, from the verb $\text{עָלַם}$ (alam, to hide), has pleased many. Thus, almah is called not only a girl and a virgin, but emphatically a hidden and secret virgin who has never been exposed to the gaze of men but has been diligently guarded by her parents. The Punic language, which is said to flow from the Hebrew sources, also properly calls a virgin alma.

For this derivation, Aquila is also cited as a witness, who in Genesis 24 (concerning Rebekah) translated almah not as adolescentula (young woman) or puella (girl) but as abscondita (hidden). And most of the ancients have assented to this view (cf. Vatablus, Forerius, Pintus, Sanctius, Maldonatus, Sa, Estius, Marianus, Malvenda on Proverbs 30:19; Lapide, Gordon, Clarius), to whom add Vitringa in his commentary on this passage, Mercerus, Buxtorf, and others cited by Fillion (Essais d’Exégèse, p. 69). Schultens similarly explains it as "sealed virgin," i.e., intact; Hartmann (Hebraeerin am Putztische III, p. 344) as "veiled virgin." Huetius treats the matter quite fully (Demonstr. evang. prop. 9 cap. 9, Paris, 1679, p. 381 seq.). Among the more recent scholars, Pusey (Prophecy of Jesus, pp. 48-51), Drach, and Barnes (cited and followed by Fillion), and Corluy (p. 401), and Bade subscribe to the same etymology.

However, this etymology seems less certain. For $\text{עֶלֶם}$ (elem) is certainly the masculine noun corresponding to $\text{עַלְמָה}$ , meaning boy/adolescent, which word is used in 1 Samuel 17:56 concerning the young David going out against the Philistine, and in 1 Samuel 20:22 concerning Jonathan's servant, who is called sometimes $\text{עֶלֶם}$ (elem) and sometimes $\text{נַעַר}$ (na'ar) in 1 Sam 20:21, and in 1 Sam 20:35 is called a $\text{נַעַר}$ $\text{קָטֹן}$ (na'ar qaton, small boy). The same word is found in cognate dialects.

Among the Arabs, it has the meaning of a boy/adolescent who is designated by that name from infancy up to youthful age (cf. Reinke, Weissagung v. d. Jungfrau, p. 115, who brings forth examples from Arab lexicographers and the Quran). The same meaning is present in the Chaldean word, which is evident from the fact that the same word is read in the Chaldean paraphrase in v. 15 concerning an adolescent boy. Moreover, in Exodus 2:6, the word is used in the Chaldean paraphrase concerning the infant Moses who was found weeping in his little basket by Pharaoh's daughter (cf. Levy, Chald. Woerterb. II, p. 220). Among the Syriacs, this word is also in use with the meaning of young man/adolescent.

But it seems very incredible that a boy, adolescent, or young man should be called from the notion of hiding. It is easily understood that girls, having been diligently guarded, remained hidden in the inner house and were often secluded, and hence could be called "hidden ones" (for this, see, e.g., 2 Maccabees 3:19: "...and the virgins who were shut up ( $\alpha\acute{\iota}$ $\delta\dot{\epsilon}$ $\kappa\alpha\tau\acute{\alpha}\kappa\lambda\epsilon\iota\sigma\tau o\iota$ $\tau\tilde{\omega}\nu$ $\pi\alpha\rho\theta\acute{\epsilon}\nu\omega\nu$ ) ran forth to Onias" and 3 Maccabees 1:18). But who would judge that a boy and an adolescent are called from this notion? For this ratio of the name would be the same as the famous note: lucus a non lucendo (a grove is called lucus [light] because it does not shed light).

Nor do I know whether Forerius successfully solves this knot: "For the Hebrews, elem is an adolescent or young man as long as he is private and leads a private life, and does not exist in a public or political office and administration, corresponding to the derivation from the verb which signifies to be hidden; for only bachelors, etc., come under this name, because they are hidden and unknown."

Furthermore, note that the form of the word itself opposes that interpretation. The form is active ( $\text{עַלְמָה}$ ), whereas "to be hidden" or "to be veiled" is expressed only by a passive word; therefore, a passive participle in Qal or Niphal would rightly be required.

But even if we deem that derivation less probable, we believe that we should by no means concede to those who seek the etymology of the word from Arabic and explain it as a pubescent, marriageable girl who feels lust—whose leader, after some rabbis, is Gesenius in his commentary on this passage of Isaiah and in his Thesaurus (p. 1037), and similarly Fürst, Knobel, and others.

However, the fact that this sense is not the principal and primary one, even in Arabic, is already established because that word in Arabic also designates a boy from infancy up to youth (cf. Reinke, loc. cit.). And as we demonstrated above with the examples cited, even among the Hebrews, a small boy is called $\text{עֶלֶם}$ , and in Chaldean, a newborn infant is expressed by the same term. Hence, that notion is not, nor can it be, primary or principal, always inherent in the word, but merely secondary, derived, and only sometimes found in Arabic.

But whatever may be the etymology of the word, the meaning must be sought from the usage, for usage is the supreme law, and only that meaning by which the word is used is valid. Now, examples where usage either completely neglects the etymology or even totally sets it aside and almost rejects it are everywhere in every language. Indeed, it can happen that in the course of time, a word may be determined to a sense entirely contrary to the primary one.

Therefore, as Rosenmüller says, little credence should be given to arguments drawn from etymology, as they are very uncertain. But the usage of speech suffices for us, which employs $\text{עַלְמָה}$ for an unmarried girl, whether she is a virgin or is considered one, and never uses it for a girl who is a wife.

And that Isaiah, when he spoke these words, understood a VIRGIN who would give birth is demonstrated by his words themselves.

Now, usage must again be determined first and per se from the very dialect in question; consequently, for the Hebrew language, from the usage seen in the writings of the ancient Hebrews, i.e., in the Holy Scriptures. For this usage, it does not matter what happened to the ancient word after many centuries, either among the Rabbis or among the Arabs, or to what notion the word finally degenerated.

But the usage from the Holy Scriptures is undoubted. Nor should it be underestimated that the Greek interpreters (LXX) selected a word ( $\pi\alpha\rho\theta\acute{\epsilon}\nu o\varsigma$ - virgin) in this passage of Isaiah that designates a virgin and her alone. In this version, "Behold, the Virgin" ( $\text{ἰ\delta o\dot{\upsilon}}$ $\hat{\eta}$ $\pi\alpha\rho\theta\acute{\epsilon}\nu o\varsigma$ ), you can easily detect the trace of a certain tradition.

The Defense of the Word Almah ( $\text{עַלְמָה}$ )

Catholic interpreters rightly defend this explanation of the word as VIRGIN (it would be endless to list them all), and many heterodox scholars, distinguished by their knowledge of the Hebrew language, also strongly advocate and defend this version. It is not unwelcome to present some testimonies on a matter of such importance:

Munsterus asserts that this prophecy was predicted about Christ and His Virgin Mother, which is proved not only by the authority of the Evangelists but also is deduced from the text itself, since the virgin's birth is considered a miracle, no father is mentioned, and the child's name is commanded to be called by the mother (cf. Criticorum sacr. vol. 4 on this passage).
Forsterus: $\text{עַלְמָה}$ (almah) means a young woman, specifically an unmarried one, who is not yet betrothed to a man before she celebrates the wedding and enters the public state of marriage. All passages in the Old Testament where it is read testify that it is spoken of a young woman who is a virgin (as cited by Malvenda on Proverbs 30:19).
Similarly, Junius, Calovius, Piscator, and others propose the same notion, either from the etymology of the word or from its usage (see Synopsis Criticorum ed. by Matthew Poole, Utrecht, 1685, vol. 3, p. 77).
Rosenmüller in his Scholia (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1810, p. 298) expresses the same opinion, among others, thus: "That is the most weighty argument: that $\text{עַלְמָה}$ cannot possibly be understood of a married woman from the usage of speech, but denotes a virgin, is proved by the constant use in the Old Testament, where it is never spoken of a married woman but everywhere of an unmarried woman."
I have already cited others above when discussing the etymology of the word derived from hiding, e.g., Vitringa, to whom add Ed Leigh, Gataker, and others listed by Reinke (p. 114, 123 seq.).
In the scholia of Frid. Schulz continued by G.L. Bauer, one reads: $\text{עַלְמָה}$ is an intact, but mature, virgin; she is distinguished from wives and concubines (Song of Solomon 6:8; Genesis 24:23 compared with 16).
Doederlein translates our passage: "A virgin having become pregnant shall bear a son" (Esaias 3rd ed., p. 31).
In the same way, Hengstenberg (Christologie 2nd ed., II, p. 53 seq.) writes, among other things, that it is certain that the word designates an unmarried girl in the flower of youth, and that she is described here as of utmost chastity is deduced per se from the context; for if the Mother of the Messiah must be unmarried, it is absolutely necessary that she be an intact virgin.
Drechsler conceives the matter thus: $\text{בְּתוּלָה}$ (bethulah) means a virgin as an intact virgin, while $\text{עַלְמָה}$ (almah) means a virgin as a marriageable virgin (cf. der Proph. Jesaja, pp. 287, 304).
Similarly, Steudel, J. D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Paulus, Stachelin, Ewald, Riggenbach, Maurer, Umbreit, Hofmann, Tholuck (cf. Studien und Krit. 1835, p. 1000; 1845, p. 438; 1855, pp. 574, 607), Hengstenberg (p. 75), Drechsler (p. 306 seq.), and Naegelsbach (who at least concedes that the word cannot designate a married woman but means an unmarried girl full of vigor), Kueper (das Prophetenthum d. A.B. p. 216), Schultz (Studien und Krit. 1861, 718), Orelli (die alttestam. Weissagung v. d. Vollendung des Gottesreiches 1882, p. 290 seq.), and Delitzsch (who says she is the virgin the spirit of prophecy represented to the prophet's mind, and who, although he cannot express her by name, stands before his mind's eye as one chosen for a supreme and exceptional purpose - Commentar über d. Proph. Jes. 3rd ed., p. 117) translate it as virgin, though they diverge into various parts in the explanation of the passage.
Even Cheyne concedes that a married woman is nowhere called $\text{עַלְמָה}$ .
Bredenkamp, although he translates it not as virgin but as girl, says that from the context and the prophet's intention, it must be concluded that the birth itself would not be $\kappa\alpha\tau\dot{\alpha}$ $\phi\acute{\upsilon}\sigma\iota\nu$ (according to nature) but $\pi\alpha\rho\dot{\alpha}$ $\phi\acute{\upsilon}\sigma\iota\nu$ (contrary to nature). For the miracle consists not only in the child but in all that is said about Him, and certainly, it is not accidental that there is never a mention of the Messiah's father (der Prophet Jesaja, p. 59).

🌟 The Nature of the Sign

Therefore, from the usage, it is established that the word, as such, carries the notion of an unmarried girl, a virgin. Now, the prophet's words: "Behold, a virgin is pregnant and bearing a son" must be understood as they sound: namely, that the virgin, as a virgin and remaining such, is both pregnant and gives birth.

For thus, the words are explained in their obvious sense. The prophet speaks as if pointing with his finger: "Behold, see the sign for yourselves, see the virgin pregnant and giving birth." The participles used in Hebrew are entirely apt and effective for this sense. Add to this that the same words are used in Genesis 16:11, 38:24, and most probably also Judges 13:5, 7 concerning those who are already pregnant; hence, you may rightly explain here: "I see with my prophetic mind a virgin who is in the state of pregnancy, etc."

That the words must be taken in what is called a "composite sense" is moreover entirely evident from the announced sign itself. For, as the Holy Fathers and interpreters advise, after the solemn promise, "the Lord Himself shall give a sign," since Ahaz was offered any sign to be performed, either in heaven or on earth or in the netherworld, a daily event cannot follow.

Let us hear St. Chrysostom: "If she were not a virgin, it was not a sign." For a sign must exceed the ordinary course of things and surpass the custom of nature, and likewise be new and unexpected, so that it is remarkable ( $\text{ἐ\pi\acute{\iota}\sigma\eta\mu o\nu}$ , signal) to everyone who sees and hears it. It is called a sign ( $\text{ση\mu\epsilon\tilde{\iota}o\nu}$ ) precisely because it is remarkable ( $\text{ἐ\pi\acute{\iota}\sigma\eta\mu o\nu}$ ). But it would not be remarkable if it lay hidden in the commonality of other things. Therefore, if the discourse were about a woman giving birth according to the law of nature, why would it be called a sign, which happens daily?

That virginal conception and birth, as it is in itself a true miracle and therefore a sign worthy of God and a great promise, is also a sign most suited to the pious for the condition of the house of David and its liberation. For in the virginal conception and birth, the divine power is manifested, because God can reconcile things that, by the order and institution of nature, plainly exclude each other.

While the king and the people tremble and everything seems already desperate, this sign manifestly places before the eyes of the faithful: "No word is impossible with God." From this sign, they can learn that their liberation and salvation are so firmly established with God that He is prepared to perform some of the greatest miracles beyond nature and against its order if necessary to uphold it. And as a pledge of such a will, He sets before them virginity unharmed and preserved where, by the order of nature, it cannot but be harmed and lost.

Therefore, even if no escape, remedy, or support remains for them from human means, if the state and city are driven toward ruin and destruction with as great a necessity as the necessary harm and loss of virginity in conception and birth, God can still preserve them unharmed in the midst of the flames. He can and wills to preserve the state and the throne of David from destruction.

The Comfort and Purpose of Emmanuel

The sign and its salvific meaning, which is present for the pious, is magnified, as it were, immeasurably because it concerns the conception and birth of the Messiah. The Messiah Himself can be regarded by the pious as a pledge of liberation. Just as fixed and unshaken it is with God, after so many prophecies and promises, to send the Messiah, so it is simultaneously fixed and certain that God wills to avert the imminent danger.

In order that God may truly promise to grant the lesser benefit which He promised (Is 7:7), He sets forth the greatest benefit that can be conceived as a pledge in the midst, as it were. St. Thomas rightly advises: "The Incarnation of Christ signifies liberation by an a fortiori argument: if God will give His Son for the salvation of the whole world, He can much more save you from these enemies" (cf. Romans 8:32). Or, as a motive cause: "For this, as it were, moved the Lord, that many good things should be granted to that people, although they were unjust, because He had provided His Son to be incarnated from them."

The sign, therefore, is such that it raises and comforts the faithful with the greatest solace and is well understood by believers. But because it presupposes and demands faith and is hidden from the senses, and does not strike the senses with its external splendor and draw even unwilling minds to the acknowledgment of a God present and operating, it leaves the unfaithful in their infidelity and alienation from God (cf. Is 6:9-10).

That a virgin is understood in this passage in the very act of conception and birth is finally concluded from the fact that it concerns the nativity of the Messiah. Now, it cannot escape anyone that in the Sacred Scriptures, no other father is attributed to Him than Yahweh, who alone says to Him: "You are my Son; this day have I begotten you." But mention is made more often of His Mother; the Messiah Himself speaks of His Mother (Psalm 22:10-11). Micah, commemorating His earthly origin, mentions only His Mother (Mic 5:3). Jeremiah also refers His origin to the woman alone (Jer 31:22). If you consider these things, and at the same time consider how explicitly the Sacred Scriptures usually speak of both principles of generation (father and mother) commonly, it will become certain to you that the Mother of the Messiah, if she is called $\text{עַלְמָה}$ , cannot be other than a Virgin.

To this, I immediately add that the prophet himself wished to instruct us clearly on this matter by showing us in Is 8:3 how he speaks of common and ordinary conception: "And I went in to the prophetess, and she conceived..." Carefully compare both ways of speaking, and you cannot help but detect a great difference. Therefore, we rightly infer that the prophet indicated something different to us through these very words.

That all these things are truly consonant is confirmed by the authentic interpretation given by St. Matthew, who more frequently and deliberately emphasizes the virginal conception and asserts that it was predicted and declared in our passage (cf. Matthew 1:18, 20, 22, 23, 25; Luke 1:27, 31, 35).

The ancients also do not fail to note how the Incarnate Son of God is a sign embracing both heaven and earth and the deep, and manifesting His majesty everywhere (cf. Eusebius, St. Cyril, Theodoret).

But perhaps someone might ask at this point how a sign that is only to be exhibited in future time can already be an argument and proof for the present state of affairs.

In this matter, it must be considered first and foremost (cf. Patricius, p. 147) that the very prediction of a future event, made by a prophet who is already recognized as such and legitimately approved by God, carries the greatest weight. It is equivalent to this statement: "As certain and fixed as it is with God to send the Messiah originating from the house of David, so it is simultaneously certain and fixed that the house of David will be rescued from the present danger."

If this is said by a legitimate prophet, whose words ought to be obeyed is easily inferred from the fundamental law concerning the prophetic office: "I will put My words in his mouth; him you shall hear. But the man who will not hearken to My words, which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him" (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19).

And that God is prepared to bring aid and is already giving a pledge and earnest of this His will is most clearly apparent from the very fact that in such a state of affairs, He sends a prophet, reveals future things to him, and commands them to be proposed for the instruction and consolation of others.

Therefore, there is an exceptional intervention of God, and this intervention is made to manifest and confirm a certain divine plan. What more, then, would you require for the nature of a true sign to be had, even for the present time?

Indeed, such a sign is one that requires faith to be grasped in its power and meaning. But that faith is required in a theocratic matter springs from the very nature of the theocracy. Furthermore, that God reveals His counsels through prophets and also governs the administration of the state is a customary thing in the Old Testament theocracy, founded in the Law of Deuteronomy and proved by many examples.

Add to this that God, in order to give weight and confirmation to His words and promises, has often already given signs to be fulfilled in future time (cf. Exodus 3:12; 1 Samuel 2:34, 10:1 seq.; 2 Kings 19:29).

Nor can it be said in any way that such signs, since they promise for the future, are lacking in effect for the present, or at least cannot be considered so effective. For to start from a simile: A sick person, for example, conceives great hope and confidence if he hears a doctor assert: "I am so convinced that you will be completely restored to health that I intend to undertake a journey with you in three weeks." Would the sick person not understand how certain the doctor's hope is from such an assertion, and take solace from that firm hope?

Therefore, a fortiori, what kind of solace, what kind of pledge of an event most certainly to occur, ought it to be if, for example, not a man, perhaps based on a fallible conjecture or human opinion, but God Himself, the Almighty, says to Moses: "This shall be a sign to you, that I have sent you: When you shall have brought forth My people out of Egypt, you shall sacrifice to God upon this mountain" (Exodus 3:12). Apply the same to other cases.

And indeed, the revelation of future events is also in itself most apt to comfort the mind with solace and to make it most certain of God's present aid. For when God reveals future things to man or predicts them through a prophet, God shows Himself in a most excellent way as the Lord and Governor of all things, to whose power all things are subject, and to whose knowledge all things are open. From such a divine manifestation, faith is strengthened, hope and confidence are fortified.

For what more excellent thing can be imagined than if God, in order to create faith in a present matter, as it were, calls His Omnipotence and Omniscience to His aid and makes you a participant in His knowledge of future things? For to predict future events, especially those that will finally be brought about by the concurrence and cooperation of many causes, even freely acting ones, belongs to that One alone on whom all things depend, so that such a prophecy is so marked with a divine seal that it immediately shines forth that it can proceed from no one else but God.

Such a prophecy is, therefore, at the same time a miracle or a very excellent sign, and therefore in itself most suitable for giving a present confirmation of some divine utterance. For by the very act by which future things are unfolded, the fixed and determined will of God is simultaneously asserted, by which He wills to bring things entirely to their end. And what more firm, certain, or eminent thing can be desired than the manifestation of such a will of God, so that one may raise his mind to the highest certainty of faith and hope?

Hence, it cannot be concluded from the fact that a sign is given to King Ahaz which will only be fulfilled in future time, that it is given precisely as a punishment to Ahaz who refused to ask for a present sign. Rather, it must be said that his punishment consists in this: that a sign most clearly manifest in itself is exhibited in such a way that it entirely leaves him who does not or will not believe in his infidelity and alienation from God (for the notion of the sign for Ahaz, see on verses 15-16).

The Name Emmanuel

The Hebrew should be translated: "and she calls His name Emmanuel." That is, as St. Jerome explains the Hebrew, it can be understood: "and she shall call," meaning the Virgin herself who will conceive and bear Him will call Christ by this name.

A name is also sometimes imposed by the mother (cf. Genesis 4:1, 25; Gen 19:37-38; Gen 29:32, 34, 35; Gen 30:18, 20, 21, 24; Gen 35:18, etc.). In this passage, it refers even more to the mother alone because the father, to whom the imposition of the name properly belongs, is not present.

To call someone's name so-and-so does not mean that the person is actually to be called and addressed by that name among men. Rather, as St. Chrysostom already advises, the name only indicates what was fitting for him from the reality of things. The name expresses what must happen or be demonstrated in the named reality or person, or what is to be effected through him (cf. Jeremiah 11:16, Jer 20:3, Jer 23:6, Jer 33:16, Jer 46:17).

Therefore, this name most immediately declares that this Son is a pledge that God is with us, that He will bring aid and help in times of distress.

From the name Emmanuel alone, even though this name is not found elsewhere, it cannot yet be inferred that this boy is truly God with us. For, as is well known, there are very many names among the Hebrews composed with the name of God or Yahweh which are explained by an etymological ratio: El is benevolent, El is salvation, Yahweh is the gracious giver, wise, protector, warrior, powerful, just, exalted, judge, etc., etc. Now, it is clear per se that if such names are imposed on men, we cannot yet conclude the divine nature of that boy from the mere imposition or appellation of the name God with us.

But since the majesty and divinity of that boy are plainly declared in the subsequent chapters (Is 8:8, Is 9:6-7, Is 11:1 seq.), we are simultaneously taught that we rightly and deservedly explain this name in this passage not only as symbolic and promissory but as real and proper.

Therefore, this boy will be called so not only because He brings God's aid to us and promises it in Himself as a pledge, but because He Himself is God with us. Hence, the Mystery of the Incarnation having been revealed, it is manifest that the divine and human nature of the Messiah, united with each other, is most aptly declared by that name.

Thus, Theodoret signifies that "the name means God made man," God who assumed human nature, God united to this nature, the form of God and the form of a servant seen in one Son. And St. Chrysostom: "For then especially God was made with us when He was seen on earth and conversed with men and exhibited much providence towards us." And most interpreters explain the name fully in this way (cf. Pintus, Sasbout, Lapide, Osorius, Sanctius).

The Name: Vocabis (You Shall Call) vs. Vocabunt (They Shall Call)

St. Jerome, in his version, translated it as "you shall call" (vocabis), along with the LXX and others. He writes: et vocabis. The LXX and the three remaining Greek versions similarly translated it, for which in Matthew it is written "they shall call" (vocabunt), which is not found in the Hebrew.

The holy doctor (St. Jerome) states that this child, who will be born of a Virgin—"O house of David, is now called Emmanuel (i.e., God with us) by you, because, being delivered from the two enemy kings, you will prove by the events themselves that you have God present; and He who will later be called Jesus (i.e., Savior) is now addressed by you with the name of Emmanuel."

But the holy doctor simultaneously notes that the Hebrew word $\text{קְרָאת}$ (qara't) can also be understood as "she shall call" (vocabit), meaning the Virgin herself, who will conceive and bear Him, is to call Christ by this name.

This interpretation (she shall call) must be retained, as it is simpler, since that sudden apostrophe "you shall call" (vocabis) to the Virgin cannot be assumed. Be careful, also, not to refer it to the house of David, for the prophet has just addressed and rebuked them in the plural number; therefore, he certainly does not want to bestow upon them the honor of imposing the name, which belongs to the father or the mother. Furthermore, the Hebrew punctuation does not admit referring it to the house of David, as it refers either to the second person feminine singular or the third person feminine singular.

(For the form expressed in the third person feminine, see Leviticus 25:21; Deuteronomy 31:29, Dt 32:36; Jeremiah 44:23; Psalm 118:23; cf. Ewald, Lehrb. § 194 b.)

Eusebius and Procopius refer kaléseis (you shall call) to the house of David, seeing in it an exhortation for them to frequently invoke Emmanuel, by whose help they may obtain salvation. Some, however, not considering this at all, wrote kalésousi (they shall call) in the Gospel according to Matthew, but the prophetic reading does not have it so. "The Hebrew reading agrees with our version, and all the interpreters published vocabis" (Eusebius).

Malvenda considers that both the second and third person feminine can be understood from the Hebrew text, but that the latter is more appropriate. Others, like Arias Montanus and Pagninus (and Marianus), translate the second person feminine (you shall call); others, like Forerius and Vatablus, leave the matter in the middle. The more recent scholars refer the form of the verb to the Virgin in the third person, except for Bade, who alone expresses the speech in the second person.

The Testimony of Christian Antiquity

Since this passage is so significant, it is useful to bring forth some testimonies to establish what Christian antiquity thought of it.

St. Justin Martyr, in his First Apology for the Christians, says: "Now, as Isaiah specifically predicted that He would be born of a virgin, hear: Thus he spoke: 'Behold, the virgin ( $\hat{\eta}$ $\pi\alpha\rho\theta\acute{\epsilon}\nu o\varsigma$ ) shall conceive in the womb ( $\epsilon\nu$ $\gamma\alpha\sigma\tau\rho\grave{\iota}$ $\acute{\epsilon}\xi\epsilon\iota$ ) and bear a son, and they shall call His name God with us ( $\Mu\epsilon\theta ̓$ $\hat{\eta}\mu\tilde{\omega}\nu$ $\delta$ $\Theta\epsilon\acute{o}\varsigma$ ).' For those things which were incredible and seemed impossible to men, God foretold by the prophetic spirit, so that when they came to pass, faith should not be denied them, but they should be believed because they were predicted. Therefore, that 'Behold, the virgin' signifies that she shall conceive without conjugal relations" (Apol. I 33).
The same Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, repeatedly cites and explains this prophecy, urging, for example, that the prophecy requires a virginal conception and birth on the grounds of it being a sign: "For if He was to arise from cohabitation, just like all other firstborn, why did God Himself say that He would give a sign that was by no means common to all firstborn? But that which was truly a sign, and which was certainly to happen to the human race—namely, that the Firstborn of all created things, having been made flesh from a virgin womb, should truly be born as a child—He announced beforehand through the Holy Spirit..."
St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.21.4): "...The same Spirit of God, who indeed proclaimed in the prophets who and of what sort the advent of the Lord would be, and who interpreted well in the elders the things that had been well prophesied, He also announced in the apostles that the fullness of the times of adoption had come and that the kingdom of heaven was near, and that Emmanuel, who was born of a Virgin, dwells among men believing in Him." And after reciting the passage, he continues: "Therefore, the Holy Spirit diligently signified through the things that were said His generation which is from a Virgin, and His substance, since He is God—for this name, Emmanuel, signifies this—and manifests that He is man in that He says 'He shall eat butter and honey' and in that He names Him 'infant.'"
Tertullian (Against the Jews, ch. 9) fully treats our passage and, against the Jews who objected that Jesus did not bear the name Emmanuel, replies that He came who is signified by this name, namely, God with us. Then, to those who argue that nature does not permit a virgin to give birth, he answers: "And yet it must be believed in the prophet, for he forewarned faith in the incredible thing by saying that it would be a sign; but a sign from God would not seem a sign unless it were some monstrous novelty... A daily event, namely the pregnancy and birth of a young woman, can seem nothing of a sign. Therefore, a virgin mother is rightly believed to have been set before us as a sign."
Lactantius (Divine Institutes 4.12) states that the virgin was impregnated, a thing which might well have seemed incredible unless the prophets had sung of this future event many centuries before. After reciting the passage from Isaiah, he continues: "What can be said more clearly than this? The Jews who denied Him read these things. If anyone thinks we are making this up, let him inquire of them, let him take it especially from them. It is a sufficiently firm testimony for proving the truth that is presented by the enemies themselves. Now, He was never called Emmanuel, but Jesus, which in Latin is said to be salutaris or salvator [Savior], because He came to bring salvation to all nations. But the prophet declared by this name that God would come to men in the flesh. For Emmanuel signifies God with us—that is, because, He having been born through a Virgin, men ought to confess that God was with them, that is, on earth and in mortal flesh."
St. Ephraem declares the prophecy thus: "A virgin pregnant and giving birth, that is, contrary to her name and nature. For if a virgin, how is she pregnant? And if pregnant, how is she a virgin? How can this be heard and believed? 'The Lord Himself shall certainly give you a sign,' and therefore, because the Lord gives it, do not ask how it can be done. For nothing is difficult for the Lord to accomplish."

These testimonies suffice. Many other testimonies of the Holy Fathers (Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Theologian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Jerome, Leo I, Gregory I, etc.) have been diligently collected and expounded by Reinke and others.

Diverse Interpretations of the Prophecy

In order that the truth may shine forth more and recommend itself by its own unity, simplicity, and ease, it will not be out of place to set forth in a brief overview what various monstrosities of interpretation widespread error, wandering through rough and misguided paths, has poured forth.

1. The Hezekiah Interpretation (Jewish)

The ancient Jews understood the girl to be King Ahaz's wife and Emmanuel to be Ahaz's son, Hezekiah, a view which the Holy Fathers already cite and refute (cf. Justin c. Tryph., St. Jerome). St. Jerome: "The Hebrews judge that this is prophesied concerning Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, which absolutely cannot be proved. For Ahaz, the son of Jotham, reigned over Judah and Jerusalem for sixteen years, and his son Hezekiah succeeded him in the kingdom at the age of twenty-five. Therefore," the holy doctor concludes, "in the first year of Ahaz's reign, Hezekiah was already nine years old." And so, that opinion falls by its own absurdity.

Later Jews, such as Kimchi and Abarbanel, therefore supposed another, younger wife of Ahaz and another son of his, otherwise unknown. But just as it is asserted without proof, so it is denied; and how ridiculous it is to address an infant crying in the cradle as the Lord and Possessor of the land of Judah as is done in Is 8:8!

2. The Son of Isaiah Interpretation (Historical/Rationalist)

Another ancient error is already mentioned by St. Jerome: "Some of our own contend that the Prophet Isaiah had two sons, Jasub and Emmanuel, and that Emmanuel was generated from his wife, the prophetess, as a type of the Lord Savior." They propose this view by considering $\text{הָעַלְמָה}$ (ha'almah) to be either the mother of the son Shear-jashub, therefore, one who had long been Isaiah's wife, or another young wife only espoused to him, and still a virgin at the time, or they leave the matter ambiguous.

Thus, the Jewish doctors Aben Ezra and Jarchi, and also Faustus Socinus, Crell, Grotius, I. L. von Wolzogen, J. E. Faber, Pflüschke, Hezel, Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Knobel, Maurer, Olshausen, Diestel, and a few Catholics later on, who, like the one mentioned by St. Jerome, recognize a type of Christ in Isaiah's son.

But this opinion is also openly excluded, as Sanctius already notes, by 8:8, among other things. For in what manner would Isaiah greet his tender little son as the Dominator and Possessor of the land of Judah, or prophesy that all peoples must be vanquished for his sake (Is 8:10)?

3. The Arbitrary Girl Interpretation (Rationalist)

The explanation of those who wish to designate some virgin whom the prophet perhaps saw in the king's retinue or who happened to be standing nearby, and whom the prophet indicated either as already pregnant or soon to be pregnant, suffers from the same absurdity (thus Castalio, Isenbiehl—a Catholic who later retracted his error—Bauer, Cube, Steudel, Umbreit—who later changed his mind and embraced the Messianic explanation, specifically because of Isaiah 8:8 and Micah 5:2).

4. The Short-Term Prediction Interpretation (Critical)

Others considered it safer to assert that no specific girl was designated whom Isaiah perhaps saw, but that the prophet intended to say nothing else than that the time of liberation was so near that if a girl conceived now, by the time of the birth, she could rightly call her son Emmanuel because of God's present help (thus Lowth, Koppe, Gratz, J. D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Paulus, Staehelin, Hensler, Ammon). Against them, Naegelsbach notes that the explanation is entirely arbitrary, for the prophet speaks not by an implied condition but by a definite proposed affirmation. Moreover, many other things oppose this view upon inspection of the oracle.

5. The Allegorical/Typical Interpretation

Others understand the virgin to be the house of David or Israel, from which, as from the bride of the Lord, a new people endowed with salvation must arise, similarly to how Isaiah 54:4-7 speaks to Jerusalem or the people of God (thus Hofmann). In another way, W. Schultz holds that the pious in Israel in Ahaz's time are typically called the virgin, and the holy seed remains in them, from which salvation is effected, just as the Messiah truly proceeded from the Virgin at the time of fulfillment. But this explanation, to omit others, immediately falls because of Is 8:8, 10 and Is 9:6.

Even among Catholics, some have referred this prophecy not in a literal sense but only in a typical sense to the Blessed Virgin and the Messiah, similarly to that person among us mentioned by St. Jerome (thus Rich. Simon, Bern. Lamy, Huetius, Moldenhawer, and apparently Tirinus also).

Bossuet adopted a similar interpretation, stating that two things are considered: the present history and the remote history. The present thing which the prophet saw with his eyes was the birth of Isaiah's or the king's son, exhibited as a pledge of Judah's liberation. The remote thing which he looked toward was the nativity of Christ. The former was a pledge and argument of the latter.

The Contextual Necessity of the Messianic Interpretation

We are taught how the words ought to be understood primarily by what follows concerning Emmanuel. Therefore, if you ask whether Ahaz could have understood the prophecy, I would reply that he has already sufficiently shown a mind entirely estranged from divine things. But if he had wished to understand, he could have inquired of the prophet, or perhaps the prophet immediately added more details from which it would be clear who Emmanuel is, which he might have deemed unnecessary to include in his book because they immediately follow in Chapters 8, 9, 11.

Therefore, the hinge of the entire prophecy turns primarily on Emmanuel; in Him, above all, is provided, so to speak, the key to opening the true sense of the oracle.

Isaiah introduces the mention of Emmanuel in this passage, but obscurely suggests rather than indicates who He is here. That a sublime matter is being treated is clear from the solemnity of the words, from that ampleness and magnificence with which he offers the king a choice, and from the fact that the Lord Himself has now decided to give a sign. No less do the words themselves in Is 7:14 suggest a great thing. But what he briefly suggests here, he explains and declares more and more later on, returning to Emmanuel again and again through certain degrees. Thus, Is 7:14 is a kind of most fertile germ that the prophet inserts into the speech in this passage, but which gradually grows in the course of the oracles and is, as it were, explained into a most magnificent tree.

This is not foreign to the custom of Isaiah. It has often been observed, and is even more frequently noted in the second part of Isaiah (Ch. 40-66), that Isaiah explains more widely and fully what he had touched upon briefly before. And the grander the argument, the more he is accustomed to prepare it with some kind of prefiguration (compare, e.g., Is 6:13 with Is 1:30-31, Is 4:2, Is 11:1; Is 3:12 and Is 3:13-15 with Is16-26; Is 5:5 and Is 5:13 seq., etc.).

Therefore, I judge that the explanation adopted by Schegg must also be rejected. He establishes the sense of the oracle as twofold: one particular, adapted to the hearers and the condition of things then existing; the other higher and more sublime, prophetic. The former is that the condition of the times will be so changed for the better within a year (until the virgin who now conceives has given birth) that she will rightly call her son Emmanuel as a grateful memory of divine aid. The latter is that which is proposed in Matthew concerning the conception and nativity of the Messiah.

If this were the case, you would rightly call the former sense the human sense intended and proposed by the prophet, and the latter the divine sense intended and regarded by the Holy Spirit beyond the former. Hence, Isaiah would be considered to have said nothing more for the present matter than that the sign of liberation would be that they would be liberated within a year. Is such an expression suitable? Does it possess the nature of a sign? Nor, from this opinion, did Isaiah in any way emerge as the prophet of the Incarnation. For the Holy Spirit, while he was thinking and meaning something entirely different, so arranged the words that they would be apt for the mystery. Consequently, Isaiah would be said to have poured forth the oracle of the Incarnation in nearly the same way that Caiaphas is said to have prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation (cf. John 11:49-52). But who would tolerate this? Who would tolerate it if he considered what kind of Emmanuel the prophet later describes? Are we, then, to set the prophet at odds with himself? Surely, he knew who Emmanuel was when he wrote Is8:8, 10, Is 9:6-7, Is 11:1 seq., and we are to pretend that he did not know when he pronounced Is 7:14? Or why should we foist a double Emmanuel upon him? No one would dare to do this in a similar case with a profane writer. If, for example, a man named Hector is introduced into some fable or narrative, and then the manners, virtues, and deeds of Hector are narrated and described, who would ever understand them to refer to some other Hector, plainly different from the one first called, unless the author of the fable explicitly warned it? Indeed, I cannot marvel enough if some impute to a sacred author what they would never commit in a profane writer.

Moreover, it has already been sufficiently demonstrated in the preceding discussion that Schegg is mistaken in believing that the nativity of the Messiah, which was to happen after more than seven hundred years, could not have been a sign, and how it is a sign for Ahaz will be immediately declared. But furthermore, he asks what, after all, in our verse suggests or demands the Messianic explanation? A strange question! For the individual words, especially Emmanuel, demand it; the authentic interpretation in St. Matthew demands it; the perpetual and constant consensus of the Church demands it.

🍯 The Humiliation of the House of David

That the discourse in Is 7:14 concerns the Messiah originating from the house of David is clear from what has been said. But things are now said about Him which show that the Davidic house, although it is now saved from the imminent danger (as was promised in Is 7:7-8), will nevertheless, when the Messiah is to be born, be in a humble condition, and deprived of both its kingdom and the exercise of rule.

Thus, the very thing that Ahaz wished to avert by his anti-theocratic covenant is shown to be what will happen to the house of David. For the prophet continues (Is 7:15): "He shall eat butter and honey, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good." (Hebrew: thick milk and honey; cf. Judges 5:25).

To be fed with thick milk and honey is a sign of a wasted land and one reduced almost to a desert, as Isaiah immediately teaches in Is 7:20-22—a land stripped and deserted by inhabitants serves for pastures, for the few shepherds. Therefore, the flocks, because of the abundance of pastures, also provide an abundance of milk.

And indeed, if life in that region—whose grain, wine, and oil are otherwise so often praised and commended—must now be sustained by thick milk and wild honey, and the most illustrious shoot of the royal house must use that food, you have depicted the devastation of the land and the poverty and humiliation of the royal house.

Search This Blog

Spirit of Hope

Father Noel Alexandre's Literal Commentary on 1 Peter 1:3-9