v. 24, where it is said of Enoch: "And he was no more, for God had

_taken_ him."--_And His generation who can think it out?_ [Hebrew: dvr], properly "circle," is not only the communion of those who are connected by co-existence, but also of those who are connected by disposition, be it good or bad.[6] Thus, the generation of the children of God in Ps. lxxiii. 15; the generation of the righteous, Ps. xiv. 5; the generation of the upright, in Ps. cxii. 2. Here, the generation of the Servant of God is the communion of those who are animated by His Spirit, filled with His life. This company will, after His death, increase to an infinite greatness. [Hebrew: wvH] and [Hebrew: wiH] "to meditate," is commonly connected with [Hebrew: b] of the object, but occurs also with [Pg 291] the simple Accusative, in the signification "to meditate upon something," in Ps. cxlv. 5. There is, as it appears, an allusion to the promise to Abraham, Gen. xiii. 16: "And I make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered,"--a promise which received its complete fulfilment just by the Servant of God. The explanation which we have given was adopted by the LXX.: [Greek: tên genean autou tis diêgêsetai.] Next to it, comes the explanation: "Who can think out His _posterity_;" but against this, it is conclusive that [Hebrew: dvr] never occurs in the signification "posterity." The parallel passage in ver. 10: "He shall see seed," or "posterity," holds good even for our view; for since the posterity is a _spiritual_ one, it is substantially identical with _generation_ here. But it may, _a priori_, be expected that the same thing shall be designated from various aspects. If "generation" be taken in the signification "posterity," then the words: "He shall see seed" would be a mere repetition. The appropriateness of the sense which, according to our explanation, comes out, will become especially evident, if we consider that, in vers. 8-10, we have the carrying out of that which, in the sketch, was said of the respectful homage of the many nations and kings. A whole host of explanations assigns to [Hebrew: dvr] significations which cannot be vindicated. Thus, the translation of _Luther_: "Who shall disclose the length of His life?" that of _Hitzig_: His destiny; that of _Beck_: His importance and influence in the history of the world; that of _Knobel_: His dwelling place, _i.e._, His grave, who considered? The signification, "dwelling place," does not at all belong to [Hebrew: dvr]. In Isaiah xxxviii. 12, [Hebrew: dvr] are the cotemporaries from whom the dying man is taken away, and who are withdrawn from him: "My _generation_ is taken away, and removed from me like a shepherd's tent"--dying Hezekiah there laments. Inadmissible, likewise, is the explanation: "Who of His cotemporaries will consider, or considered, it" for [Hebrew: at], the sign of the Accusative, cannot stand before the _Nomin. Absol._ In Nehem. ix. 34, this use is by no means certain, and, at all events, we cannot draw any inference from the language of Nehemiah as to that of Isaiah. The Ellipses: "the true cause of His death," "the importance and fruit of His death," "the salvation lying behind it" (_Stier_), are very [Pg 292] hard, and the sense which is purchased by such sacrifices is rather a common-place one, little suitable to this context, and to the relation to chap. lii. 15.--"_For He was cut off from the land of the living, for the transgression of my people, whose the punishment._" The reason is here stated why the Servant of God receives so glorious a reward; why, after He has been removed to God, a generation so infinitely great is granted to Him. _He has deserved this reward by His having suffered for the sins of His people, as their substitute._ The first clause must not be separated from the second: "for the transgression," &c. For it is not the circumstance, that the Servant of God suffered a violent death at all, but that for the sin of His people He took it upon Him, which is the ground of His glorification. [Hebrew: ngzr] "to be cut off" never occurs of a quiet, natural death; not even in the passage, quoted in support of this use of the word, viz., Psa. lxxxviii. 6; Lam. iii. 54, but always of a violent, premature death. The cognate [Hebrew: ngrz] also has, in Psa. xxxi. 23, the signification of extermination. [Hebrew: lmv], poetical form for [Hebrew: lhM], refers to the collective [Hebrew: eM]. Before it, the relative pronoun is to be understood: for the sin of my people, whose the punishment, _q.d._, whose property the punishment was, to whom it belonged. _Stier_ prefers to adopt the most violent interpretation rather than to conform and yield to this so simple sense, which, as he says, could be entertained only by that obsolete theory of substitution where one saves the other from suffering. Several interpreters take the suffix in [Hebrew: lmv] as a Singular: "on account of the transgression of my people, punishment was to Him." And passages, indeed, are not wanting where the supposition that [Hebrew: mv] designates the Singular, has some appearance of probability; but, upon a closer examination, this appearance everywhere vanishes.[7] Moreover, as we have already remarked, it is, on account of the sense, inadmissible to separate the two clauses.--By [Hebrew: emi] "my people," the hypothesis of the non-Messianic interpreters is set aside, that in [Pg 293] vers. 1-10 the _Gentiles_ are speaking. It is a single people to which the speakers belong, the covenant-people, for whose benefit the atonement and substitution of the Servant of God were, _in the first instance_, intended (comp. [Greek: sôsei ton laon hautou apo tôn hamartiôn autôn], Matth. i. 21) yea, were, to a certain degree, exclusively intended, inasmuch as the believing Gentiles were received into it as adopted children. It is a forced expedient to say: every single individual of the Gentiles, or of their princes, says that the Servant of God has suffered for the sin of His people, hence also for His own. And just as inadmissible is the supposition that a representative of the heathen world is speaking; the whole heathen world cannot be designated as a people.

Ver. 9. "_And they gave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich in His death, because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth._"

[Hebrew: vitN] is intentionally without a definite Subject, _q.d._: it was given to Him, _Ewald_ § 273a. The acting subject could not be at all more distinctly marked out, because there was a _double_ subject. Men fixed for Him the ignominious grave with criminals; by the providence of God, He received the honourable grave with a rich, and that for the sake of His innocent sufferings, as a prelude to the greater glorification which, as a reward, was to be bestowed upon Him, as an example of what is said in ver. 12: "He shall divide spoil with the strong." The _wicked_ who are buried apart from others, can be the real criminals only, the transgressors in ver. 12. Criminals received, among the Jews, an ignominious burial. Thus _Josephus_, Arch. iv. 8, § 6, says: "He who has blasphemed God shall, after having been stoned, be hung up for a day, and be buried quietly and without honour." _Maimonides_ (see _Iken_ on this passage in the Biblia Hagana ii. 2) says: "Those who have been executed by the court of justice are not by any means buried in the graves of their ancestors; but there are two graves appointed for them by the court of justice,--one for the stoned and burnt; the other for the decapitated and strangled." Just as the Prophet had, in the preceding verse, said that the Servant of God would die a violent death like a criminal, so he says here, that they had also fixed for Him a grave in common with executed criminals. _And with a rich_ [Pg 294] (they gave Him His grave) _in His death_: they gave Him His grave, first with the wicked; but, indeed, He received it with a rich, since God's providence was watching over the dead body of His Servant. [Hebrew: vitN], in so far as it refers to the first clause, receives its limitation by the second. Before their fulfilment, the words had the character of a holy riddle; but the fulfilment has solved this riddle. The designation of Joseph of Arimathea as [Greek: anthrôpos plousios] in Matt. xxvi. 57, is equivalent to an express quotation. Although it was by a special divine providence that the Singular was chosen, yet we may suppose that, in the first instance, the rich man here is contrasted with the wicked men, and is an ideal person, the personified idea of the species. _In His death_ is, in point of fact, equivalent to: "after He had died;" but, notwithstanding, there is no necessity for giving to the [Hebrew: b] the signification "after." Death rather denotes the _condition of death_; _in death_ is contrasted with: _in life_. Altogether in the same manner we find in Lev. xi. 31: "Whosoever doth touch them in their death," for, "after they have died." _Farther_--1 Kings xiii. 31: "In my death you shall bury me in the sepulchre." The Plural [Hebrew: mvtiM] "the deaths," "conditions of death," cannot be adduced as a proof that the subject of the prophecy must be a collective person; for, in that case, rather the Plural of the suffix would be required (Ps. lxxviii. 64 is a rare exception); and in Ezek. xxviii. 8, 10, death is likewise spoken of in the Plural. The Plural is formed after the analogy of [Hebrew: HiiM], for which reason it commends itself to explain [Hebrew: arC HiiM] in the preceding verse, "land of life," instead of "land of the living." But the Plural can here the less occasion any difficulty, that it is not dying which is spoken of, but the continuing condition of death.--_Because He had done no violence_, &c. [Hebrew: el] very frequently denotes the cause upon which the effect depends, _e.g._, in 1 Kings xvi. 7; Ps. xliv. 23, lxix. 8; Jer. xv. 15; Job xxxiv. 6. The whole following clause is treated as a noun. Ordinarily, it is explained: Although, &c. But this use of [Hebrew: el] is quite isolated; it occurs only in two passages of the Book of Job, in x. 7 and xxxiv. 6. The former explanation is found in the Alexand. version: [Greek: hoti anomian ouk epoiêse.] The innocence is designated negatively, and in an external manner ( [Hebrew: Hms] and [Hebrew: mrmh] are gross sins). The reason of this is [Pg 295] in the intention of His enemies, which is expressed in the preceding words, to give Him His grave with the wicked. Since He had not acted like them, God took care that He did not receive their ignominious burial, but an honourable one. In reference to the passage under consideration, it is said in 1 Pet. ii. 22: [Greek: hos amartian ouk epoiêse oude heurethe dolos en tô stomati autou]. Instead of "violence," Peter intentionally employs "sin."--_Hofmann_ has advanced the following arguments against the explanation which we have given. 1. "By what is this contrast (which, according to our explanation, is contained in the words: They gave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death) to be recognized in the text? There remains no trace of a contrast, unless it be contained in [Hebrew: rweiM] and [Hebrew: ewir]. Are these really two ideas so contradictory, that they alone are sufficient to bring into contrariety two clauses which have altogether the appearance of being intended for the same purpose?" But in this argument, _Hofmann_ overlooks the circumstance, that the wicked are specially _criminals_--for they alone had a peculiar grave--and that it is not the general relation of the wicked and rich to one another which comes into consideration, but especially the relation in which they stand to one another as regards the _burial_. If this be kept in view, it is at once evident that the contrariety is expressed with sufficient clearness. From Isa. xxii. 16; Job xxi. 32; Matt. xxvii. 57, it appears that the rich man, and the honourable grave, are closely connected with each other. Hence, it must have been by an opposite activity that to the Servant of God a grave was assigned with the wicked, and with a rich. 2. "To be rich is not in itself a sin which deserved an ignominious burial, far less received it, but on the other hand, to find his grave with a rich man is not an indemnification to the just for the disgrace of having died the death of a criminal." But the fact that the first Evangelist reports it so minutely (Matt. xxvii. 57-61) clearly enough shows the importance of the circumstance; comp. also how John, in chap. xix. 33 ff., points out the circumstance that Christ's legs were not broken, as were those of the malefactors. In the little, the great is prepared and prefigured. And although the burial with a rich man is, in itself, of no small importance when viewed as the first point where the exaltation [Pg 296] began--in the connection with the preceding and following verses, we cannot but look upon it as being symbolically significant and important. And how could it be otherwise, since the burial of the Servant of God with a rich man implies that the rich man himself has been gained for Him? It has, farther, been objected that Christ was not buried _with_ Joseph, but in his grave only, but in an ideal point of view _with_ has its full right. Comp. chap. xiv. 19, where it is said to the king of Babylon: "But thou art cast out of thy grave," although, bodily, he had not yet been in the grave; but he had a right to come like his ancestors; he had, in an ideal point of view, taken his place there.--_Beck_ says: "The orthodox expositors are strongly embarrassed with these words." That is indeed a remarkable interchange of positions. Embarrassment!--that is the sign of everything which unscriptural exegesis advances on this verse. It is concentrated in the [Hebrew: ewir]. The most varied conjectures and freaks are here so many symptoms of helpless embarrassment. According to the opinion of several interpreters, the rich man here stands in the sense of the ungodly. In this, even _Luther_ (marginal note: "rich man, one who in his doings founds himself on riches," _i.e._, an ungodly man), and _Calvin_ had preceded them. The assertion that the rich, can simply stand for the wicked, can neither be proved from Job xxvii. 19 (for there, according to the context, the rich is equivalent to "he who is wicked, notwithstanding his riches"), nor from the word of the Lord in Matt. xix. 23: [Greek: duskolôs plousios eiseleusetai eis tên basileian tôn ouranôn.] For that which, on a special occasion, the Lord here says of the rich, applies to the poor also. Poverty, not less than wealth, is encompassed with obstacles to conversion, which can be removed only by the omnipotence of divine grace. According to Matt.