THE prophet Isaiah told his nation, "A virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Up-to-the-moment Modernists affirm that what Isaiah meant to say was, "A young married woman hall conceive and bear a son," etc.

Isaiah declared that this was to be a sign which God told king Ahaz to ask for, giving him liberty to ask any kind of sign he wished, and he refused to ask, lest he should tempt God. God Himself then chose to give a sign. The Hebrew word used is the one which commonly refers to mighty wonders and miraculous works throughout the Old Testament.

Up-to-the-moment Modernists are thus found telling the world that the birth of a son brought forth by a young married woman is a miracle and wonder of God's own proposing!

And they seriously say that "the best scholars tell us that the word Almah (used here by Isaiah) sometimes means a young married wman."

Controversy with a certain class of men would not be worth the time and effort; but there are doubtless thousands who would like to know whether or not we can take the word of these "best scholars." It is proposed here to show that we most assuredly CANNOT.

RATIONALISM AND ITS HIGH SCHOLARSHIP

PERHAPS few Christian laymen realize that what is commonly known as the most exhaustive, and in some respects the greatest of Hebrew lexicons, is that of Professor William Gesenius.

Nor do they understand that this work is a product of simon-pure German rationalism, from the University of Halle, and its author one of the original rationalists, or neolists, who deny the supernatural in miracles, and who sowed the seeds of Modernism decades ago. Gesenius has been called by men of good judgment, "the greatest of modern Hebraists," but of course from the standpoint of unsanctified learning only.

Various translations of this lexicon into English have been made, among them one by the learned and godly Dr. S. R. Tregelles, who added many cumbersome notes to offset the repeated and gratuitous effort of Gesenius to do away with the miraculous. The passage in Isaiah 7:14 is an outstanding example of this effort, and reveals the extent of the prejudice which that learned neolist brought to all his researches, which were conducted strictly from the rationalist's point of view.

WHAT DOES "ALMAH REALLY MEAN?

1. Its use in the Old Testament, any other Hebrew word:

1. Its use in the Old Testament.

2. Its use in languages closely allied to Hebrew.

3. The immediate context of the passage.

4. The Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament.

5. The witness of the New Testament.

No finished education in Hebrew is needed to see what Prbfessor Gesenius has done in his lexicon.

First, he admits that the common Hebrew use of the word is "virgin."

Second, he admits that the Septuagint translators, who were learned Hebrews in a day when Hebrew was a living language, and no Christian controversy existed, translated "Almah" by the Greek word meaning "virgin." In this he states that they erred, and his proof will be seen shortly.

Third, he admits that the cognate languages, Arabic, Chaldee, and Syriac, have the same word meaning "virgin," not meaning "A youthful spouse recently married,"

Fourth, as for the context of the passage and the testimony of the New Testament, so simple and forceful, he ignores them.

Now what is there left for the learned doctor to do, since he sidesteps the context of Scripture, and yet admits that every source of authority and light would make the meaning "virgin"?

He admits that the rendering "virgin" is correct in every passage except the one in dispute, Isaiah 7:14. This passage alone is the foundation for his statement that Almah is sometimes used of "A youthful spouse recently married." He has not a vestige of other proof nor does he attempt to produce any other fact or argument to back his statement.

A SAMPLE OF 'SCHOLARSHIP''!

HERE is his reasoning: Two Arabs, walking along a desert trail, saw a black object ahead. "Ah, a goat," said one. "No, a raven," said the other. "No, a goat," insisted the first, and the dispute waxed hot till the object finally rose up and flew away. "Aha, it flies; its a raven," gleefully exclaimed the second disputant. "Walu tarit Maazah," exclaimed the first; — "Even if it did fly it's a goat." And the Arab's tale ends as usual with the first man proving his point by killing his companion in travel.

Professor Gesenius has looked at this object and called it a goat. "What do you see, professor?" "A goat." And how do you know it is a goat?" "Because it is black." But how do you know, at this distance, that it is black?" "Because it is a goat."

"How do you relieve the difficulty about Isa. 7:14, Professor? for it seems to teach the virgin birth." "I know that 'Almah' sometimes means 'a youthful spouse recently married'!" "And how do you know that?" "Because Isaiah 7:14 proves it."

There is not for the professor's declaration on this passage one iota of evidence, by his learned confession, except that since he does not believe it, it is not so. Since a virgin, in the natural order of things, cannot conceive, and since, according to Gesenius and the Modernists, God could not bring it to pass, she will not she shall not conceive. Isaiah may call this a sign from Jehovah, and Matthew may record the fulfilment of the prophecy; the usage of the Old Testament may admittedly sustain the contention of the virgin birth 100 per cent; the allied languages may speak with perfect unanimity; the learned "Seventy" Hebrews who translated the Old Testament into Greek may stand with the rest; not a voice is raised except in harmony with the translation "virgin"; every avenue has been explored, every resource exhausted; the case is a sweeping victory for the faith once for all delivered and for the virgin birth; and the learned Professor of Hall University calmly admits it all.

But the one conclusive reason why it cannot be is that the professor is a neolist, he does not believe in the supernatural, and therefore it cannot be. His one lone pitiful argument is found in the fact that he is bound that the raven is a goat; and, come what will though his reasoning may be unworthy of a sixth grade school pupil, his bent to unbelief must be satisfied; so this "Greatest of Modern Hebraists" begs his own question, denies his own full proofs, and sets himself up against the plain teaching of the Word of God, which he continually drags in the dust by his unsanctified handling of the language of Canaan.

Dr. Tregelles well remarks that to the believer, Matthew's testimony is sufficient. Yet without that pious Jews always held the same interpretation, which they drew from the context of Isaiah, that the word meant a virgin birth. Examine this context:

WHAT WAS "THE SIGN"?

1. God declares that this is to be His own special "sign to Israel"; using a word which makes this undoubtedly a work of divine power, a miracle. And this, such a virgin birth would be in such a connection, and nothing less could be.

2. But suppose a "youthful spouse recently married," as per Gesenius, should bring forth a son. That happens about once every two seconds in this world, Wonders would never cease if this were the intended meaning of Isaiah. The prophet hardly wasted his words by such trifling, we trow.

3. Suppose an unmarried young woman conceives naturally and brings forth a son. That would be wickedness. Surely none will seriously claim that as Jehovah's sign!

4. Perhaps some would suggest the naming of this son "Immanuel," which means "God with us." But a majority of old Hebrew proper names of men had the name of God or Jehovah as part of them. It would be hard to convince a Jew that that could be God's sign.

5. But the doing of what is utterly unknown to nature, the bringing forth of a son by a virgin, who is a virgin and who remains a virgin, is and must be a divine work and a divine sign, greater than which God never gave, and never will give, since that sign included His own incarnation with human flesh. His own union with human nature. With all this involved, no wonder Satan and the Modernists count this the crux of the controversy.

Fear not, little flock. That "best scholarship" is not as fierce as it looks, nor does it know half what it thinks it does. You need not be Hebrew scholars to meet it.

And, that I may not lack the endorsement of the world's greatest authority on the Hebrew tongue and its cognate languages, let me close with this statement, made privately in writing by Prof. Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton:

There is absolutely no evidence in either Babylonian, Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac or Hebrew, for the use of ALMAH in the sense of 'young married woman.' I have looked up every passage in which it occurs in Hebrew and its equivalent in the cognate languages, and I have sought in vain for any such usage. Dictionaries are man-made. Demand the original source from anyone holding that a word means so-and-so.