The Extraordinary Form: The Altar of God

After signing themselves in the name of the Trinity, the priest and servers begin the Mass.  The Mass starts with the proclamation of Introibo ad Altare Dei.  I will go unto the altar of God.  The servers respond "To God that giveth joy to my youth."

In this short exchange one could see the entirety of salvation history.  We rejected the joy that God gives in the Garden of Eden.  In varying degrees, that joy is rejected any time we sin.  We prefer the "joy" we provide for ourselves (which can never truly satisfy) rather than what God willed for us.

Christ came to change this situation.  Through His sacrifice, that joy is once again given to humanity.  Yet like before, we can choose to reject it.  Contained in that statement is our own reversal of the devil's original offer to our first parents.  While the world seeks their own desires and needs, we seek God's mercy.

Imploring that mercy, we ask to be judged according to that mercy.  This is done by the priest and servers alternating responses in Psalm 42:

Judge me O God, and dinstiguish my cause from the nation that is not holy, deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

For Thou art God, my strength:  why hast Thou cast me off?  and why do i go sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicteth me?

Send forth Thy light and Thy truth:  they have conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy hill, and into Thy tabernacles.

And I will go in to the altar of God: to God who giveth joy to my youth.

To Thee o God, my God, I will give praise upon the harp; why art thou sad, O my soul, and why dost thou disquiet me?

Hope in God, for I will give praise to Him:  the salvation of my countenance and my God.

What is requested is the sanctifying of the Church, a sanctification in the classic sense of the term.  When something was sanctified, it was set apart.  While everything else had multiple uses and functions, that which was sanctified was meant for one purpose, and one purpose only.  The priest in saying this prayer is reminded of the fact that his very vocation was meant for the offering of the Eucharist.  The faithful are reminded of their own priestly nature by baptism where their job is to offer their very existence to the Father.

Due to sin, we will stray from that vocation from time to time.  Yet when that happens, we must always remember our job as Catholics:  to approach the altar of God.  The true altar is the Cross.  Sometimes sacrifice is offered on the altar.  Sometimes, the sacrifice of a contrite heart is offered as we approach the altar.  Other times, it is a sacrifice of thanksgiving that is presented to the altar for the priest to offer.  One way or another, our job is at the Holy Cross.

To remind us of our sinful nature and our refusal to be mastered by it, a verse from Psalm 123 is then recited:

Our help is in the name of the Lord
Who made heaven and earth

Only through God's help can we expect to perform the job that is our calling, our vocation.  Only through God can we receive true joy that comes about from fulfilling what we were created for.  We are a people of the Cross, and only the Cross.

The Extraordinary Form: The Sign of the Cross

During the 4th century, there was a Roman general by the name of Flavius Constantinus.  Like all powerful generals of his time, Constantinus had imperial ambitions.  Being one of the four rulers of the entire empire was not enough.  He desired to be sole Emperor.  As civil war (a very frequent occurrence in the Roman world) erupted, it is said this pagan general was visited in a dream by who he perceived to be a great Spirit.

That great Spirit identified Himself as Jesus of Nazareth, and instructed Constantinus to have a new standard for his troops to march under.  Shaped in what they would perceive to be a Cross, the general was told "in this sign shall you conquer."  He complied with the vision and prepared for battle, the troops marching under this new sign.  Despite being outnumbered (some reports say that his foe had double his forces), his forces won a decisive victory.  Constantinus entered Rome and became known from that day forth in the history books as the Emperor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, and one of the greatest Caesars Rome ever had.

We may never know the truth of what happened that day.  Yet this story is instructive, for it provides I believe the attitude we should have as we approach the altar at Mass when it begins.  For we mark ourselves with that same sign as Mass begins.

As the priest enters the sanctuary, he goes to the foot of the altar.  Before even ascending the steps, he marks himself with the sign of the cross saying the words: "In Nomine Partis, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.  Amen."  In English, we know them as "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  While Constantine may have done this with aspirations of victory in physical combat, the priest (and all faithful) mark ourselves with this sign as we enter spiritual warfare.  We know that through the Holy Cross, the Devil was conquered.  We remind both ourselves and him of that fact when we begin the Mass.  It is during the Mass this conquering is made present to the world.

Through this sign we also indicate whom the Mass is offered to.  The Mass, and all of our lives, is meant to be offered to the Holy Trinity.  Each distinctive person of the Trinity plays a particular role in the Mass.  By signing ourselves by their name, we should call to mind those roles.  We call to mind the Father who created us and desired union with us.  We call to mind the Son who redeemed us when we rejected that offer of union.  Finally, we call to mind the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us through the merits of Christ's sacrifice and leads us on the path towards that union.  In that pledge, our dedication to the Three in One is renewed.

The Extraordinary Form: Praying the Mass

Continuing in our series on the Extraordinary Form, I have attempted to outline several approaches that I feel are necessary for truly understanding the Mass.  A popular caricature of the Latin Mass is the priest speaking silently to himself while everyone just fumbles through their rosary beads during Mass.  That the faithful were at Mass could almost be viewed as irrelevant in such a scenario.

Like all caricatures, there is a hint of truth to them.  There are times when people will pray the Rosary during Mass in times past.  This is almost non-existent nowadays, but there is some benefit at times.  To associate with holy thoughts during the Sacrifice of Calvary is never a bad thing.  To meditate especially on the Sorrowful Mysteries during this event cannot be faulted.

Yet I believe Holy Mother Church calls us to something far greater.  This individual in such a scenario would be "praying at Mass."  St. Pius X called us to "pray the Mass."  He states:

The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists.  It is the Sacrifice, dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar.  [1]  If you wish to hear mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart and mouth all that happens at the Altar.  Further, you must pray with the Priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him.  You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens at the Altar.  When acting in this way you have prayed Holy Mass.

We find in this quote the beauty of the Mass.  The Mass is not just the function of the priest and the servers at the altar.  If if is that way in our parish and in our hearts, we are doing it wrong.  Every person should be truly participating in the Mass.  How can one expect the grace of the Eucharist to be fruitful if received by a soul that is not fully involved with the Eucharistic sacrifice?

Many people have twisted this perfectly noble concept however.  To them, participation means "doing something" almost always in the vocal and emotive.  People are called to clap their hands, move around, play guitars and drums, and do just about everything in the mass as lay people except consecrate the hosts themselves. (Alas; The Holy Spirit places a check on our narcissism here thankfully.)  Yet this was not participation to St. Pius X.  For St. Pius, active participation implied an interior involvement manifested by the exterior.

Our souls can perceive the symbolism because our eyes follow the symbols.  Our souls perceive the wisdom of the words of the prayers because our intellects are focused on the words being said and desiring to learn from them.  The soul is lifted up to heaven through the smelling of the incense that rises to the heavens.  our souls taste the spiritual sweetness that is the Eucharist through the reception in our mouths.  And when these senses are not sufficient, faith elevates above them.

This is the beauty of the Catholic Mass.  The Church engages the entire body and soul of the Christian.  If our faith should teach us anything, it is that prayer occurs numerous ways.  Sometimes prayer involves saying words.  Sometimes pray involves doing actions.  And other times, prayer involves being completely passive and letting God do His work.  From this it follows is that it is the obligation of every Catholic to pray the prayer that is the Catholic Mass.  We may not be able to offer the Eucharist to the heavenly altar the way the priest can, but we can offer ourselves towards the Father, and the Cross purifies that offering of ours and makes it truly acceptable to God.

It is through this understanding that the motions of the Extraordinary Form make sense.  Whether we kneel, stand, sing, speak, stay silent, these are all part of the prayer the entire people of God offer to the Trinity that is the Catholic Mass.

The Extraordinary Form: Silence is Golden

When my girlfriend began attending the EF, she told me how the biggest "difference" for her was the inclusion of silence in the Mass.  With the Ordinary Form, silence depends on how reverent the Church is.  With the EF, that silence is built right into the Mass, and with very good reason.

"But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him" says the prophet Habakkuk.  Today we live in a world where this kind of thinking is anathema.  When you are in the presence of one you respect greatly, you defer to them.  You give them the honor that is due to them, and you would want nothing you do to detract from their rightful honor.  One could say that our current liturgical consciences are infected with this sickness.  We must always have some sort of noise going on at Mass, since we try to make ourselves the center of attention.  Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger said the following about the way modern man approaches the Mass and the Eucharist:

How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words!

There are those who will have things running simply as "background noise" for to sit in silence is abhorrent.  It is in silence that we truly "hear" our souls.  With no distraction, we will end up reflecting on ourselves and on those things around us.  We will recognize the pointlessness of so much minutiae.  Hopefully, we learn to listen to God in place of these disturbances.  Elijah did not perceive the presence of God until he perceived the "stillness" in the air.

Finally, silence is an affirmation of our human weakness in the sight of God's majesty.  Nothing we understand can fully comprehend the mysteries of God.  As Alice Von Hildebrand said of such instances "silent adoration is the only response." 

That silence at Mass is most profound during the canon of the Mass, where almost all of it is prayed in silence by the priest.  Such silence is meant to be a signal for us that something very important is transpiring.  Up until this point, the liturgy could be called a work of man.  At the consecration of the Eucharist, it becomes a work of the Holy Spirit.  Only through the Holy Spirit does the change in substance take place.  I could walk up to the altar and say those words all I want, but it would still remain just bread.  Only in the priest (who receives the Holy Spirit in a very particular manner to offer said sacrifice) can the consecration occur.  Even then, it is not the priest who is saying these words, but Jesus Christ acting through the priest.  (The Latin refers to it as in persona Christi, in the person of Christ.)

What could we possibly add to this with our noise?

The Extraordinary Form: "Facing the Lord"

Outside of the use of Latin, one of the most striking differences in the Latin Mass is the orientation of the priest. In popular criticism, the priest “has his back turned to the people.” There are those who think that this creates a barrier between the priest and the congregation, and that the priest is even “hiding” what he is saying. Even those who recognize this as utter nonsense still I think fail to perceive the reasons for the priest facing the altar.

In the minds of eminent liturgical scholars like Msgr. Klaus Gamber and Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), there was no change more damaging in the liturgical reform than the change in which the priest now faces the people from behind the altar. When one considers this, I believe one finds that this is not the ranting of reactionaries, but a very insightful and principled stand. There are numerous reasons the priest faces the direction he does in the Extraordinary Form. I would like to focus on a few.

One is no doubt symbolic. In many Churches, the altar was constructed facing the east. This was because the Scriptures describe Christ as returning from the East. As we face east, we anticipate the return of Our Lord. His descent during the consecration of the Eucharist is a shadow of his eventual return in full splendor and glory at the end of the age. The knowledge of this tradition and symbolism sadly faded in the consciences of many Catholics.

When we lost this knowledge, we began to lose our understanding as a people of the Resurrection. While the Mass is indeed the making present of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, that Cross means nothing without the empty tomb. St. Paul tells us that if Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is meaningless. Implied in the Resurrection is that we will also rise again. During the Mass, we add ourselves to Christ’s sacrifice. We join ourselves to the Cross, for without the cross nothing we do can be efficacious. Yet we also express our hope in this Resurrection by directing our attention to where Christ is expected to return.

Another way of describing this orientation would be to say we are “facing God.” In the EF and in the Roman tradition (this one going back many centuries), the tabernacle was front and center on the altar. Within the tabernacle Catholics profess is Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Let me emphasize this. Catholics believe that God Incarnate exists within the tabernacle: body, blood, soul and divinity.

When we converse, we view it a common courtesy to face the person. To look away would be to imply disrespect. Those who defend Mass facing the people will jump on this. Yet they fail to understand this one simple fact: The Mass is not addressed to man. It is addressed ultimately to God. We are witnessing in a miraculous way the offering of Christ to the Father that occurs outside of time. Since our King is present on the altar, He takes the position of prominence, not a man.

Finally, we may look at the orientation of the priest as a symbol of unity. Far from the priest “turning his back” on the people creating division, the orientation of the priest is a very powerful sign of unity. The priest is a sinner, just like the people in the pews. He as well must implore God’s mercy. Though he may take a place of prominence amongst those in that respective Church, he must do the same as we do. He humbly leads his faithful towards their encounter with God.

In a rich display of this symbolism, the priest addresses the congregation right before the canon of the Mass and says:

Orate fratres, et meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotentem.
Pray Brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty

Right before the most important part of the Mass, the priest turns to the people and implores their aid. He is offering Mass for the benefit of the faithful, himself included, even if the faithful are just the altar servers. The priest begs our prayers and implores us to unite our sacrifices with that which he is prepared to offer. When the priest is always facing the people, this moment loses its significance. It becomes one moment amongst many.

One could multiply the times this rich symbolism is diluted by having Mass facing the people. No longer is God the center of attention, but His servant the priest. No longer is there that rich and true egalitarianism of the priest going in the same direction as the people. Instead, he becomes the focus of attention, which the people must gaze upon. In almost all cases, the tabernacle has been removed from the place of primacy that is deserved. Instead, it is placed normally off to the side, almost as an afterthought in the liturgy. The altar no longer becomes the throne of our Blessed Lord.

Have we not lost the sacrificial understanding of the Mass today? Do not many just view it as a mere meal, rather than the making present of the sacrifice by which we granted eternal salvation as a gift from the Father? Are we not more reliant than ever on there being a priest who does the Mass properly, since so many do not? Is there not a higher demand for the “creativity” of the priest, since after all he is now the center of attention?

The entire tone of the EF is set by this simple positioning in the beginning. Let us also set ourselves accordingly.

Understanding the Extraordinary Form: Introduction

As readers of this weblog are aware, Common Sense Catholicism really is a free-flowing project. I frequently take the blog into new projects and directions. Sometimes, this is because your not so humble correspondent has a very scattered mind. Other times, it is because I feel there really needs to be a better presentation of the faith from a wide variety of topics. The latter is the cause of this next project.

I’d like to talk about the Extraordinary Form (henceforth EF) of the Roman Liturgy, better known as the “Traditional Mass”, “The Latin Mass”, “Tridentine” Mass (for reasons I do not care to go into at the time I despise this term), and so on. In writing on this topic, I hope to correct an imbalance I perceive.

In traditionalist thought, there is plenty of type over why the Extraordinary Form is superior to the Ordinary Form. (Sometimes known as the Novus Ordo, Pauline Mass, Mass of Paul VI, etc.) Yet amongst modern minds, there is little energy spent on pointing out with precision why the EF is superior on it’s own merits. This is my goal. I will do so by going through the prayers used in the EF, and giving commentary on them.

Before we do that, I would like to point out a few noticeable differences Catholics will encounter when assisting at Mass in the EF.

Why the Incarnation Matters: The Fall of Judah

Immediately following the death of Hezekiah, one could be forgiven for assuming that the Kingdom of Judah was in great shape. The Kingdom of Samaria had ceased to exist. The Assyrians had been beaten back, and were beginning to crumble. When he finally passed, Hezekiah gave to his son a peaceful and one could even say flourishing Kingdom. Most importantly, the worship of the True God flourished under his reign. The young King Manasseh would also have the prophet Isaiah to guide him just as he guided his father.


All of these assumptions, while logical, ended up being tragically mistaken. Manasseh is now remembered as one of the worst kings in the Biblical record. Normally when the writer of Kings (whom many presume to be Jeremiah the Prophet) spoke of a wicked King, he speaks of their cruelty in as short of terms as possible, states they did “wicked in the sight of the Lord” and moves on. With Manasseh, he spends considerable time detailing what he did. This I believe would imply that even amongst bad kings (of which there were several) Manasseh outdid them by far:

 

• Restore the High Places throughout Judah, eliminating the centrality of worship in Jerusalem according to the law.
• Installed pagan altars within the temple, even in place of the altar where sacrifice to Yahweh was offered
• Built a grove in his palace for the worship of idols
• Offered his son as a human sacrifice to idols
• Promoted heavy use of the occult (wizards, soothsayers, divniation, etc)
• Built a giant idol in the court of the temple and commanded worship of it
• Murdered those who supported his fathers reforms
• Is traditionally held as the one who ordered the execution of the Prophet Isaiah, who died by being sawn in half

In the biblical accounts, Kings were condemned as “wicked” for far less. Because of these things, the Kingdom of Judah is sent on a course for which it will never recover. For because of his actions, the Kingdom of Judah would be destroyed. The first part of this involves the punishment of Manasseh directly. Assyria invades Judah (again), and this time they capture the King. We know from historical accounts that the Assyrians were particularly brutal towards Kings that they captured, and it can be implied that Manasseh was tortured grievously.

 

Eventually, Manasseh repents and begs for deliverance from the God he had done so much to profane. God accepts this repentance, and he is released from captivity and restored to the throne. The remainder of his rule is spent attempting to clean the mess he had propagated for decades. This did little in the end, since the people never turned their ways. Once he died (and he was buried in the same pagan grove he had installed in his own house), his son continued his father’s wicked reign, yet refused to repent.

 

Josiah’s reign is far different than his father or his grandfathers. At the young age of 16 (according to the biblical accounts) Josiah begins to worship God, and begins his program of reform. Most likely this was also the time he could assert the throne without (much) interference from regents. A decade later, he discovers the book of Deuteronomy and is stunned. Let us ponder that a bit.

 

One would think that even if they lacked the physical book, Jews should have known the laws prescribed in the book. One would think they would know about the Sabbath and all that entails. Even if they weren’t practiced perfectly throughout times, they were known. In the time of Hezekiah, these things were completely unknown to the King. An inference would be that the successive reigns of Manasseh and Amon were so thorough in their cleansing of the religion of God that there was almost no knowledge left of it. Even those who wanted to follow Yahweh would have had no little clue how.

 

Inspired by the law, Josiah undertakes a massive reform. Paganism is banned, the high places are destroyed, the prostitution cults are expelled from the Kingdom, and many festivals were celebrated for the first time in centuries during his reign, despite them being in the law as obligations to celebrate. He listened to the counsels of wise priests, and was greatly assisted by his strongest defender, the prophet Jeremiah.

 

Sadly, all he did was buy the Kingdom of Judah time. The regional situation was rapidly shifting, and successive Kings did away with almost all of Josiah’s reforms. Within 25 years, the Kingdom was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon.

 

I mention this history for the purposes of painting the general background of future installments. This is also mentioned to show the providence and mercy of God, paradoxical as it seems. As was the case all too often, sinful man chose to serve himself above God. Yet even with this situation, God provides a way for the people to turn to him. Whether it was righteous Kings or prophets, there would always be a way for the Jews to find their way back to God. This will be expanded upon later, as we begin to see the theology of the Incarnation start to take concrete form.

Why the Incarnation Matters: "Whom You Knew Not"

After prophesying of the future universal Kingdom of Israel, Isaiah then gives a bit of insight as to how this Kingdom will come about. Ironically (or so it would seem!), some of these foundations are laid by a man outside of the nation of Israel. Isaiah declares:

Thus saith the Lord to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue nations before his face, and to turn the backs of kings, and to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut. I will go before thee, and will humble the great ones of the earth: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and will burst the bars of iron. And I will give thee hidden treasures, and the concealed riches of secret places: that thou mayest know that I am the Lord who call thee by thy name, the God of Israel. For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have made a likeness of thee, and thou hast not known me. I am the Lord, and there is none else: there is no God, besides me: I girded thee, and thou hast not known me:

The Cyrus mentioned is Cyrus the Great. He was the great Persian King who conquered the Babylonians, along with countless other Kingdoms. In doing so, he freed the Israelis from their exile, and sent them back to their native land to rebuild their temple. In Jewish Culture, he is the only gentile to be referred to as a Christ, an anointed one who delivers God’s people. What he did is not in dispute. Yet how did he pave the way for that future Kingdom. Most importantly, why should we care?

In the culture surrounding Israel at the time, the King was portrayed as divine, or at least the personal messenger of a divinity. The Persians practiced proskynesis. This was a system of submission as a way of placing the King above everyone else. Varying social ranks had to perform different acts of submission. The lower you got, the more one humbled themselves. For the lowest on the ladder, they were required to be completely prostrate before the King. The full title of Cyrus was King of Aryavrata, King of Persia, King of Anshan, King of Media, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, King of the four corners of the World. In shorthand, the Persian King was referred to as the King of Kings.

Even with all of this claimed authority, Yahweh claims that such a man is His anointed. In the choosing of these words, God is claiming authority over the reign of even foreign kingdoms. He is establishing Himself as the source of all ruling authority here. The idea that such a King would be pressed into the service of a foreign god would have seemed absurd. Yet Yahweh is proclaiming precisely this.

We can also gain much insight when we ponder the type of kingdom that Cyrus ruled over. To put it mildly, it was quite different than most Kingdoms of the past and future. Though an absolute monarch, he rarely dealt in the affairs of his subject. Instead, he relied on satraps, those who had pledged their service to him. They had a considerable amount of autonomy to run things as they saw fit. This was in remarkable contrast to the Babylonians, who ruled with an iron fist frequently their vassals.

On religious matters as well, Cyrus’ approach was far different than the previous great rulers of the region. Though divinity was inseparable from kingly authority, Cyrus followed a policy of religious tolerance. He frequently portrayed himself as the servant of local gods in propaganda to establish his rule. He allowed people to worship as they pleased, provided they kept in their prayers the Emperor (a shadow of this is seen in the book of Ezra). Most famously, he is known for the Edict of Restoration, the proclamation which gave the Jews the order to rebuild their temple and places of worship.

These policies gave the Jews a new lease on life. Returning from their exile (of which we will speak more of later), they were in a sense a purified remnant. They were allowed to practice their faith and develop their traditions in almost complete and total safety during Persian rule. The governor of Jerusalem was even the grandson of the last legitimate King of Judah. Without the actions of Cyrus, there would have been no Israel. We see God working behind the scenes, slowly laying the landscape for the Incarnation. The Incarnation literally was an act millennia in the making.

St. Joseph and the Holy Innocents

Today we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents.  These were the infant children of Bethlehem massacred by King Herod in an attempt to wipe out Christ, whom he perceived as a future rival.  This act ultimately was inspired by the devil.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, three magi are led to a manger to adore the Word made Flesh.   In a real way, they are proclaiming the value of life.  Under the inspiration of the devil, Herod proclaims death.  This situation has remained with us today.  Today's massacre is the outrage of abortion, where millions of innocents have been sacrificed under the direction of the evil one.

Both have the same purpose, the destruction of the innocent.  Many people ponder Satan's conflict and think his battle is only with God.  His battle is against all God has created.  When Herod massacred the innocents, the devil intended to send a shot across the bow to all creation:  there is no length he would not go to in his goal of warring against God.  Anyone who thinks they can be "neutral" is sadly mistaken.  These babies were as "neutral" as could be (most of them infants, lacking the ability to even choose good or evil at this point) and they were slain, partly out of a vain hope that Christ would be amongst the slain, and partly just out of rage by Herod.

Yet we do know that Christ survived.  He survived thanks to St. Joseph.  We know from today's Gospel that Joseph was told by an angel to flee Bethlehem and go into Egypt where he would be safe.  At this point, St. Joseph gave up his entire livelihood and smuggled Mary and Christ out of Israel.  By this very act, he was signing his death warrant.   Even with all the risk, Joseph does all of this without complaint.

Perhaps we should start imploring his aid today.  Just as he protected Christ from the devil, is he not also willing to protect all of us, as he is our patron?

Why the Incarnation Matters: The House of David Continues

After a bit of a break, I would now like to continue our series on the Incarnation and its understanding throughout salvation history.. Today, we come across what could be viewed as the most important of the “Emmanuel” prophecies of Isaiah. Indeed, we Christians have recently celebrated the fulfillment of this prophesy at Christmas. We are told “Behold, a woman shall conceive a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel.”


While this prophesy ultimately points towards Christ, I believe there are certain aspects of it that we miss, and these are vital for why this was such a comforting prophesy to the Jews. We must remember, the prophets were not simply there to tell news of the distant future. The immediate context is quite different.

If we remember from our previous discussions, the Kingdom of Judah was a vassal of the King of Assyria. A vassal is one who is forced to be in submission to a stronger power, for the sake of their own survival. The King of Assyria had almost complete domination of this region. In addition to Judah, the Kingdom had forced into servitude the Kings of Damascus and Samaria (amongst many others) as well. As with any vassal, rebellion was a common occurrence. People hate to be under forced submission for long. The moment they get an opportunity, they will likely rebel to assert their own independence.

This is precisely what was happening. The Samarians and Syrians declared their independence from Assyria. In such rebellions, the retaliation of the overlord is normally swift and brutal. If the Assyrians let this go unpunished, their other vassals may likely follow suit. Once they declared their independence, Damascus and Samaria immediately prepared for war. They also did their best to recruit other vassals of Assyria to likewise follow in their footsteps. The most obvious choice was the Kingdom of Judah.

For various reasons, Judah rejected this overture. They felt their interests were not served by a rebellion. They were historical enemies of Damascus. (Within the very generation of this event, Syria launched a failed siege of Jerusalem) They originally submitted to the Assyrians to save their necks from Samarian aggression. Barely a century before, they had been the vassal of Omri, King of Samaria.

For the anti-Assyrian coalition, this rejection was unacceptable. They needed all the manpower they could get in defending their lands from the coming Assyrian invasion. Furthermore, if Judah stayed loyal to Assyria, the Assyrians could easily use the realm of Judah for their own ends. Their troops could be resupplied, and they would have easy access to launch invasions on both fronts. For their plan to work, Judah had to go along with them.

With this in mind, they devised a plan. They would invade Judah and depose King Ahaz. In his place, they would place their own puppet ruler. This ruler was not of Ahaz’s direct line, and would be gladly follow along with this plan if it meant he could secure the throne. The armies of Judah would then join with Damascus and Samaria to prepare for the Assyrian invasion.

Whatever one thinks of King Ahaz, he was no fool. He knew that joining this coalition would not work. The Assyrians would respond, and respond brutally. (Such was their history.) Even if it did, Ahaz would not find his kingdom independent. Syria would no doubt attempt to bring them under their umbrella. At least with the Assyrians, they were far enough away to where Ahaz had a degree of autonomy, provided he did not rebel. Yet this distance was also a curse. Ahaz reasoned the Assyrians would not arrive in time to save him most likely. He could not stand against the might of both Damascus and Samaria. The situation looked hopeless.

God announces that He will not let this stand. He made a promise to David that one of his descendants would remain on the throne. This plot went directly against that plan. In addition to announcing His opposition to this, God declares to Ahaz He will perform a sign to that effect. The God of the universe intends to show a sign of good faith in His defense of Judah.

Ahaz rejects this overture, claiming He has no desire to tempt God. While sounding noble, perhaps there is something more at work. We know that Ahaz was not a noble man. The book of Kings describes him as doing “what was evil in the sight of the Lord, like the Kings of Israel.” In a sense, he was even worse than the Kings of Israel. The last time he felt threatened, he offered his son as a burnt offering to his pagan deity. He desecrated the altar in the temple; making it identical to a pagan altar he was awestruck by when he visited Damascus.

When Ahaz rejects a sign, he does so out of a rejection of the God of Israel. In his eyes, Yahweh was not supreme. He was just another god. Any god could give a sign. His humility is entirely false. God delivers an angry response, stating that this rejection shows Ahaz wishes to provoke Him as well as the nations.

Yet God will still show a sign, yet not for Ahaz’s sake. Just as He defended the wicked Samarians from the Syrians because they insulted Him (1st Kings 20:23-28), He would defend Judah for His own sake. If the royal line died, God would have broken His promise.

This is the context for what was said. Isaiah announces that a woman shall bear a son, and he shall be called Emmanuel. He also predicts a true golden age for the people of Israel as a result of this son.

Christians and Jews have debated for centuries if the prophesy is to be understood in light of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet what we do know is that this birth would be a sign. What was that sign? If a true golden age of the Davidic Kingdom would be launched by this son; this means the Davidic line would survive. This would mean that the schemes of Damascus and Samaria would have to fail. They would not be deposing Ahaz, for one of his sons would reign over a true golden age of Judah according to God. Considering that at the time Ahaz had no direct heir, this cemented the deal.

In the immediate sense, the people would have seen this prophesy fulfilled with Ahaz’s son Hezekiah. Hezekiah was one of the greatest Kings of Judah. Under him they did gain independence from Assyria. Judah ended up rebelling anyways later in Hezekiah’s life, but for their own freedom. When the Assyrians invaded, they suffered a humiliating defeat. Though the Assyrians attempted to spin it as a victory (Sennachrib in his memoirs uses propaganda to boast of humbling the “puny” King of Judah, even though he retreated with a significantly smaller army and never again attempted to make them submit), their hegemony over Judah had ended. Hezekiah also launched bold religious reforms, helping Judah to return to the worship of Yahweh.

While a certain case can be made for Hezekiah to be the fulfillment of this prophesy, I submit Isaiah has much more to say on the matter. In chapter 9 Isaiah expounds on what kind of child this servant will be. The prophesied child shall be called “Father of the World to Come”, the “Prince of Peace”, and one whose “empire” would be “multiplied.” Illustrious though his reign was, Hezekiah did none of these things. There had to be someone else.

Whoever this applies to, the message is clear. Even in their darkest hour, God stands beside them, for the sake of His covenant. Man may plot and scheme all they wish, their plans will not come to fruition when they conflict with God’s.