xliv. 29, 30, the impending defeat of Pharaoh-Hophras is given as a

_sign_ of the divine vengeance breaking in upon the Jews in Egypt. Even before the [Pg 40] thing came to pass, it could not in such a case, be otherwise than that the previous condition and foundation brought before the eyes in a lively manner (Jer. xliv. 30: "_Behold_, I give Pharaoh-Hophras into the hands of his enemies") gave a powerful shock to the doubts as to whether the fact in question would come to pass. 4. In other cases, the assurance was given in such a manner, that all doubts as to the truth of the announcement were set at rest by the immediate performance of a miraculous work going beyond the ordinary laws of nature. Thus, _e.g._, Isaiah says to Hezekiah, in chap. xxviii. 7: "And this shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing which He has spoken," and, as a _sign_ that the Lord would add fifteen years to the life of the King, who was sick unto death, he makes the shadow on the sun-dial of Ahaz to go back ten degrees. Of this description were also the signs granted to Gideon, and, in many respects, the plagues in Egypt also. In the passage before us, no other sign can possibly be spoken of than one of the _two last classes_. For it was a real, miraculous sign only which could possibly exert any influence on a mind so darkened as was that of Ahaz, and it was the vain offer of such an one only which was fitted to bring to light his obduracy. If, then, the Prophet was willing and able to give a real, miraculous sign, why, then, is the answer of Ahaz so unsuitable? And we can surely not suppose, as _Meier_ does, that he should have intentionally misunderstood the Prophet. The temptation of the Lord by the children of Israel, to which the word of the Lord, Deut. vi. 16, quoted by Ahaz, refers, consisted, according to Exod. xvii., in their having asked _water_, as a _miraculous sign_ that the Lord was truly in the midst of them. How could the Prophet reproach Ahaz with having offended, not men merely, but God, unless he had offered to prove, by a fact which lay absolutely beyond the limits of nature, the truth of his announcement, the divinity of Him who gave it, the divinity of his own mission, and the soundness of his advice? _Hendewerk_ is of opinion that "it is difficult to say what the author would have made to be the sign in the heavens; probably, a very simple thing." But in making this objection it is forgotten that Isaiah gives _free choice_ to the king. _Hitzig_ says: "Without knowing it, Isaiah here plays a very dangerous game. For if Ahaz had accepted his proposition, Jehovah would [Pg 41] probably have left His servant in the lurch, and he would have begun to doubt of his God and of himself." In these words, at all events, it is conceded that the prophets themselves would not be what people in modern times would have them to be. If such was their position towards _miracles_, then, in their own convictions, _prophecies_, too, must be something else than general descriptions, and indefinite forebodings. But how should it have been possible that an order could have maintained itself for centuries, the most prominent members of which gave themselves up to such enthusiastic imprudence and rashness? Moreover, it is overlooked that afterwards, to Hezekiah, our Prophet grants that in reality which here he offers to Ahaz in vain,--[Hebrew: hemq] and [Hebrew: hgbh] are _Infin. absol._ "going high," "going low." The Imperat. [Hebrew: walh] must be understood after [Hebrew: hgbh] also. Some explain [Hebrew: walh] by "to hell," "down to hell;" but this is against the form of the word, which it would be arbitrary to change. Nor does one exactly see how, if we except, perhaps, the apparition of one dead, Isaiah could have given to the king a sign from the Sheol; and in other passages, too (comp. Joel iii. 3 [ii. 30]), signs in the heavens and in the earth are contrasted with one another. _Theodoret_ remarks that both kinds of miracles, among which the Lord here allowed a choice to Ahaz, were granted by Him to his pious son, Hezekiah, inasmuch as He wrought a phenomenon in _heaven_ which affected the going back of the shadow on the sun-dial of Ahaz; and on _earth_, inasmuch as He, in a wonderful manner, destroyed the Assyrians, and restored the king to health. _Jerome_ farther remarks, that, from among the plagues in Egypt, the lice, frogs, &c., were signs on earth; the hail, fire, and three day's darkness, were signs in the heaven. It is on the passage before us that the Pharisees take their stand, when in Matt. xvi. 1 they ask from the Lord that He should grant them a sign from heaven. If even the Prophet Isaiah offered to prove in such a manner his divine mission, then, according to their opinion, Christ was much more bound to do this, inasmuch as He set up far higher claims. But they overlooked the circumstance that enough had already been granted for convincing those who were well disposed, and that it can never be a duty to convince obstinate unbelief in a manner so palpable.

[Pg 42]

Ver. 12. "_And Ahaz said: I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord._"

Ahaz declines the offer by referring to Deut. vi. 16., and thus assuming the guise of reverence for God and His commandment. "He pretends," says _Calvin_, "to have faith in the words of the Prophet, and not to require anything besides the word." The same declarations of the Law, the Lord opposes to Satan, when the latter would induce Him to do something for which he had no word of God, Matt. iv. 7. That would really have been a tempting of God. Ahaz had no doubt that the miracle would really be performed; but he had a dislike to enter within the mystical sphere. Who knows whether the God who grants the miracle is really the highest God? comp. Is. x. 10, 11, xxxvi. 18-20, xxxvii. 10-12. Who knows whether He is not laying for him a trap; whether, by preventing him from seeking the help of man. He is not to bring upon him the destruction which his conscience tells him he has so richly deserved? At all events the affording of His help is clogged with a condition which he is resolved not to fulfil, viz., his conversion. A better and easier bargain, he thought, could be struck with the Assyrians; how insatiable soever they might be, they did not ask the heart. How many do even now-a-days rather perish in sin and misery, than be converted!

Ver. 13. "_And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it too little for you to provoke man, that you provoke also my God?_"

When Ahaz had before refused to believe in the simple announcement of the Prophet, his sin was more pardonable; for, inasmuch as Isaiah had not proved himself outwardly as a divine ambassador, Ahaz sinned to a certain degree against man only, against the Prophet only, by unjustly suspecting him of a deceitful pretension to a divine revelation. Hence, Isaiah continues mild and gentle. But when Ahaz declined the offered sign, _God himself_ was provoked by him, and his wickedness came evidently to light. It is substantially the same difference as that between the sin against the _Son of Man_, the Christ coming outwardly and as a man only (Bengel: _quo statu conspicu, quatenus aequo tum loco cum hominibus conversabatur_), and the sin against the Holy Ghost who powerfully glorifies Him outwardly and inwardly. It is the antithesis [Pg 43] of the relative ignorance of what one is doing, and of the absolute unwillingness which purposely hardens itself to the truth known, or easy to be known. We say _relative_ ignorance; for an element of obduracy and hardening already existed, if he did not believe the Prophet, even without a sign. For the fact that the Prophet was sent by God, and spoke God's word, was testified to all who would hear it, even by the inner voice, just as in every sin against the Son of Man there is always already an element of the sin against the Holy Ghost.--The truth that godlessness is the highest folly is here seen in a very evident manner. The same Ahaz who rejects the offer of the living God, who palpably wishes to reveal to him that He is a living God, sacrifices his son to the dead idol Moloch, who never yet gave the smallest sign of life! In this mirror we may see the condition of human nature.--The circumstance that it is not Ahaz, but the house of David that is addressed, indicates that the deed is a deed of the whole house.--The Prophet says, "_My God_," _i.e._, the God whose faithful servant I am, and in whom ye hypocrites have no more any share. In Ver. 11, the Prophet had still called Him the God of Ahaz.

Ver. 14. "_Therefore the Lord himself giveth you a sign: Behold the Virgin is with child, and heareth a Son, and thou callest his name Immanuel._"

Ahaz had refused the proffered sign; the whole depth of his apostacy had become manifest; no further regard was to be had to him. But it was necessary to strengthen those who feared God, in their confidence in the Lord, and in their hope in him. For this reason, the Prophet gives a sign, even against the will of Ahaz, by which the announcement of the deliverance from the two kings was confirmed. Your weak, prostrate faith, he says, may erect itself on the certain fact that, in the Son of the Virgin, the Lord will some day be with us in the truest manner, and may perceive therein a guarantee and a pledge of the lower help in the present danger also.--"Therefore"--because ye will not fix upon a sign. _Reinke_, in the ably written Monograph on this passage, assigns to [Hebrew: lkN] the signification, "nevertheless," which is not supported by the _usus loquendi_.--[Hebrew: itN] must be translated as a Present; for the pregnancy of the Virgin and birth of Immanuel are present to [Pg 44] the Prophet; and the fact cannot serve as a sign, in so far as it manifests itself outwardly, but only in so far as, by being foretold, it is realized as present.--[Hebrew: hva] _He_, _i.e._, of His own accord without any co-operation, such as would have taken place if Ahaz had asked the sign.--[Hebrew: lkM] refers by its form to the house of David; but in determining the sign, it is not the real condition of its representative at that time which is regarded, but as he ought to be. In substance, the sign given to ungodly Ahaz is destined for believers only.--[Hebrew: hnh] "behold" indicates the energy with which the Prophet anticipates the future; in his spirit it becomes to him the immediate present. Thus it was understood as early as by _Chrysostom_: [Greek: monon gar ouk horôntos ên ta ginomena kai phantazomenou kai pollên echontos huper tôn eirêmenôn plêrophorian, tôn gar hêmeterôn ophthalmôn ekeinoi saphesteron ta mê horômena eblepon.]--The article in [Hebrew: helmh] cannot refer to _the_ virgin _known_ as the mother of the Saviour; for, besides the passage before us, it is only Micah v. 2 (3) which mentions the mother of the Saviour, and it is our passage only which speaks of her as a _virgin_. In harmony with [Hebrew: hnh], the article in [Hebrew: helmh] might be explained from the circumstance that the Virgin is present to the inward perception of the Prophet--equivalent to "the virgin there." But since the use of the article in the _generic_ sense is so general, it is most natural to understand "the virgin" as forming a contrast to the married or old woman, and hence, in substance, as here equivalent to _a_ virgin. To this view we are led also by the circumstance that, in the parallel passage, Mic. v. 2 (3) [Hebrew: ivldh] "a bearing woman" is used without the article.--[Hebrew: elmh] is, by old expositors, commonly derived from [Hebrew: elM] in the signification "to conceal" A virgin, they assume, is called a _concealed_ one, with reference to the customs of the East, where the virgins are obliged to lead a concealed life. Thus it was understood by _Jerome_ also: "_Almah_ is not applied to girls or virgins generally, but is used emphatically of a hidden and concealed virgin, who is never accessible to the look of males, but who is with great care watched by the parents." But all parties now rightly agree that the word is to be derived from [Hebrew: elM], in the signification, "to grow up." To offer here any arguments in proof would be a work of supererogation, as they are offered by all dictionaries. But with all that, _Luther's_ remark is even now in full force: "If [Pg 45] a Jew or a Christian can prove to me that in any passage of Scripture _Almah_ means 'a married woman,'I will give him a hundred florins, although God alone knows where I may find them." It is true that [Hebrew: elmh] is distinguished from [Hebrew: btvlh], which designates the virgin state as such, and in this signification occurs in Joel i. 8. also where the bride laments over her bridegroom whom she has lost by death. Inviolate chastity is, in itself, not implied in the word. But certain it is that [Hebrew: elmh] designates an unmarried person in the first years of youth; and if this be the case, un violated chastity is a matter of course in this context; for if the mother of the Saviour was to be an _unmarried_ person, she could be a virgin only; and, in general, it is inconceivable that the Prophet should have brought forward a relation of impure love. In favour of "an unmarried person" is, in the first instance, the derivation. Being derived from [Hebrew: elM], "to grow up," "to become marriageable," [Hebrew: elmh] can denote nothing else than _puella nubilis_. But still more decisive is the _usus loquendi_. In Arabic and Syriac the corresponding words are never used of married women, and _Jerome_ remarks, that in the Punic dialect also a virgin proper is called [Hebrew: elmh]. Besides in the passage before us, the word occurs in Hebrew six times (Gen. xxiv. 43; Exod. ii. 8; Ps. lxviii. 26; Song of Sol. i. 3, vi. 8; Prov. xxx. 19); but in all these passages the word is undeniably used of unmarried persons. In the two passages of the Song of Solomon, the [Hebrew: elmvt] designate the nations which have not yet attained to an union with the heavenly Solomon, but are destined for this union. In chap. vi. 8, they are, as _brides_, expressly contrasted with the _wives_ of the first and second class. Marriage forms the boundary; the _Almah_ appears here distinctly as the anti-thesis to a married woman. It is the passage in Proverbs only which requires a more minute examination, as the opponents have given up all the other passages, and seek in it alone a support for their assertion that [Hebrew: elmh] may be used of a married woman also. The passage in its connection runs as follows: Ver. 18. "There be three things which are too wonderful for me, and four which I know not. Ver. 19. The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon the rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a maid. Ver. 20. This is the way of an adulterous woman; she [Pg 46] eateth, and wipeth her mouth and saith: I have done no wickedness." According to _De Wette_, _Bertheau_, and others, the _tertium comparationis_ for every thing is to lie in this only, that the ways do not leave any trace that could be recognized. But the traceless disappearing is altogether without foundation; there is not one word to indicate it; and it is quite impossible that that on which every thing depends should have been left to conjecture. Farther,--instead of the eagle, every other bird might have been mentioned, and the words "in the air" would be without meaning, as well as the words "in the heart of the sea" mentioned in reference to the ship. But the real point of view is expressly stated in ver. 18. It is the _incomprehensible_. It is thus only that ver. 20, for which the other verses prepare the way, falls in with the tendency of the whole. In the way of the adulteress, that which is pointed out is not that it cannot be known, but the moral incomprehensibility that she, practising great wickedness which is worthy of death, and will unavoidably bring destruction upon her, behaves as if there were nothing wrong, as if a permitted enjoyment were the point in question, that she eats the poisoned bread of unchaste enjoyment as if it were ordinary bread; comp. ix. 17, xx. 17; Ps. xiv. 4. Four incomprehensible things in the natural territory are made use of to illustrate an incomprehensible thing in the ethical territory. The whole purpose is _to point out the mystery of sin_. In the case of the _eagle_, it is the boldness of his flight in which the miraculous consists. The speed and boldness of his flight is elsewhere also very commonly mentioned as the characteristic of the eagle; it is just that which makes him the king of birds. In the case of the _serpent_, the wonder is that, although wanting feet, it yet moves over the smooth rock which is inaccessible to the proud horse; comp. Amos vi. 12: "Do horses run upon the rock." In the _ship_, it is the circumstance that she safely passes over the abyss which, as it would appear, could not fail to swallow her up. _The way of a man with a maid_ occupies the last place in order to intimate that [Hebrew: drK], as in the case of the adulteress, denotes the _spiritual_ way. What is here meant is the relation of the man to the virgin, _generally_, for if any _particular_ aspect had been regarded, _e. g._, that of boldness, cunning, or secrecy, it [Pg 47] ought to have been pointed at. The way of the man with the maid is the secret of which mention is made as early as in Gen. ii. 24,--the union of the strong with the weak and tender (comp. the parallel passage, Jer. xxxi. 22), the secret attraction which connects with one another the hearts, and at last, the bodies. The end of the way is marriage. It is the _young_ love which specially bears the character of the mysterious; after the relation has been established, it attracts less wonder.--[Hebrew: hrh] is the femin. of the verbal adj. [Hebrew: hrh]. The fundamental passage, Gen. xvi. 11, where the angel of the Lord says to Hagar: "Behold thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has heard thy affliction," shows that we must translate: The virgin _is_ with child, and not: becomes with child. The allusion to that passage in Genesis is very significant. In that case, as well as in the one under consideration, salvation is brought into connection with the birth of a child. To the birth of Ishmael, the despairing Hagar is directed as to a security for the divine favour; to the birth of Immanuel, the desponding people are directed as to the actual proof that God is with them. If the _Almah_ represents herself to the Prophet as being already with child, then passages such as Is. xxix. 8, Matt. xi. 5, are not applicable. A virgin who is with child cannot be one who was a virgin.--The form [Hebrew: qrat] may be 3d fem. for [Hebrew: qrah], comp. Jer. xliv. 23; but the fundamental passage in Gen. xvi. 11 is decisive for considering it as the 2d fem.: "_thou_ callest," as an address to the virgin; in which case the form is altogether regular. It was not a rare occurrence in Israel that mothers gave the name to children, Gen. iv. 1, 25, xix. 37, xxix. 32. The circumstance, therefore, that the giving of the name is assigned to the mother (the virgin) affords no ground for supposing, as many of the older expositors do, that this is an intimation that the child would not have a human father. "Thou callest" can, on the contrary, according to the custom then prevalent, be substantially equivalent to: they shall name, Matt. [Greek: kalesousi], _Jerome_: _vocabitur_. The name is, of course, not to be considered as an ordinary _nomen proprium_, but as a designation of his nature and character. It may be understood in different ways. Several interpreters, _e. g._, _Jerome_, referring to passages such as Ps. xlvi. 8, lxxxix. 25, Is. xliii. 2, Jer. i. 8, see [Pg 48] in it nothing else than an appeal to, and promise of divine aid. According to others, the name is to be referred to God's becoming man in the Messiah; thus _Theodoret_ says: "The name reveals the God who is with us, the God who became man, the God who took upon Him the human nature." In a similar manner _Irenaeus_, _Tertullian_, _Chrysostom_, _Lactantius_, _Calvin_, and others, express themselves. But those very parallel passages just quoted show that the name in itself has no distinct reference to the incarnation of God in Christ. But from the passage chap. ix. 5, (6), which is so closely connected with the one before us, and in which the Messiah is called _God-hero_, (the mighty God), and His divine nature so emphatically pointed out (comp. also Mic. v. 1 [2],) it plainly appears that the Prophet had in view the highest and truest form of God's being with His people, such as was made manifest when the word became flesh. (Chrysostom says: "Then, above all, God was with us on earth, when He was seen on earth, and conversed with man, and manifested so great care for us.")

According, then, to the interpretation given, this verse before us affirms that, at some future period, the Messiah should be born by a virgin, among the covenant people, who in the truest manner would bring God near to them, and open the treasures of His salvation. In Vol. I. p. 500 ff., we proved that this explanation occurs already in the Gospel according to St. Matthew. According to the interpretation of the Apostle, the passage can refer to Christ only, and finds in him not only the highest, but the only fulfilment. In the Christian Church, throughout all ages, the Messianic explanation was the prevailing one. It was held by all the Fathers of the Church, and by all other Christian commentators down to the middle of the 18th century,--only that some, besides the higher reference to the Messiah, assumed a lower one to some event of that period. With the revival of faith, this view, too, has been revived. It is proved by the parallel passage, chap. ix. 5 (6). That passage presents so remarkable an agreement with the one now under consideration, that we cannot but assume the same subject in both. "Behold, a virgin is with child, and beareth a son"--"A child is born unto us, a son is given;"--"They call him Immanuel," _i.e._, Him in whom God will be with us in the truest manner--"They call Him [Pg 49] Wonder-Counsellor, the God-Hero, Ever-Father, the Prince of Peace." Both of these passages can the less be separated from one another, that chap. viii. 8 is evidently intended to lead from the one to the other. In this passage it is said of the _world's power_, which in the meantime, and in the first place, was represented by _Asshur_: "And the stretchings out of his wings are the fulness of the breadth of thy land, Immanuel," i. e., his wings will cover the whole extent of thy land,--the stretching of the wings of this immense bird of prey, Asshur, comprehends the whole land. In the words: "Thy land, O Immanuel," the prophecy of the wonderful Child, in chap. viii. 23-ix. 6 (ix. 1-7), is already prepared. The land in which Immanuel is to be born, which belongs to Him, cannot remain continually the property of heathen enemies. Every destruction is, at the same time, a prophecy of the restoration. A look to the wonderful Child, and despair must flee. Behind the clouds, the sun is shining. Every attempt to assign the Immanuel to the lower sphere, must by this passage be rendered futile. For how, in that case, could Canaan be called _His_ land? The signification "native country" which [Hebrew: arC], it is true, sometimes receives by the context, does not suit here. For the passage just points out the contrast of reality and idea, that the world's power takes possession of the land which _belongs_ to Immanuel, and hence prepares for the announcement contained in that which follows, viz., that this contrast shall be done away with, and that this shall be done as soon as the legitimate proprietor comes into His kingdom. Farther,--Decisive in favour of the Messianic explanation is also the passage Mic. v. 1, 2, (2, 3), where, in correspondence to _virgin_ here, we have, _she who is bearing_. The latter, indeed, is not expressly called a virgin; but it follows, as a matter of course, that she be so, as she is to bear the Hero of Divine origin ("_of eternity_"), who, hence, cannot have been begotten by any mortal. Both of the prophecies mutually illustrate one another. "Micah designates the Divine origin of the Promised One; Isaiah, the miraculous circumstances of His birth" (_Rosenmüller_) Just as Isaiah holds up the birth of Immanuel as the pledge that the covenant-people would not perish in their present catastrophe; just as he points to the shining form of Immanuel, announcing the victory over the [Pg 50] world, in order to comfort them in the impending severe oppression by the world's power (viii. 8);--so Micah makes the oppression by the world's power continue only until the time that she who is bearing brings forth. As Micah, in v. 1 (2), contrasts the divine dignity and nature with the birth in time, so, in Isaiah, Immanuel, He in whom God will most truly be with His people, is born by a virgin.

The arguments which the Jews, and, following their example, the rationalistic interpreters, especially _Gesenius_, and with them _Olshausen_, have advanced against the Messianic explanation, prove nothing. They are these:

1. "A reference to the Messiah who, after the lapse of centuries, is to be born of a virgin, appears to be without meaning in the present circumstances." This argument proves too much, and, hence, nothing. _It would be valid against Messianic prophecies in general_, the existence of which certainly cannot be denied. Do not Jeremiah and Ezekiel, at the time when the people were carried away into captivity, comfort them by the announcement that the kingdom of God should, in a far more glorious manner, be established by Messiah, whose appearance was yet several centuries distant? The highest proof of Israel's dignity and election, was the promise that, at some future time, the Messiah was to be born among them. How, indeed, could the Lord leave, without the lower help in the present calamity, a people with whom He was to be, at some future period, in the truest manner? The Prophet refers to the future Saviour in a way quite similar to that in which the Apostle refers to Him, after He had appeared: "Who did not spare His only begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, how should He not in Him give us all things freely?" Let us only realize the truth that the hope in the Messiah formed the centre of the life of believers; that this hope was, by fear, repressed only, but not destroyed. All which was needed, therefore, was to revive this hope, and with it the special hope for the present distress also was given--the assurance, firm as a rock, that in it the covenant-people could not perish. This revival took place in this way, that in the mind of the Prophet, the Messianic hope was, by the Holy Spirit, rekindled, so that at his light all might kindle their lights. The Messianic idea here meets us in such originality [Pg 51] and freshness, as if here were its real fountain head. The faith already existing is only the foundation, only the point of connexion. What is essential is the new revelation of the old truth, and that could not fail to be affecting, overpowering to susceptible minds.

2. "The ground of consolation is too _general_. The Messiah might be born from the family of Ahaz without the Jewish state being preserved in its then existing condition, and without Ahaz continuing on the throne. The Babylonish captivity intervened, and yet Messiah was to be born. Isaiah would thus have made himself guilty of a false sophistical argumentation."--We answer: What they, at that time, feared, was the total destruction of state and people. This appears sufficiently from the circumstance that the prophet takes his son Shearjashub with him; and indeed the intentions of the enemy in this respect are expressed with sufficient clearness in ver. 6. It is this _extreme_ of fear which the Prophet here first opposes. Just as, according to the preceding verses, he met the fear of entire destruction by taking with him his son Shearjashub, "the remnant will be converted," without thereby excluding a temporary carrying away, so he there also prepares the mind for the announcement contained in vers. 15, 16, of the near deliverance from the present danger, by first representing the fear of an entire destruction to be unfounded. A people, moreover, to whom, at some future period, although it may be at a very remote future, a divine _Saviour_ is to be sent, must, in the present also, be under special divine protection. They may be visited by severe sufferings, they may be brought to the very verge of destruction,--whether that shall be the case the Prophet does not, as yet, declare,--but one thing is sure, that to them all things must work together for good; and that is the main point. He who is convinced of this, may calmly and quietly look at the course of events.

3. "The sense in which [Hebrew: avt] is elsewhere used in Scripture, is altogether disregarded by this interpretation. For, according to it, [Hebrew: avt] would refer to a future event; but according to the _usus loquendi_ elsewhere observed, [Hebrew: avt] 'is a prophesied second event, the earlier fulfilment of which is to afford a sure guarantee for the fulfilment of the first, which is really the point at issue.'" But, in opposition to this, it is sufficient to [Pg 52] refer to Exod.