Chapter 48

but is as much so by care also, the dangers of which are particularly set forth by our Lord in Matt. vi. 25 ff. In Prov. xxx. 8, 9 it is said: "Give me neither poverty nor riches, lest I be full and deny thee, and say: Where is the Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain." The dangers of riches are more frequently pointed out in Scripture than those of poverty; but this fact is accounted for by the circumstance, that riches are surrounded [Pg 297] with a glittering appearance, and that it is therefore necessary to warn those who are apt to choose them for their highest good. _Stier_ rightly calls to mind the promise of earthly blessings to those who fear God. But the circumstance must not be overlooked that the rich comes here into consideration, chiefly as to his _burial_. The Prophet would then not only proceed from the idea that all rich people are wicked, but also would simply suppose that all the rich receive an ignominious burial. But of that, the parable of the rich man in Luke xvi. 22, knows nothing: [Greek: apethane de kai ho plousios kai etaphê], according to his riches; it is in hell only that he receives his reward. In opposition to _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_ remarks: "That transition of the signification is a fable." Following the example of _Martini_ he derives [Hebrew: ewir] from the Arabic. But in opposition to that, _Gesenius_ again remarks in the _Thesaurus_: "_Sed haud minoribus difficultatibus laborat ea ratio, qua improbitatis significatum voluerunt Martinius et Hitzigius, collata nimirum radice_ [Hebrew: ewr] "_caespitavit_." _Tum enim haec radix nullam prorsum cum verbo_ [Hebrew: ewr] _necessitudinem habet, ita ut_ [Hebrew: ewir] _h. l._ [Greek: ap. leg.] _esset; tum caespitandi vis nusquam ad peccatum, licet ad fortunam adversam, translata est._" If, with words of such frequent occurrence, it were allowable to search in the dialects, the business of the expounder would be a very ungrateful one. Nor does the form, which is commonly passive, favour this interpretation. According to _Beck_, [Hebrew: ewir] is another form for [Hebrew: eriC]. Others would change the reading. _Ewald_ proposes [Hebrew: ewiq]; Böttcher, [Hebrew: ewi re]. Against all those conjectures, moreover, the circumstance militates, that, according to them, the verse would still belong to the humiliation of the Servant of God; whereas the description of the glorification had already begun in the preceding verse. For [Hebrew: bmvtiv] "in His death," _Gesenius_ and others propose to read [Hebrew: bmvtiv], to which they assign the signification "His tomb-hill." But, altogether apart from this arbitrary change of the vowels, there is opposed to this conjecture the circumstance, that [Hebrew: bmh] never occurs of the grave. According to _Gesenius_, [Hebrew: bmvt], in Ezek. xliii. means "tombs;" but the common signification "high places," must be retained there also. In a spiritual point of view the sanctuaries of the Lord had become "high places."

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

_And the Lord was pleased_--This pleasure of the Lord is not such an one as proceeds from caprice. The ground on which it rests has already been minutely exhibited in what precedes. By the vicarious influence of this suffering, peace is to be acquired for mankind; and since this object is based upon the divine nature, upon God's mercy, the choice of the means also, by which alone it could be attained (for, without a violation of the divine character, sin could not remain unpunished), must be traced to the divine character. _Here_ the ground on which the pleasure rests is stated in the words immediately following,--a connection which is clearly indicated by the obvious relation in which the [Hebrew: HpC ihvh] of the close stands to [Hebrew: ihvh HpC] of the beginning; so that the sense is: It was the pleasure, &c., and this for the purpose that, after having made an offering for sin, He should see seed, &c. Hence the pleasure of the Lord has this in view:--that the will of the Lord should be realized, His Servant glorified, and the salvation of mankind promoted. _Painfully to crush Him._ [Hebrew: Hlh] "to be sick," "to suffer pains." In this sense the _Niphal_ occurs in Amos vi. 6, and the participle [Hebrew: nHlh] in the signification "painful," "grievous," in Nah. iii. 19; Jer. xiv. 17, and other passages, In _Hiphil_ it means: "to make painful," Mic. vi. 13. The common explanation, "The Lord was pleased to crush Him, He has made Him sick," has this against it, that Copula and Suffix are wanting in [Hebrew: hHli], and that the word would come in unconnected, and in a very disagreeable manner. And then the passage in Micah, which we have quoted, decides against it.--_When His soul hath given restitution._ There cannot be any doubt that, in a formal point of view, it is the soul which gives restitution. _Knobel's_ explanation: "His soul gives itself," is not countenanced by the _usus loquendi_; [Hebrew: wiM] is not a reflective verb. As little can we suppose with _Hofmann_ that [Hebrew: twiM] is the second person, and an address to Jehovah. In opposition to this view, there is not only the circumstance that Jehovah is spoken _of_ before and afterwards, but, in a material point of view, the circumstance also, that offerings for sin, and, generally, all sacrifices, were never offered up _by_ God, [Pg 299] but always _to_ God. The fact also, that according to the sequel, the Servant of God receives the reward for His meritorious work, proves that it is He who offers up the sacrifice. But, on the other hand, it is, in point of fact, the soul only which can be the _offering_, the _restitution_; for it could scarcely be imagined that, just here, that should be omitted on which everything mainly depends. It is sufficiently evident, from what precedes, _who_ it is that offers the restitution; what the restitution was, it was necessary distinctly to point out. _Farther_--In the case of sacrifices, it is just the soul upon which every thing depends; so that if the soul be mentioned in a context which treats of sacrifices, it is, _a priori_, probable that it will be the object offered up. In Lev. xvii. 11, it is said: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I give it to you upon the altar, to atone for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul," viz., by the soul "_per animam, vi animae in eo sanguine constantis_" (_Gussetius_).[8] The soul, when thus considered as the passive object, is here therefore in a high degree in its proper place; and there can the less be any doubt of its occurring here in this sense, that it occurs twice more in vers. 11 and 12, of the natural psychical life of the Servant of God, which was given up to suffering and death. But, on the other hand, if the soul be considered as the active object, it stands here at all events rather idle,--a circumstance which is sufficiently apparent from the supposition of several interpreters, that [Hebrew: npw] "soul," stands here simply for the personal pronoun,--"His soul," for "He," a _usus loquendi_ which occurs in Arabic, but not in Hebrew. And, strictly speaking, the offering of the sacrifice does not belong to the soul, but to the spirit of the Servant of God, compare Heb. ix. 14, according to which passage, Christ [Greek: dia pneumatos 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