Chapter 13

of the deliverance of the people to be effected by him: "When thou hast brought forth my people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain." In chap. xxxvii. 30, our Prophet himself, as a confirmation of the word spoken in reference to the king of Asshur: "I make thee return by the way by which thou earnest," gives this sign, that, in the third year after this, agriculture should already have altogether returned into its old tracks, and the cultivation of the country should have been altogether restored.[4] The fact here given as a sign is later than that which is to be thereby made sure. The sign consists only in this, that the idea is vividly called up and realized in the mind, that the land would recover from the destruction; and this of course, implies the destruction of the enemy. But in our chapter itself,--the name of Shearjashub affords the example of a sign (comp. chap. vii. 18), which is taken from the territory of the distant future. It is time that _commonly_ [Hebrew: avt] is not used of future things; but this has its reason not in the idea of [Hebrew: avt], but solely in the circumstance that, ordinarily, the future cannot serve as a sign of assurance. But it is quite obvious that, in the present case, the Messianic announcement _could_ afford such a sign, and that in a far higher degree than the future facts given as signs in Exod. iii., and Isa. xxxvii. The kingdom of glory which has been promised to us, forms to us also a sure pledge that in all the distresses of the Church, the Lord will not withhold His help from her. But the Covenant-people stood in the same relation to the first appearance of Christ, as we do to the second.

(4.) "The passage, chap. viii. 3, 4, presents the most marked resemblance to the one before us. If _there_ the Messianic explanation be decidedly inadmissible, it must be so _here_ also. The name and birth of a child serves, there as here, for a sign of the deliverance from the Syrian dominion. If then _there_ the mother of the child be the wife of the Prophet, and the child a son of his, the same must be the case _here_ also." But it is _a priori_ improbable that the Prophet should have given [Pg 53] to two of his sons names which had reference to the same event. To this must be added the circumstance, that the _time is wanting_ for the birth of two sons of the Prophet. Before Immanuel knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, the country of both the hostile kings shall be desolated, chap. vii. 15; before Mahershalalhashbaz knows to cry My Father, My Mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried before the king of Assyria, chap. viii. 4. The two births hence coincide. At all events, it is impossible to find the time for a double birth by the same mother. Several interpreters (_Gesenius_, _Hitzig_, _Hendewerk_,) assume the identity of Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz; but this is altogether inadmissible, even from the difference of the names. It is the less admissible to assume a double name for the child, as the name Shearjashub plainly enough shews that the Prophet was in earnest with the names of his children; and indeed, unless they had been real proper names, there would have existed no reason at all for giving them to them. To have assigned several names to one child would have weakened their power. The agreement must, therefore, rather be explained from the circumstance, that it was by the announcement in chap. vii. 14 that the Prophet was induced to the symbolical action in chap. viii. 3, 4. He has, in chap. vii. 14, given to the despairing people the birth of a child, who would bring the highest salvation for Israel, as a pledge of their deliverance. The birth of a child and its name were then required as an actual prophecy of help in the present distress,--a help which was to be granted with a view to that Child, who not only indicates, but grants deliverance from all distresses, and to whom the Prophet reverts in chap. ix., and even already in chap. viii. 8.--Moreover, besides the agreement there is found a thorough difference. In chap. vii. the mother of the child is called [Hebrew: helmh], whereby a virgin only can be designated; in chap. viii., "the prophetess." In chap. vii. there is not even the slightest allusion to the Prophet's being the father; while in chap. viii. this circumstance is expressly and emphatically pointed out. In chap. vii. it is the mother who gives the name to the child; in chap. viii. it is the Prophet. Far closer is the agreement of chap. ix. 5 (6) with chap. vii. 14. It especially appears in the circumstances that in neither of them [Pg 54] is the father of the child designated; and, farther, in the correspondence of Immanuel with [Hebrew: al gbvr], God-Hero.

(5.) "Against the Messianic explanation, and in favour of that of a son of the Prophet, is the passage chap. viii. 18, where the Prophet says that his sons have been given to him for signs and wonders in Israel." But although Immanuel be erroneously reckoned among the sons of the Prophet, there still remain Shearjashub and Mahershalalhashbaz. The latter name refers, _in the first instance only_, to Aram and Ephraim specially; or the general truth which it declares is applied to this relation only. But, just as the name Shearjashub announces new _salvation_ to the prostrate _people of God_, so the second name announces near _destruction_ to the triumphing _world_ hostile to God; so that both the names supplement one another. As _signs_, these two sons of the Prophet pointed to the future deliverance and salvation of Israel, and the defeat of the world; and the very circumstance that they did so when, humanly viewed, all seemed to be lost, was a subject for wonder. But that we can in no case make Immanuel a third son of the Prophet, we have already proved.

Ver. 15. _Cream and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good._ Ver. 16. _For before the boy shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the country shall be forsaken of the two kings of which thou standest in awe._

The older Messianic explanation has, in these two verses, exposed itself to the charge of being quite arbitrary. Most of the interpreters assume that, in ver. 15, the true humanity of the Saviour is announced. The name Immanuel is intended to indicate the divine nature; the eating of milk and honey the human nature. Milk and honey are in this case considered as the ordinary food for babes; like other children. He shall grow up, and, like them, gradually develope. Thus _Jerome_ says: "I shall mention another feature still more wonderful: That you may not believe that he will be born a phantasm. He will use the food of infants, will eat butter and milk." _Calvin_ says: "In order that here we may not think of some spectre, the Prophet states signs of humanity from which he proves that Christ, indeed put on our flesh." In the same manner _Irenænus_, _Chrysostom_, _Basil_, and, in our century, _Kleuker_ and _Rosenmüller_ speak.--But this explanation [Pg 55] is altogether overthrown by ver. 16. Most interpreters assume, in the latter verse, a change of subject; by [Hebrew: ner], not Immanuel, but Shearjashub, who accompanied the Prophet, is to be understood. According to others, it is not any definite boy who is designated by [Hebrew: ner]; but it is said in general, that the devastation of the hostile country would take place in a still shorter time than that which elapses between the birth of a boy and his development. Such is _Calvin's_ view. But the supposition of a change of subject is altogether excluded, even by the circumstance that one and the same quality, the distinction between good and evil, is in both verses ascribed to the subject. Others, like _J. H. Michaelis_, refer ver. 16 also to the Messiah, and seek to get out of the difficulty by a _jam dudum_. It is not worth while to enter more particularly upon these productions of awkward embarassment. All that is required is, to remove the stone of offence which has caused these interpreters to stumble. Towards this a good beginning has been made by _Vitringa_, without, however, completely attaining the object. In ver. 14, the Prophet has seen the birth of the Messiah as present. Holding fast this idea, and expanding it, the Prophet makes him who has been born accompany the people through all the stages of its existence. We have here an _ideal anticipation of the real incarnation_, the right of which lies in the circumstance, that all blessings and deliverances which, before Christ, were bestowed upon the covenant-people, had their root in His future birth, and the cause of which was given in the circumstance, that the covenant-people had entered upon the moment of their great crisis, of their conflict with the world's powers, which could not but address a call to invest the comforting thought with, as it were, flesh and blood, and in this manner to place it into the midst of the popular life. What the Prophet means, and intends to say here is this, _that, in the space of about a twelvemonth, the overthrow of the hostile kingdoms would already have taken place_. As the representative of the cotemporaries, he brings forward the wonderful child who, as it were, formed the soul of the popular life. _At the time when this child knows to distinguish between good and bad food, hence, after the space of about a twelvemonth, he will not have any want of nobler food,_ ver. 15, _for before he has entered upon this stage, the land of_ [Pg 56] _the two hostile kings shall be desolate._ In the subsequent prophecy, the same wonderful child, grown up into a warlike hero, brings the deliverance from Asshur, and the world's power represented by it.--We have still to consider and discuss the particular. _What is indicated by the eating of cream and honey?_ The erroneous answer to this question, which has become current ever since _Gesenius_, has put everything into confusion, and has misled expositors such as _Hitzig_ and _Meier_ to cut the knot, by asserting that ver. 15 is spurious. Cream and honey can come into consideration as the noblest food only; the eating of them can indicate only a _condition of plenty and prosperity_. "A land flowing with milk and honey" is, in the books of Moses, a standing expression for designating the rich fulness of noble food which the Holy Land offers. A land which flows with milk and honey is, according to Numb. xiv. 7, 8, a "very good land." The _cream_ is, as it were, a gradation of _milk_. Considering the predilection for fat and sweet food which we perceive everywhere in the Old Testament, there can scarcely be anything better than cream and honey; and it is certainly not spoken in accordance with Israelitish taste, if _Hofmann_ (_Weiss_, i. S. 227) thus paraphrases the sense: "It is not because he does not know what tastes well and better (cream and honey thus the evil!), that he will live upon the food which an uncultivated land can afford, but because there is none other." In Deut. xxxii. 13, 14, cream and honey appear among the noblest products of the Holy Land. Abraham places cream before his heavenly guests, Gen. xviii. 8. The plenty in honey and cream appears in Job xx. 7, as a characteristic sign of the divine blessing of which the wicked are deprived. It is solely and exclusively vers. 21 and 22 that are referred to for establishing the erroneous interpretation. It is asserted that, according to these verses, the eating of milk and honey must be considered as an evil, as the sad consequence of a general devastation of the hind. But there are grave objections to any attempt at explaining a preceding from a subsequent passage; the opposite mode of proceeding is the right one. It is altogether wrong, however, to suppose that vers. 21, 22, contain a threatening. In those verses the Prophet, on the contrary, allows, as is usual with him, a _ray of light_ to fall upon the dark picture of the [Pg 57] calamity which threatens from Asshur; and it could, indeed, _a priori_, be scarcely imagined that the threatening should not be interrupted, at least by such a gentle allusion to the salvation to be bestowed upon them after the misery (comp. in reference to a similar sudden breaking through of the proclamation of salvation in Hosea, Vol. I., p. 175, and the remarks on Micah ii. 12, 13); but then he returns to the threatening, because it was, in the meantime, his principal vocation to utter it, and thereby to destroy the foolish illusions of the God-forgetting king. It is in the subsequent prophecy only, chap viii. 1; ix. 6 (7) that that which is alluded to in vers. 21, 22 is carried out. The little which has been left--this is the sense--the Lord will bless so abundantly, that those who are spared in the divine judgment will enjoy a rich abundance of divine blessings. Parallel is the utterance of Isaiah in 2 Kings xix. 30: "And the escaped of the house of Judah, that which has been left, taketh root downward, and beareth fruit upward."--If thus the eating of cream and honey be rightly understood, there is no farther necessity for explaining, in opposition to the rules of grammar, [Hebrew: ldetv] by "(only) until he knows" (comp. against this interpretation _Drechsler's Comment._). [Hebrew: ldetv] can only mean: "belonging to his knowledge, _i.e._, when he knows." _Good_ and _evil_ are, as early as Deut. i. 39: "Your sons who to-day do not know good and evil," used more in a physical than in a moral sense. Michaelis: "_rerum omnium ignari_." The parallel expression, "not to be able to discern between the right hand and the left hand," in Jonah iv. 11 (Michaelis: "_discretio rationis et judicii, ut sciant utra manus sit dextra aut sinistra_") likewise loses sight of the moral sense. But good and evil are very decidedly used in a physical sense in 2 Sam. xix. 36 (35), where Barzillai says: "I am this day fourscore years old, can I discern between good and evil, or has thy servant a taste of what I eat or drink, or do I hear any more the voice of singing men or singing women?" The connection with the eating of cream and honey, by which the good and evil is qualified, clearly proves that good and evil are, in our passage, used in a similar sense. To the same result we are led by the circumstance also, that the evil _precedes_, which must so much the rather have a meaning, that nowhere else is this the case with this phrase. The evil, the [Pg 58] bad food in the time of war, precedes; the good follows after it: Cream and honey, the good, he will eat when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, _i.e._, when he is beyond the time where he does not yet know to make any great difference between the food, and in which, therefore, the evil, the bad food, is felt as an evil. If the good and the evil be understood in a physical sense, then, in harmony with chap. viii. 4, we must think of the period of about one year. Moral consciousness develops much later than sensual liking and disliking.--The construction of [Hebrew: mas] and [Hebrew: bHr] with [Hebrew: b] points to the affection which accompanies the action.--[Hebrew: ki] in ver. 16 suits very well, according to the view which we have taken, in its ordinary signification, "for." The full enjoyment of the good things of the land will return in the period of about twelve months (in chap. xxxvii. 30 a longer terra is fixed, because the Assyrian desolation was much greater than the Aramean); _for_, even before the year has expired, devastation shall be inflicted upon the land of the enemies. [Hebrew: hadmh] comprehends at the same time the Syrian and Ephraimitish land.

From ver. 17-25 the Prophet describes how the Assyrians, the object of the hope of the house of David, and also the Egyptian attracted by them, who, however, occupy a position altogether subordinate, shall fill the land, and change it into a wilderness. The fundamental thought, ever true, is this: He who, instead of seeking help from his God, seeks it from the world, is ruined by the world. This truth, which, through the fault of Ahaz, did not gain any _saving_ influence, obtained an _accusing_ one; it stood there as an incontrovertible testimony that it was not the Lord who had forsaken His people, but that they had forsaken themselves. It was a necessary condition of the blessed influence of the impending calamity that such a testimony should exist; without it, the calamity would not have led to repentance, but to despair and defiance.--From the circumstance that in ver. 17, which contains the outlines of the whole, upon the words: "The Lord shall bring upon thee and thy people," there follow still the words: "And upon thy father's house," it appears that the fulfilment must not be sought for in the time of Ahaz only. In the time of Ahaz, the _beginning_ only of the calamities here indicated can accordingly be sought for,--the _germ_ from which all that followed [Pg 59] was afterwards developed. Nor shall we be allowed to limit ourselves to that which Judah suffered from the Assyrians, commonly so called. It is significant that, in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, Nebuchadnezzar is called King of Asshur. Asshur, as the first representative of the world's power, represents the world's power in general.

* * * * * * * * * *

We have still to submit to an examination those explanations of vers 14-16 which differ, in essential points, from that which we have given. Difference of opinion--the characteristic sign of error--meets us here, and that in a very striking manner, in those who oppose the convictions of the whole Christian Church.

1. _Rosenmüller_ expressed his adherence to the Messianic explanation, but supposed that the Prophet was of opinion that the Messiah would be born in his time. Even _Bruno Bauer_ (_Critik der Synopt._ i. S. 19) could not resist the impression that Immanuel could be none other than the Messiah. But he, too, is of opinion that Isaiah expected a Messiah, who was to be born at once, and to become the "deliverer from the collision of that time." This view has been expanded especially by _Ewald_. "False," so he says, "is every interpretation which does not see that the Prophet is here speaking of the Messiah to be born, and hence of Him to whom the land really belongs, and in thinking of whom the Prophet's heart beats with joyful hope, chap. viii. 8, ix. 5, 6 (6, 7)." But not being able to realize that which can be seen only by faith--a territory, in general, very inaccessible to modern exposition of Scripture--he, in ver. 14, puts in the _real_ Present instead of the _ideal_, and thinks that the Prophet imagined that the conception and birth of the Messiah would take place at once. By [Hebrew: elmh] he understands, like ourselves, a virgin; but such an one as is so at the present moment only, but will soon afterwards cease to be so;--and in supposing this, he overlooks the fact that the virgin is introduced as being already with child, and that her bearing appears as present. In ver. 15, the time when the boy knows &c., is, according to him, the maturer juvenile age from ten to twenty years. It is during this that the devastation of the land by the Assyrians is to take place, of which [Pg 60] the Prophet treats more in detail afterwards in ver. 17 ff. But opposed to this view is the circumstance that, even before the boy enters upon this maturer age (ver. 16), hence in a few years after this, the allied Damascus and Ephraim shall be desolated; so little are these two kings able to conquer Jerusalem, and so certain is it that a divine deliverance is in store for this country in the immediate future. And, in every point of view, this explanation shows itself to be untenable. The supposition that a _real_ Present is spoken of in ver. 14 saddles upon the Prophet an absurd hallucination; and nothing analogous to it can be referred to in the whole of the Old Testament. According to statements of the Prophet in other passages, he sees yet many things intervening between the Messianic time and his own; according to chap. vi. 11-13, not only the entire carrying away of the whole people, (and he cannot well consider the Assyrians as the instruments of it, were it only for this reason, that he is always consistent in the announcement that they should not succeed in the capture of Jerusalem), but also a later second divine judgment. According to chap. xi., the Messiah is to grow up as a twig from the stem of Jesse completely cut down. This supposition of His appearance, the complete decay of the Davidic dynasty, did not in any way exist in the time of the Prophet. According to chap. xxxix., and other passages, the Prophet recognised in Babylon the appearance of a new phase of the world's power which would, at some future period, follow the steps of the Assyrian power which existed at the time of the Prophet, and which should execute upon Judah the judgment of the Lord. We pointed out (Vol. I. p. 417 ff.) that in the Prophet Micah also, the contemporary of Isaiah, there lies a long series of events between the Present and the time when she who is bearing brings forth. _Farther_--In harmony with all other Prophets, Isaiah too looks for the Messiah from the house of David, with which, by the promise of Nathan in 2 Sam. vii. salvation was indissolubly connected, and the high importance of which for the weal and woe of the people appears also from the circumstance of its being several times mentioned in our chapter. Hence it would be a son of Ahaz only of whom we could here think; and then we should be shut up to Hezekiah, his first-born. But in that case there arises the difficulty which Luther already brought forward against the Jews: [Pg 61] "The Jews understand thereby Hezekiah. But the blind people, while anxious to remedy their error, themselves manifest their laziness and ignorance; for Hezekiah was born nine years before this prophecy was uttered!"--"The eating of cream and honey" is, in this explanation, altogether erroneously understood as a designation of the devastated condition of the land. From our remarks, it sufficiently appears that the expression "to refuse the evil," &c., cannot denote the maturer juvenile age. And many additional points might, in like manner, be urged.

2. Several interpreters do not indeed deny the reference to the Messiah, but suppose that, _in the first instance_, the Prophet had in view some occurrence of his own time. They assume that the Prophet, while speaking of a boy of his own time, makes use, under the guidance of divine providence, of expressions, which apply more to Christ, and can, in an improper and inferior sense only, be true of this boy. This opinion was advanced as early as in the time of Jerome, by some anonymous author who, on that account, is severely censured by him: "Some Judaizer from among us asserts that the Prophet had two sons, Shearjashub and Immanuel. Immanuel too was, according to him, born by the prophetess, the wife of the Prophet, and a type of the Saviour, our Lord; so that the former son Shearjashub (which means 'remnant,'or 'converting') designates the Jewish people that have been left and afterwards converted; while the second son Immanuel, 'with us is God,' signifies the calling of the Gentiles after the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." This explanation was defended by, among others _Grotius_, _Richard Simon_, and _Clericus_; and then, in our century, by _Olshausen_, who says: "The unity of the reference lies in the name Immanuel; the son of Isaiah had the _name_ but Christ the _essence_. He was the visible God whom the former only represented." In a modified form, this view is held by _Lowth_, _Koppe_, and _von Meyer_, also. According to them, the Prophet is indeed not supposed to speak of a definite boy who was to be born in his time, but yet, to connect the destinies of his land with the name and destinies of a boy whose conception he, at the moment, imagines to be possible. "The most obvious meaning which would present itself to Ahaz," says _von Meyer_, "was this: If now a girl was to marry, to become [Pg 62] pregnant, and to bear a child, she may call him 'God with us,'for God will be with us at his time." But the prophecy is, after all, to have an ultimate reference to Christ. "The prophecy," says _Lowth_, "is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign, after Ahaz had refused the call to fix upon any thing from the whole territory of nature according to his own choice, is so emphatically declared to be one selected and given by God himself; the terms of the prophecy are so unique in their kind, and the name of the child is so expressive; they comprehend in them so much more than the circumstances of the birth of an ordinary child require, or could even permit, that we may easily suppose, that in minds, which were already prepared by the expectation of a great Saviour who was to come forth from the house of David, they excited hopes which stretched farther than any with which the present cause could inspire them, especially if it was found that in the succeeding prophecy, published immediately afterwards, this child was, under the name of Immanuel, treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who else could this be than the heir of the throne of David, under which character a great, and even divine person had been promised?" The reasons for the Messianic explanation are very well exhibited in these words of _Lowth_; but he, as little as any other of these interpreters, has been able to vindicate the assumption of a _double sense_. When more closely examined, the supposition is a mere makeshift. On the one hand, they could not make up their minds to give up the Messianic explanation, and, along with it, the authority of the Apostle Matthew. But, on the other hand, they were puzzled by the _sanctum artificium_ by which the Prophet, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking through him, represents Christ as being born even before His birth, places Him in the midst of the life of the people, and makes Him accompany the nation through all the stages of its existence. In truth, if the real, or even the nearest fulfilment is sought for in the time of Ahaz, there is no reason whatever for supposing a higher reference to Christ. The [Hebrew: elmh] is then one who was a virgin, who had nothing in common with the mother of Jesus, Mary, who remained a virgin even after her pregnancy. The name Immanuel then refers to the help which God is to afford in the present distress.

[Pg 63]

3. Many interpreters deny every reference to Christ. This interpretation remained for a long time the exclusive property of the Jews, until _J. E. Faber_ (in his remarks on _Harmar's_ observations on the East, i. S. 281), tried to transplant it into the Christian soil.[5] He was followed by the Roman Catholic, _Isenbiehl_ (_Neuer Versuch über die Weissagung vom Immanuel_, 1778) who, in consequence of it, was deposed from his theological professorship, and thrown into gaol. The principal tenets of his work he had borrowed from the lectures of _J. D. Michaelis_. In their views about the _Almah_, who is to bear Immanuel, these interpreters are very much at variance.

(a) The more ancient Jews maintained that the _Almah_ was the wife of Ahaz, and Immanuel, his son Hezekiah. According to the _Dialog. c. Tryph._ 66, 68, 71, 77, this view prevailed among them as early as the time of _Justin_. But they were refuted by _Jerome_, who showed that Hezekiah must, at that time, have already been at least nine years old. _Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_ then resorted to the hypothesis of a second wife of Ahaz.

(b) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is some virgin who cannot be definitely determined by us, who was present at the place where the king and Isaiah were speaking to one another, and to whom the Prophet points with his finger. This view was held by _Isenbiehl_, _Steudel_ (in a Programme, Tübingen, 1815), and others.

(c) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is not a _real_ but only an _ideal_ virgin. Thus _J. D. Michaelis_: "At the time when one, who at this moment is still a virgin, can bear," &c. _Eichhorn_, _Paulus_, _Stähelin_, and others. The sign is thus made to consist in a mere poetical figure.

(d) A composition of the two views last mentioned is the view of _Umbreit_. The virgin is, according to him, an actual virgin whom the Prophet perceived among those surrounding him; but the pregnancy and birth are imaginary [Pg 64] merely, and the virgin is to suggest to the Prophet the idea of pregnancy. But this explanation would saddle the Prophet with something indecent. _Farther_: It is not a birth possible which is spoken of, but an actual birth. From chap. viii. 8, it likewise appears that Immanuel is a real individual, and He one of eminent dignity; and this passage is thus at once in strict opposition to both of the explanations, viz. that of any ordinary virgin, and that of the ideal virgin. It destroys also

(e) The explanation of _Meier_, who by the virgin understands the people of Judah, and conceives of the pregnancy and birth likewise in a poetical manner. The fact, the acknowledgment of which has led _Meier_ to get up this hypothesis, altogether unfounded, and undeserving of any minute refutation, is this: "_The mother is, in the passage before us, called a virgin, and yet is designated as being with child._ The words, when understood physically and outwardly, contain a contradiction." But this fact is rather in favour of the Messianic explanation.

(f) Others, farther, conjecture that the wife of the Prophet is meant by the _Almah_. This view was advanced as early as by _Abenezra_ and _Jarchi_. By the authority of _Gesenius_, this view became, for a time, the prevailing one. Against it, the following arguments are decisive; part of them being opposed to the other conjectures also. As [Hebrew: elmh] designates "virgin" only, and never a young woman, and, far less, an older woman, it is quite impossible that the wife of the Prophet, the mother of Shearjashub could be so designated, inasmuch as the latter was already old enough to be able to accompany his father. Gesenius could not avoid acknowledging the weight of this argument, and declared himself disposed to assume that the Prophet's former wife had died, and that he had thereupon betrothed himself to a virgin. _Olshausen_, _Maurer_, _Hendewerk_, and others, have followed him in this. But this is a story entirely without foundation. In chap. viii. 13, the wife of the Prophet is called simply "the prophetess." Nor could one well see how the Prophet could expect to be understood, if, by the general expression: "the virgin" he wished to signify his presumptive betrothed. _There_ [Pg 65] _is an entire absence of every intimation whatsoever of a nearer relation of the Almah to the Prophet_; and such an intimation could not by any means be wanting if such a relation really existed. One would, in that case at least, be obliged to suppose, as _Plüschke_ does, that the Prophet took his betrothed with him, and pointed to her with his finger,--a supposition which too plainly exhibits the sign of embarrassment, just as is the case with the remark of _Hendewerk_: "Only that, in that case, we must also suppose that his second wife was sufficiently known at court even then, when she was his betrothed only, although her relation to Isaiah might be unknown; so that, for this very reason, we could not think of a frustration of the sign on the part of the king." _Hitzig_ remarks: "The supposition of a former wife of the Prophet is altogether destitute of any foundation." He then, however, falls back upon the hypothesis which _Gesenius_ himself admitted to be untenable, that [Hebrew: elmh], "virgin" might not only denote a young woman, but sometimes also an older woman. Not even the semblance of a proof can be advanced in support of this. It is just the juvenile age which forms the fundamental signification of the word. In the wife of the Prophet we can the less think of such a juvenile age, that he himself had already exercised his prophetic office for about twenty years. _Hitzig_ has indeed altogether declined to lead any such proof. A son of the Prophet, as, in general, every subject except the Messiah, is excluded by the circumstance that in chap viii. 8, Canaan is called the land of Immanuel.--_Farther_,--In all these suppositions, [Hebrew: avt] is understood in an inadmissible signification. It can here denote a fact only, whereby those who were really susceptible were made decidedly certain of the impending deliverance. This appears clearly enough from the relation of this sign to that which Ahaz had before refused, according to which the difference must not be too great, and must not refer to the substance. To this may be added the solemn tone which induces us to expect something grand and important. A mere poetical image, such as would be before us according to the hypothesis of the ideal virgin, or of the real virgin and the ideal birth, does [Pg 66] surely not come up to the demand which in this context must be made in reference to this _sign_. And if the Prophet had announced so solemnly, and in words so sublime, the birth _of his own_ child, he would have made himself ridiculous. _Farther_,--How then did the Prophet know that after nine months a child would be born to him, or, if the pregnancy be considered as having already commenced, how did he know that just a son would be born to him? That is a question to which most of these Rationalistic interpreters take good care not to give any reply. _Plüschke_, indeed, is of opinion that, upon a bold conjecture, the Prophet had ventured this statement. But in that case it might easily have fared with him as in that well known story in _Worms_, (_Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 664 ff.), and his whole authority would have been forfeited if his conjecture had proved false. And this argument holds true in reference to those also who do not share in the Rationalistic view, of Prophetism. Predictions of such a kind may belong to the territory of foretelling, but not to that of Prophecy.

[Footnote 1: _Meyer_, _Blätter für höhere Wahrheit_, iii. S. 101.]

[Footnote 2: _Caspari_ very justly remarks: "Nothing can be clearer than that 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ff. comes in between 2 Kings xvi. 5 a. b.; that the author of the books of the Kings gives a report of the beginning and end; the author of the Chronicles, of the middle of the campaign." But we cannot agree with _Caspari_ in his transferring to Idumea the victory of Rezin. According to Is. vii. 2, Aram was encamped in Ephraim. According to 2 Kings xvi. 5, _both_ of the kings came up to Jerusalem and besieged her. The expedition against Elath, 2 Kings xvi. 6, was secondary, and by the way only.]

[Footnote 3: The words: "In threescore and five years more, Ephraim shall be broken and be no more a people," have, by rationalistic critics, without and against all external arguments, been declared to be _spurious_. The reasons which serve as fig leaves to cover their doctrinal tendency are the following: (1) "The time does not agree, inasmuch as the ten tribes sustained their first defeat very soon afterwards by Tiglath-pilezer; the second, nineteen to twenty-one years later, by Shalmanezer, who, in the sixth year of Hezekiah, carried the inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes away into captivity." But the question here is _the complete destruction of the national existence of Israel_; and that took place only under King Manasseh, when, by Azarhaddon, new Gentile colonists were brought into the land, who expelled from it the old inhabitants who had again gathered themselves together; comp. 2 Kings xvii. 24 with Ezra iv. 2, 10. From that time, Israel amalgamated more and more with Judah, and never returned to a national independence. This happened exactly sixty-five years after the announcement by the Prophet. Chap. vi. 12 compared with ver. 13 shows how little the desolation of the country (ver. 16) is connected with the breaking up as a nation. It is, moreover, at least as much the interest of those who assert the spuriousness, as it is ours to remove the chronological difficulties; for how could it be imagined that the supposed author should have introduced a false chronological statement? His object surely could be none other than to procure authority for the Prophet, by putting into his mouth a prophecy so very evidently and manifestly fulfilled. (2) "The words contain an unsuitable consolation, as Ahaz could not be benefitted by so late a destruction of his enemy." But, immediately afterwards, he is even expressly assured that this enemy will not be able to do him any immediate harm. _Chrysostom_ remarks: "The king, hearing that they should be destroyed after sixty-five years, might say within himself: What about that? Although they be _then_ overthrown, of what use is it to us, if they now take us? In order that the king might not speak thus, the Prophet says: Be of good cheer even as to the present. At that time they shall be _utterly_ destroyed; but even now, they shall not have any more than their own land, for 'the head of Ephraim,'" &c. The preceding distinct announcement of the last end of his enemy, however, was exceedingly well fitted to break in Ahaz the opinion of his invincibility, and to strengthen his faith in the God of Israel, who, with a firm hand, directs the destinies of nations, and, no less, the faith in _His servant_ whom He raises to be privy to His secrets.--(3.) "The use of numbers so exact is against the analogy of all oracles." But immediately afterwards (ver. 15 comp. with chap.