T1h~i uncertainties as to the precise meaning of the words I h' iii-i I', rs naturally leave much room tor difference of opinion, aiiii tlii^ is largely increased by other uncertainties. It is there- fore desirable to narrow the range of possible interpretation as much as possible. It is dear, in the first place, that the prophet is referring to something in the near future, otherwise the sign could have conveved no message to the king, all the more that his difBculty was iii-,'._nt. In the i]t\t place, we nmst beware of I'l i:i!:j iti-L i^;i Li i- necessarily intended
for 1
crtainly not because his conduct (cf. also r- approach the
wonder ujioii I _ i
818). ■with''tli.-. ..-.^i I i ." '.-
question. What Tmssa-e was l\v: sign intended to convey t When Ahaz had been bidden asls a sign, the object was to con- vince him that his enemies would be overthrown and their alliance against him come to nought. We naturally e.xpect that the sign volunl.-ir-i] Ii\ tljc prCii>htt \\\\\ lia\c ttic same signitl-
that Aha:-; i ' i,.-. it int..
the situati' ■ in'i 'i lie
rejected :. - '''i n"t be
■ unprecedented smce the days of Rehoboam is predicted. ie other hand, this is difficult to harmonize with v. 16, at any in its present form, for that gives as the meaning of the
IMMANUEL
IMMANUEL
eign that before the child kiiu\\--f > i. fu-.- Mir < \ H and choose the good, the land whose two kin- \ ^ , ' ' r ■ lil be forsakun. In other words, v.i'iinterpivi'- 1 ii i . i i elation of Syriu
and Ephraim. It is tlicTLtix- ■ .-li-r to Jvidah,
but of deliverance. We nw ;m -t. h^J- r,,i;hnnied with Iht- problem wliether tlie ori-iiial U-\l is hiru l.l■escl■^■cd. It would suffice to brinjr v.itj into haiiuuiiv with vv.i"'i' if the former were to read simply ' for before the cliild shall know to refuse the evil and choose the yood, thy land shall be forsaken'; and several scholars ha\e adopted this expedient. In that case the sign is simply one of disaster for Judah. Nevertheless there are serious difhculties in the way of accepting this solution, and tlie question is forced upon us wliether more radical measures an.- not necessary. Even with the suggested ablireviation of v."' it does not connect so well with v.i'^ as with vM. But apart from that, there are other arguments for treating the sign as favour- able. The name Immanxiel itself, expressing the conviction that God was with His people, might, of course, be harmonized with either verse. It gains significance only on account of the distress in which the name was given, the mother's faith is a si^n only when experience seems to contradict it. The name might therefore be given in the midst of the trouble caused by the Syrian invasion or in the greater distress that was to follow from Assyria. But Isaiah certainly anticipated the overthrow of Syria and Ephraim. Not only so, but a little later, in the public exhibition on a tablet of the word Maker •shalal-hash-baz, and nearly a year later in the giving of this name to his new- born son, he expressed his faith in the overthrow of the coaHtion. It is indeed urged that the sign of Immanuel would thus be only a duplication of the sign of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, but there seems to be no reason why such a duplication should be objectionable. Moreover, there is a significa,nt parallelism be- tween the two which points to such an identification of meaning. The time limit in both cases is very similar. In the one case it is before the child shall know to say ' my father and my mother ' ; in other words, the events described are to happen before the infant who has just been born has learnt to utter the first things that a child says. The other time limit is precisely similar, 'before the child knows to refuse the evil and choose the good.' By this the prophet need not mean before he comes to years of moral discretion, but before he learns to distinguish between good and harmful food. And the very fact that a year later Isaiah was still concerned mainly with the invasion of the aUies and in asserting his conviction of their overthrow, surely makes it probable that the same question preoccupies his attention here. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the obstinacy of Ahaz would make anv difference to the character of the Unless we are explicitly warned to the contrary assume that the sign given possessed the same significance as the sign offered. The present writer accordingly takes the view that the sign is of a favourable character. This involves, it is true, the elimination of v.is (and perhaps of v.i?, though this may belong to another prophecy), but in any case somethmg has to be struck out of the passage to secure consistency. It might, of course, seem easier to eliminate a few words in v.itj than to strike out a whole verse. Nevertheless, when we look at v.is we see that it is practically compounded of part of v.2"^ and part of V.16, whereas the words ' whose two kings thou abhorrest ' make a much greater impression of originality.
The question accordingly arises, In what precisely did the sign consist? The stress may lie either on the Txr^'^V.y or the son, or the name given to him, or a combination of thesi ditional interpretation has, of course, thrown the st