---

1. Some have supposed that the wife of Ahaz was meant by the "virgin," and that his son Hezekiah was the child meant. There is an insuperable difficulty against this view. Ahaz's reign extended over sixteen years (2 Kings 16:2), and Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he succeeded Ahaz (2 Kings 18:2). Consequently, at this time Hezekiah could not have been less than nine years old. It has been supposed that Ahaz had a second wife, and that the son was hers. This is a mere supposition, supported by nothing in the narrative, while it makes Isaiah 8:1-4 have no connection with what precedes or follows.

2. Others have supposed that some virgin who was then present before Ahaz was designated, and they make the meaning this: "As surely as this virgin shall conceive and bear a son, so surely shall the land be forsaken of its kings." This is too vague for the definite language used, and gives no explanation of the incident in chap. 8. about Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

3. Another opinion is that the virgin was not an actual but an ideal virgin." "Michaelis thus presents this view: "By the time when one who is yet a virgin can bring forth (i.e., in nine months), all will be happily changed and the present impending danger so completely passed away that if you were to name the child you would call him Immanuel." Surely this would not be a sign or pledge of anything to Ahaz. Besides, it was not a birth possible, but an actual birth, which was spoken of.

4. But the view which is most in keeping with the entire context, and which presents the fewest difficulties, is that the prophet's own son is intended. This view does require the supposition that Isaiah married a second wife, who at the time of this prophecy was still a virgin and whom he subsequently married. "But there is no improbability in the supposition that the mother of his son, Shear-jashub, was deceased, and that Isaiah was about again to be married. This is the only supposition which this view demands. Such an occurrence was surely not uncommon. All other explanations require more suppositions, and suppositions more unnatural than this. Our supposition does no violence to the narrative, and certainly falls in best with all the facts. We would then identify Immanuel (as Ahaz and his contemporaries would understand the name to be applied) with Maher-shalal-hash-baz. With this view harmonises what the prophet says in Isaiah 8:18: "Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion." It is no objection to this view that another name than "Immanuel" was given to the child. It was a common thing to give two names to children, especially when one name was symbolic, as Immanuel was. Jesus Christ was never called Immanuel as a proper name, though almost all scholars agree that the prophecy referred to Him in some sense.

(D. M. Sweets.)

---

---

KJV: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

WEB: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.