e 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 ueber 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
wif