III. The following represent a free critical standpoint : Ferd. Hitzig, Vorlesungen tiber die biblische Theologie und [forming an independent 2nd part] die messianischen Weissagungen des AT, herausgegeben von Kneucker, Karlsruhe, 1880 ; Ed. Riehm, Die messianische Weissagung, Gotha, 1875, 2nd ed. 1885, Eng. ed. 1900; V. H. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, Edinburgh, 1886 [successfully maintains that the Jewish Mes- sianic expectation had not yet attained to the full contents of the Christian idea of the Messiah, which was based upon a deeper knowledge of His nature and functions] ; H. Hackmann, Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaja, Gottingen, 1893; P. Volz, Die voreaxilische Jahweprophetie und der Messias, Gottingen, 1897 [seeks, by the aid of very bold literary criticism, to prove that the Messianic idea is foreign to the character of pre-exilic prophecy, and makes its first appearance in Ezekiel, Even there it is held to be not a derivative of the spirit of pre-exilic prophecy, which was pre-eminently a preaching of judgment and a call to repentance, but a concession by Ezekiel to the national and particularistic sentiments of the Jewish popular mind—in opposition to his ordinary viewpoint] ; H. Huhn, Die Messianischen Weissagungen des israelitischen und jiidischen Volks bis zu den Targumen, Freiburg i. B., part i., 1898 [a con- cise but very able handling of the subject ; part il., Tubingen, 1900, deals with the OT citations and allusions that occur in the NT]; G. Nowack, Die Zukunftshofnungen Israels in der assyrischen Zeit, Tibingen, 1902; A. B. Davidson, Old Testa- ment Prophecy, Edinburgh, 1903 [a posthumous work edited by J. A. Paterson].
One of the principal difficulties in this connexion is occasioned by questions of literary criticism. The authenticity of those prophecies, especially the Isaianic ones, in which a personal Messiah is spoken of, has recently been powerfully assailed by Hackmann (see above), Cheyne, and others ; and, although the last word may not have been spoken on all the sections in question, there is scarcely a single passage which does not labour under serious difficulties in regard either to its contents or its language. tno
() In view of what has been said, it is only under reserve that we commence our examination of strictly Messianic prophecies with— rs
(a) Is 744.—According to the presently prevailing opinion, indeed, this so-called Immanuel-prophecy would have to be left quite out of account in our discussion. ‘The prophet, we are told, meant to say nothing more than that any boy born within a short time from then might receive from his mother the name ‘ God with us,’ in allusion to the quickly following deliverance from the foes that were then threatening Judah. The ‘sign’ which Ahaz had disdained, and which the prophet now announces to him in the name of his God, is held to consist simply in the name ‘Immanuel,’ neither the person of the young woman (andy) nor that of the boy being of any importance. We cannot help feeling, however, that this interpretation over- looks in its haste two serious objections. In the first place, is it possible that the confirmatory sign announced so solemnly by Isaiah should have consisted merely in affirming, by the name given to any boy, the deliverance of Judah? Would not the logic of this prophetical announcement simply come to this: ‘The deliverance will take place as surely as it will take place’? Secondly, is it possible in Is 88 to rest content with the explana- tion that the expression, ‘ thy land, O Immanuel, is intended to refer to the home of that casual, purely imaginary boy, who may receive the name?
But if, in view of these difficulties, the ancient Messianic interpretation of Is 714 is still entitled
RELIGION OF ISRAEL 695
to serious regard, a number of concessions must be made. First of all, it must be admitted that the prophet expected the advent of the Messiah, not merely within the period of Assyrian world-empire but in the immediate future; and consequently that he was mistaken on this point. Secondly, his announcement of Immanuel as the Messiah and as the Deliverer is intelligible only on the assumption that he could confidently take it for eranted that his hearers were familiar with the theologumenon of the Messiah. Otherwise, his mode of expression would be so obscure and enig- matic that scarcely any one could have under- stood him. Now, it is quite conceivable that an ancient Divine oracle regarding the perpetual dura- tion of the Davidie dynasty, such as doubtless underlies the present recension of 2S 7 (ef. especi- ally v.44), may have already become transformed in the popular belief into the expectation of one ideal ruler of David’s family, and that this expectation always prevailed more powerfully when the nation saw itself menaced by any serious danger. The prophet could then without anything further count upon the intelligence of his hearers, if he simply alluded to that expectation. All this does not indeed answer the question how it comes to pass that the prophet never again recurs to this theo- logumenon of the Messiah, even in a case where (as amidst the sore distress caused by Assyria in the year 701) this procedure would have been most natural. Are we to hold with some that Isaiah afterwards abandoned his Messianic expectations and attributed to Jahweh alone all the functions of the Messiah; or even that, in the matter of his expectations as to the future, we must distinguish - not two but three, or even four, periods?* Such a notion is contradicted by all that we are really able to learn of the personality of Isaiah. All the more weight, indeed, thus attaches to the circum- stance that, subsequent to 8° 1°, he never returns to the subject of Immanuel.