other. 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 _Irenaenus_, _Chrysostom_, _Basil_, and, in our century,
_Kleuker_ and _Rosenmueller_ 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
product