Lecture 5 — Isaiah’s prophecy

^1:22^ Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled what the Lord spoke by the Prophet, saying: [n. 139]

^1:23^ behold a virgin will be with child, and bring forth a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [n. 140]

139. The Evangelist had set out before that the mother of God was found with child of the Holy Spirit, and above he confirmed this by the angelic revelation. Here he confirms it by the prophet’s foretelling it; hence he says, now all this was done that it might be fulfilled what the Lord spoke by the Prophet.

And it should be known that this little part can be brought in here in two ways. For Chrysostom would have it that the angel said all this and brought in the prophecy, too. And the reason is that he wished to show that it had been foretold from of old, lest it seem that he was suddenly foretelling something new; who makes now what is to come (Isa 48:3), according to another translation.

Others say, and I believe better, that these words, namely all this was done, are the Evangelist’s words. For the words of the angel are ended at for he will save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21). And the Evangelist brings them in for the sake of three things. First, to show that the Old Testament is about Christ; to him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him (Acts 10:43). Second, so that they might more easily believe Christ; for if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me (John 5:46). Third, to show the conformity of the Old and New Testaments; which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ (Col 2:17).

140. But that you may know what is contained in this prophecy, you should know that the angel announced three things. For first he said, for he who is born in her (Matt 1:20); second, she will bring forth a son (Matt 1:21); third, and you will call his name Jesus (Matt 1:21). These things are contained in the prophecy in order. And first he confirms what he says, ‘behold a virgin’; second, ‘will be with child’; third, ‘they will call his name’. Therefore it was of the Holy Spirit that she conceived while still a virgin. And this is what is said in the prophecy: behold a virgin will conceive (Isa 7:14); it will bud forth and blossom, and will rejoice with joy and praise (Isa 35:2). And similarly the ‘virgin will bring forth a son’, because her virginity was not harmed in any way by giving birth; and there will come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower will rise up out of his root (Isa 11:1). Christ is certainly the flower. Therefore in no way is her virginity harmed.

141. There follows ‘and they will call his name Emmanuel.’

But it is asked, why does not this agree with the angel’s words, by saying, and you will call his name Jesus?

One should say that this promise had been made to the Jews, who would have salvation from Christ’s coming. And Jesus is interpreted as ‘savior’, which is the same as ‘Emmanuel’, God with us.

For God is with us in four ways: through the assumption of nature, and the Word was made flesh (John 1:14); through the conformity of nature, and in habit found as a man (Phil 2:7); through bodily interaction, afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men (Bar 3:38); and through spiritual interaction, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world (Matt 28:20).

142. But one should ask, concerning the letter, why the Evangelist does not use the same words as the prophet, but rather uses the name Jesus.

But one should say that he spoke in the same spirit. Still, Jerome says that the Evangelist said, will be with child, because he was speaking of something already accomplished.

143. Similarly, one should ask why it says in Isaiah, his name will be called (Isa 7:14), while it says here, and they will call.

But Jerome says that it says here, they will call, because what the angel first named by announcing (Luke 2:21), the apostles afterwards named by preaching and magnifying. That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow (Phil 2:10).

144. Which is interpreted as, God with us. But it is asked, who added this interpretation of the prophecy God with us, the prophet or the Evangelist? And it seems that it was not the Evangelist, because he did not need this, since he wrote in Hebrew.

But one should say, in one way, that ‘Emmanuel’ is a composite name, so the Evangelist interpreted it even in Hebrew. Or one should say that the one who first translated this Gospel from Hebrew interpreted it.

145. And one should note that the Gloss says that there are three species of prophecy: namely that of predestination, that of foreknowledge, and that of threatening; and these differ.

For prophecy names a foretelling of those things which are distant, i.e., in the future; but there are some things in the future which only God does; some things which, although God does them, still they come about through us and through other creatures as well; further, there are some things which God in no way does, such as evil. The foretelling of those things which only God does is called the prophecy of predestination, such as the conception of the Virgin; hence behold a virgin will conceive (Isa 7:14) is a prophecy of predestination. But those things which come about by secondary causes can be considered in two ways. First, according as they are in the foreknowledge of God, e.g., concerning Lazarus; for if someone were to consider the natural causes, he would say that Lazarus would never rise, and he would speak truly; while nevertheless he was to be raised up according to the order of divine foreknowledge. Therefore, when a prophecy foretells according to what is in the divine foreknowledge, it is always fulfilled; but when it foretells according to inferior causes, it is not always fulfilled, as is clear when Isaiah said to Ezechias, take order with your house, for you will die, and not live (Isa 38:1).

146. But does not a prophecy of foreknowledge impose necessity?

And one should say that it does not, because a prophecy is a particular sign of God’s foreknowledge, which foreknowledge does not impose necessity on the things foreknown, because he considers future things in his own presentiality. For whatever is done is present to God, since his gaze extends to every time; for if I see something present, my gaze does not impose necessity, as when I see someone sitting. And we have understood the prophecies which are brought into this book in this way.

147. For one should consider that there have been three errors.

One is that of the Manichees, who say that no prophecies about Christ are found in the Old Testament; and whatever has been brought into the New Testament from the Old is wholly by corruption.

This is against what is said, Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy Scriptures (Rom 1:1–2). And what is said about the prophets of the Jews is clear below: whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh (Rom 9:5).

148. Another error was that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who says that none of those things which are brought in from the Old Testament are literally about Christ, but are made to fit, as when they bring in that line from Virgil:

he hung remembering such things, and remained pierced

For this is made to fit with Christ. And then **that it might be fulfilled **should be explained in this way, as though the Evangelist had said: and this can be made to fit.

But against this: that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me (Luke 24:44). And one should know that in the Old Testament there are certain things which are referred to Christ and are said only of him, as this line, behold a virgin will conceive, and bear a son (Isa 7:14); and this one: O God my God, look upon me: why have you forsaken me? (Ps 21:2). And if someone were to set down another literal sense, he would be a heretic, and heresy is accursed. But since not only the words of the Old Testament, but even its deeds signify things about Christ, sometimes some things are said literally about others, but are referred to Christ insofar as they bear a figure of Christ, as it is said about Solomon: and he will rule from sea to sea (Ps 71:8), for this was not fulfilled in him.

149. The third error is that of the Jews.

One should know that the Jews especially object to this Scriptural text, because in Hebrew there is not virgin, but alma, which is the same as young woman. Hence literally these things are not said of Christ, but of Emmanuel, or of a certain son of Isaiah, according to others.

But Jerome objected against these men, and proved that it could not be said of the son of Isaiah, because he was already born when this was said. Likewise, no famous person who was called Emmanuel is found to have lived at that time. Again, that a girl should conceive is not a sign. Hence Jerome says that alma is an equivocal word, and sometimes indicates age, and sometimes a thing hidden, and then it means a virgin zealously guarded; and thus it means here.

Again, the Jews objected that this was given as a sign. Two kings came out against Achaz (Isa 7:3), and by giving this sign to Achaz the prophet promised that they would be freed from these kings.

But one should say that he gave this sign not only to Achaz, but also to the house of David, because he says, hear therefore, O house of David (Isa 7:13); as though the Prophet had said, the Lord will help you against this king, because he will do much greater things, since there will be not only the liberation of this man, but of the whole world.

150. But let us return to the text. Now all this was done.

On the contrary, the angel had promised many things, namely he who is born in her, **is of the Holy Spirit **(Matt 1:20), and she will bring forth a son (Matt 1:21), and again, you will call his name. But this had not all been done.

But one should say in one way, according to Rabanus, that the phrase all this was done, is referred to the things done before: that the angel appeared to the Virgin, and said these words, all this was done, for the safekeeping of the Virgin, according as the that is taken causally. Or it is referred to those things which were foretold; and it can be called all done because of predestination.

Or one should say that the Evangelist wrote after it was all done, and so it refers to this. Hence the that is taken consecutively, because he would not have it that God was incarnated for the sake of fulfilling the prophecy, as though the Old Testament were more worthy than the New; but it followed upon the prophecy that Christ was incarnated.