is contained in the words: They gave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death) to be recognized in the text? There remains no trace of a contrast, unless it be contained in [Hebrew: rweiM] and [Hebrew: ewir]. Are these really two ideas so contradictory, that they alone are sufficient to bring into contrariety two clauses which have altogether the appearance of being intended for the same purpose?" But in this argument, Hofmann overlooks the circumstance, that the wicked are specially criminals—for they alone had a peculiar grave—and that it is not the general relation of the wicked and rich to one another which comes into consideration, but especially the relation in which they stand to one another as regards the burial. If this be kept in view, it is at once evident that the contrariety is expressed with sufficient clearness. From Isa. xxii. 16; Job xxi. 32; Matt. xxvii. 57, it appears that the rich man, and the honourable grave, are closely connected with each other. Hence, it must have been by an opposite activity that to the Servant of God a grave was assigned with the wicked, and with a rich. 2. "To be rich is not in itself a sin which deserved an ignominious burial, far less received it, but on the other hand, to find his grave with a rich man is not an indemnification to the just for the disgrace of having died the death of a criminal." But the fact that the first Evangelist reports it so minutely (Matt. xxvii. 57-61) clearly enough shows the importance of the circumstance; comp. also how John, in chap. xix. 33 ff., points out the circumstance that Christ's legs were not broken, as were those of the malefactors. In the little, the great is prepared and prefigured. And although the burial with a rich man is, in itself, of no small importance when viewed as the first point where the exaltation [Pg 296] began—in the connection with the preceding and following verses, we cannot but look upon it as being symbolically significant and important. And how could it be otherwise, since the burial of the Servant of God with a rich man implies that the rich man himself has been gained for Him? It has, farther, been objected that Christ was not buried with Joseph, but in his grave only, but in an ideal point of view with has its full right. Comp. chap. xiv. 19, where it is said to the king of Babylon: "But thou art cast out of thy grave," although, bodily, he had not yet been in the grave; but he had a right to come like his ancestors; he had, in an ideal point of view, taken his place there.—Beck says: "The orthodox expositors are strongly embarrassed with these words." That is indeed a remarkable interchange of positions. Embarrassment!—that is the sign of everything which unscriptural exegesis advances on this verse. It is concentrated in the [Hebrew: ewir]. The most varied conjectures and freaks are here so many symptoms of helpless embarrassment. According to the opinion of several interpreters, the rich man here stands in the sense of the ungodly. In this, even Luther (marginal note: "rich man, one who in his doings founds himself on riches," i.e., an ungodly man), and Calvin had preceded them. The assertion that the rich, can simply stand for the wicked, can neither be proved from Job xxvii. 19 (for there, according to the context, the rich is equivalent to "he who is wicked, notwithstanding his riches"), nor from the word of the Lord in Matt. xix. 23: [Greek: duskolos plousios eiseleusetai eis ten basileian ton ouranon.] For that which, on a special occasion, the Lord here says of the rich, applies to the poor also. Poverty, not less than wealth, is encompassed with obstacles to conversion, which can be removed only by the omnipotence of divine grace. According to Matt. xiii. 22, the word is not only choked by the deceitfulness of riches, but is as much so by care also, the dangers of which are particularly set forth by our Lord in Matt. vi. 25 ff. In Prov. xxx. 8, 9 it is said: "Give me neither poverty nor riches, lest I be full and deny thee, and say: Where is the Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain." The dangers of riches are more frequently pointed out in Scripture than those of poverty; but this fact is accounted for by the circumstance, that riches are surrounded [Pg 297] with a glittering appearance, and that it is therefore necessary to warn those who are apt to choose them for their highest good. Stier rightly calls to mind the promise of earthly blessings to those who fear God. But the circumstance must not be overlooked that the rich comes here into consideration, chiefly as to his burial. The Prophet would then not only proceed from the idea that all rich people are wicked, but also would simply suppose that all the rich receive an ignominious burial. But of that, the parable of the rich man in Luke xvi. 22, knows nothing: [Greek: apethane de kai ho plousios kai etaphe], according to his riches; it is in hell only that he receives his reward. In opposition to Gesenius, Hitzig remarks: "That transition of the signification is a fable." Following the example of Martini he derives [Hebrew: ewir] from the Arabic. But in opposition to that, Gesenius again remarks in the Thesaurus: "Sed haud minoribus difficultatibus laborat ea ratio, qua improbitatis significatum voluerunt Martinius et Hitzigius, collata nimirum radice [Hebrew: ewr] "caespitavit." Tum enim haec radix nullam prorsum cum verbo [Hebrew: ewr] necessitudinem habet, ita ut [Hebrew: ewir] h. l. [Greek: ap. leg.] esset; tum caespitandi vis nusquam ad peccatum, licet ad fortunam adversam, translata est." If, with words of such frequent occurrence, it were allowable to search in the dialects, the business of the expounder would be a very ungrateful one. Nor does the form, which is commonly passive, favour this interpretation. According to Beck, [Hebrew: ewir] is another form for [Hebrew: eriC]. Others would change the reading. Ewald proposes [Hebrew: ewiq]; Boettcher, [Hebrew: ewi re]. Against all those conjectures, moreover, the circumstance militates, that, according to them, the verse would still belong to the humiliation of the Servant of God; whereas the description of the glorification had already begun in the preceding verse. For [Hebrew: bmvtiv] "in His death," Gesenius and others propose to read [Hebrew: bmvtiv], to which they assign the signification "His tomb-hill." But, altogether apart from this arbitrary change of the vowels, there is opposed to this conjecture the circumstance, that [Hebrew: bmh] never occurs of the grave. According to Gesenius, [Hebrew: bmvt], in Ezek. xliii. means "tombs;" but the common signification "high places," must be retained there also. In a spiritual point of view the sanctuaries of the Lord had become "high places."

Ver. 10. "And the Lord was pleased painfully to crush [Pg 298] Him: when His soul hath given restitution, He shall see seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper through His hand."

And the Lord was pleased—This pleasure of the Lord is not such an one as proceeds from caprice. The ground on which it rests has already been minutely exhibited in what precedes. By the vicarious influence of this suffering, peace is to be acquired for mankind; and since this object is based upon the divine nature, upon God's mercy, the choice of the means also, by which alone it could be attained (for, without a violation of the divine character, sin could not remain unpunished), must be traced to the divine character. Here the ground on which the pleasure rests is stated in the words immediately following,—a connection which is clearly indicated by the obvious relation in which the [Hebrew: HpC ihvh] of the close stands to [Hebrew: ihvh HpC] of the beginning; so that the sense is: It was the pleasure, &c., and this for the purpose that, after having made an offering for sin, He should see seed, &c. Hence the pleasure of the Lord has this in view:—that the will of the Lord should be realized, His Servant glorified, and the salvation of mankind promoted. Painfully to crush Him. [Hebrew: Hlh] "to be sick," "to suffer pains." In this sense the Niphal occurs in Amos vi. 6, and the participle [Hebrew: nHlh] in the signification "painful," "grievous," in Nah. iii. 19; Jer. xiv. 17, and other passages, In Hiphil it means: "to make painful," Mic. vi. 13. The common explanation, "The Lord was pleased to crush Him, He has made Him sick," has this against it, that Copula and Suffix are wanting in [Hebrew: hHli], and that the word would come in unconnected, and in a very disagreeable manner. And then the passage in Micah, which we have quoted, decides against it.—When His soul hath given restitution. There cannot be any doubt that, in a formal point of view, it is the soul which gives restitution. Knobel's explanation: "His soul gives itself," is not countenanced by the usus loquendi; [Hebrew: wiM] is not a reflective verb. As little can we suppose with Hofmann that [Hebrew: twiM] is the second person, and an address to Jehovah. In opposition to this view, there is not only the circumstance that Jehovah is spoken of before and afterwards, but, in a material point of view, the circumstance also, that offerings for sin, and, generally, all sacrifices, were never offered up by God, [Pg 299] but always to God. The fact also, that according to the sequel, the Servant of God receives the reward for His meritorious work, proves that it is He who offers up the sacrifice. But, on the other hand, it is, in point of fact, the soul only which can be the offering, the restitution; for it could scarcely be imagined that, just here, that should be omitted on which everything mainly depends. It is sufficiently evident, from what precedes, who it is that offers the restitution; what the restitution was, it was necessary distinctly to point out. Farther—In the case of sacrifices, it is just the soul upon which every thing depends; so that if the soul be mentioned in a context which treats of sacrifices, it is, a priori, probable that it will be the object offered up. In Lev. xvii. 11, it is said: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I give it to you upon the altar, to atone for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul," viz., by the soul "per animam, vi animae in eo sanguine constantis" (Gussetius).[8] The soul, when thus considered as the passive object, is here therefore in a high degree in its proper place; and there can the less be any doubt of its occurring here in this sense, that it occurs twice more in vers. 11 and 12, of the natural psychical life of the Servant of God, which was given up to suffering and death. But, on the other hand, if the soul be considered as the active object, it stands here at all events rather idle,—a circumstance which is sufficiently apparent from the supposition of several interpreters, that [Hebrew: npw] "soul," stands here simply for the personal pronoun,—"His soul," for "He," a usus loquendi which occurs in Arabic, but not in Hebrew. And, strictly speaking, the offering of the sacrifice does not belong to the soul, but to the spirit of the Servant of God, compare Heb. ix. 14, according to which passage, Christ [Greek: dia pneumatos aioniou heauton prosenenken amomon to Theo]; and on the subject of the difference between soul and spirit, compare my Commentary on Ps. iv. p. lxxxvii. But how will it now be possible to reconcile and harmonize [Pg 300] our two results, that, in a formal point of view, the soul is that which offers up, and, in a material point of view, that which is offered up? By the hypothesis that, in a rhetorical way of speaking, that is here assigned to the soul as an action which, in point of fact, is done upon it. All that is necessary is to translate: "If His soul puts or gives a trespass-offering;" for, "to put," stands here, as it does so frequently, in the sense of "to give," compare Ezek. xx. 28, where it is used in this sense in reference to sacrifice. But, in point of fact, this is equivalent to: "If it is made a trespass-offering," or, "If He, the Servant of God, offers it as a trespass-offering." It is analogous to this when, in Job xiv. 22, the soul of the deceased laments; and a cognate mode of representation prevails in Rev. vi. 9, where, to the souls of the slain, life is assigned for the sole purpose of their giving utterance to that which was the result of the thought regarding them, in combination with the circumstances of the time. To a certain degree analogous is also chap. lx. 7, where it is said of the sacrificial animals: "They ascend, for my pleasure, mine altar." The fact that it is in reality the soul which is offered up, is confirmed also by the remarkable reference to the passage before us in the discourses of our Lord. Our Lord says in John x. 12: [Greek: ego eimi ho poimen ho kalos. ho poimen ho kalos ten chuchen hautou tithesin huper ton probaton.] Ver. 15: [Greek: kai ten chuchen mou tithemi huper ton probaton.] Vers. 17, 18: [Greek: dia touto ho pater me agapa, hoti ego tithemi ten psuchen mou hina palin labo auten. Oudeis airei auten ap'emou, all'ego tithemi auten ap'emautou. exousian echo theinai auten, kai exousian echo palin labein auten.] In John xv. 13: [Greek: meizona tautes agapen oudeis echei hina tis ten psuchen autou the huper philon hautou.] The expression: "To put one's soul for some one," does not, independently and by itself, occur anywhere else in the New Testament; in John xiii. 37, 38, Peter takes the word out of the mouth of the Saviour, and in 1 John iii. 16, it is used in reference to those declarations of our Lord. The expression is nowhere met with in any profane writers, nor in the Hellenistic usus loquendi. The following reasons prove that it refers to the Old Testament, and especially to the passage under consideration. 1. Its Hebraizing character. De Wette and Luecke erroneously take [Greek: theinai] in the sense of laying down; but that is too negative. It is evident that the Hebraism "to put," instead of "to give," has been [Pg 301] transferred into Greek, as is proved by the synonymous [Greek: dounai ten psuchen hautou] in Mark x. 45; Matt. xx. 28.—2. The fact that the same uncommon expression occurs not fewer than five times in the same discourse of Christ, and that so intentionally and emphatically, is explicable only when it was thereby intended to point to an important fundamental passage of the Old Testament.—3. In the discourses of our Lord, the expression is, no less than in the passage before us, used of His sacrificial death.—If, then, it be established that those passages in which our Lord speaks of a putting of His soul, refer to the passage under consideration, this must be acknowledged of those also in which He speaks of a giving of His soul, as in Matt. xx. 28: [Greek: dounai ten psuchen hautou lutron anti pollon], where the [Greek: lutron] clearly points to the [Hebrew: awM] here. In all those utterances, the Saviour simply has reduced the words to what they signify, just as, in quoting the passage Zech. xiii. 7, in Matt. xxvi. 31, He likewise drops the rhetorical figure, the address to the sword. He himself appears simply as He who offers up; the soul is that which is offered up.—[Hebrew: awM] is, in Numb. v. 5, called that of which some one has unjustly robbed another, and which he is bound to repay to him. An essential feature of sin is the robbing of God which is thereby committed, the debt thereby incurred, which implies the necessity of recompence. All sin-offerings are, in the Mosaic economy, at the same time debt-offerings; and this feature is very intentionally and emphatically pointed out in them. If, besides the sin-offerings, there is still established a kind of trespass-offerings, the [Hebrew: awM], for sins in which the idea of incurring a debt comes out with special prominence, this is done only with the view, that this feature, thus brought forward by itself and independently, may be so much the more deeply impressed, in order that, in the other sin-offerings too, it may be the more clearly perceived. Compare the investigation on the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings in my work on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch, ii. p. 174 ff. But the sin- and trespass-offerings of the Old Testament typically point to a true spiritual sin- and trespass-offering; and their chief object was to awaken in the people of God the consciousness of the necessity of substitution (compare my Book: Die Opfer der Heil. Schrift, Berlin 1852). This antetypical sacrifice will be offered up by the true High-Priest. For the sins of the human race which [Pg 302] without compensation, cannot be forgiven, He furnishes the restitution which could not be paid by the sinners, and thereby works out the justification of the sinner before God.—To the trespass-offering here, all those passages of the New Testament point, in which Christ is spoken of as the sacrifice for our sins, especially 2 Cor. v. 21, where the apostle says that God made Christ to be [Greek: hamartia] for us, that in Him we might be made righteous before God; Rom. viii. 3, according to which God sent Christ [Greek: peri hamartias], as a sin-offering; Rom. iii. 25, where Christ is called [Greek: hilasterion], propitiation; 1 John ii. 2: [Greek: kai autos hilasmos esti peri ton hamartion hemon], iv. 10; Heb. ix. 14.—The [Hebrew: aM] at the beginning must not be explained by "as" a signification, which it never has; it has its ordinary signification "when," and the Future is to be understood as a real Future: the offering of the trespass-offering is the condition of His seeing, &c., and, according to the context, indeed, the absolutely necessary condition. The translation: "Even if" could proceed from one only who had not understood this context. It is not death in general, but sacrificial death, which is specially spoken of; and to such a death, which is a necessary foundation of the glorification, and especially the foundation of "He shall see seed," "when" only is suitable, and not "even if."—In the words: "He shall see seed, prolong His days," that is, in a higher sense, promised to this Servant of God, which, under the Old Testament, was considered as a distinguished divine blessing. The spiritual interpretation has the less difficulty, that it must necessarily be granted in the case of [Hebrew: awM], immediately preceding. Just in the same relation in which the sin-offering of the Servant of God stands to the sin-offering of the bullocks and goats, does His posterity, the length of His days, stand to the ordinary posterity and length of days. The seed of the Servant of God, identical with His generation, in ver. 8, are just those for whom, according to the words immediately preceding, He offers His soul as a trespass-offering—the many who, according to ver. 12, are assigned to Him as His portion; who, according to chap. lii. 15, are to be sprinkled by Him; who, according to ver. 11, are to be justified by Him; they whose sins He has taken upon Him (ver. 5), and for whom He intercedes before God, ver. 12. Even in the Old Testament, the word "children" is frequently used in a spiritual [Pg 303] sense. In Gen. vi. 2, believers appear as the children of God. The Israelites are not unfrequently designated as sons of Jehovah. Those prophets who were endowed with specially rich gifts, were surrounded by a crowd of sons of the prophets. The wise man, too, looks upon his disciples as his spiritual sons, Prov. iv. 20, xix. 27; Eccles. xii. 12. In the New Testament, the Lord addresses the man sick of the palsy by [Greek: teknon]. Matt. ix. 2; and with special emphasis. His apostles as little children, [Greek: teknia eti mikron meth'humon eimi], John xiii. 33; and the Apostles, too, consider those who have been awakened by their ministry as their spiritual children, 1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Tim. i. 2; 1 Pet. v. 13. The thought is this—that in the sacrificial death of the Servant of God there will be an animating power; that, just thereby, He will found His Church. The words: "He shall prolong His days," allude, as it appears, to the promise which was given to David and his seed, comp. Ps. xxi 5: "He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it to him, even length of days for ever and ever;" 1 Sam. vii. 13: "I will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever," comp. ver. 16; Ps. lxxxix. 5, cxxxii. 12,—a promise which found its final fulfilment in Christ. But the long life here must not be viewed as isolated, but must be understood in close connection both with what precedes and what follows. It is the life of the Servant of God in communion with His seed, in carrying out the will of God. [Hebrew: HpC] never means "business," but always "pleasure;" and this signification, which occurs in chap. xliv. 28 also, is here the less to be given up, that the [Hebrew: HpC] here, at the close, evidently refers to the [Hebrew: HpC] at the beginning. By this reference, the reason is stated why it was the pleasure of the Lord to crush Him. According to vers. 11 and 12, it is the pleasure of God that sinners should be justified through Him, on the foundation of His vicarious suffering; according to chap. xlii. and xlix., that Israel should be redeemed, and the Gentiles saved. While the pleasure of the Lord is prospering through His hand, he, at the same time, sees seed.

In vers. 11 and 12, we have the closing words of the Lord.

Ver. 11. "On account of the sufferings of His soul He seeth, He is satisfied; by His knowledge He, the Righteous One, my Servant, shall justify the many, and He shall bear their iniquities."

[Pg 304]

The [Hebrew: mN] in [Hebrew: meml] is "on account of." In ver. 10, to which the discourse of the Lord is, in the first instance, connected, the suffering likewise appears as the cause of the glorification. The Vulgate translates: "Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus;" the LXX. rather feebly: [Greek: apo tou ponou tes psuches autou]. With [Hebrew: irah] the object is omitted, and that purposely, in order that the words of God may be immediately connected with ver. 10. We must supply: the fruits and rewards of His sufferings announced there (just as, in a manner quite similar, in chap. xlix. 7, "they shall see," refers to the preceding verse), specially that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper through His hand,—which, in the sequel, is enlarged upon. The words: "He is satisfied," point out that the blissful consequences of the atoning suffering will take place in the highest fulness. [Hebrew: bdetv] must, according to the accents, be connected with the subsequent words. The knowledge does not belong to the Servant of God, in so far as it dwells in Him, but as it concerns Him; just as the [Greek: agape tou Theou] in Luke xi. 42, and in other passages does not mean the love which dwells in God, but the love which has God for its object. "By His knowledge" is thus equivalent to: by their knowing Him, getting acquainted with Him, This knowledge of the Servant of God according to His principal work, as it was described in what precedes, viz., mediatorial office, or faith, is the subjective condition of justification. As the efficient cause of it, the vicarious suffering of the Servant of God was represented in the preceding context. It is just this, which is subjectively appropriated by the knowledge of the Servant of God, and which must be conceived of as essential and living. Thus J. H. Michaelis says: Per scientiam sui (Clericus: Cognitione sui), non qua ipse cognoscit, sed qua vera fide et fiducia ipse tanquam propitiator cognoscitur. The explanation: "By His knowledge (in the sense of understanding) or wisdom," gives a sense unsuitable to the context. In the whole prophecy, the Servant of God does not appear as a Teacher, but as a Redeemer; and the relation of [Hebrew: cdiq] to [Hebrew: hcdiq] shows that here, too, He is considered as such. To supply, as is done by some interpreters: "in which (knowledge) He perceived the only possible means of redemption and reconciliation, and gave practical effect to this knowledge," is, after all, too unnatural; the [Pg 305] discourse would in that case be so incomplete that we should have been shut up to conjectures. Others translate: "By His doctrine;" but [Hebrew: det] never means "doctrine." The explanation: "By His full, absolute knowledge of the divine counsel" (Haevernick), or, "by the absolute knowledge of God" (Umbreit), puts into the simple word, which only means "knowledge," more than is implied in it. According to the parallelism with the subsequent words: "He shall bear their iniquities." and according to the context (for, in the whole section, the Servant of God is not described as a Teacher, but as a Priest, as He who, in order to expiate our sin, has offered himself up as a sacrifice), [Hebrew: hcdiq] must not be translated "to convert," but to "justify." In favour of this translation is also the construction with [Hebrew: l], which is to be accounted for from a modification of the signification: "to bring righteousness." But it is specially the position of [Hebrew: cdiq] which is decisive in favour of it. It is for the justification only that the personal righteousness of the Servant of God has that significant meaning which is, in this manner, assigned to it. Moreover, in the usus loquendi, the meaning to justify only occurs. In it, the verb is used, chap. v. 23, l. 8; and there is no reason for deviating from it in the only passage which can be adduced in favour of the signification "to convert," viz., Dan. xii. 3: "And the wise, [Hebrew: mwkiliM], shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and justify many as the stars, for ever and ever." In this passage, that is applied to believers which, in chap. liii., was ascribed to Christ. Even a certain strangeness in the style makes us suppose such a transference; and the fact, that Daniel had our passage specially in view, cannot be doubted, if we compare the [Hebrew: mwkiliM] of Daniel with the [Hebrew: iwkil] with which the prophecy under consideration opens (chap, lii, 13), and Daniel's: "justify many," with the passage before us. The justification, which in its full sense belongs to Christ the Head only, is by Daniel ascribed to the "wise," because they are the instruments through whom many attain justification; Calvin: Quia causa sunt ministerialis justitiae et salutis multorum. Haevernick refers, for a comparison, to 1 Tim. iv. 16: "For, in doing this, thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee." [Hebrew: ediq] must not be immediately connected with [Hebrew: ebdi]; for, in that case, it ought to have stood after it, and been qualified [Pg 306] by the article. On the contrary, [Hebrew: ediq] stands first, because it stands by itself and substantively: "The righteous One, My Servant." A similar construction occurs, Jer. iii., vii. 10: "And she does not turn unto me, the treacherous one, [Hebrew: bgirh], her sister Judah." By thus making [Hebrew: cdiq] prominent, and connecting it immediately with [Hebrew: hcdiq], it is intended to point out the close connection in which the righteousness of the Servant of God, who, although altogether innocent and sinless, ver. 9, yet suffered the punishment of sin, stands with the justification to be bestowed by Him. Maurer thus pertinently expresses this: "To many, for righteous is my Servant, shall He procure righteousness." By these words thus the [Hebrew: izh], in chap. lii. 15, is explained; and the seal of the divine confirmation is impressed upon that which, in vers. 4-6, the believing Church had said, especially upon the words: "By His wounds we are healed," ver. 5. The "many" points back to chap. liii. 15, and forms the contrast not to all (Stier: "Because He cannot, overturning all laws, save all by coercion, or arbitrary will,"—a limitation which would in this context be out of place), but to few: The one, the many, Rom. v. 15.—"And He shall bear their iniquities;" the iniquities and their punishment, as a heavy burden which the Servant of God lifts off from those who are groaning under their weight, and takes upon himself Jerome says: "And He himself shall bear the iniquities which they could not bear, and by the weight of which they were borne down." Calvin expresses himself thus: "A wonderful change indeed! Christ justifies men by giving them His righteousness, and in exchange. He takes upon Him their sins, that He may expiate them." In opposition to those who translate: "He bore their iniquities," (the Future might, in that case, he accounted for from the Prophet's viewing the whole transaction as present), even Gesenius has remarked that the preceding and subsequent Futures all refer to the state of glorification. Even the parallelism with [Hebrew: icdiq] shows that we must translate as the LXX. do: [Greek: kai tas hamartias auton autos anoisei]. Moreover, the subject of discourse in the whole verse is not the acquiring of the righteousness, which was done in the state of humiliation, but the communication of it, as the subjective condition of which the knowledge of the Servant of God was mentioned in the preceding clause. [Pg 307] In the case of every one who, after the exaltation of the Servant of God, fulfils this condition, He takes upon Himself their sins, i.e., He causes His vicarious suffering to be imputed to them, and grants them pardon. The expression: "He shall bear their iniquities" is, in point of fact, identical with: "He shall justify them." The Servant of God has borne the sin once for all; by the power of His substitution, effected by the shedding of His blood, He takes upon himself the sins of every individual who knows Him. The "taking away" is implied in [Hebrew: vsbl] in so far only, as it is done by bearing. It was only because he was misled by his rationalistic tendencies, that Gesenius explains: "And He lightens the burden of their sins, i.e., by His doctrine He shall correct them, and thereby procure to them pardon." By such an explanation he contradicts himself, inasmuch as, in ver. 4, he referred the bearing of the diseases and pains to the vicarious satisfaction. It cannot, in any way, be said of the Teacher, that he takes upon himself iniquities.

Ver. 12. "Therefore will I give Him a portion in the many, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He hath poured out His soul unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, and He beareth the sin of many, and for the transgressors He shall make intercession."

The first words are thus explained by many interpreters: "Therefore I will give Him mighty ones for His portion, and strong ones He shall divide as a spoil." But [Hebrew: Hlq] with [Hebrew: b] cannot mean simply "to allot," (although, indeed, this explanation is given by the LXX.; [Greek: dia touto autos kleronomesei pollous]; Vulg.: ideo dispertiam ei plurimos); it only signifies "to give a portion in," Job xxxix. 17. From the comparison with [Hebrew: rbiM] in ver. 11 and at the close of this verse, as well as from the reference to the many nations in the sketch, ver. 15, it is evident that [Hebrew: rbiM] here, too, cannot mean "mighty ones," but "many." Even elsewhere, the signification "great ones," "mighty ones," appears oftentimes to be only forced upon [Hebrew: rbiM]. In Job xxxv. 9, the "many" are the many evil-doers; and in Job xxxii. 9, the utterance: "Not the many are wise," is explained from the circumstance, that the view given by Job's friends was that of the great mass. The fact that the [Hebrew: at] in the second clause is not the sign of the Accusative, but a Preposition, [Pg 308] is probable even from the circumstance, that the former [Hebrew: at] commonly stands before qualified nouns only; and, farther from the corresponding; "with the transgressors." But what is conclusive is, that the phrase [Hebrew: Hlq wll] always means "to divide spoil," never "to distribute as spoil," and that the phrase [Hebrew: Hlq wll at gaiM] "to divide spoil with the proud" occurs in Prov. xvi. 19. The reason of the use of this expression lies in the reference to ordinary victors and conquerors of the world, especially to Cyrus. By His sufferings and death, the Servant of God shall secure to himself the same successes as they do by sword and bow. Although participating in the government of the world, and dividing spoil are here ascribed to the Servant of God, yet the participation in worldly triumphs is not spoken of On the contrary, behind the equality which has given rise to the secular-looking expression (the thought is merely this, that through Christ and His sacrificial death, the Kingdom of God enters into the rank of world-conquering powers), a contrast lies concealed,—as appears, 1. From what is stated, in the preceding verses, about the manner in which the Servant of God has attained to this glory. Worldly triumphs are not acquired by the deepest humiliation, by sufferings and death voluntarily undergone for the salvation of mankind. 2. From that which the Servant of God, in the state of glory, is to do to those who turn to Him. According to chap. lii. 15, He is to sprinkle them with His blood; and this sprinkling is there expressly stated as the reason of the reverential homage of the Gentile world. He is to justify them and to bear their sins, ver. 11, and to make intercession for them, ver. 12. All that does not apply to a worldly conqueror and ruler.—The merits of the Servant of God are then once more pointed out,—the merits by which He has acquired so exalted and all-important a position to himself, and, at the same time, to the Kingdom of God, of which He is the Head. "Because He hath poured out His soul unto death," [Hebrew: erh] in the Niphal, "to be poured out," means in Piel "to pour out," Gen. xxiv. 20, and Ps. cxli. 8, where it is said of the soul: "Do not pour out my soul," just as here the Hiphil is used. The term has been transferred to the soul from the blood, in which is the soul. Gen. ix. 4: "Flesh with its soul (namely with its blood) you shall not eat." Ver. 5: "Your blood in [Pg 309] which your souls." [Hebrew: nmnh], "He was numbered," is here, according to the context, equivalent to: He caused himself to be numbered; for it is only that which was undergone voluntarily which can be stated as the reason of the reward. This voluntary undergoing, however, is not implied in the word itself, but only in the connection with: "He hath poured out His soul;" for that signifies a voluntary act. The [Hebrew: pweiM] here, just as the [Hebrew: rweiM] in ver. 9, are not sinners, but criminals. This appears from the connection in which the being "numbered with the transgressors" stands with the "pouring out of the soul unto death." We can hence think of executed criminals only. The pure, innocent One was not only numbered with sinners, such as all men are, but He was numbered with criminals. It is in this sense also that our Lord understands the words, in His quotation of them in Luke xxii. 37: [Greek: lego gar humin, hoti heti touto to gegrammenon dei telesthenai en emoi, to. kai meta anomon elogisthe, kai gar ta peri emou telos echei]; Compare Matt. xxvi. 54, where the Lord strengthens His disciples against the offence of His being taken a prisoner, by saying, with a view to the passage before us: [Greek: pos oun plerothosin hai graphai, hoti houto dei genesthai]; ver. 56, where, after having reproached the guards for having numbered Him with criminals: [Greek: hos epi lesten exelthete meta machairon kai xulon sullabein me], He says to them: [Greek: touto de holon gegonen hina plerothosin hai graphai ton propheton]. Mark, in chap. xv. 28, designates the fact that two robbers were crucified with Christ, as the most perfect fulfilment of our prophecy. It was in this fact that it came out most palpably, that Christ had been made like criminals. The rulers of the people caused two common criminals to be crucified with Him, just that they might declare that they put Him altogether among their number.—"And He beareth the sin of many, and for the transgressors He shall make intercession." By [Hebrew: vhva], it is indicated that the subsequent words are no more to be viewed as depending on [Hebrew: tHt awr].—[Hebrew: ipgie] must not, as is done by the LXX., be referred to the state of humiliation; for the Future in the preceding verses has reference to the exaltation. The parallel [Hebrew: nwa] must therefore be viewed as a Praeteritum propheticum. It corresponds with [Hebrew: isbl] in ver. 11, and, like it, does not designate something done but once by the Servant of God, but something which He does constantly. The intercession is [Pg 310] here brought into close connection with the bearing of the sin, by which Christ represents himself as being the true sin-offering (comp. ver. 10, where He was designated as the true trespass-offering), and hence it is equivalent to: He will make intercession for sinners, by taking upon himself their sin,—of which the thief on the cross was the first instance. This close connection, and the deep meaning suggested by it, are overlooked and lost by those expositors who, in the intercession, think of prayer only. The servant of God, on the contrary, makes intercession, by pleading before God His merit, as the ground of the acceptance of the transgressors, and of the pardon of their sins. This is evident from the connection also in which: "For the transgressors He shall make intercession," stands with: "He was numbered with the transgressors." The vicarious suffering is thereby pointed out as the ground of the intercession. Calvin says: "Under the Old Testament dispensation, the High-priest, who never went in without blood, made intercession for the people. What was there foreshadowed has been fulfilled in Christ. For, in the first place. He offered up the sacrifice of His body, and shed His blood, and thus suffered the punishment due to us. And, in the second place, in order that the expiation might profit us. He undertakes the office of an advocate, and makes intercession for all who, by faith, lay hold of this sacrifice." Comp. Rom. viii. 34: [Greek: hos kai entunchanei huper hemon]; Hebr. ix. 24, according to which passage Christ is entered into the holy places [Greek: nun emphanisthenai to prosopo tou Theou huper hemon]; 1 John ii. 1: [Greek: parakleton echomen pros ton patera Iesoun Christon dikaion].

* * * * * * * * * *

We have hitherto expounded the passage before us without any regard to the difference of the interpretation as to the whole, and have supposed the reference to Christ to be the correct one. But it is still incumbent upon us: I. to give the history of the interpretation; II. to refute the arguments against the Messianic interpretation; III. to state the arguments in favour of it; and IV. to show that the non-Messianic interpretation is untenable.



[Footnote 1: One needs only to consider passages such as this, to be enabled to distinguish between the ideal and real Present, and to be convinced of the utter futility of the chief argument against the genuineness of the second part, viz., that the Babylonish exile appears as present. "Proceeding from the certainty of deliverance"—so Hitzig remarks—"the Prophet here beholds in spirit that going on, to which, in chap. xl. 9, he exhorts." If the Prophet beholds at all in the spirit, why should he not see in spirit the misery also?]

[Footnote 2: Simonis. Onom.: [Hebrew: izih], quem aspergat, i.e., purificet et expiet Domimus; Gesenius: quod vix aliter explicari potest quam: quem consperget, i.e., expiabit Jehova. Fuerst gives a different derivation; but it at once shows itself to be untenable.]

[Footnote 3: In order to defend this explanation, interpreters have referred to the LXX: [Greek: houto thaumasontai ethne polla ep'auto]; but even Martini remarks: "From a dark passage, they have tried, by ingenious conjecturing, to bring out any sense whatsoever."]

[Footnote 4: Thus Theodoret says: "For they who did not receive the prophetic promises and announcements, but served idols, shall, through the messengers of the truth, see the power of the promised One, and perceive His greatness." Jerome: "The rulers of the world, who had not the Law and the Prophets, and to whom no prophecies concerning Him were given, even they shall see and perceive. By the comparison with them, the hardness of the Jews is reproved, who, although they saw and heard, yet verified Isaiah's prophecy against them." Calvin: "The Jews had, through the Law and the Prophets, heard something of Christ, but to the Gentiles He was altogether unknown. Hence it follows that these words properly refer to the Gentiles."]

[Footnote 5: According to Knobel, the author is supposed to speak, in chap. liii. 1, in his own name and that of the other prophets; in vers. 2-6, in the name of the whole people; in vers. 7-10, in his own name. An explanation which is compelled to resort to such changes, without their being in any way clearly and distinctly intimated, pronounces its own condemnation.]

[Footnote 6: Gesenius: Neglecta actatis notione saepe est genus hominum, in bonam partem—in malam partem;—and in reference to the passage under consideration: Genus ejus, Servi Jehovae, sunt homines qui iisdem cum illo studiis tenentur. In the same manner it is explained by Maurer, who refers to Ps. xiv. 5, xxiv. 6.]

[Footnote 7: The double [Hebrew: lmv] in Deut. xxxiii. 2 refers to Israel, not to God. In reference to the [Hebrew: lmv] in Is. xliv. 15, J. H. Michaelis remarks: iis talibus diis. ver. 7. But the suffix rather refers to the trees, ver. 14; comp. [Hebrew: mhM] in ver. 15. If construed thus, the sense is much more expressive. In Job xxii. 2, [Hebrew: mwkil] is used collectively. In Ps. xi. 7, the plural suffix is to be explained from the richness and fulness of the Divine Being. These are all the passages which Ewald quotes in Sec. 247 d.]

[Footnote 8: Thus Baehr, Symbolik, ii. S. 207, says: It is not the material elements of the blood which make it a means of expiation, but it is the [Hebrew: npw] which is connected with it, which is in it, whose instrument and bearer it is, which gives to it atoning power. The [Hebrew: npw] is thus the centre around which, in the last instance, everything moves. This is especially confirmed by the circumstance, that the object of the expiation to be effected by the [Hebrew: npw] in the sacrificial blood, is, according to this passage, the [Hebrew: npw] of him who offers up the sacrifice.]



[Pg 311]



I. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.

A. WITH THE JEWS.

1. There cannot be any doubt that, in those earlier times, when the Jews were still more firmly attached to the tradition of their Fathers,—when the carnal disposition had not yet become so entirely prevalent among them,—and when controversy with the Christians had not made them so narrow-minded in their Exegesis, the Messianic explanation was pretty generally received, at least by the better portion of the people. This is admitted even by those later interpreters who pervert the prophecy, e.g., Abenezra, Jarchi, Abarbanel, Moses Nachmanides. Gesenius also says: "It was only the later Jews who abandoned this interpretation,—no doubt, in consequence of their controversies with the Christians." We shall here collect, from the existing Jewish writings, the principal passages in which this interpretation occurs. The whole translation of the Chaldee Paraphrast, Jonathan, notwithstanding the many perversions in which he indulges, refers the prophecy to Christ. He paraphrases the very first clause: [Hebrew: ha iclH ebdi mwiha] "behold my Servant Messiah shall prosper." The Medrash Tanchuma, an old commentary on the Pentateuch (ed. Cracov. f. 53, c. 3, l. 7), remarks on the words: [Hebrew: hnh iwkil ebdi] (ed. Cracov. f. 53, c. 3, l. 7): [Hebrew: hmwiH irvM vgbh vnwa mavd vriM mN abrhM vnwa mmwh vgdh mN mlaki hwrt zh mlK] ("this is the King Messiah who is high and lifted up, and very exalted, more exalted than Abraham, elevated above Moses, higher than the ministering angels"). This passage is remarkable for this reason also, that it contains the doctrine of the exaltation of the Messiah above all created beings, and even above the angels themselves, and, hence, the doctrine of His divinity,—a doctrine contested by the later Jews. Still more remarkable is a passage from the very old book Pesikta, cited in the treatise Abkath Rokhel ([Hebrew: abqt rvkl], printed separately at Venice in 1597, and reprinted in Hulsii Theologia Judaica, where [Pg 312] this passage occurs p. 309): "When God created His world He stretched out His hand under the throne of His glory, and brought forth the soul of the Messiah. He said to Him: 'Wilt thou heal and redeem my sons after 6000 years?'He answered Him: 'I will.'Then God said to Him: 'Wilt thou then also bear the punishment in order to blot out their sins, as it is written: 'But he bore our diseases' (chap. liii. 4)? And He answered Him: I will joyfully bear them." In this passage, as well as in several others which will be afterwards cited, the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah is contained, and derived from Is. liii., although the later Jews rejected this doctrine. In a similar manner, Rabbi Moses Haddarshan expresses himself on Gen. i. 3 (Latin in Galatinus, De Arcanis Cath. ver. p. 329; in the original in Raimund Martini Pug. Fid. fol. 333; comp. Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. i. p. 818): "Jehovah said: Messiah, thou my righteous One, those who are concealed with thee will be such that their sins will bring a heavy yoke upon thee.—The Messiah answered: Lord of the universe, I cheerfully take upon myself all those plagues and sufferings; and immediately the Messiah, out of love, took upon himself all those plagues and sufferings, as is written in Is. liii.: He was abused and oppressed." Compare another passage, in which ver. 5 is referred to the Messiah, in Raim. Martin, fol. iv. 30. In the Talmud (Gemara, tract. Sanhedrim, chap. xi.), it is said of the Messiah: "He sits before the gates of the city of Rome among the sick and the leprous" (according to ver. 3). To the question: What is the name of the Messiah, it is answered: He is called [Hebrew: Hivvra] "the leper," and, in proof, ver. 4 is quoted according to the erroneous interpretation of [Hebrew: ngve] by leprosus,—an interpretation which is met with in Jerome also.—In the work Rabboth (a commentary on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth, which, as to its principal portions, is very old, although much interpolated at later periods, and which, according to the statements of the Jews, was composed about the year of our Lord 300, comp. Wolf, I. c. II., p. 1423, sqq. in commentary on Ruth ii. 14 [p. 46, ed. Cracov.]), the fifth verse is quoted, and referred to the sufferings of the Messiah.—In the Medrash Tillim (an allegorical commentary on the Psalms, printed at Venice in 1546), it is said in Ps. ii. 7, (fol. 4): "The things of King Messiah and His mysteries are announced [Pg 313] in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. In the Prophets, e.g., in the passage Is. lii. 13, and xlii. 1; in the Hagiographa, e.g., Ps. cx. and Dan. vii. 13." In the book Chasidim (a collection of moral tales, printed at Venice and Basle in 1581) p. 60, the following story is to be found: "There was, among the Jews, a pious man, who in summer made his bed among fleas, and in winter put his feet into cold water; and when it froze, his feet froze at the same time. When asked why he did so, he answered, that he too must make some little expiation, since the Messiah bears the sin of Israel ([Hebrew: mwiH svbl evnvt iwral])." The ancient explanation is, from among the later interpreters, assented to by Rabbi Alschech (his commentary on Is. liii. is given entire in Hulsii Theologia Judaica, p. 321 sqq.). He says: "Upon the testimony of tradition, our old Rabbins have unanimously admitted that King Messiah is here the subject of discourse. For the same reason, we, in harmony with them, conclude that King David, i.e., the Messiah, must be considered as the subject of this prophecy,—a view which is indeed quite obvious." We shall see, however, subsequently, that he adheres to the right explanation only in the first three verses, and afterwards abandons it. But passages especially remarkable are found in the cabbalistic book Sohar. It is true that the age of the book is very uncertain; but it cannot be proved to have been composed under Christian influence. We shall here quote only some of the principal passages. (Sohar, ed. Amstelod. p. ii. fol. 212; ed. Solisbac. p. ii. f. 85; Sommeri theol. Sohar p. 94.) "When the Messiah is told of the misery of Israel in their captivity, and that they are themselves the cause of it, because they had not cared for, nor sought after the knowledge of their Lord, He weeps aloud over their sins; and for this reason it is written in Scripture (Isa. liii. 5): He was wounded for our transgressions, He was smitten for our iniquities."—"In the garden of Eden there is an apartment which is called the sick chamber. The Messiah goes into this apartment, and summons all the diseases, all the pains, and all the chastisements of Israel to come upon Him, and they all come upon Him. And unless He would take them away from Israel, and lay them upon himself, no man would be able to bear the chastisements of Israel, which are inflicted upon them on account of the Law, as it is [Pg 314] written: But He took upon himself our sicknesses," &c. In another passage (Sohar, ed. Amstelod p. iii. f. 218; Solisbac. iii. f. 88; Sommeri theol. Sohar p. 89; Auszuege aus dem Buche Sohar, mit Deutscher Uebersetzung, Berlin 52, S. 32), it is said: "When God wishes to give to the world a means of healing. He smites one of the pious among them, and for his sake He gives healing to the whole world. Where, in Scripture, do we find this confirmed? In Isa. liii. 5, where it is said: He was wounded for our transgressions. He was crushed for our sins."

What has been said will be a sufficient proof that the ancient Jews, following tradition, referred the passage to the Messiah; and, as it appears from the majority of the passages quoted, referred it indeed to the suffering Messiah. But it would really have been a strange phenomenon, if this interpretation had remained the prevailing one among the Jews. According to the declaration of the Apostle, the Cross of Christ is to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness. The idea of a suffering and expiating Messiah was repugnant to the carnally minded Jews. And the reason why it was repugnant to them is, that they did not possess that which alone makes that doctrine acceptable, viz., the knowledge of sin, and the consciousness of the need of salvation,—because, not knowing the holiness of God, and being ignorant of the import of the Law, they imagined that through their own strength, by the works of the Law, they could be justified before God. What they wished for was only an outward deliverance from their misery and their oppressors, not an internal deliverance from sin. For this reason, they looked exclusively to those passages of the Old Testament in which the Messiah in glory is announced; and those passages they interpreted in a carnal manner. In addition to this, there were other reasons which could not fail to render them averse to refer this passage to the suffering Messiah. As they could not compare the prophecy with the fulfilment,—the deep abasement of the Messiah which is here announced, the contempt which He endures, His violent death, appeared to them irreconcileable with those passages in which nothing of the kind is mentioned, but, on the contrary, the glorified Messiah only is foretold. They had too little knowledge of the nature [Pg 315] of prophetic vision to enable them to perceive that the prophecies are connected with the circumstances of the time, and, therefore, exhibit a one-sided character,—that they consist of separate fragments which must be put together in order that a complete representation of the subject may be obtained. They imagined that because, in some passages, the Messiah is at once brought before us in glory, just because He, in this way, represented Himself to the prophets. He must also appear at once in glory. And, lastly, by their controversy with Christians, they were led to seek for other explanations. As long as they understood the passage as referring to a suffering Messiah, they could not deny that there existed the closest agreement between the prophecy and the history of Christ. Now since the Christians, in their controversies with the Jews, always proceeded from the passages, which by Hulsius is pertinently called a carnificina Judaeorum, and always returned to it,—since they saw what impression was, in numerous cases, produced by the controversy of the Christians founded upon this passage, nothing was more natural, than that they should endeavour to discover an expedient for remedying this evil. And the discovery of such an expedient was the more easy to them, the more that, in general, they were destitute of a sense of truth, and especially of exegetical skill, so that they could not see any reason for rejecting an interpretation on the ground of its being forced and unnatural.

In proof of what we have said, we here briefly present the arguments with which Abarbanel opposes the explanation of a suffering and expiating divine Messiah. In the first place, by the absurd remark that the ancient teachers did not intend to give a literal, but an allegorical explanation, he seeks to invalidate the authority of the tradition on which the later Jewish interpreters laid so great a stress, whensoever and wheresoever it agrees with their own inclination; and, at the same time, he advances the assertion that they referred the first four verses only to the Messiah,—an assertion which the passages quoted by us show to be utterly erroneous. Then, after having combatted the doctrine of original sin, he continues: "Suppose even that there exists such a thing as original sin,—when God, whose power is infinite, was willing to pardon, was His hand too short to redeem (Isa. l. 2), so [Pg 316] that, on this account, He was obliged to take flesh, and to impose chastisements upon himself? And even although I were to grant that it was necessary that a single individual of the human race should bear this punishment, in order to make satisfaction for all, it would, at all events, have been at least more appropriate that some one from among ourselves, some wise man or prophet, had taken upon him the punishment, than that God himself should have done so. For, supposing even that He became incarnate, He would not be like one of us.—It is altogether impossible and self-contradictory that God should assume a body; for God is the first cause, infinite, and omnipotent. He cannot, therefore, assume flesh, and subsist as a finite being, and take upon himself man's punishment, of which nothing whatsoever is written in Scripture.—If the prophecy referred to the Messiah, it must refer either to the Messiah ben Joseph, or the Messiah ben David (compare the Treatises at the close of this work). The former will perish in the beginning of his wars; neither that which is said of the exaltation, nor that which is said of the humiliation of the Servant of God applies to him; much less can the latter be intended." (There then follows a quotation of several passages treating of the exalted Messiah.)

That it was nevertheless difficult for the carnally-minded among the Jews to reject the tradition, is seen from the paraphrase of Jonathan. This forms a middle link between the ancient interpretation—which was retained, even at a later period, by the better portion of the nation—and the recent interpretation. Jonathan (see his paraphrase, among others, in Lowth's comment, edited by Koppe, on the passage; and in Hulsii Theol. Judaica) acknowledges the tradition, in so far, that he refers the whole prophecy to the Messiah. On the other hand, he endeavours to satisfy his repugnance to the doctrine of a suffering and expiating Messiah, by referring, through the most violent perversions and most arbitrary interpolations, to the state of glory, every thing which is here said of the state of humiliation. A trace of the right interpretation may yet perhaps be found in ver. 12, where Jonathan says that the Messiah will give His soul unto death; but it may be that thereby he understands merely the intrepid courage with which the Messiah will expose himself to all [Pg 317] dangers, in the conflict with the enemies of the covenant-people.

This mode of dealing with the text, however, could satisfy only a few. They, therefore, went farther, and sought for an entirely different subject of the prophecy. How very little they were themselves convinced of the soundness of their interpretation, and satisfied with its results, may be seen from the example of Abarbanel, who advances two explanations which differ totally, viz., one referring it to the Jewish people, and the other to king Josiah, and then allows his readers to make their choice betwixt the two. It is in truth only, that there is unanimity and certainty; error is always accompanied by disagreement and uncertainty. This will appear from the following enumeration of the various interpretations of this passage, which, at a subsequent period, were current among the Jews. (The principal non-Messianic interpretations of this passage are found in the Rabbinical Bibles, and also in Hulsius, l.c., p. 339, both in the original and translation.) The interpreters may be divided into two main classes: 1. Those who by [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] understand some collective body; and, 2. Those who refer the prophecy to a single individual. The first class again falls into two subdivisions, (a), those who make the whole Jewish people the subject, in contrast to the Gentiles; and (b) those who make the better portion of the Jewish people the subject, in contrast to the ungodly portion. These views, and their supporters, we shall now proceed to submit to a closer examination.

1. (a.) Among the non-Messianic interpreters, the most prevalent opinion is, that the Jewish people are the subject of the prophecy. This opinion is found at an early period. At this we need not be surprised, as the cause which produced the deviation from the Messianic interpretation existed at a period equally early. When Origen was making use of this passage against some learned Jews, they answered: that "that which here was prophesied of one, referred to the whole people, and was fulfilled by their dispersion." This explanation is followed by R. Salomo Jarchi, Abenezra, Kimchi, Abarbanel, Lipmann ([Hebrew: spr ncHvN], fol. 131). The main features of this view are the following: The prophecy is supposed to describe the misery of the people in their present exile, the firmness with [Pg 318] which they bear it for the glory of God, and resist every temptation to forsake His law and worship; and the prosperity, power, and glory which shall be bestowed upon them at the time of the redemption. In vers. 1-10, the Gentiles are supposed to be introduced as speaking, and making a humble and penitent confession that hitherto they had adopted an erroneous opinion of the people of God, and had unjustly despised them on account of their sufferings, inasmuch as their glory now shows, that it was not for the punishment of their sins that these sufferings were inflicted upon them. Some of these interpreters, e.g., Abenezra and Rabbi Lipmann, understand, indeed, by the [Hebrew: ebd ihvh], the pious portion only of the people who remained faithful to Jehovah; but this makes no material difference, inasmuch as they, too, contrast the [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] with the heathen nations, and not with the ungodly, or less righteous portion of the nation, as is done by the interpreters of the following class.

(b). Others consider the appellation [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] as a collective designation of the pious, and find in this section the idea of a kind of vicarious satisfaction made by them for the ungodly. Those interpreters come nearer the true explanation, in so far as they do not, like those of the preceding class, set aside the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, either by a figurative explanation, or, like Kimchi, by the absurd remark, that this doctrine is an error put into the mouth of the Gentiles. On the other hand, they depart from the true explanation, in so far that they generalize that which belongs to a definite subject, and that, flattering the pride of the natural man, they ascribe to mere man what belongs only to the God-man. Most distinctly was this view expressed by the Commentator on the book [Hebrew: eiN ieqb] or [Hebrew: eiN iwral], which has been very frequently printed, and which contains all sorts of tales from the Talmud. He says: "It is right to suppose that the whole section contains a prophecy regarding the righteous ones who are visited by sufferings." He then makes two classes of righteous men:—those who in general must endure many sufferings and much misery: and those who are publicly executed, as Rabbi Akiba and others. He supposes that the Prophet shows the dignity of both of these classes of righteous men, to both of which the name of a Servant of God is justly due. A similar opinion is held by Rabbi [Pg 319] Alshech. As we have already seen, he refers only chap. lii. 13-15 to the Messiah, and to His great glory acquired by His great sufferings. Then the Prophet speaks, as he supposes, in the name of all Israel, approves of what God had said, and confesses that, by this declaration of God regarding the sufferings of the Messiah, they have received light regarding the sufferings of the godly in general. They perceive it to be erroneous and rash to infer guilt from suffering; and, henceforth, when they see a righteous man suffering, they will think of no other reason, than that he bears their diseases, and that his chastisements are for their salvation. The Servant of God is thus supposed to be as it were, a personification of the righteous ones.—A similar view probably lies at the foundation of those passages of the Talmud, where some portions of the prophecy under consideration are referred to Moses, and others to Rabbi Akiba, who is revered as a martyr by the Jews. It does not appear that the prophecy was confined to Moses or Akiba; but it was referred to them, only in so far as they belonged to the collective body which is supposed to be the subject of it.

2. That view which makes a single individual other than the Messiah the subject of the prophecy, has found, with the Jews, comparatively the fewest defenders. We have already seen, that, besides the explanation which makes the Jewish people the subject, Abarbanel advances still another, which refers it to king Josiah. Rabbi Saadias Haggaon explained the whole section of Jeremiah.

Notwithstanding all these efforts, however, the Rabbins have not succeeded in entirely supplanting the right explanation, and in thus divesting the passage of all that is dangerous to their system. Among the Cabbalistical Jews, it is even still the prevailing one. In numerous cases, it was just this chapter which formed, to proselytes from Judaism, the first foundation of their conviction of the truth of Christianity.

B. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION WITH THE CHRISTIANS.

Among Christians, the interpretation has taken nearly the same course as among the Jews. Similar causes have produced [Pg 320] similar effects in both cases. By both, the true explanation was relinquished, when the prevailing tendencies had become opposed to its results. And if we descend to particulars, we shall find a great resemblance even between the modes of interpretation proposed by both.

1. Even, a priori, we could not but suppose otherwise than that the Christian Church, as long as she possessed Christ, found Him here also, where He is so clearly and distinctly set before our eyes,—that as long as she in general still acknowledged the authority of Christ, and of the Apostles, she could not but, here too, follow their distinct, often-repeated testimony. And so, indeed, do we find it to be. With the exception of a certain Silesian, called Seidel—who, given up to total unbelief, asserted that the Messiah had never yet come, nor would ever come, (comp. Jac. Martini l. 3, de tribus Elohim, p. 592)—and of Grotius, both of whom supposed Jeremiah to be the subject, no one in the Christian Church has, for seventeen centuries, ventured to call in question the Messianic interpretation. On the contrary, this passage was always considered to be the most distinct and glorious of all the Messianic prophecies. Out of the great mass of testimonies, we shall quote a few. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, i. 18, c. 29, says: "Isaiah has not only reproved the people for their iniquity, and instructed them in righteousness, and foretold to the people calamities impending over them in the Future; but he has also a greater number of predictions, than the other prophets, concerning Christ and the Church, i.e., concerning the King, and the Kingdom established by Him; so that some interpreters would rather call him an Evangelist than a Prophet." In proof of this assertion, he then quotes the passage under consideration, and closes with the words: "Surely that may suffice! There are in those words some things too which require explanation; but I think that things which are so clear should compel even enemies, against their will, to understand them." In a similar manner he expresses himself in: De consensu Evangelistarum l. i. c. 31. Theodoret remarks on this passage (opp. ed. Hal. t. ii. p. 358): "The Prophet represents to us, in this passage, the whole course of His (Christ's) humiliation unto death. Most wonderful is the power of the Holy Spirit. For that which was to take place after many generations. He showed [Pg 321] to the holy prophets in such a manner that they did not merely hear Him declare these things, but saw them." In a similar manner, Justin, Irenaeus, Cyril of Alexandria, and Jerome, express themselves. From the Churches of the Reformation, we shall here quote the testimonies of two of their founders only. Zwingle, in Annot. ad h. l. (opp. t. iii. Tur. 1544, fol. 292) says: "That which now follows is so clear a testimony of Christ, that I do not know whether, anywhere in Scripture, there could be found anything more consistent, or that anything could be more distinctly said. For it is quite in vain that the obstinacy and perversity of the Jews have tried it from all sides." Luther remarks on the passage: "And, no doubt, there is not, in all the Old Testament Scriptures, a clearer text or prophecy, both of the suffering and the resurrection of Christ, than in this chapter. Wherefore it is but right that it should be well known to all Christians, yea should be committed to memory, that thereby we may strengthen our faith, and defend it, chiefly against the stiff-necked Jews who deny their only promised Christ, solely on account of the offence of His cross."

It was reserved to the last quarter of the last century to be the first to reject the Messianic interpretation. At a time when Naturalism exercised its sway, it could no longer be retained.[1] For, if this passage contains a Messianic prophecy at all, its contents offer so striking an agreement with the history of Christ, that its origin cannot at all be accounted for in the natural way. Expedients were, therefore, sought for; and these were so much the more easily found, that the Jews had, in this matter, already opened up the way. All that was necessary, was only to appropriate their arguments and counter-arguments, and to invest them with the semblance of solidity by means of a learned apparatus.

The non-Messianic interpretation among Christians, like those among the Jews, may be divided into two main classes: 1. Those which are founded upon the supposition that a collective [Pg 322] body is the subject of the prophecy; and 2, those which, by the Servant of God, understand any other single individual except the Messiah. The first class, again, falls into several sub-divisions: (a.), those interpretations which refer the prophecy to the whole Jewish people; (b.), those which refer it to the Jewish people in the abstract; (c.), those which refer it to the pious portion of the Jewish people; (d.), those which refer it to the order of the priests; (e.), those which refer it to the order of the prophets.

1. (a.) Comparatively the greatest number of non-Messianic interpreters make the whole Jewish people the subject of the prophecy. This hypothesis is adopted, among others, by Doederlein, (in the preface and annotations, in the third edition of Isaiah, but in such a manner that he still wavers betwixt this and the Messianic interpretation, which formerly he had defended with great zeal); by Schuster (in a special treatise, Goettingen 1794); by Stephani (Gedanken ueber die Entstehung u. Ausbildung der Idee von inem Messias, Nuernberg 1787); by the author of the letters on Isaiah liii., in the 6th vol. of Eichhorn's Bibliothek; by Eichhorn (in his exposition of the Prophets); by Rosenmueller (in the second edition of his Commentary, leaving to others the interpretation which referred the prophecy to the prophetic order, although he himself had first recommended it), and many others. The last who defend it are Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Koester (de Serv. Jeh. Kiel, 38). Substantially, it has remained the same as we have seen it among the Jews. The only difference is, that these expositors understand, by the sufferings of the Servant of God, the sufferings of the Jewish people in the Babylonish captivity; while the Jewish interpreters understand thereby the sufferings of the Jewish people in their present exile. They, too, suppose that, from vers. 1 to 10, the Gentile nations are introduced as speaking, and make the penitent confession that they have formed an erroneous opinion of Israel, and now see that its suffering's are not the punishment of its own sins, but that it had suffered as a substitute for their sins.

(b.) The hypothesis which makes the Jewish people in the abstract—in antithesis to its single members—the subject of this prophecy, was discovered by Eckermann, theol. Beitraege, [Pg 323] Bd. i. H. i. S. 192 ff. According to Ewald, the prophecy refers to "Israel according to its true idea." According to Bleek, the Servant of God is a "designation of the whole people, but not of the people in its actual reality, but as it existed in the imagination of the author,—the ideal of the people."

(c.) The hypothesis, that the pious portion of the Jewish people—in contrast to the ungodly—are the subject, has been defended especially by Paulus (Memorabilien, Bd. 3, S. 175-192, and Clavis on Isaiah). His view was adopted by Ammon (Christologie, S. 108 ff.). The principal features of this view are the following:—It was not on account of their own sins that the godly portion of the nation were punished and carried into captivity along with the ungodly, but on account of the ungodly who, however, by apostatising from the religion of Jehovah, knew how to obtain a better fate. The ungodly drew from it the inference that the hope of the godly, that Jehovah would come to their help, had been in vain. But when the captivity came to an end, and the godly returned, they saw that they had been mistaken, and that the hope of the godly was well founded. They, therefore, full of repentance, deeply lament that they had not long ago repented of their sins. This view is adopted also by Von Coelln in his Biblische Theologie; by Thenius in Wiener's Zeitschrift, ii. 1; by Maurer and Knobel. The latter says: "Those who were zealous adherents of the Theocracy had a difficult position among their own people, and had to suffer most from foreign tyrants." The true worshippers of Jehovah were given up to mockery and scorn, to persecution and the grossest abuse, and were in a miserable and horrible condition, unworthy of men and almost inhuman. The punishments for sin had to be endured chiefly by those who did not deserve them. Thus the view easily arose that the godly suffered in substitution for the whole people.

(d.) The hypothesis which makes the priestly order the subject, has been defended by the author of: Ausfuehrliche Erklaerung der saemmtlichen Weissagungen des A. T. 1801.

(e.) The hypothesis which makes the collective body of the prophets the subject, was first advanced by Rosenmueller in the treatise: Leiden und Hoffnungen der Propheten Jehovas, [Pg 324] in Gablers Neuestes theol. Journal, vol. ii. S. 4, p. 333 ff. From him it came as a legacy to De Wette (de morte Jes. Chr. expiatoria, p. 28 sqq.), and to Gesenius. According to Schenkel (Studien und Kritiken 36) "the prophetic order was the quiet, hidden blossom, which early storms broke." According to Umbreit the Servant of God is the collective body of the prophets, or the prophetic order, which is here plainly represented as the sacrificial beast (!) taking upon itself the sins of the people. He finds it "rather strange that the Prophet who, in chap. lxvi. 3 (of course according to a false interpretation), plainly rejects sacrifice altogether, should speak of the shedding of the blood of a man, and, moreover, of a pure, sinless man, in the room of the guilty." The manner in which Umbreit seeks to gain a transition to the Messianic interpretation, although not in the sense held by the Christian Church, has been pointed out by us on a former occasion, in the remarks on chap. xlii. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, ii. 1 S. 89 ff.) has got up a mixture composed of these explanations which refer the prophecy to the people, to the godly, to the prophetic order, and, if one will, of that also which refers it to the Messiah. He says: "The people as a people are called to be the servant of God; but they do not fulfil their vocation as a congregation of the faithful; and it is, therefore, the work of the prophets to restore that congregation, and hence also the fulfilment of its vocation.—Prophetism itself is represented not in its present condition only, when it exists in a number of messengers and witnesses of Jehovah, in the first instance in Isaiah himself, but also in the final result, into which the fulfilment of its vocation will lead, when the Servant of Jehovah unites in His person the offices of a proclaimer of the impending work of salvation, and of its Mediator, and, from the shame and suffering attached to His vocation as a witness, passes over into the glory of the salvation realised in Him." In order to render such a mixture possible, everything is tried in order to remove the vicarious character of the sufferings of the Servant of God, since that character is peculiar to Christ, and excludes every comparison. "Of a priestly self-sacrifice of the Servant of God"—says Hofmann, S. 101, 2—"I cannot find anything. The assertion that the words [Hebrew: izh gviM], denote a priestly work, no longer requires a refutation. His [Pg 325] vocation is to be the mediator of a revelation of God in words; and although the fulfilment of this vocation brings death upon Him, without His endeavouring to escape, this is not a proof nor a part of His priestly vocation. In just the same case is the assertion that the Messiah appears here as a King also." As long as we proceed from the supposition that the Prophet predicts truth, we are, by that very supposition, forbidden to distribute the property of the one among the many; but that is thus violently set aside. The Rationalistic interpreters have in this respect an easier task. They allow the substitution to stand; but they consider it as a vain fancy. The fact that Hofmann does not recoil from even the most violent interpretations, in order to remove the exclusive reference to Christ, appears, e.g., from his remark, S. 132, that "the chastisement of our peace" designates an actual chastisement, which convinces them of their sin, and of the earnestness of divine holiness, and thus serves for their salvation. Surely Gesenius and Hitzig's explanations are far more unbiassed.

2. Among the interpretations which refer the prophecy to a single individual other than the Messiah, scarcely any one has found another defender than its own author. They are of importance only in so far, as they show that most decidedly does the prophecy make the impression, that its subject is a real person, not a personification; and, farther, that it could not by any means be an exegetical interest which induced rationalism to reject the interpretation which referred it to Christ. The persons that have been guessed at are the following: King Uzziah, (Augusti), King Hezekiah, (Konynenburg and Bahrdt), the Prophet Isaiah himself, (Staeudlin), an unknown prophet supposed to have been killed by the Jews in the captivity (an anonymous author in Henke's Magazin, Bd. i. H. 2), the royal house of David, which suffered innocently when the children of the unhappy king Zedekiah were killed at the command of Nebuchadnezzar (Bolten on Acts viii. 33), the Maccabees (an anonymous writer in the Theologische Nachrichten, 1821, S. 79 ff.) Even at this present time, this kind of explanation is not altogether obsolete. Schenkel thinks that "the chapter under consideration may, perhaps, belong to the period of the real Isaiah, whose language equals that of the description of the Servant of God now [Pg 326] under consideration, in conciseness and harshness, and may have been originally a Psalm of consolation in sufferings, which was composed with a view to the hopeful progeny of some pious man or prophet innocently killed, and which was rewritten and interpreted by the author of the book, and embodied in it." Ewald (Proph. ii. S. 407) says: "Farther, the description of the Servant of God is here altogether very strange, especially v. 8 f., inasmuch as, notwithstanding all the liveliness with which the author of the book conceives of Him, He is nowhere else so much and so obviously viewed as an historical person, as a single individual of the Past. How little soever the author may have intended it, it was very obvious that the later generations imagined that they would here find the historical Messiah. We are therefore of opinion, that the author here inserted a passage, which appeared to him to be suitable, from an older book where really a single martyr was spoken of.—It is not likely that the modern controversy on chap. liii. will ever cease as long as this truth is not acknowledged;—a truth which quite spontaneously suggested itself, and impressed itself more and more strongly upon my mind." These are, no doubt, assertions which cannot be maintained, and are yet of interest, in so far as they show, how much even those who refuse to acknowledge it are annoyed by a two-fold truth, viz., that Isaiah is the author of the prophecy, and that it refers to a personal Messiah.

At all times, however, that explanation which refers the prophecy to Christ has found able defenders; and at no period has the anti-Messianic explanation obtained absolute sway. Among the authors of complete Commentaries on Isaiah, the Messianic explanation was defended by Dathe, Doederlein (who, however, wavers in the last edition of his translation), Hensler, Lowth, Kocher, Koppe, J. D. Michaelis, v. d. Palm, Schmieder. In addition to these we may mention: Storr, dissertatio qua Jes. liii. illustratur, Tuebingen, 1790; Hansi Comment. in Jes. liii., Rostock 1791 (this work has considerably promoted the interpretation, although its author often shows himself to be biassed by the views of the time, and especially, in the interest of Neology, seeks to do away with the doctrine of satisfaction); Krueger, Comment. de Jes. liii., interpret; Jahn, Append. ad Hermen. fasc ii.; Steudel, [Pg 327] Observ. ad Jes. liii., Tuebingen 1825, 26; Sack, in the Apologetik; Reinke, exegesis in Jes. liii., Muenster 1836; Tholuck, in his work: Das A. T. in N. T.; Haevernick, in the lectures on the Theology of the Old Testament; Stier, in the Comment. on the second part of Isaiah.



[Footnote 1: The author of the article: Ueber die Mess. Zeiten in Eichhorn's Bibliothek d. bibl. Literatur, Bd. 6, p. 655, confesses quite candidly, that the Messianic interpretation would soon find general approbation among Bible expositors, had they not, in recent times, obtained the conviction, "that the prophets do not foretel any thing of future things, except what they know and anticipate without special divine inspiration."]

* * * * * * * * * *



II. THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION.

The arguments against the Messianic interpretation cannot be designated in any other way than as insignificant. There is not one among them which could be of any weight to him who is able to judge. It is asserted that the Messiah is nowhere else designated as the Servant of God. Even if this were the fact, it would not prove anything. But this name is assigned to the Messiah in Zech. iii. 8—a passage which interpreters are unanimous in referring to the Messiah—where the Lord calls the Messiah His Servant Zemach, and which the Chaldee Paraphrast explains by [Hebrew: mwiHa vitgli] "Messiam et revelabitur;" farther, in Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24, not to mention Is. xlii. 1, xlix. 3, 6, l. 10.—It is farther asserted that in the Messianic interpretation everything is viewed as future; but that this is inadmissible for grammatical and philological reasons. The suffering, contempt, and death of the Servant of God are here, throughout, represented as past, since in chap. liii. 1-10, all the verbs are in the Preterite. It is the glorification only which appears as future, and is expressed in the Future tense. The writer, therefore, occupies a position between the sufferings and the glorification, and the latter is still impending. But the stand-point of the Prophet is not an actual, but a supposed one,—not a real, but an ideal one. In order to distinguish between condition and consequence,—in order to put sufferings and glorification in the proper relation, he takes his stand between the sufferings and the glorification of the Servant of God, and from that position, that appears to him as being already past which, in reality, was [Pg 328] still future. It is only an interpreter so thoroughly prosaic as Knobel who can advance the assertion: "No prophet occupies, in prophecy, another stand-point than that which in reality be occupies." In this, e.g., Hitzig does not by any means assent to him; for be (Hitzig) remarks on chap. lii. 7: "Proceeding from the certainty of the salvation, the Prophet sees, in the Spirit, that already coming to pass which, in chap. xl. 9, he called upon them to do." And the same expositor farther remarks on Jer. vi. 24-26: "This is a statement of how people would then speak, and, thereby, a description of the circumstances of that time." But in our remarks on chap. xi. and in the introduction to the second part, we have already proved that the prophets very frequently occupy an ideal stand-point, and that such is the case here, the Prophet has himself expressly intimated. In some places, he has passed from the prophetical stand-point to the historical, and uses the Future even when he speaks of the sufferings,—a thing which appears to have been done involuntarily, but which, in reality, is done intentionally. Thus there occurs [Hebrew: iptH] in ver. 7, [Hebrew: twiM] in ver. 10, and, according to the explanations of Gesenius and others, also [Hebrew: ipgie] in ver. 12 while, on the other hand, he sometimes speaks of the glorification in the Preterite.[1] Compare [Hebrew: lqH] in ver. 8, [Hebrew: nwa] in ver. 12. This affords a sure proof that we are here altogether on an ideal territory. The ancient translators too have not understood the Preterites as a designation of the real Past, and frequently render them by Futures. Thus the LXX. ver. 14: [Greek: ekstesontai—adoxesei]; Aqui. and Theod., ver. 2, [Greek: anabesetai].—It is farther asserted, that the idea of a suffering and expiating Messiah is foreign to the Old Testament, and stands in contradiction even to its prevailing views of the Messiah. But this objection cannot be of any weight; nor can it prove anything, as long as, in the Church of Christ, the authority of Christ is still acknowledged, who Himself declares that His whole suffering had been foretold in the books of the Old Testament, and explained to His disciples the prophecies concerning it. Even the fact, that at [Pg 329] the time when Christ appeared the knowledge of a suffering Messiah was undeniably possessed by the more enlightened, proves that the matter stands differently. This knowledge is shown not only by the Baptist, but also by Simeon, Luke ii. 34, 35. An assertion to the contrary can proceed only from the erroneous opinion, that every single Messianic prophecy exhibits the whole view of the Messiah, whereas, indeed, the Messianic announcements bear throughout a fragmentary, incidental character,—a mode of representation which is generally prevalent in Scripture, and by which Scripture is distinguished from a system of doctrines. But even if there had existed an appearance of such a contradiction, it would long ago have been removed by the fulfilment. But even the appearance of a contradiction is here inadmissible, inasmuch as the Servant of God is here not only represented as suffering and expiating, but, at the same time, as an object of reverence to the whole Gentile world; and the ground of this reverence is His suffering and expiation. As regards the other passages of the Old Testament where a suffering Messiah is mentioned, we must distinguish between the Messiah simply suffering, and the Messiah suffering as a substitute. The latter, indeed, we meet with in this passage only. But to make up for this isolated mention, the representation here is so full and exhaustive, so entirely excludes all misunderstanding, except that which is bent upon misunderstanding, or which is the result of evil disposition, is so affecting and so indelibly impressive, is indeed so exactly in the tone of doctrinal theology, and therefore different from the ordinary treatment, which is always incidental, and requires to be supplemented from other passages, that this single isolated representation, which sounds through the whole of the New Testament, is quite sufficient for the Church. The suffering and dying Messiah, on the other hand, we meet with frequently in other passages of the Old Testament also, although, indeed, not so frequently as the Messiah in glory. In this light He is brought before us, e.g., in chap. xlix. 50; in Dan. ix.; in Zech. ix. 9, 10, xi. 12, 13. The fact that the humiliation of Christ would precede His exaltation is distinctly pointed out in the first part of Isaiah also, in chap. xi. 1,—a passage which contains, in a germ, all that, in the second part, [Pg 330] is more fully stated regarding the suffering Messiah, and which has many striking points of contact specially with chap. liii. And just so it is with Isaiah's contemporary, Micah, who, in chap. v. 1 (2), makes the Messiah proceed, not from Jerusalem, the seat of the Davidic family after it was raised to the royal dignity, but from Bethlehem, where Jesse, the ancestor, lived as a peasant,—as a proof that the Messiah would proceed from the family of David sank back into the obscurity of private life. This knowledge, that the Messiah should proceed from the altogether abased house of David,—a knowledge which appears as early as in Amos, and which pervades the whole of prophecy—touches very closely upon the knowledge of His sufferings. Lowliness of origin, and exaltation of destination, can hardly be reconciled without severe conflicts. But it is a priori impossible, that the idea of the suffering Messiah should be wanting in the Old Testament. Since, in the Old Testament, throughout, righteousness and suffering in this world of sin are represented as being indissolubly connected, the Messiah, being [Greek: kat'exochen] the Righteous One, must necessarily appear also as He who suffers in the highest degree. If that were not the case, the Messiah would be totally disconnected from all His types, especially from David, who, through the severest sufferings, attained to glory, and who in his Psalms, everywhere considers this course as the normal one, both in the Psalms which refer to the suffering righteous in general, and in those which especially refer to his family reaching their highest elevation in the Messiah; compare my Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. iv., p. lxxx. ff.



[Footnote 1: The same thing occurs also in the parallel passages, chap. xlix. 9, on which Gesenius was constrained to remark: "As the deliverance was still impending, the Preterites cannot well be understood in any other way than as Futures."]

* * * * * * * * * *



III. THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION.

Even the fact that this is among the Jews the original interpretation, which was given up from their evil disposition only, makes us favourably inclined towards it. The authority of tradition is here of so much the greater consequence, the more that the Messianic interpretation was opposed to the disposition [Pg 331] of the people. How deeply rooted was this interpretation, appears even from the declaration of John the Baptist, John i. 29: [Greek: ide ho amnos tou Theou ho airon ten hamartian tou kosmou]. There cannot be any doubt that, in this declaration, he points to the prophecy under consideration, inasmuch as this passage is the first in Holy Scripture in which the sin-bearing lamb is spoken of in a spiritual sense. Bengel, following the example of Erasmus, remarks, in reference to the article before [Greek: amnos]: "The article looks back to the prophecy which was given concerning Him under this figure, in Is. liii. 7." As regards [Greek: Theou], compare ver. 10: "It pleased the Lord painfully to crush Him," and ver. 2: "Before Him;" as regards [Greek: ho airon], &c. comp. ver. 4, rendered by the LXX.: [Greek: houtos tas hamartias hemon pherei]; comp. ver. 11.