Isaiah 7:13-16

THE VIRGIN’S SON

Isaiah 7:13. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David, &c.

On this supremely difficult passage Dr. Kennicott preached a remarkable sermon before the University of Oxford, on the 19th of May 1765. As this sermon is not readily accessible, I here give some extracts from it.

Concerning these words there have been the four following opinions:—
I. That the whole passage relates only to a son of Isaiah.
II. That the whole passage relates only to CHRIST.
III. That the whole passage relates both to Isaiah’s son and to CHRIST; to the former in a primary and literal sense, and in a secondary sense to the latter.
IV. That there are here two prophecies, each literal, and each to be understood in one sense only: the first relating to CHRIST, the second to Isaiah’s son.

The first of these opinions is strenuously contended for by Jews and Deists, who, by confining this passage wholly to Isaiah’s son, have attempted to derogate from the authority of St. Matthew, who applies it as a prophecy to CHRIST. But the word here translated virgin signifies, in every other part of the Old Testament, a woman who hath not known man. And the consequence from hence is, that the words “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,” cannot be applied properly to Isaiah’s wife. As it is here affirmed that the original word signifies a virgin in every other text, it should be just observed that the text in the book of Proverbs (Isaiah 30:18), which has been often brought to prove the contrary, is not here forgotten; and that even that text might (if the nature of this discourse would permit) be explained fairly and to satisfaction, in a manner perfectly consistent with the preceding assertion.

If it should be objected, that the original words are not future, and therefore not likely to point out an event so very distant as the birth of CHRIST, it may be answered that the words are, strictly translated, “Behold! a virgin is conceiving and bearing a son,” &c. This mode of speech is the animated but customary style of prophetic Scripture, which, in order to express the greatest certainty, describes future events as past, or paints future scenes as present to the eye. Thus the same prophet, in his most magnificent predictions of the Messiah’s birth, exultingly cries, “Unto us a child is BORN, unto us a son IS GIVEN:” and afterwards, in his pathetic description of the Messiah’s sufferings, “He is despised and rejected of men.… Surely He HATH BORNE our griefs,” &c. But though no argument can be drawn against the Christian sense of these prophetic words from their expressing the then present time, yet an argument of great weight may, and must be, formed upon this very circumstance, in proof of what is here contended for. And certainly, if the words mean “a virgin is conceiving,” a woman conceiving and yet a virgin! this wonderful circumstance was true as to the Virgin Mary, but it was true as to no other woman.

To these remarks upon the original language must be added one arising from the circumstances of the text, for we learn from thence likewise that Isaiah’s wife and the birth of a child in the common way cannot have been here intended. And an appeal may safely be made to persons of sense, though wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew language, whether it is at all probable that the prophet should address himself to the house of David so solemnly, on so interesting an occasion; should awaken their attention; should raise their wonder; should promise them in the name of GOD a sign or miracle; should mention the future son, not of a man (as usual) but of a woman, and call that woman a virgin; and should foretell the Birth of IMMANUEL, i.e., GOD WITH US—and yet that no more was meant by all this than that a son should be born of a young married woman, which is evidently no wonder, no miracle, at all.

If then, from the constant signification of the noun for virgin, from the expression of the words in the present tense, and from the nature of the context, a son of Isaiah by his wife cannot have been here meant; and if the first opinion be consequently proved indefensible, we may now proceed to consider the second, which is that the whole passage of the text relates only to CHRIST.

But these words cannot be wholly applied to an event distant by more than seven hundred years, because the concluding clause speaks of a child either then born, or to be born soon; and before the child so spoken of should be old enough to distinguish natural good from evil, the two kings then advancing against Jerusalem were to be themselves destroyed.
The third is the opinion of those who contend for a double completion of some prophecies, and insist that this whole passage relates both to Isaiah’s son and to CHRIST; to the former in a primary and literal sense, and in a secondary sense to the latter. But—not to enter into that extensive question, whether though some prophecies relate solely to the Messiah, others may, or may not, be doubly fulfilled—I shall only observe, that no such double completion can possibly take place here.

Wherever a secondary sense is insisted on, there we must have a primary sense also which is at least true. But the present case renders that impossible. Because, if the principal noun does everywhere else signify a virgin; and if it be here meant of the Virgin Mary, and was afterwards properly applied to her, it cannot with any truth be applied to the wife of Isaiah. And further, if it were possible for every other prophecy to admit of a double completion, yet will not this—because a child’s being conceived and born of a virgin happened in the world only once; and therefore, as this prophecy derives its force from specifying a case singular and without example, it can be fulfilled in one sense only.

There remains then the fourth opinion, which is, that the text contains two distinct prophecies, each literal, and each to be understood in one sense only; the first relating to CHRIST, the second to Isaiah’s son. This, which is the opinion of some eminent defenders of Christianity, will (I presume) appear true and satisfactory, when the end of the first prophecy, and the beginning of the second, shall have been properly considered; and when some proofs which seem absolutely necessary, but perhaps were never yet produced, shall have been added to former observations.

The genuine sense of this passage depending greatly on the circumstances of those to whom it was delivered, it is here necessary to state the history.
Ahaz became king of Judah when the people were greatly corrupted, and he himself was strongly inclined to idolatry. To correct, therefore, both king and people, God permitted a powerful confederacy to take place between Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel; who, growing jealous of their formidable neighbour, invaded Judæa in the first year of Ahaz; and so successfully, that above 100,000 of the men of Ahaz were slain in one battle, and above 200,000 of his people were carried captives into the land of Israel.
Flushed with these successes, the two kings thought that Jerusalem itself would soon become an easy prey to their power; and in the second year of Ahaz marched towards it, with a resolution totally to abolish the royal succession, which had been for twelve generations in the house of David, and to establish, in the holy city, a heathen king, a Syrian, “the son of Tabeal.”
At the approach of these confederates, “the heart of Ahaz was moved, and the hearts of all his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.” The consternation was universal, and no wonder. For the young king and the corrupt part of his people would easily be led, from the sufferings they had felt, to fear greater. And the religious part of the nation would entertain fears still more alarming, fears of the extinction of the house of David; for were that house to fail, then farewell to all their glorious hopes of a Messiah, a son of David, who was to reign for ever. These men, therefore, no doubt, “cried unto the Lord in their distresses,” and expostulated with Him concerning “the sure mercies of David:” “Lord, where are Thy old lovingkindnesses, which Thou swarest unto David in Thy truth?”
Amidst these distresses, we find Ahaz “at the end of the conduit of the upper pool,” probably surveying that chief source of their water, and contriving how to secure that water to the city, and defend it against the enemy. At this place, constantly frequented by the people, and then visited by the king, attended probably by the chiefs of his family, Isaiah is commanded to meet him, taking with him Shear-jashub, and to declare in the name of Jehovah, that the evil counsel against Jerusalem should not come to pass.
The counsel of these kings was evil, because, in opposition to God’s appointment of the royal house of David, and His promises thereto (particularly of Messiah, the Prince, to spring from thence), their compact was, probably, like Eastern conquerors, to destroy the house of David; certainly, to remove the house of David from the throne, and to fix in the holy city a heathen king.
The prophet, having declared to Ahaz that the scheme of the confederates should be frustrated, bids him, at the command of God, ask some sign or miracle, either in heaven or on earth. “But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah.”
The king’s disobedience, however coloured over with a specious piety in his allusion to a text of Scripture, appears from the next words of the prophet to have been highly censurable. And it probably proceeded from his distrust either of the power or the favour of Jehovah, after Judæa had suffered so much from these same enemies who worshipped other gods.
Thus repulsed by the king, the prophet addresses himself at large to “the house of David;” and probably there were then present other persons of the royal family. “Hear ye now, O house of David,” &c.
The word “Therefore” (Isaiah 7:14) may, upon good authority, be translated “nevertheless,” a sense very applicable to this place. A sign or miracle hath been now offered at the command of God, but is refused; and can you think it of little moment to treat with such contempt both the prophet and his God? “Nevertheless, the Lord Himself will give to you the sign following: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and call His name IMMANUEL. Butter and honey shall He eat, that He may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.”

Here, I presume, ends this first prophecy, and the meaning may be stated thus: “Fear not, O house of David, the fate threatened you. God is mindful of His promise to your father, and will fulfil it in a very wonderful manner. Behold, a virgin (rather, THE virgin, the only one thus circumstanced) shall conceive, and bear a son; which son shall therefore be what no other has been or shall be, the seed of the woman, here styled THE VIRGIN; and this son ‘shall be called’ (i.e., in Scripture language, He shall be) IMMANUEL, God with us. But this great Person, this GOD visible amongst men, introduced into the world thus, in a manner that is without example, shall yet be truly Man: He shall be born an infant, and as an infant shall He be brought up; for ‘butter and honey’ (rather, milk and honey) shall He eat,—He shall be fed with the common food of infants, which in the East was milk mixed with honey, till He shall know (not that He may know, as if such food were to be the cause of such knowledge, but till He shall grow up to know) how to refuse the evil and choose the good.”

Here, then, we find a comprehensive description of the Messiah, of the “Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us.” His Divinity is marked by His being GOD; His residence upon earth, by His being GOD WITH US; and His Humanity, by His being born of a woman, and fed with the usual food of infants during His infant state. How perfect is the harmony between the parts of this description and the marks of the true Messiah in other sacred passages; and also between the first prophecy in the very beginning of the Old Testament and the completion of it, first mentioned in the very beginning of the New!
For the first promise of a Messiah was, that He should be (not the seed of Adam, as He would have been called, if to descend from a human father, but) “the seed of the woman,” because He was to be born of a virgin. Therefore, the Apostle says, “When the fulness of time came, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman.” And that it was GOD, not man, who was to “prepare a body” for the Messiah, appears from the fortieth Psalm, according to the Apostle’s very remarkable quotation of it, where the Messiah is prophetically represented as saying unto God: “A body didst Thou prepare for Me; then said I, Lo, I come; as in the volume of the Book it is written concerning Me.”
Having thus endeavoured to illustrate the first prophecy contained in the text, and to defend the application of it to the Virgin Mary’s conception and birth of Jesus Christ, I shall now briefly state the second prophecy, which is thus expressed in our present translation, “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”
Now, that this verse contains a distinct prophecy may be proved thus—

1. The words preceding have been proved to be confined to the Messiah, whose birth was then distant above seven hundred years; whereas, the words here are confined to some child who was not to arrive at years of discretion before the two kings, then advancing against Jerusalem, should be themselves cut off.

2. Some end was undoubtedly to be answered by the presence of Isaiah’s son, whom God commanded to take with him on this visit to Ahaz: and yet no use at all appears to have been made of this son, unless he be referred to here.
3. These prophecies are manifestly distinguished by their being addressed to different persons: the first being plural, and addressed to the house of David; but the second is singular, and therefore is addressed to Ahaz.

We see, then, that the prophet addressed himself at large to the “house of David,” when he foretold the birth of the Messiah; which, though the event might be very distant, would give present consolation, as it assured them of the preservation of the house of David; but that he addressed himself in particular to the king, when he foretold the speedy destruction of the two kings, his enemies. Note also, that King Ahaz is the person addressed in the very words which immediately follow, “The Lord shall bring upon thee and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days.” &c.
This transition will be the more evident if we render the first word But, as the same word is rendered just before in this same passage: “Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?” It is so rendered in this very place in our old English Bibles, printed in 1535, 1537, 1539, 1549, 1550.

The word also now rendered “the child,” should be here rendered “THIS child;” and the sense of the verse may be then clearly ascertained.

The necessity for this last rendering has been observed by more than one expositor, but perhaps no one has quoted any parallel instance, or produced proper authority for this necessary change of our translation. But, that we may not be charged with offering violence to an expression, in order to defend the Evangelists or to confute their adversaries, some authority should be produced in a point on which so much depends, and I shall mention several passages similar to the case now before us.
When Jacob blessed Joseph’s two sons, he laid his hands upon their heads, and used the very same word in the plural number which Isaiah here uses in the singular; and as that word is rendered “these children” by the authors of the Greek and other very ancient versions, we have their joint authorities for rendering the word here “this child.”

The authors of our own translation have not indeed rendered the word in the text “this child,” but they have shown that it may be so rendered, because they have themselves, in several other places, expressed the emphatic article by this and that in the singular number, and by these in the plural. Thus in Jeremiah 23:21, “I have not sent these prophets;” in Numbers 11:6, “There is nothing before our eyes, but this manna;” in 1 Samuel 29:4, “Make this fellow to return;” and, to omit other instances, we read in Jeremiah 28:16 (what it is impossible to translate otherwise), “This year thou shalt die.”

But besides these instances, in which similar words may and must be so rendered, agreeably to our present translation, in this same verse of Isaiah there is the authority of our old English translation for both the alterations here proposed; for the very first printed edition, and at least two others, render these words, “But or ever that child,” &c. And, to obviate any prejudice against the other alteration before proposed, it should be observed that, so far from their being now first thought of to favour any new opinions, almost all of them are the very readings in our former English Bibles, from which our present has varied in this and other instances very improperly.

The translation of the principal word here by this child being thus vindicated, it may perhaps be asked who this child was, and the answer is, A son of Isaiah, called Shear-jashub, whom God had commanded the prophet to take with him upon this occasion, but of whom no use was made, unless in the application of these words;—whom Isaiah might now hold in his arm, and to whom therefore he might point with his hand when he addressed himself to Ahaz, and said, “But before this child shall grow up to discern good from evil, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” There is an absolute necessity of attending to this action in several other sacred passages, as in John 2:18. “What sign showest Thou?… Destroy this temple;” our Lord there pointing to His own body.

The child’s name is evidently prophetical, for it signifies a remnant, or the remainder, shall return. And probably he was so called because born the year before, when such multitudes were carried captives into the land of Israel; and this by way of prediction to the Jews that, though they had lost 100,000 men by the sword in one day, and double that number by captivity, yet those who remained alive—the remnant—certainly should return to their own country.

This prophecy was soon after fulfilled. And therefore this son, whose name had been so consolatory the year before, was with the utmost propriety brought forth now, and made the subject of a second prophecy—namely, that before that child, then in the second year of his age, should be able to distinguish natural good from evil—before he should be about four or five years old—the lands of Syria and Israel, spoken of here as one kingdom, on account of their present union and confederacy, should be “forsaken of both her kings:” which, though at the time highly improbable, came to pass about two years afterwards, when those two kings, who had in vain attempted to conquer Jerusalem, were themselves destroyed, each in his own country.

“If the miraculous birth of Christ were true, yet how could an event so very distant be properly a sign, at the time when the prophecy was delivered?”

To this natural and important question, Dr. Kennicott answers:—
The original word for a sign means also a miracle. And as God had offered Ahaz a miracle to be then performed, which had been refused, God Himself promises to the house of David a miracle which should be performed, not then, but afterwards. But the word signifies, not only something done at present, to induce a belief of something future, but also something to be done afterwards, declared beforehand in confirmation of something foretold.

Thus, when God commanded Moses to go from the wilderness into Egypt, to demand the dismission of his brethren, God assures him of success, and tells him: “This shall be a sign unto thee; when thou hast brought forth the people, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.”

And thus, when the Assyrians were marching against Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah, Isaiah is again commanded to declare that the city shall not be taken; and after saying, “This shall be a sign unto you,” he specifies several particulars which were all future [817]

[817] Compare also our Lord’s treatment of the demand for a sign, Matthew 12:38. In this case also, to unbelievers, was given a “sign” which they could not possibly have understood when it was given.

If then a thing, at all future, may be declared as a sign, it makes no difference whether the thing be future by three years or three hundred, provided that one circumstance he observed—which is, that the man, or body of men, to whom the fact is declared to be a sign shall exist to see the thing accomplished. This was manifestly the case here. For not only Ahaz, to whom the second prophecy was delivered, saw that fulfilled as to the two kings his enemies, but also the house of David, to whom the first prophecy was addressed, saw that fulfilled in JESUS CHRIST.