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 עלמה 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.