Commentary upon the Prophecy of Isaiah

Others think, or at the least confess (because they will not contend overmuch with the Jews) that the Prophet speaks of some child which should be borne then, by which Christ notwithstanding was figured darkly. But they bring no reasons of any weight, neither do they show who this child should be, nor yet prove it by any testimonies. Now it is certain (as hath been said) that this name of Immanuel can properly agree to none that is man only, and therefore we need not doubt but the Prophet speaks here of Christ. But all both Greeks and Latins which have written upon this text are too confident in the expounding of it: for they simply affirm, that Christ is here promised of the virgin Mary, as though there were no difficulty in this place. Now the knot which the Jews would have us untie is not easily done, to wit, that mention is made of Christ here without any cause. Thus they deal with us, willing us to consider well the circumstance of the place. Jerusalem was besieged, the Prophet was to give them a sign of their deliverance: to what purpose is the Messiah promised them now, who should be borne five hundred years after? By this argument they think they have won the goal, affirming, that the promise touching Christ could stand Ahaz in no stead for assuring him of the deliverance of Jerusalem. And here they cry victory, chiefly indeed because none have answered them. And therefore I said that the expositors hitherunto have been too confident in this respect, for it is not a thing of small importance to show the cause why mention is made here of the redeemer. Let us see then how we may resolve it.

Others thinke, or at the least confesse (because they will not contend ouermuch with the Iewes) that the Prophet speakes of some child which should be borne then, by which Christ notwithstanding was figured darkely. But they bring no reasons of any weight, neither do they shew who this child should be, nor yet prooue it by any testimonies. Now it is certaine (as hath been said) that this name of Immanuel can properlie agree to none that is man only, and therfore we need not doubt but the Prophet speakes heere of Christ. But all both Greeks and Latins which haue written vpon this text are too confident in the expounding of it: for they simplie affirme, that Christ is heere promised of the virgin Marie, as though there were no difficultie in this place. Now the knot which the Iewes would haue vs vntie is not easily done, to wit, that mention is made of Christ heere without any cause. Thus they deale with vs, willing vs to cōsider well the circumstance of the place. Ierusalem was besieged, the Prophet was to giue them a signe of their deliuerance: to what purpose is the Messiah promised them now, who should be borne fiue hundred yeeres after? By this argument they thinke they haue woon the gole, affirming, that the promise touching Christ could stand Ahaz in no stead for assuring him of the deliuerance of Ierusalem. And heere they crie victorie, chiefely indeed because none haue answered them. And therefore I said that the expositors hitherunto haue been too confident in this respect, for it is not a thing of small importance to shew the cause why mention is made heere of the redeemer. Let vs see then how we may resolue it.