Page Content (OCR)
suggests the pre-existence a parte ante, and is a process actually gone through in En. 49:2, where his glory from eternity is placed in juxtaposition with his power to all generations, and the two are placed on a 50 level. And should there still be any doubt that the author stands on Old Testament ground this will be dispelled by a reference to Micah v. 1 (Heb.), where it is said of the Messiah that his going forth is from of old, from everlasting. Certainly the word there used, HTR, rather priscus (with which it corresponds etymologically) than antiquus,! but being placed parallel here, as in other passages, with HTR it is evident in what sense the author understood it. As to the supernatural character of the Messiah, it is, then, not only not necessary to go to the New Testament and Christianity for an explanation, but it is even unlawful to do so, as the idea was developed from Dan. vii. 13, and is justified by an exegesis of other passages in the Old 7 Testament. Although the nature of the Messiah is thus of a supernatural character, and transcends that which is purely human, he is far from being equal to God. The author is very particular to state that he holds his office and performs his functions under the command and authority of God and in his name. He has been chosen by God for this special work, and is his deputy; cf. 45:4; 46:3; 48:6; 49:4; 51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 69:27; 71:17, etc., and is thus in reality a “servant of God” (Isa. XL.-Ixvi.) In him, then, the theocratic idea of royalty, that the true king of Israel is ambassador and vicegerent of God—an idea which the regents of the author’s days, through their selfishness and impiety, had deserted—shall be realized. In no passage is divine honor bestowed on him. In 40:5 he is indeed praised by an angel, but as the chosen ones are there placed in the same category with the Chosen One, it is evident that nothing but the 51 glorification of the Messianic kingdom, in head and members, is there meant; and in one passage where the sinners are arraigned for not glorifying the Chosen One we must find a parallel to the passage where they deny the Anointed, 48:10, i.e. both passages indicate one phase in the general unbelief in the world to come. The Messiah appears under different names, some of which are taken from the Old Testament, and the rest owe their origin to the special work assigned to him in the Parables. He is called the Just or Righteous One, 38:2; 53:6; the Chosen One, the title most frequently used (cf. note on 40:5); Son of man, 46:2, 3, etc.; the Anointed, 48:10; 52:4; and once the Son of the woman, 62:5. None of these, when considered as coming from a Jewish source, occasion any difficulty, with the exception of the last. It is claimed that the union of the divine and the human here presupposed could not have been made by any one before the coming of Christ into the flesh, that consequently this name proves a Christian origin.! The objection would be valid if we had a right to suppose the author understood a GTR or a GTR or by this term. But the case is different; it is manifestly a name that is to be regarded as a parallel to the frequently-used appellation, Son of man, which the author, as 46:1-3 conclusively shows, has taken from Dan. vii. 13. If the expression “Son of the woman” proves a Christian origin, we have a right to claim the same thing of the expression “Son of man” in Daniel—a conclusion that would certainly be most uncritical. The case is very similar to Micah v. 1, where it is said of the Messiah that, although being from everlasting, he shall nevertheless 52 come forth, i.e. be born in Bethlehem. The pre-existent being is still to be earth-born. And if Daniel’s and Micah’s expressions can be regarded as within the bounds of the Old Testament, it is difficult to see why a ' Cf. e.g. note on 48:4. 1 Cf. Orelli, l.c., p. 76. ! The last to use this objection was Drummond, p. 60.