\^
The tra-
t of these ; :
But
the sign lay m the virgin-conception, : of naSy is understood, this interpretation If she were one of the king's wives, then child w'ould be the king's son, and the possibility of an identification with the Messiah would have to be considered. It would be possible to accept, with McCurdy, the identification of Immanuel wth Hezekiah, the chronological difficulties not being altogether insuperable. A third possiltle alternative would be to accept the view taken by several scholars, most recently by Whitehouse in the Cvntury Bible, and identify the ns^y with the community in Zion. We have no evidence, how- ever, that this term was used at that time for the Jewish com- nmnity, and the identification with one of the king's wives must also be pronounced improbable, in spite of the fact that the trouble was dynastic even more than national, directed against the Davidic house rather than against Judah as a whole. Nor is there any reason for identifying Immanuel with the Messianic king mentioned in 9i-7 and lli-». It is true that, according to the present text of 8^, the land of Judah is represented as Immanuel's land, but it is probable that the text should be , harmony with Si^,* We may then set aside the
corrected
* Probably instead of 'thy land, O Immanuel,' we should read 'the land, for God is with us ' thus getting i refrain at the end of v. 8 to match that at the end of \ lO In that case the figure of the bird with wings spi ead o\ er the land i-* a s\ mbol of God's protecting care of Juilih shielding her from the t om- bination of all earthh foes Tlie fxtreme abruptness of the transition from threat to iiromi^r makes it highh probable that 88b-io 18 a fragment it it it I with the preceding verses. It must even be „r I l 1 e ruht m regarding it
adfi
be
forces of Assj r by itself the re
t^\.
God
harmony with similar id not the person who bears it that is ar example, of Hosea's children, and, loint, of Isaiah's children. The pro- Shear-jasltub and Maher-skalal-hash- I themselves, but exclusively in their me to be true in this case. Just as hildren express, the one his doctrine tiis certainty that Syria and Ephraim
th His people. The sign is For against the king's unbelief and Ins l>ll^lnlate remsal to accept a sign there arises the mother's impressive faith, which confronted danger without dismay, and uttered her conviction of God's presence with His people in the name she gave her son. The personahty of the mother is equally with that of the son of no importance for the sign ; that
young \v'iiii:tji, wImi is shorily ;il \ In <<>T]i-ei\'e and give birth
to a son, uia> ,a!l lii-. naiii,' iiiiiiiariii, 1- \\\\\V- he has no definite young woman in liis mind, ln' i-rcdi'ts lliat, some young woman will, in the future, conceive and bear a son, to whom she will give the name Immanuel. His language is not that of hypo- thesis but of prediction.*
2. The way is now clear to discuss St. Matthew's use of the passaj^e. This is not the place to examine tlie subject either of tlie Virgin-concep- tion of Christ or of the early Christian interpreta- tion of prophecy. It is quite plain that this inter- pretation was in general very little controlled hj the original sense of the OT passage quoted. It was of a largely polemical character, since it was necessary, a,i;aiiist tlie cavilling of the Jews, to prove tl'ic M(--i:iliship of Jesus from the OT. Acc-oi 1 1 i 1 1 - 1 \ till- II I 'brew Scriptures were ransacked to linil |i.ii':ill..N \\'\t\\ the life of Christ; and it is not unlikely tliat, at a quite early period, collec- tions of these passages were drawn ud for contro- versial use. The First Gospel is peculiarly rich in Messianic proof-te.xts, and it is therefore not sur- prising that for two facts so important to the author as the Virgin-conception and the Incarna- tion tlie writer should allege an OT prophecy. But the fact that he lias done so creates a very interesting problem, which, however, will be ap- proached difierently by those who accept the Virgin-conception as a fact and by those who dis- pute it. For the former, the fact itself is the starting-point, and the author had to find in the OT a text appropriate to it. The only question that would really arise would be as to the part played by the L!JtX in suggesting Is 7". In this passage the LXX renders na)^ by Trap6hos, which suggests virmnity much more strongly than the Hebrew word. At the same time, the fact that the LXX so translated shows that the author of the First Gospel may independently have taken the word in tlie same sense. That he did so is rendered not improbable by the fact that his trans- lation ditiers in some points from that of the LXX.f The significance for the doctrine of the Incarna- tion of the name Immanuel, which might be trans- lated ' God Avith us ' as well as ' God is with us,' probably first drew his attention to the passage, and then the translation of no^lt by TrapBivoi would