Babylonia)
there
existed
traditions
and
expectations
the
pledge
of
the
Divine
presence,
and
endowed
in
a
of
a
semi-divine
saviour-Icing,
to
be
born
of
a
divine,
perhaps
a
virgin,
mother,
and
to
be
wonderfully
reared.
That
is
to
say,
there
was
an
already
existing
tradition
to
which
the
prophet
could
appeal,
and
which
is
pre-supposed
by
his
words;
note
esp.
'the
virgin.'
How
much
the
tradition
included,
we
cannot
say;
e.g.
did
it
include
the
name
'Iramanuel'?
The
'butter
and
honey
'
seems
to
be
a
pre-existing
feature,
representing
originally
the
Divine
nourishment
on
which
the
child
is
reared
;
so,
according
to
the
Greek
legend,
the
infant
Zeus
is
fed
on
milk
and
honey
in
the
cave
on
Ida.
But
in
the
prophecy,
as
it
stands,
it
seems
to
be
used
of
the
hard
fare
which
alone
is
left
to
the
inhabitants
of
an
Invaded
land.
We
must
indeed
distinguish
throughout
between
the
conceptions
of
the
primitive
myth,
and
the
sense
in
which
the
prophet
applies
these
conceptions.
The
value
of
the
supposition
that
he
was
working
on
the
lines
of
popular
beliefs
ready
to
his
hand,
is
that
it
explains
how
his
hearers
would
be
prepared
to
understand
his
oracular
language,
and
suggests
that
much
that
is
obscure
to
us
may
have
been
clear
to
them.
It
confirms
the
view
that
the
prophecy
was
intended
to
be
Messianic,
i.e.
to
predict
the
birth
of
a
mysterious
saviour.
4.
Was
the
sign
favourable
or
not?
The
text,
as
it
stands,
leaves
it
very
obscure
whether
Isaiah
gave
Ahaz
a
promise
or
a
threat.
The
fact
that
the
king
had
hardened
his
heart
may
have
tiirned
the
sign
which
should
have
been
of
good
omen
into
something
different.
The
name
of
the
child
and
v.'=
speak
of
deliverance;
vv."-
"
and
the
rest
of
the
chapter,
of
judgment.
It
is
perfectly
true
that
Isaiah's
view
of
the
future
was
that
Ephraim
and
Syria
should
be
destroyed,
that
Judah
should
also
suffer
from
AssjTlan
invasion,
but
that
salvation
should
come
through
the
faithful
remnant.
The
difhculty
is
to
extract
this
sense
from
the
passage.
The
simplest
method
is
to
follow
the
critics
who
omit
v.",
or
at
least
the
words
'whose
two
kings
thou
abhorrest';
'
the
land
'
will
then
refer
naturally
to
Judah;
if
referring,
as
it
is
usually
understood,
to
Syria
and
Ephraim,
the
singular
is
very
strange.
The
prophecy
is
then
a
consistent
announcement
of
judgment.
Immanuel
shall
be
born,
but
owing
to
the
unbelief
of
Ahaz,
his
future
Is
mortgasged
and
he
is
born
only
to
a
ruined
kingdom
(cf.
8');
it
is
not
stated
in
this
passage
whether
the
hope
implied
in
his
name
will
ever
be
realized.
Others
would
omit
v.",
and
even
v.",
making
the
sign
a
promise
of
the
failure
of
the
coalition.
Whatever
view
be
adopted,
the
inconsistencies
of
the
text
make
it
at
least
possible
that
it
has
suffered
from
interpolation,
and
that
we
have
not
got
the
prophecy
in
its
original
form.
The
real
problem
is
not
to
account
for
the
name
'Immanuel,'
or
for
the
promise
of
a
saviour-king,
but
to
understand
what
part
he
plays
in
the
rest
of
the
chapter.
Connected
with
this
is
the
further
difiSculty
of
explaining
why
the
figure
of
the
Messianic
king
disappears
almost
entirely
from
Isaiah's
later
prophecies.
6.
Its
application
to
the
Virgin-birth.
—
The
full
dis-cussion
of
the
quotation
in
Mt
l^*
is
part
of
the
larger
subjects
of
Messianic
prophecy,
the
Virgin-birth,
and
the
Incarnation.
The
following
points
may
be
noticed
here,
(a)
Though
the
LXX
(which
has
parthenos
'virgin')
and
the
Alexandrian
Jews
apparently
in-terpreted
the
passage
in
a
Messianic
sense
and
of
a
virgin-birth,
there
is
no
evidence
to
show
that
this
interpretation
was
sufficiently
prominent
and
definite
to
explain
the
rise
of
the
belief
in
the
miraculous
conception.
The
text
was
applied
to
illustrate
the
fact
or
the
belief
in
the
fact;
the
fact
was
not
imagined
to
meet
the
re-quirements
of
the
text.
The
formula
used
in
the
quotation
suggests
that
it
belongs
to
a
series
of
OT
passages
drawn
up
in
the
primitive
Church
to
illustrate
the
life
of
Christ
(see
Allen,
St.
Matthew,
p.
Ixii.).
(6)
The
text
would
not
now
be
used
as
a
proof
of
the
Incarna-tion.
'Immanuel'
does
not
in
itself
imply
that
the
child
was
regarded
as
God,
but
only
that
he
was
to
be
special
sense
with
the
spirit
of
Jehovah
(cf
.
Is
1
1^)
.
The
Incarnation
'fulfils'
such
a
prophecy,
because
Christ
is
the
true
realization
of
the
vague
and
halt-understood
longings
of
the
world,
both
heathen
and
Jewish.
C.
W.
Emmet.
IMMER.—
1.
Eponym
of
a
priestly
family
(1
Ch
9'^
24",
Ezr
2"
10™,
Neh
3"
7"
11'*).
2.
A
priest
con-
temp,
with
Jeremiah
(Jer
20').
3.
The
name
of
a
place
(7)
(Ezr
25S
=.Neh
7").
The
text
is
uncertain
(cf.
1
Es
5»).
IMMORTALITY.—
See
EscHATOLOor.
IMNA.—
An
Asherite
chief
(1
Ch
7'=).
IMNAH.—
1.
The
eldest
son
of
Asher
(Nu
26",
1
Ch
7").
2.
A
Levite
in
the
time
of
Hezekiah
(2
Ch
31").
IMNITES.—
Patronymic
from
Imnah
(No.
1),
Nu
26".
IMPORTTJNITY.—
The
Greek
word
so
translated
in
Lk
118
is
literally
'shamelessness.'
It
is
translated
'impudence'
in
Sir
26^.
These
are
its
only
occur-rences
in
the
Bible.
It
is
probable,
however,
that
it
had
lost
some
of
its
original
force,
and
that
'impor-tunity'
is
a
fair
rendering.
The
Eng.
word
signified
originally
'difficulty
of
access'
(in-portus),
hence
per-sistence.
It
is
now
practically
obsolete,
and
'
persistence
'
might
have
been
introduced
into
the
RV.
IMPOTENT.
—
This
word,
now
obsolescent
in
com-mon
speech,
means
literally
'without
strength.'
It
is
used
as
the
tr.
of
Gr.
words
which
mean
'without
power'
(Bar
6'',
Ac
14*)
or
'without
strength'
(Jn
5"-
',
Ac
4»)
.
'
When
religion
is
at
the
stake,
'
says
Fuller
(.Holy
State,
ii.
19,
p.
124),
'
there
must
be
no
lookers
on
(except
impotent
people,
who
also
help
by
their
prayers),
and
every
one
is
bound
to
lay
his
shoulders
to
the
work.'
IMPRISONMENT.
—
See
Crimes
and
Punishments,
§9-
IMRAH.—
An
Asherite
chief
(1
Ch
7»).
IMRI.—
1.
A
Judahite
(1
Ch
9<).
2.
Father
of
Zaccur,
who
helped
to
build
the
wall
(Neh
3^).
INCANTATIONS.
—
See
Magic
Divination
and
SORCBHY.
INCARNATION.
—
It
is
a
distinguishing
feature
of
Christianity
that
it
consists
in
faith
in
a
person,
Jesus
Christ,
and
in
faith
or
self
-committal
of
such
a
character
that
faith
in
Him
is
understood
to
be
faith
in
God.
The
fact
on
which
the
whole
of
the
Christian
religion
depends
is
therefore
the
fact
that
Jesus
Christ
is
both
God
and
man.
Assuming
provisionally
this
fact
to
be
true,
or
at
least
credible,
this
article
will
briefly
examine
the
witness
borne
to
it
in
the
books
of
the
OT
and
NT.
1.
The
Incarnation
foreshadowed
in
the
OT.
—
Early
religions
have
attempted
to
explain
two
things
—
the
existence
and
order
of
the
universe,
and
the
principles
of
conduct
or
morality.
The
Hebrews
attained
at
an
early
period
to
a
belief
in
God
as
the
creator
and
sus-tainer
of
the
universe,
but
their
interest
in
metaphysic
did
not
go
beyond
this.
It
is
in
their
moral
idea
of
God
that
we
shall
find
anticipations
of
the
Incarnation,
(a)
The
OT
conception
of
man.
Man
is
made
in
the
image
of
God
(Gn
1»
9').
Whatever
may
be
the
exact
meaning
of
this
expression,
it
appears
to
imply
that
man
has
a
free
and
rational
personality,
and
is
destined
for
union
with
God.
(5)
Ood
reveals
Himself
to
man,
A
belief
in
the
self-manifestation
of
God,
through
visions,
dreams,
the
ministry
of
angels,
the
spirit
of
prophecy,
and
in
the
possibility
of
personal
converse
between
God
and
man,
is
apparent
upon
every
page
of
the
OT.
The
'theophanies'
further
suggest
the
possibility
of
the
appearance
of
God
in
a
human
form.
It
is
also
remarkable
that,
although'
the
sense
of
the
holiness
and
transcendency
of
God
grew
with
time,
the
Jews
in
the
later
periods
did
not
shrink
from
strongly
anthropomorphic
expressions,
(c)
Intimations
of
re-lationships
in
the
Deity.
Without
unduly
pressing
such
