Then, when the prophet's yearning thoughts, that will not rest upon so dark a closure, struggle once more, and struggling pass from despair to pity, and from pity to hope, and from hope to triumph in a salvation actually achieved, they hail all at once as the Hero of it the Son whose birth was promised. With an emphasis, which vividly reveals the sense of exhaustion in the living generation and the conviction that only something fresh, and sent straight from God Himself, can now avail Israel, the prophet cries: _Unto us a Child is born; unto us a Son is given_. The Messiah appears in a glory that floods His origin out of sight. We cannot see whether He springs from the house of David; but _the government is to be upon His shoulder_, and He shall reign _on David's throne with righteousness for ever_. His title shall be fourfold: _Wonderful-Counsellor_, _God-Hero_, _Father-Everlasting_, _Prince-of-Peace_. These Four Names do certainly not invite us to grudge them meaning, and they have been claimed as incontrovertible proofs, that the prophet had an absolutely Divine Person in view. Some distinguished scholars insist that the promised Deliverer is nothing less than a God in the metaphysical sense of the word.[23] There are serious reasons, however, which make us doubt this conclusion, and, though we firmly hold that Jesus Christ was God, prevent us from recognizing these names as prophecies of His Divinity. Two of the names are capable of being used of an earthly monarch: _Wonderful-Counsellor_ and _Prince-of-Peace_, which are, within the range of human virtue, in evident contrast to Ahaz, at once foolish in the conception of his policy and warlike in its results. It will be more difficult to get Western minds to see how _Father-Everlasting_ may be applied to a mere man, but the ascription of eternity is not unusual in Oriental titles, and in the Old Testament is sometimes rendered to things that perish. When Hebrews speak of any one as everlasting, that does not necessarily imply Divinity. The second name, which we render _God-Hero_, is, it is true, used of Jehovah Himself in the very next chapter to this, but in the plural it is also used of men by Ezekiel (xxxii. 21). The part of it translated _God_ is a frequent name of the Divine Being in the Old Testament, but literally means only _mighty_, and is by Ezekiel (xxxi. 11) applied to Nebuchadnezzar. We should hesitate, therefore, to understand by these names "a God in the metaphysical sense of the word." [23] I regret very much that in previous editions I should have erroneously imputed this opinion to Dr. Hermann Schultz--through a mistranslation of his words on pp. 726, 727 of his _A. T. Theologie_.