Page images
PDF
EPUB

reject the second given as the sign, there being not any more, yea rather much less reason why he should admit the latter than confide in the former. But when, in confirmation of any thing predicted, another event which at the time appears very improbable, is foretold and is seen actually to take place according to all the circumstances of the prophecy, proof is given of the ability of the person predicting to foresee; the attention of the person to whom the prediction is addressed is arrested, and strong, irresistible evidence is set before him that the other event foretold will assuredly come to pass.

II. In order to escape the charge of absurdity arising out of the former supposition of Dr. Kennicott's, Dr. Blayney proposes, while he still refers this prophecy to Christ, a new mode of interpreting the sign given to Ahaz. The prediction contained in the 14th and 15th verses according to Dr. B. is not the sign of the event foretold in the 17th to the 25th verses, but is the event of the accomplishinent of which his latter prophecy, and that contained in the 16th verse, are the sign. The sign therefore, cannot be given to confirm Ahaz in the belief of what is said in the 7th, 8th and 9th verses, but to confirm the Judaites of that time, and the Jews of all succeeding ages, in the belief and expectation of the Messias. In vindication of this interpretation Dr. B. says, (Sermon, p. 6,)" It can hardly be supposed that God who was justly offended at the impious distrust of Ahaz, would make any fresh effort to conquer his fears, or soothe him with further hopes of deliverance." But is not the whole history of the Jewish nation, and of the divine dispensations to mankind, a proof that God does act towards sinners with such patience, long-suffering and mercy? Then, why can it be hardly supposed that he should act thus in the present instance towards a king of the royal race of David, especially if, in addressing the king, we suppose him to address the people at large?

Dr. B. proceeds: "The reproof that followed upon his refusal of the sign offered him, instead of comfort, breathes only a design to punish." True, here is a reproof and remonstrance with him for his contempt of

the Lord. And if it breathes a design to punish, it is in perfect harmony with what is said in the 9th verse, "If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established." So in the 13th verse, if he continued perverse, and would not hearken nor believe the Lord, he would weary out the patience not only of men but of God also, and would then meet with that punishment which is predicted in the close of the chapter. There seems no reason to suppose that it breathed only a design to punish, except conditionally, on the ground of Ahaz persisting in his unbelief and sin. This is the usual mode of the divine dispensations.

1. But it seems that forcible objections may be made against this whole method of interpreting these prophecies. The connexion and scope of the context seem to oppose it. The Lord continuing still to speak unto Ahaz, calls on him to ask for a sign. Now a sign of what can we suppose that Ahaz would imagine was meant, and would the connexion lead us to expect? If one had not read or heard of this prophecy being applied to Christ, would one from what is here said by the prophet, have ever been persuaded that the sign here spoken of, referred to an event in which Ahaz was intimately concerned, and which was foretold in order to confirm him in the belief of another event to which he as a wicked man and an idolater would pay no regard, and in which, as it would not happen till several hundred years after his death, he could feel no interest? Do not these things appear so clearly manifest, "that it would require no small degree of artifice and perverseness to give them any other application"? Blayney's Sermon, page 9. Every one, from attentively perusing this chapter, and unaffected by any hypothesis, would immediately say, that the sign must be a sign of the event which had been foretold, and of the truth of the prediction of which it was evidently the design of the Lord, by the mouth of the prophet, to convince the king.

2. This method of understanding it, is abundantly confirmed by all parallel passages in which signs of any thing predicted are asked for, or are granted; while the method fol

lowed by Dr. B. in his interpretation, is directly the reverse of all similar facts. He may perhaps, be confidently challenged to produce an instance in which any thing is said about a sign till after the prophecy has been delivered, of which the sign promised is a confirmation. For brevity's sake let the reader refer to Genesis ix. 8-17, xii. 2, 3, xiii. 14-17, compared with xv. throughout. Exodus iii. 12; Judges vi. 17, 21, 22, 36-40; 1 Samuel ii. 34; 1 Kings xiii. 3, 5, 6; Isaiah xxxviii. 7, 8, 22, compared with 2 Kings xx. 8, 9; Jer. xliv. 29, 30. To these may be added the prophecy given by our Saviour in Matthew xxiv. 3-24; Luke xxi. 7-31, to which Dr. B. indeed, refers and calls our attention. Again, in Isaiah xxxvii., after the prediction of an event, we have a sign given in the circumstances of time, very similar with the one in question. The event had been foretold in the preceding verses. Verse 30,"And this shall be a sign unto thee," &c. In about three or four years after the prediction, the sign by which it is confirmed, as in the present instance, is accomplished. Thus "though attempts have been made to dispossess us of such authority by representing things otherwise, the blaze of truth has shone superior to any fallacious misrepresentations. Here, therefore, I shall leave things as they stand, since from an attempt to explain further what is sufficiently clear already, seldom any thing arises but perplexity, darkness and error." Sermon, pp. 2, 9.

From what has been said it appears clear, and may be justly concluded, that the sign spoken of in the 11th verse, must be in confirmation of the prediction delivered in verses 7-9; that the child whose birth is foretold in the 14th verse, and that spoken of in the 16th verse, must be the same child, and therefore cannot be Shearjashub, but must be some child that would be shortly conceived, and in due time afterwards born. It is also plain that three prophecies of different events are delivered in this chapter. The first, in verses 7-9; the second, in verses 14-16; the third, in verses 17 to the end of the chapter, of a long train of events. Of these, that mentioned second would shortly

take place first, and would be a con firmation that that mentioned first would next take place in due time; and after these, in the course of events, would follow that mentioned last; though it might be at some distance of time, yet it would come to pass as assuredly as the others.

The meaning of the first and last of these three prophecies is sufficiently clear, and their fulfilment obvious. The difference of opinion and supposed difficulty of interpretation, lie in the second in the order of predictions, but first in that of fulfilment. This we shall now proceed particularly to explain, obviate objections which may be raised against it, and shew the prophecy accomplished in the event. With this latter article will be connected the fulfilment of the first prediction but second accomplished event. After this we may refer briefly to the history and fulfilment of the third prediction.

I. We are to explain this prophecy according to what appears to be the most consistent and just method of interpretation. As far as the beginning of the 14th verse has been already explained. The prophet then proceeds, "Behold a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." It is asked, who is this person here called a virgin? The reply is, it is the prophetess spoken of in the 3rd verse of the following chapter; and the child spoken of in this prophecy is that which in chapter viii. is called Maher-shalal-hash-baz. The reason

of applying the prophecy to these is the coincidence between vii. 16 and viii. 4. Before the child, mentioned vii. 16, shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land which Ahaz abhorred (that is Syria, of which Damascus was the head, and Ephraim, of which Samaria was the head) shall be left desolate of both her kings, Rezin and Pekah. Before the child, mentioned viii. 4, shall have knowledge to cry my father and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.

And still farther does this appear confirmed by the close connexion there is between what is related in the last chapter and at the beginning of this. Isaiah was commanded to

go to Ahaz, and deliver him a message from the Lord. Again the prophet delivers another message from the Lord to the king. After he had thus spoken by the prophet to the king, he now, viii. 1, speaks to the prophet himself. "Moreover the Lord said unto me." As though he had said, after having spoken to the king as just related, the Lord spoke to me also, "Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Maher-shalalhash-baz." But what he was to write concerning him, Isaiah has not informed us. From what follows it may be presumed that he was then going to do what God had commanded him. He took unto him faithful witnesses to record, Urijah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. And, after taking these to witness, he went in unto the prophetess, and she conceived, and bare a son.

By this it seems to be intimated that Isaiah was the father of the child to be born, this being in Hebrew the modest expression for the conjugal act. The same word is used with a similar signification in Genesis xx. 4, in speaking of Abimelech taking Sarah the wife of Abraham. When it is said that Abimelech had not come near her, it is not to be supposed that it was meant that he had not been in her company, nor conversed with her, for this undoubtedly he had done. Yet, fortunately, he had not come near her to lie with her. A word of similar import is oftentimes made use of to express modestly the same idea. What is afterwards added seems to confirm the supposition that Isaiah was the father of the child. For on the birth of the child the Lord said unto Isaiah, call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. But why should he be commanded thus to call the child, if it had not been his? Would he not rather in that case have been commanded to go to the father or mother of the child, and in the name of the Lord have bid them to call it by that name? or it would have been expressed passively, his name shall be called, as is done in other instances.

When this interpretation is considered minutely, it gives us the reason of his taking, as witnesses, the persons who are there specially named, and

manifests the propriety of his so doing. To what particularly he took them as witnesses, whether of the truth of what the Lord had said unto him, or of his going in unto the prophetess, or of both, is not declared. In the general we may naturally and justly suppose it to have been that they should be witnesses of the prediction, by having it regularly written on a roll, and attested by them; and then afterwards of the truth of its fulfilment, when the prophecy should be accomplished, which was to be a sign unto Ahaz. On this supposition that they were to be witnesses to Ahaz of the message from the Lord, and of the conception and birth of Maher-shalalhash-baz, who was appointed to be the promised sign to the king, there appears a great propriety in the prophet's taking them. For Urijah was the priest to Ahaz, see 2 Kings xvi. 10-16; and Zechariah, we may conclude, was some eminent person in his day, even the father-in-law of king Ahaz himself.

He is mentioned 2 Kings xviii. 2, where his daughter is said to be the mother of Hezekiah, who was Ahaz's son. Zechariah was, therefore, the father of Abi, the wife of Ahaz. These, then, as it was observed, were very suitable persons to be witnesses to Ahaz of the accomplishment of the prediction which was to be the sign promised him.

Upon the supposition that Mahershalal-hash-baz was Isaiah's son, and the child appointed as a sign unto Ahaz, we see the force and reason of the saying of the prophet, ch. viii. 18: "Behold, I and the children, whom thou has given me, are for signs in Israel." And does not what the prophet says, in ver. 8, confirm this supposition? After having spoken of the birth of this his son, how natural for him, when speaking of the land of Judah, to call it the land of this remarkable child, "thy land, O Immanuel!" because it was born and would dwell in that land. How natural, I say, such an apostrophe! And what could have been better adapted to shew us that the different names, Immanuel, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, pointed out one and the same child?

It also appears from the interpretation now given, that the essence or principal point of the sign did not consist in the birth of the child. The

circumstances relating to that are mentioned merely to designate the child intended; the son of the prophet Isaiah and of the prophetess, who might still be a young woman, if the predicted child were even not her first child. Nor is there any thing to oppose this latter supposition, for Shearjashub might be his son by another wife, who was now dead, and the prophet might then be about to marry, if he had not just then betrothed, this other wife; and he might even have possibly taken Urijah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah to be witnesses of this his marriage with the prophetess. The particular circumstance which constitutes the sign to Ahaz, is that mentioned ch. vii. ver. 16, and ch. viii. ver. 4, the death of the two kings and the desolation of their countries taking place before this particular child should know to cry my father and my mother, or to refuse the evil and to choose the good.

II. The objections which may be urged against this interpretation are next to be considered.

1. The difference of the names of this child may be objected by some. In ch. vii. ver. 14, he is called Immanuel; in ch. viii. ver. 4, Mahershalal-hash-baz. The same difficulty will occur in applying ch. vii. ver. 14, to Jesus Christ, for the name Immanuel occurs only thrice in the Old and New Testament-Isa. vii. 14, viii. 8, and in Matt. i. 23, which is a quotation of the former text. In the second passage, it seems to refer, as shewn above, to the child who should be the sign to Ahaz, and of whose birth mention was made in ch. viii. ver. 3, and whom the prophet seems to apostrophize in the 8th verse, as hath been already stated.

Besides, it was not uncommon among the Jews for the same person to have two different names; especially when the sacred name of God occurred in one of them. The child, in such a case, was generally called by the other name, that they might avoid mentioning lightly and frequently the name of the Most High. This was the case in the present instance. But again, in ch. vii. ver. 14, it is not said that the child should be called Immanuel, nor was any direction given to name him so; but only that his mother would call him so. And by

this name the prophetess may have called him at first, till the Lord, after his birth, speaking again to Isaiah, called him by the name which was then specified, a name signifying, as in the margin of the Bible, making speed to the spoil, he hasteneth to the prey; implying in how short a time the king of Assyria would come and carry away the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria.

2. Another objection may be urged from the mother being called a virgin. But this does by no means imply that she had not known man till after the birth of this child. It may justly be said of a female conceiving her first child, that a virgin shall conceive. But the Hebrew term here used, ', does not necessarily signify one who still retains her virginity. It may sig nify merely a young woman. Agreeably to this observation, the Septuagint translate this word sometimes by zapθενος, and more frequently by νεανις. Пag@evos, it is acknowledged, is the Greek word which properly signifies a pure, undefiled virgin. But years cannot be made to signify more than a young woman, corresponding with veavias, a young man, and vɛaviσKOS, the diminutive of the other and the proper term for a youth.

But it may be objected that the Septuagint, in the present passage under discussion, translate by maços, a

virgin, and, therefore, we should understand the term in the strict sense. It may, however, be replied, the old fable of Aristeas is now too well exploded by Hody and others for it to obtain credit in the present day. We no longer consider those translators as inspired men, and, therefore, are not bound to look on every letter of their version as infallibly just; notwithstanding in some cases it may elucidate, and in others its authority may determine the extent of meaning which particular words will bear. For this latter purpose its authority is now produced, while we reject its guidance in the specific instance in question, for the reasons alleged above, why the context requires an explanation that does not admit or need such a version.

3. But this leads us to another objection. Though the authors of the Septuagint Version were not inspired, the Evangelist Matthew was, accord

ing to the notions generally received, (which points I mean not now to discuss,) and he quotes this prophecy as applied to Christ, and by the virgin supposes that the Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord, is intended. Still there is not any sufficient evidence adduced to set aside the interpretation given. Matthew, even if inspired, and this part genuine, might quote it not as a direct prophecy of the birth of Christ; but allusively, as a saying which might be applied to him with propriety, though the prophecy did not at all refer to him. He was the first child of his mother, and he was Immanuel, for in him it was manifested, or he was a sign, that God was with us mankind, and would by him deliver us. Agreeably to this the Greek of St. Matthew might be rendered, "All this was done; in which was accomplished what the Lord had spoken by the mouth of the prophet,' &c.; that is, these are events similar to those spoken of from the Lord, by the mouth of the prophet, &c. The Greek particle, 'Iva, when taken adverbially, signifies ubi, where, in which, by which. In a similar way we might translate and interpret several other such passages, in this Evangelist particularly. Thus, ch. ii. ver. 15, is quoted from Hosea xi. 1; where the words of the prophet evidently refer to the calling of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the time and by the hand of Moses. And again, ch. ii. vers. 17, 18, is quoted from Jeremiah xxxi. 15; where the words evidently refer to the desolation of Judah at the time of the captivity to Babylon.

But it may be asked, Would it not be more consistent with the words of the Evangelist, and the general scope of prophecy, to understand these predictions as referring to more than one distinct, definite event, as pointing out two similar events happening at different and distant times? By no means. It would introduce such confusion and uncertainty into the prophecies, as very nearly resembles the double-meaning answers of the ancient heathen oracles. This opens a wide door to the cavils and objections of infidelity, against which all true Christians should particularly guard them selves and their sacred writings. If this confusion and uncertainty be ad

[blocks in formation]

mitted, why should we not give credit to, and acknowledge the authority of, ancient heathen oracles, which, in some ambiguous, similar manner, could and actually did foretell future events? Than thus to expose our holy religion to contempt, and weaken one of the very strong proofs of its divinity and truth in the fulfilment of prophecy, it would be better even to suppose a sacred historian mistaken in his application of prophecies; for inspiration to guard him from the misapplication of these is by no means necessary to enable him to write authentic history. This, however, is not supposed in the interpretation we have just now given.

III. The fulfilment of the prophecy in the event, is what was next propo sed to be considered and pointed out.

1. The accomplishment of the former part of the prophecy, delivered as a sign unto Ahaz, has been already shewn in the birth of Maher-shalalhash-baz. Of the other part, the land of Syria and Ephraim being left desolate of both her kings before this child knew to refuse the evil and choose the good, a more particular consideration is required.

It is necessary to refer to notes of time given in the history of these transactions. Before Ahaz came to the throne, even in the time of Jotham his father, Pekah and Rezin were making preparations for war against Judah and Jerusalem. Ahaz came to the throne at twenty years of age. Two or three verses after mentioning this, without giving any intermediate note of time, in 2 Kings xvi. 5, it is said, "Then Rezin and Pekah came up to war against Jerusalem." It may hence be justly inferred, that this was very soon after Ahaz was seated on the throne; most probably in the first year of his reign. In Isa. vii. 2, we are informed, when Ahaz heard of the confederacy of Syria and Ephraim, his heart was moved. Upon this the prophet is commanded to go to him, as related in the following verses. Probably, then, Isaiah might speak to Ahaz, before Rezin and Pekah were actually come up against him, even while they were on the march, if not even previously to their setting out on it. If this be supposed then can there he no appearance of wishing to favour the prophecy, as the event must, in

« PreviousContinue »