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, strongly 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 was 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 this 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 option 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.

Whether 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 principle 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 the 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.”