A critic who claims to be loyal to the word of God says concerning this
passage: "The prophet always paints upon the canvas the events of the
_near_ future. I can not believe that Isaiah ix. 6 refers to a far-off
event, because it would not give comfort to his people at that time." As
this prophecy was given more than seven hundred years before the coming
of the Messiah, our critic concludes that it could be of no practical
benefit to Israel, hence, must have referred to some person who must
soon appear.

To affirm that this promise of the Messiah long before his coming "would
not give comfort to his people" is mere assumption. The time of his
coming was not announced, and the people were to live in expectation of
the event, which expectation was to be their stay and comfort. This
assumption would vitiate the promise of his coming made to our first
parents. Gen. iii. 15, the promises made to Moses; Deut xviii. 15, the
predictions made in Psa. xxii. 1, 8, 16, 18, in which his cry on the
cross, the taunt of his enemies, the piercing of his hands and feet, and
the parting of his raiment among the soldiers, were all predicted.

The prediction that "Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little
among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto
me, he that is to be the Ruler of Israel; whose goings forth have been
of old, from everlasting" (Micah v. 2) was made seven hundred years
before the coming of Christ, and, according to critical assumption,
could not refer to our Savior, "because it would not give comfort to his
people."

Indeed, no prophecy preceding the time of Isaiah ix. 6 could be allowed
to refer to Christ, on the assumption of the critic. More than this, the