But if you say, “The statement of Solomon son of David must be interpreted, for both are of the descendants of Israel and therefore cannot have existed before the world,” we reply: in exactly the same way, the Messiah’s remark, “I existed before the world,” must be interpreted, for he is of the offspring of Abraham and cannot possibly have preceded Abraham. If you resort to interpretation, we will interpret; but if you cling to the outward sense of the report about the Messiah, we will cling to the outward sense of the report about Solomon and David. Otherwise, what distinction remains?

We have advanced this argument against your interpretation so that you may recognize the falsity of the position to which you have committed yourselves, for it is an interpretation that does not fit its context. The correct understanding is that the name “Immanuel,” when applied to the Messiah, means that he announced of himself: “Our God is with us,” that is, God is with him and with his people as helper and supporter.

What confirms this is that you yourselves bear that name; had its meaning been what you allege, no one would have been permitted to use it—just as no one may take the title “the Messiah,” because it is reserved for its unique sense.

If, then, you say, “The disciples of the Messiah performed wonders in the Messiah’s name,” we answer: Allah—exalted be His praise—said to John son of Zechariah, “I have strengthened you with the Holy Spirit and with the power of Elijah, a power that produces the signs,” thereby ascribing the power to Elijah.