Chapter 52

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.