_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 aiôniou heauton prosênenken

amômon tô Theô]; 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: egô eimi

ho poimên ho kalos. ho poimên ho kalos tên chuchên hautou tithêsin

huper tôn probatôn.] Ver. 15: [Greek: kai tên chuchên mou tithêmi huper

tôn probatôn.] Vers. 17, 18: [Greek: dia touto ho patêr me agapa, hoti

egô tithêmi tên psuchên mou hina palin labô autên. Oudeis airei autên

ap'emou, all'egô tithêmi autên ap'emautou. exousian echô theinai

autên, kai exousian echô palin labein autên.] In John xv. 13: [Greek:

meizona tautês agapên oudeis echei hina tis tên psuchên autou thê huper

philôn 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 _Lücke_ 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 tên psuchên

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 tên psuchên hautou lutron anti pollôn], 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:

hilastêrion], propitiation; 1 John ii. 2: [Greek: kai autos hilasmos

esti peri tôn hamartiôn hêmôn], 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'humôn 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 tês psuchês 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: agapê

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" (_Hävernick_), 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._ _Hävernick_

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 autôn 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 klêronomêsei 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: legô gar humin, hoti heti

touto to gegrammenon dei telesthênai en emoi, to. kai meta anomôn

elogisthê, 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: pôs oun plêrôthôsin hai graphai, hoti houtô dei genesthai];

ver. 56, where, after having reproached the guards for having numbered

Him with criminals: [Greek: hôs epi lêstên exêlthete meta machairôn kai

xulôn sullabein me], He says to them: [Greek: touto de holon gegonen

hina plêrôthôsin hai graphai tôn prophêtôn]. 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 hêmôn]; Hebr.

ix. 24, according to which passage Christ is entered into the holy

places [Greek: nun emphanisthênai tô prosôpô tou Theou huper hêmôn]; 1

John ii. 1: [Greek: paraklêton echomen pros ton patera Iêsoun 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._ _Fürst_

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: houtô thaumasontai ethnê polla ep'autô];

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 § 247 d.]

[Footnote 8: Thus _Bähr_, _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; _Auszüge 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, Göttingen 1794); by _Stephani_

(_Gedanken über die Entstehung u. Ausbildung der Idee von inem

Messias_, _Nürnberg_ 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 _Rosenmüller_ (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 _Köster_ (_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. Beiträge_, [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 Cölln_ 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: _Ausführliche Erklärung der sämmtlichen

Weissagungen des A. T._ 1801.

(_e._) The hypothesis which makes the collective body of the prophets

the subject, was first advanced by _Rosenmüller_ 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, (_Stäudlin_), 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_, Tübingen,

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); _Krüger_, _Comment. de Jes. liii., interpret_; _Jahn_,

_Append. ad Hermen. fasc ii._; _Steudel_, [Pg 327] _Observ. ad Jes.

liii._, _Tübingen_ 1825, 26; _Sack_, in the _Apologetik_; _Reinke_,

_exegesis in Jes. liii._, Münster 1836; _Tholuck_, in his work: _Das A.

T. in N. T._; _Hävernick_, 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:

ekstêsontai--adoxêsei]; _Aqui._ and _Theod._, ver. 2, [Greek:

anabêsetai].--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'exochên]

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 airôn tên 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 airôn], &c. comp. ver. 4, rendered by the LXX.: [Greek: houtos tas

hamartias hêmôn pherei]; comp. ver. 11.

An external argument of still greater weight is the testimony of the

New Testament. Above all, it is the declarations of our Lord himself

which here come into consideration. In Luke xxii. 37, He says that the

prophecies concerning Him were drawing near their perfect fulfilment

([Greek: ta peri emou telos echei]), comp. Matt. xxvi. 51, and that

therefore the declaration: "And He was reckoned among the

transgressors" must be fulfilled in Him. In Mark ix. 12, the Lord asks:

[Greek: pôs gegraptai epi ton huion tou anthrôpou, hina polla pathê kai

exoudenôthê], with a reference to "from man," and "from the sons of

man" in lii. 14,--to "He had no form nor comeliness" in ver. 2,--to

"despised," [Hebrew: nbzh], which, by _Symmachus_ and _Theodotian_ is

rendered by [Greek: exoudenômenos], in ver. 3. In the Gospel of John,

the Lord emphatically and repeatedly points out, that the words: "When

His soul hath given restitution," are written concerning Him; compare

remarks on ver. 10. After these distinct quotations and references, we

shall be obliged to think chiefly of our passage, in Luke xxiv. 25-27,

44-46 also. The opponents themselves grant that, if in any passage of

the Old Testament the doctrine of a suffering and atoning Messiah is

contained, it is in the passage under review. The circumstance also,

that the disciples of the Lord refer, on every occasion, and with such

confidence, the passage to the Lord, likewise proves that Christ

especially interpreted it of His sufferings and exaltation. Of Matt.

viii. 17, and Mark xv. 28, we have already spoken. John, in chap. xii.

37, 38, and Paul in Rom. x. 16, [Pg 332] find a fulfilment of chap.

liii. 1 in the unbelief of the Jews. In Acts viii. 28-35, Philip, on

the question of the eunuch from Ethiopia, as to whom the prophecy

referred, explained it of Christ. After the example of _De Wette_,

_Gesenius_ lays special stress on the circumstance, that the passage

was never quoted in reference to the atoning death of Christ. But

Peter, when speaking of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, makes a

literal use of the principal passages of the prophecy under

consideration, 1 Pet. ii. 21-25; and it is, in general, quite the usual

way of the New Testament to support its statements by our passage,

whensoever the discourse falls upon this subject; comp. _e.g._, besides

the texts quoted at ver. 10, Mark ix. 12; Rom. iv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 2

Cor. v. 21; 1 John iii. 5; Pet. i. 19; Rev. v. 6, xiii. 8. Even

_Gesenius_ himself acknowledges elsewhere, that we have here the text

for the whole Apostolic preaching on the atoning death of Jesus. "Most

Hebrew readers"--so he says, Th. iii. S. 191--"who were so familiar

with the ideas of sacrifice and substitution, could not by any means

understand the passage in any other way; and there is no doubt that the

whole apostolic notion of the atoning death of Christ is chiefly based

upon this passage." The circumstance, that the reference to this

passage appears commonly only in the form of an allusion, and not of

express quotation, proves only so much the more clearly, that its

reference to the atoning death of Christ was a point absolutely settled

in the ancient Church.

In favour of the Messianic interpretation are not only the passages

from the second part, chap. xlii., &c., but also, from the first part,

the passage chap. xi. 1, which so remarkably agrees with chap. liii. 2,

that both must be referred to the same subject.

To these external reasons, the internal must be added. The Christian

Church--the best judge--has at all times recognised in this prophecy

the faithful and wonderfully accurate image of her Lord and Saviour in

His atoning sufferings and the glory following upon them, in His

innocence and righteousness, in His meekness and silent patience (the

New Testament, in speaking of them, frequently points back to our

passage), and in the burial with a rich man, ver. 9. The most

characteristic feature is the atoning character of the suffering of the

[Pg 333] Servant of God, and of the shedding of His blood. Several

interpreters have endeavoured to explain away this feature which they

dislike. _Kimchi_ says: "One must not imagine that the case really

stands thus, that in Israel the captivity actually bears the sins and

diseases of the heathens (for that would be opposed to the justice of

God), but that the Gentiles at that time, when seeing the glorious

deliverance of Israel, would thus judge concerning it." A futile

evasion! It is not the Gentiles who speak in chap. liii. 1-10, but the

believing Church. Every sincere reader will at once feel, that it is

not the foolish fancies of others which the Prophet communicates in

these verses, but the divine truth made known to him. The doctrine of

the substitution, the Prophet, moreover, states in his own name, by

saying, "He shall sprinkle many nations;" and so likewise in the name

of God, in chap. liii. 11, 12. According to _Martini_, _De Wette_, and

others, the expressions are to be understood figuratively, and the

contents and substance to be this only, that those severe calamities

which that divine minister would have to sustain would be useful and

salutary to His compatriots. But the fact that the same doctrine

constantly returns under the most varied expressions, is decidedly in

favour of the literal interpretation. Thus, it is said in chap. lii.

15, that the Servant of God should sprinkle many nations; in liii. 4,

that He bore our diseases and took upon Him our pains; in ver. 5, that

He was pierced for our transgressions; in ver. 8, that He bore the

punishment which the people ought to have borne; in ver. 10, that He

offered his soul as a sin-offering; in ver. 11, that by His

righteousness many should be justified; in ver. 12, that He bore the

sins of many, and poured out His soul unto death, and that He could

make intercession for transgressors, because He was numbered with them.

To this it may still be added that in chap. lii. 15 ([Hebrew: izh]),

liii. 10 ([Hebrew: awM]), and ver. 12: "He bears the sins of many,"

(compare Levit. xvi. 21, 22; _Michaelis_: "_Ut typice hircus pro

Israëlitis_") the Servant of God appears as the antitype of the Old

Testament sin-offerings in which, as has been proved (compare my

pamphlet: _Die Opfer der heil. Schrift_, S. 12 ff.), the idea of

substitution in the doctrine of the Old Testament finds its foundation.

There cannot be the least doubt, that the Prophet could not express

himself more clearly, strongly, [Pg 334] and distinctly, if his

intention was to state the doctrine of substitution; and those who

undertake to explain it away, would not, by so doing, leave any thing

firm and certain in Scripture. _Rosenmüller_ (_Gabler's_ Journal, ii.

S. 365), _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_ have indeed candidly confessed that the

passage contained the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, after

_Alshech_ had, among the Jews, given the honour to truth.

IV. EXAMINATION OF THE NON-MESSIANIC INTERPRETATIONS.

Passing over mere whims, three explanations present themselves which

require a closer examination, viz.--(1), that which makes the whole

Jewish people the subject; (2), that which refers it to the godly

portion of the Jewish people; and (3), that which refers it to the

collective body of the Prophets. The following reasons militate against

all the three interpretations simultaneously.

1. According to them, the contents of the section in question present

themselves as a mere _fancy_; and its principal thought, the vicarious

suffering of the Servant of God is an absurdity. According to them, the

prophets can no longer be considered as godly men who spake as they

were moved by the Holy Spirit; and their name [Hebrew: nbia], by which

they claimed divine inspiration, is a mere pretence. And this

reflection is, at the same time, cast upon the Lord, who, throughout,

treats these visionaries as organs of immediate divine communications.

2. According to all the three explanations, the subject is not a real

person, but an ideal one, a personified collective. But not one sure

analogous instance can be quoted in favour of a personification carried

on through a whole section, without the slightest intimation, that it

is not a single individual who is spoken of. In ver. 3, the subject is

called [Hebrew: aiw]; in vers. 10 and 12 a soul is ascribed to Him;

grave and death are used so as to imply a subject in the Singular.

Scripture never leaves any thing to be guessed. If we had an allegory

before us, distinct hints as to the interpretation would certainly [Pg

335] not be wanting. It is, _e.g._, quite different in those passages

where the Prophet designates Israel by the name of the Servant of the

Lord. In them, all uncertainty is prevented by the addition of the

names of Jacob and Israel, xli. 8, 9; xliv. 1, 2, 21; xlv. 4; xlviii.

20; and in them, moreover, the Prophet uses the Plural by the side of

the Singular, to intimate that the Servant of the Lord is an ideal

person, a collective, _e.g._, xlii. 24, 25; xlviii. 20, 21; xliii.

10-14.

3. The first condition of the vicarious satisfaction which, according

to our prophecy, is to be performed by the Servant of God, is,

according to ver. 9 ("Because He had done no violence, neither was any

deceit in His mouth"), but more especially still, according to ver. 11

("He, the righteous one, my Servant, shall justify the many") the

absolute righteousness of the suffering subject. He who is himself

sinful cannot undergo punishment for the sins of others. He is, on the

contrary, visited for his own sins, both as a righteous retribution,

and for sanctification. Of such an one that would indeed be true which,

according to the second clause of ver. 4, was only erroneously supposed

in reference to the Servant of God. All the three interpretations,

however, are unable to prove that this condition existed. All the three

interpretations move on the purely human territory; but on that,

absolute righteousness is not to be found. At the very threshold of

Holy Writ, in Gen. ii. and 3, compare v. 3, the doctrine of the

universal sinfulness of mankind meets us; and how deep a knowledge of

sin pervades the Old Testament, is proved by passages such as Gen. vi.

5, viii. 21; Job xiv. 4, xv. 14-16; Ps. xiv., li. 7; Prov. xx. 9. That

is not a soil on which ideas of substitution could thrive.--The

doctrine of a substitution by men is indeed nowhere else found in the

Old Testament; and _Gesenius_, who (l. c., S. 189) endeavoured to prove

that "it is very general" has not adduced any arguments which are

tenable or even plausible. The guilt of the fathers is visited upon the

children, only when the latter walk in the steps of their fathers, and

the latter are first punished; comp. _Genuineness and Authenticity of

the Pentateuch_, Vol. ii. p. 446 ff. The same holds true in reference

to 2 Sam. xxi. 1-14, The evil spirit which filled Saul, pervaded his

family, at the same time, as we here see in the instance of Michal. It

was probably in the [Pg 336] interest of his family, and with their

concurrence, that the wicked deed had been perpetrated. (_Michaelis_

says: "In order that he might appropriate their goods to himself and to

_his family_, under the pretext of a pious zeal for Judah and Israel.")

As Saul himself was already overtaken by the divine judgment, the crime

was punished in the family who were accomplices. In 2 Sam. xxiv. the

people do not suffer as substitutes for the sin, which David had

committed in numbering the people; but the spirit of pride which had

incited the king to number the people, was widely spread among them.

But the fact, that the king himself was punished in his subjects, is

brought out by his beseeching the Lord, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 17, that He

might rather visit the sin directly upon himself The sin of David and

Bathsheba is not atoned for by the death of the child (2 Sam. xii.

15-18), for David had already obtained pardon, ver. 13. It is not the

child which suffers, but David, whose repentance was to be deepened by

this visitation. In the fact, that the whole army must suffer for what

Achan has committed (Josh. vii. 1), a distinct intimation is implied,

that the criminal does not stand alone, but that, to a certain degree,

the whole community was implicated in his guilt. Substitution is quite

out of the question, inasmuch as Achan himself, with his whole family

and posterity, was burnt. Least of all, finally, can Dan. xi. 35 come

into consideration. According to _Gesenius_, it is there said: "And

they of understanding shall fall, in order to purge, purify, and make

white those (the others)." But [Hebrew: bhM] refers rather to the

[Hebrew: mwkiliM] themselves. Thus, nowhere in the Old Testament, is

even the slightest trace found of a satisfaction to be accomplished by

man for man; nor can it be found there, because, from its very

commencement. Scripture most emphatically declares: [Greek: pantas

huph'hamartian einai], Rom. iii. 9.

The explanation, which makes the _Jewish people_ the subject, has

already been overthrown by the parallel passages, before arriving: at

the section under consideration. "Even so far back as chap. xlii. 1,

difficulties are met with," remarks _Beck_. "How is it possible that

the people who, in ver. 19 of that chapter, are described as blind and

deaf, should here appear as being altogether penetrated by the Spirit,

so as to become the teachers of the Gentiles?" "Chap. xlix. is a true

[Pg 337] cross for the interpreters." "Finally, the section, chap. l.,

_Hitzig_ himself is obliged to explain as referring to the Prophet; and

thus this interpretation forfeits the boast of most strictly holding

fast the unity of this notion."

But still more decisively is the interpretation overthrown by the

contents of the section under discussion. The Servant of God has,

according to it, voluntarily taken upon Himself His sufferings

(according to ver. 10, He offers himself as a sacrifice for sin;

according to ver. 12, He is crowned with glory because He has poured

out His soul unto death). Himself sinless, He bears the sins of others,

vers. 4-6, 9. His sufferings are the means by which the justification

of many is effected. He suffers quietly and patiently, ver. 7. Not one

of these four signs can be vindicated for the people of Israel. (a).

The Jews did not go voluntarily into the Babylonish exile, but were

dragged into it by force. (b). The Jewish people were not without sin

in suffering; but they suffered, in the captivity, the punishment of

their own sins. Their being carried away had been foretold by Moses as

a punitive judgment. Lev. xxvi. 14 ff.; Deut. xxviii. 15 ff. xxix. 19

ff., and as such it is announced by all the prophets also. In the

second part, Isaiah frequently reminds Judah that they shall be cast

into captivity by divine justice, and be delivered from it by divine

mercy only; comp. chaps. lvi.-lix., especially chap. lix. 2: "Your

iniquities separate between you and your God, and your sins hide His

face from you that He doth not hear. For your hands are defiled with

blood, and your fingers with iniquity, your lips speak lies, and your

tongue meditates perverseness. Their feet run to evil, and they make

haste to shed innocent blood, their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity,

wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they know

not, and there is no right in their paths; they pervert their paths;

whosoever goeth therein doth not know peace. Apostacy and denying the

Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt,

conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood." Comp. chap.

xlii. 24: "Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did

not the Lord, He against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they

would not walk, neither were they obedient unto His law." Farther, [Pg

338] chap. xliii. 26, 27, where the detailed proof that Israel's merits

could not be the cause of their deliverance, inasmuch as they did not

exist at all, is, by the Prophet, wound up by the words: "Put me in

remembrance, let us plead together, declare then that thou mayest be

justified. Thy first father hath sinned, and thy mediators have

transgressed against me. Therefore I profane the princes of the

sanctuary, and give Jacob to the destruction, and Israel to

reproaches." It is solely to the mercy of God that, according to chap.

xlviii. 11, Israel owes deliverance from the severe suffering into

which they fell in the way of their sins. One may confidently assert

there is not a single page in the whole book, which does not offer a

striking refutation of this view. And most miserable are the expedients

to which, in the face of such facts, the defenders of this view betake

themselves. _Rosenmüller_ was of opinion, that the Prophet introduced

those Gentiles only as speaking, who, by this flattery, wished to gain

the favour of the Jews,--without considering that it is just in the

words of the Lord, in ver. 11, that the absolute righteousness of the

Servant of God is most strongly expressed. _Hitzig_ is of opinion, that

the people had indeed suffered for their sins; but that the punishment

had been greater than their sins, and that by this surplus the Gentiles

were benefited. But the Prophet expressly contradicts such a gross

view. He repeatedly declares that the punishment was still mitigated by

mercy; that, in the way of their works, Israel would have found total

destruction. Thus, _e.g._, chap. xlviii. 9: "For my name's sake will I

be long-suffering, and for my praise will I moderate mine anger unto

thee, that I cut thee not off;" chap. i. 9: "Except the Lord of Hosts

had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom; we

should have been like unto Gomorrah." In order to be fully convinced

how much this view of Israel, enforced upon the godly men of the Old

Testament, is in contradiction to their own view, the prayer of Ezra

may still be compared in Neh. ix., especially ver. 20 ff.--(c.) The

sufferings of the Jewish people cannot be vicarious, because they are

destitute of the very first condition of substitution, viz.,

sinlessness and righteousness. That even _Hitzig_ does not venture to

claim for them. But how can an ungodly man, even supposing that his

punishment is too severe, justify others [Pg 339] by a righteousness of

his which does not exist? _Finally_--The fourth sign, patience, so

little belongs to the Jewish people, that it is one of the main tasks

of our Prophet himself to oppose their murmuring impatience; comp.

_e.g._, chap. xlv. 9 ff.

Against the hypothesis that the people are the subject of the prophecy,

there is the circumstance that it carries along with it the unnatural

supposition that, in chap. liii. 1-10, the heathens are introduced as

speaking. Decisive against this supposition are specially the

designation [Hebrew: emi] in ver. 8, and the most forced explanation to

which it compels us, in some verses, especially ver. 2.

The interpretation which considers the godly portion of the people to

be the subject of the prophecy, is overthrown by the fact that,

according to the view of Scripture, even those who, in the ordinary

sense, are righteous, are unable to render a vicarious satisfaction for

others. For such, absolute righteousness is required. But the

"righteous ones" are begotten by sinful seed (Ps. li.), and they have

need daily to pray that God would pardon their secret sins, Ps. xix.

13; they themselves live only by the pardoning mercy of God, and cannot

think of atoning for others, Ps. xxxii. Even for believers, the

captivity is, according to chap. xlii., the merited punishment of their

sins. In that passage, the greatness of the mercy of God is pointed

out, who grants a twofold salvation for sins, while infinite punishment

should be their natural consequence. It is not to a single portion of

the people, but to the whole, that, in the passages formerly quoted,

every share in effecting deliverance and salvation is denied. How

little an absolute righteousness existed in the elect, sufficiently

appears from the fact, that, in the second part, it forms a main object

of the Prophet to oppose their want of courage, their despair and

distrust of God. _Farther_--The ungodly could not by any means consider

the sufferings of the righteous ones as vicarious, because they

themselves suffered as much; and as little could they despise the godly

on account of their sufferings. It is a mere invention, destitute of

every historical foundation, to assert that it was especially the

God-fearing who had to suffer so grievously in the captivity. On the

contrary, their fear of God gained for them the respect of the

Gentiles; and among [Pg 340] their own people also, whose sinful

disposition was broken by the punishment, they occupied an honourable

position. Ezekiel we commonly find surrounded by the elders of the

people, listening to his words; and Daniel, Esther, and Mordecai, Ezra,

and Nehemiah, richly furnished with the goods of this world, enjoyed

high esteem in the Gentile world. The fact that the supporters of this

hypothesis are compelled to have recourse to such an unhistorical

fiction, which has been carried to the extreme, especially by _Knobel_,

sufficiently proves it to be untenable.

In opposition to the interpretation which refers the prophecy to the

collective body of the Prophets, _Hitzig_ very justly remarks: "The

supposition that, by the Servant of God, the prophetic order is to be

understood, is destitute of all foundation and probability." In

commenting on chap. xlii. we remarked, that there are no analogous

cases at all in favour of such a personification of the prophetic

order. Moreover, the defenders of this view commonly deny, at the same

time, the genuineness of the second part. From this stand-point it

becomes still more evident, how untenable this hypothesis is. A

prophetic order can, least of all, be spoken of during the time of the

Babylonish captivity. With the captivity, Prophetism began to die out.

Jeremiah in Jerusalem, and Ezekiel among the exiled, already stood very

much isolated. Jeremiah, during the last days of the Jewish state,

stands out everywhere as a single individual, opposed to the whole mass

of the false prophets. "There is no more any prophet," is, at the time

of the destruction by the Chaldeans, the lamentation of the author of

Ps. lxxiv. in ver. 9. According to an unanimous tradition (comp. 1

Maccab. ix. 27, iv. 46, xiv. 41, and the passages from the Talmud and

other Jewish writings in _Knibbe's_ history of the Prophets, S. 347

ff., and in _Joh. Smithi Dissert. de Prophetis_, in the Appendix to

_Clericus'_ Commentary on the Prophets, chap. xii.), Haggai, Zechariah,

and Malachi were the last of the prophets, and according to the

historical books and their own prophecies, the only prophets of their

time. How, now, were it possible that the Prophet should speak of a

great corporation of the prophets, who become not only the founders and

rulers of the new state, but who are to enlighten all the other nations

of the earth with the light of the time religion, [Pg 341] and

incorporate them into the church of God? Of all that is characteristic

of the vocation of the prophets, nothing is found here; while, on the

other hand, almost everything which is said of the Servant of God is in

opposition to the vocation and destination of the prophets. That which

here, above everything, comes into consideration is the _vicarious

satisfaction_. Chap. vi., where the Prophet when, after having

administered the prophetic office for several years, he beheld the

Lord, exclaims: "Woe is unto me for I am undone, because I am a man of

unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips," is

sufficient to show how far the thoughts of such a vicarious

satisfaction were from the prophets. Such is surely not the ground from

which the delusion of being substitutes for others can grow up. All

those who entertained such a delusion, such as _Gichtel_, _Bourignon_,

_Guyon_, were misled into it by proudly shutting their eyes to their

own sinfulness. It would surely be abasing the prophets without any

cause, if we were to assign to them that delusion. Moreover, the hopes

which here, according to these interpreters, are uttered in reference

to the prophetic order, contradict its idea, and institution. A

prophetic pride would here come out, such as is not equalled by

priestly pride in all history. _Schenkel_, no doubt, is right in

remarking against the interpretation which makes the Jewish people the

subject of the prophecy,--an interpretation of which _Hitzig_ is the

representative: "Is it to believed that the prophets, whose object all

along it was to suppress the moral pride of the people, should wantonly

have awakened it by such a thought?" But _Hitzig_ is equally in the

right when, in opposition to _Schenkel_ and others who refer this

prediction to the prophetic order, he remarks: "It is quite obvious,

how very unsuitable it would be to limit the hitherto wretched

condition and the future glory of the people to the prophets, as if

they alone, as true [Greek: katakurieuontes tôn klêrôn], constituted

the people." According to this hypothesis, the prophets are supposed to

flatter themselves with the hope that they would be the rulers of

the state again flourishing, and would celebrate worldly triumphs.

Altogether apart from the folly of this hope, it was entirely opposed

to the destiny of the prophetic order. By divine institution, the

dominion in the Kingdom of God had for ever been given over to

David [Pg 342] and his family. By usurping it, the prophets would

have rebelled against God, whose lights they were called to

uphold.--_Farther_, As the principal sphere of the ministry of the

Servant of God, the heathen world here appears. But with it, the

prophets have, nowhere else, any thing to do; their mission is

everywhere to Israel only.--The sufferings which the prophets had to

endure during the captivity, were not different from those of the

people. Every proof, yea, even every probability, is wanting that,

during the time of the captivity, the prophets--and history mentions

and knows only Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel--were pre-eminently

afflicted. On the contrary, they occupy an honourable position.

Jeremiah receives, after the capture of Jerusalem, proofs of esteem

from Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel is entrusted with the highest public

offices. Ezekiel is held in honour by his compatriots. How then could

the people despise the prophets on account of their sufferings? How

could they imagine that they had been smitten by God? How could they

afterwards conceive the idea that the sufferings of the prophets had a

vicarious character?--To what quarter soever we look, impossibilities

present themselves; and if, moreover, we also look at the parallel

passages, we must indeed wonder, that a hypothesis altogether so

untenable should ever have been listened to.