Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 17

G.o.d--such is the sense--takes Him to himself from heavy oppression, and He who apparently was destroyed without leaving a trace, receives an infinitely numerous generation (compare John xii. 32: ???? ??? ????? ??

t?? ??? p??ta? ????s? p??? ?a?t??), as a deserved reward for having, by His violent death, atoned for the sins of His people, delivered them from destruction, and acquired them for His property.--???

"oppression," as Ps. cvii. 39, properly, according to the signification of the verb: "Shutting up," "restraining," "hindering." From what goes before, where the evils from which the Servant of G.o.d is here delivered are described more in detail, it appears that here we have not to think of a prison properly so called; for there, it is not a prison, but abuse and oppression which are spoken of.--???? is commonly referred to the judgment which the enemies of the Servant of G.o.d pa.s.sed upon Him, The premised ??? then furnishes the distinct qualification of the judgment, shows that that which, in a formal point of view, presents itself as a judicial proceeding, is, in point of fact, heavy oppression. But, at the same time, ???? serves as a limitation for ???.

We learn from it that the hatred of the enemies moved within the limits of judicial proceedings,--just as it happened in the history of Christ.

But behind the human judgment, the _divine_ is concealed, Jer. i. 16; Ezek. v. 8; Ps. cxliii. 2. This is shown by what precedes, where the suffering of the Servant of G.o.d is so emphatically and repeatedly designated as the punishment of sin inflicted upon [Pg 290] Him by G.o.d.--??? with ?? "to be taken away from;" according to _Stier_: "taken away from suffering, being delivered from it by G.o.d's having taken Him to himself, to the land of eternal bliss." This view, according to which the words refer to the glorification of the Servant of G.o.d, has been adopted by the Church. It is adopted by the Vulgate: "_De angustia et judicio sublatus est_;" by _Jerome_, who says on this pa.s.sage: "From tribulation and judgment He ascended, as a conqueror, to the Father;"

and by _Michaelis_ who thus interprets it: "He was taken away, and received at the right hand of the Majesty." By several interpretations, the words are still referred to the state of humiliation of the Servant of G.o.d: "_Through_ oppression and judgment He was _dragged to execution_." But the Prophet has already, in ver. 3, finished the description of the mere sufferings of the Servant of G.o.d--vers. 4-7 exhibit the cause of His sufferings and His conduct under them; ???

cannot, by itself, signify "to be dragged to execution"--in that case, as in Prov. xxiv. 11, "to death" would have been added; ?? must be taken in the signification, "from," "out of," as in the subsequent ????, compare 2 Kings iii. 9, where ??? with ?? signifies "to take from." In the pa.s.sage under consideration, as well as in those two pa.s.sages which refer to the ascension of Elijah, there is a distinct allusion to Gen. v. 24, where it is said of Enoch: "And he was no more, for G.o.d had _taken_ him."--_And His generation who can think it out?_ ???, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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. ??? and ??? "to meditate," is commonly connected with ? 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 G.o.d. The explanation which we have given was adopted by the LXX.: t?? ?e??a? a?t?? t?? d????seta?.

Next to it, comes the explanation: "Who can think out His _posterity_;"

but against this, it is conclusive that ??? never occurs in the signification "posterity." The parallel pa.s.sage 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 repet.i.tion. 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 a.s.signs to ???

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 _k.n.o.bel_: His dwelling place, _i.e._, His grave, who considered? The signification, "dwelling place," does not at all belong to ???. In Isaiah x.x.xviii. 12, ??? 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 ??, 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 G.o.d receives so glorious a reward; why, after He has been removed to G.o.d, 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 subst.i.tute._ The first clause must not be separated from the second: "for the transgression," &c. For it is not the circ.u.mstance, that the Servant of G.o.d 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. ???? "to be cut off" never occurs of a quiet, natural death; not even in the pa.s.sage, quoted in support of this use of the word, viz., Psa. lx.x.xviii. 6; Lam. iii. 54, but always of a violent, premature death. The cognate ???? also has, in Psa. x.x.xi.

23, the signification of extermination. ???, poetical form for ???, refers to the collective ??. Before it, the relative p.r.o.noun 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 subst.i.tution where one saves the other from suffering. Several interpreters take the suffix in ??? as a Singular: "on account of the transgression of my people, punishment was to Him." And pa.s.sages, indeed, are not wanting where the supposition that ?? 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 ??? "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 subst.i.tution of the Servant of G.o.d were, _in the first instance_, intended (comp. s?se? t?? ?a?? a?t?? ?p? t?? ?a?t??? a?t??, 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 G.o.d 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._"

???? 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d shall, after having been stoned, be hung up for a day, and be buried quietly and without honour." _Maimonides_ (see _Iken_ on this pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d's providence was watching over the dead body of His Servant. ????, 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 ?????p?? p???s??? 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 ? 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 ????? "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 a.n.a.logy of ????, for which reason it commends itself to explain ??? ???? 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. ?? 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 x.x.xiv. 6. The whole following clause is treated as a noun.

Ordinarily, it is explained: Although, &c. But this use of ?? is quite isolated; it occurs only in two pa.s.sages of the Book of Job, in x. 7 and x.x.xiv. 6. The former explanation is found in the Alexand. version: ?t? ????a? ??? ?p???se. The innocence is designated negatively, and in an external manner (??? and ???? 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, G.o.d took care that He did not receive their ignominious burial, but an honourable one. In reference to the pa.s.sage under consideration, it is said in 1 Pet. ii. 22: ?? ?a?t?a? ???

?p???se ??d? e????e d???? ?? t? st?at? a?t??. 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 ????? and ????. 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 G.o.d a grave was a.s.signed 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 circ.u.mstance; comp. also how John, in chap. xix. 33 ff., points out the circ.u.mstance 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 G.o.d 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 embarra.s.sed with these words." That is indeed a remarkable interchange of positions. Embarra.s.sment!--that is the sign of everything which unscriptural exegesis advances on this verse. It is concentrated in the ????. The most varied conjectures and freaks are here so many symptoms of helpless embarra.s.sment. According to the opinion of several interpreters, the rich man here stands in the sense of the unG.o.dly. In this, even _Luther_ (marginal note: "rich man, one who in his doings founds himself on riches," _i.e._, an unG.o.dly man), and _Calvin_ had preceded them. The a.s.sertion 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: d?s????? p???s??? e?se?e?seta? e?? t?? as??e?a? t??

???a???. 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 encompa.s.sed with obstacles to conversion, which can be removed only by the omnipotence of divine grace. According to Matt. xiii. 22, the word is not only choked by the deceitfulness of riches, but is as much so by care also, the dangers of which are particularly set forth by our Lord in Matt. vi. 25 ff. In Prov. x.x.x. 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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 G.o.d. But the circ.u.mstance 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: ?p??a?e d? ?a? ? p???s??? ?a? ?t?f?, according to his riches; it is in h.e.l.l 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 ???? 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_ ??? "_caespitavit_." _Tum enim haec radix nullam prorsum c.u.m verbo_ ??? _necessitudinem habet, ita ut_ ???? _h. l._ ap.

?e?. _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 pa.s.sive, favour this interpretation. According to _Beck_, ????

is another form for ????. Others would change the reading. _Ewald_ proposes ????; Bottcher, ??? ??. Against all those conjectures, moreover, the circ.u.mstance militates, that, according to them, the verse would still belong to the humiliation of the Servant of G.o.d; whereas the description of the glorification had already begun in the preceding verse. For ??????? "in His death," _Gesenius_ and others propose to read ???????, to which they a.s.sign the signification "His tomb-hill." But, altogether apart from this arbitrary change of the vowels, there is opposed to this conjecture the circ.u.mstance, that ???

never occurs of the grave. According to _Gesenius_, ????, 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 rest.i.tution, 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 G.o.d'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 ??? ???? of the close stands to ???? ??? 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._ ??? "to be sick," "to suffer pains." In this sense the _Niphal_ occurs in Amos vi. 6, and the participle ???? in the signification "painful," "grievous," in Nah.

iii. 19; Jer. xiv. 17, and other pa.s.sages, 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 ????, and that the word would come in unconnected, and in a very disagreeable manner. And then the pa.s.sage in Micah, which we have quoted, decides against it.--_When His soul hath given rest.i.tution._ There cannot be any doubt that, in a formal point of view, it is the soul which gives rest.i.tution. _k.n.o.bel's_ explanation: "His soul gives itself," is not countenanced by the _usus loquendi_; ??? is not a reflective verb. As little can we suppose with _Hofmann_ that ???? is the second person, and an address to Jehovah. In opposition to this view, there is not only the circ.u.mstance that Jehovah is spoken _of_ before and afterwards, but, in a material point of view, the circ.u.mstance also, that offerings for sin, and, generally, all sacrifices, were never offered up _by_ G.o.d, [Pg 299] but always _to_ G.o.d. The fact also, that according to the sequel, the Servant of G.o.d 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 _rest.i.tution_; 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 rest.i.tution; what the rest.i.tution 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 pa.s.sive 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 G.o.d, 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 circ.u.mstance which is sufficiently apparent from the supposition of several interpreters, that ??? "soul," stands here simply for the personal p.r.o.noun,--"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 G.o.d, compare Heb. ix. 14, according to which pa.s.sage, Christ d?? p?e?at?? a?????? ?a?t?? p??s??e??e? ???? t? ?e?; and on the subject of the difference between soul and spirit, compare my Commentary on Ps. iv. p. lx.x.xvii. 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 a.s.signed 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 trespa.s.s-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 trespa.s.s-offering," or, "If He, the Servant of G.o.d, offers it as a trespa.s.s-offering." It is a.n.a.logous 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 a.s.signed for the sole purpose of their giving utterance to that which was the result of the thought regarding them, in combination with the circ.u.mstances of the time. To a certain degree a.n.a.logous 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 pa.s.sage before us in the discourses of our Lord. Our Lord says in John x. 12: ??? e?? ? p???? ? ?a???? ? p????

? ?a??? t?? ????? a?t?? t???s?? ?p?? t?? p???t??. Ver. 15: ?a? t??

????? ?? t???? ?p?? t?? p???t??. Vers. 17, 18: d?? t??t? ?

pat?? e ??ap?, ?t? ??? t???? t?? ????? ?? ??a p???? ??? a?t??.

??de?? a??e? a?t?? ?p' ???, ???' ??? t???? a?t?? ?p' ?a?t???

????s?a? ??? ?e??a? a?t??, ?a? ????s?a? ??? p???? ?ae?? a?t??.

In John xv. 13: e????a ta?t?? ???p?? ??de?? ??e? ??a t?? t?? ?????

a?t?? ?? ?p?? f???? a?t??. 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 h.e.l.lenistic _usus loquendi_. The following reasons prove that it refers to the Old Testament, and especially to the pa.s.sage under consideration. 1. Its Hebraizing character. _De Wette_ and _Lucke_ erroneously take ?e??a? 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 d???a? t?? ????? a?t?? 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 pa.s.sage of the Old Testament.--3. In the discourses of our Lord, the expression is, no less than in the pa.s.sage before us, used of His sacrificial death.--If, then, it be established that those pa.s.sages in which our Lord speaks of a _putting_ of His soul, refer to the pa.s.sage under consideration, this must be acknowledged of those also in which He speaks of a _giving_ of His soul, as in Matt. xx. 28: d???a? t??

????? a?t?? ??t??? ??t? p?????, where the ??t??? clearly points to the ??? here. In all those utterances, the Saviour simply has reduced the words to what they signify, just as, in quoting the pa.s.sage 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.--??? 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 G.o.d_ 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 trespa.s.s-offerings, the ???, 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 trespa.s.s-offerings in my work on the _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, ii. p. 174 ff. But the sin- and trespa.s.s-offerings of the Old Testament typically point to a true spiritual sin-and trespa.s.s-offering; and their chief object was to awaken in the people of G.o.d the consciousness of the necessity of subst.i.tution (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 rest.i.tution which could not be paid by the sinners, and thereby works out the justification of the sinner before G.o.d.--To the trespa.s.s-offering here, all those pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d made Christ to be ?a?t??a for us, that in Him we might be made righteous before G.o.d; Rom. viii. 3, according to which G.o.d sent Christ pe?? ?a?t??a?, as a sin-offering; Rom. iii. 25, where Christ is called ??ast?????, propitiation; 1 John ii. 2: ?a?

a?t?? ??as?? ?st? pe?? t?? ?a?t??? ???, iv. 10; Heb. ix. 14.--The ???

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 trespa.s.s-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 G.o.d, 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 ???, immediately preceding. Just in the same relation in which the sin-offering of the Servant of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, identical with His generation, in ver. 8, are just those for whom, according to the words immediately preceding, He offers His soul as a trespa.s.s-offering--the many who, according to ver. 12, are a.s.signed 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. 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 t?????. Matt. ix. 2; and with special emphasis. His apostles as _little children_, te???a ?t? ????? e?'

??? e??, 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 G.o.d 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. lx.x.xix. 5, cx.x.xii. 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 G.o.d in communion with His seed, in carrying out the will of G.o.d. ???

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 ??? here, at the close, evidently refers to the ??? 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 G.o.d 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 ?? in ???? 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: ?p? t??^ p???? t?^? ????^? a?t??^. With ???? the object is omitted, and that purposely, in order that the words of G.o.d 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. ????? must, according to the accents, be connected with the subsequent words. The knowledge does not belong to the Servant of G.o.d, in so far as it dwells in Him, but as it concerns Him; just as the ???p? t?? ?e?? in Luke xi. 42, and in other pa.s.sages does not mean the love which dwells in G.o.d, but the love which has G.o.d for its object. "By His knowledge" is thus equivalent to: by their knowing Him, getting acquainted with Him, This knowledge of the Servant of G.o.d according to His princ.i.p.al 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 G.o.d was represented in the preceding context. It is just this, which is subjectively appropriated by the knowledge of the Servant of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d does not appear as a Teacher, but as a Redeemer; and the relation of ???? to ????? 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 ??? never means "doctrine." The explanation: "By His full, absolute knowledge of the divine counsel" (_Havernick_), or, "by the absolute knowledge of G.o.d"

(_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 G.o.d 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), ????? must not be translated "to convert," but to "justify." In favour of this translation is also the construction with ?, which is to be accounted for from a modification of the signification: "to bring righteousness."

But it is specially the position of ???? which is decisive in favour of it. It is for the justification only that the personal righteousness of the Servant of G.o.d has that significant meaning which is, in this manner, a.s.signed 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 pa.s.sage which can be adduced in favour of the signification "to convert," viz., Dan.

xii. 3: "And the wise, ???????, shall s.h.i.+ne as the brightness of the firmament, and _justify_ many as the stars, for ever and ever." In this pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage specially in view, cannot be doubted, if we compare the ??????? of Daniel with the ????? with which the prophecy under consideration opens (chap, lii, 13), and Daniel's: "justify many," with the pa.s.sage 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 just.i.tiae et salutis multorum._ _Havernick_ refers, for a comparison, to 1 Tim. iv. 16: "For, in doing this, thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee." ???? must not be immediately connected with ????; for, in that case, it ought to have stood after it, and been qualified [Pg 306] by the article. On the contrary, ???? 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, ?????, her sister Judah." By thus making ????

prominent, and connecting it immediately with ?????, it is intended to point out the close connection in which the righteousness of the Servant of G.o.d, 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 ???, 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 G.o.d 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 ?????

shows that we must translate as the LXX. do: ?a? t?? ?a?t?a? a?t?^?

a?t?? ????se?. 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 G.o.d was mentioned in the preceding clause. [Pg 307] In the case of every one who, after the exaltation of the Servant of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d has borne the sin once for all; by the power of His subst.i.tution, 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 ???? 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 ??? with ? cannot mean simply "to allot,"

(although, indeed, this explanation is given by the LXX.; d?? t??^t?

a?t?? ????????se? p??????; Vulg.: _ideo dispertiam ei plurimos_); it only signifies "to give a portion in," Job x.x.xix. 17. From the comparison with ???? 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 ???? here, too, cannot mean "mighty ones," but "many."

Even elsewhere, the signification "great ones," "mighty ones," appears oftentimes to be only forced upon ????. In Job x.x.xv. 9, the "many" are the many evil-doers; and in Job x.x.xii. 9, the utterance: "Not the _many_ are wise," is explained from the circ.u.mstance, that the view given by Job's friends was that of the great ma.s.s. The fact that the ??

in the second clause is not the sign of the Accusative, but a Preposition, [Pg 308] is probable even from the circ.u.mstance, that the former ?? commonly stands before qualified nouns only; and, farther from the corresponding; "with the transgressors." But what is conclusive is, that the phrase ??? ??? always means "to divide spoil,"

never "to distribute as spoil," and that the phrase ??? ??? ?? ???? "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 G.o.d shall secure to himself the same successes as they do by sword and bow. Although partic.i.p.ating in the government of the world, and dividing spoil are here ascribed to the Servant of G.o.d, yet the partic.i.p.ation 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, of which He is the Head. "Because He hath poured out His soul unto death,"

??? 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." ????, "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 ????? here, just as the ????? 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: ???? ??? ???, ?t? ?t? t??t? t?

?e??a???? de? te?es???a? ?? ???, t? ?a? et? ????? ?????s??, ?a?

??? t? pe?? ??? t???? ??e?; 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 pa.s.sage before us: p?? ???

p??????s?? a? ??afa?, ?t? ??t? de? ?e??s?a?; ver. 56, where, after having reproached the guards for having numbered Him with criminals: ??

?p? ??st?? ?????ete et? a?a???? ?a? ????? s???ae?? e, He says to them: t??t? d? ???? ?????e? ??a p??????s?? a? ??afa? t?? p??f?t??..

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 ????, it is indicated that the subsequent words are no more to be viewed as depending on ??? ???.--????? 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 ??? must therefore be viewed as a _Praeteritum prophetic.u.m_. It corresponds with ???? in ver. 11, and, like it, does not designate something done but once by the Servant of G.o.d, 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 _trespa.s.s-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 G.o.d, on the contrary, makes intercession, by pleading before G.o.d 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: ?? ?a? ??t?????e? ?p?? ???; Hebr. ix. 24, according to which pa.s.sage Christ is entered into the holy places ??? ?fa??s???a? t? p??s?p? t?? ?e?? ?p?? ???; 1 John ii.

1: pa?????t?? ???e? p??? t?? pat??a ??s??? ???st?? d??a???.

We have hitherto expounded the pa.s.sage 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 inc.u.mbent 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 pa.s.sages 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?]