Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 18

[Footnote 2: _Simonis. Onom._: ????, _quem aspergat_, _i.e._, _purificet et expiet Domimus_; _Gesenius_: _quod vix aliter explicari potest quam_: _quem consperget_, _i.e._, _expiabit Jehova._ _Furst_ gives a different derivation; but it at once shows itself to be untenable.]

[Footnote 3: In order to defend this explanation, interpreters have referred to the LXX: ??t? ?a??s??ta? ???? p???? ?p' a?t?^; but even _Martini_ remarks: "From a dark pa.s.sage, they have tried, by ingenious conjecturing, to bring out any sense whatsoever."]

[Footnote 4: Thus _Theodoret_ says: "For they who did not receive the prophetic promises and announcements, but served idols, shall, through the messengers of the truth, see the power of the promised One, and perceive His greatness." _Jerome_: "The rulers of the world, who had not the Law and the Prophets, and to whom no prophecies concerning Him were given, even they shall see and perceive. By the comparison with them, the hardness of the Jews is reproved, who, although they saw and heard, yet verified Isaiah's prophecy against them." _Calvin_: "The Jews had, through the Law and the Prophets, heard something of Christ, but to the Gentiles He was altogether unknown. Hence it follows that these words properly refer to the Gentiles."]

[Footnote 5: According to _k.n.o.bel_, the author is supposed to speak, in chap. liii. 1, in his own name and that of the other prophets; in vers.

2-6, in the name of the whole people; in vers. 7-10, in his own name.

An explanation which is compelled to resort to such changes, without their being in any way clearly and distinctly intimated, p.r.o.nounces its own condemnation.]

[Footnote 6: _Gesenius_: _Neglecta actatis notione saepe est genus hominum, in bonam partem--in malam partem_;--and in reference to the pa.s.sage under consideration: _Genus ejus, Servi Jehovae, sunt homines qui iisdem c.u.m illo studiis tenentur._ In the same manner it is explained by _Maurer_, who refers to Ps. xiv. 5, xxiv. 6.]

[Footnote 7: The double ??? in Deut. x.x.xiii. 2 refers to Israel, not to G.o.d. In reference to the ??? in Is. xliv. 15, _J. H. Michaelis_ remarks: _iis talibus diis._ ver. 7. But the suffix rather refers to the trees, ver. 14; comp. ??? in ver. 15. If construed thus, the sense is much more expressive. In Job xxii. 2, ????? is used collectively. In Ps. xi. 7, the plural suffix is to be explained from the richness and fulness of the Divine Being. These are all the pa.s.sages which _Ewald_ quotes in -- 247 d.]

[Footnote 8: Thus _Bahr_, _Symbolik_, ii. S. 207, says: It is not the material elements of the blood which make it a means of expiation, but it is the ??? which is connected with it, which is in it, whose instrument and bearer it is, which gives to it atoning power. The ???

is thus the centre around which, in the last instance, everything moves. This is especially confirmed by the circ.u.mstance, that the object of the expiation to be effected by the ??? in the sacrificial blood, is, according to this pa.s.sage, the ??? of him who offers up the sacrifice.]

[Pg 311]

I. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.

A. WITH THE JEWS.

1. There cannot be any doubt that, in those earlier times, when the Jews were still more firmly attached to the tradition of their Fathers,--when the carnal disposition had not yet become so entirely prevalent among them,--and when controversy with the Christians had not made them so narrow-minded in their Exegesis, the Messianic explanation was pretty generally received, at least by the better portion of the people. This is admitted even by those later interpreters who pervert the prophecy, _e.g._, _Abenezra_, _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, _Moses Nachmanides_. _Gesenius_ also says: "It was only the later Jews who abandoned this interpretation,--no doubt, in consequence of their controversies with the Christians." We shall here collect, from the existing Jewish writings, the princ.i.p.al pa.s.sages in which this interpretation occurs. The whole translation of the Chaldee Paraphrast, _Jonathan_, notwithstanding the many perversions in which he indulges, refers the prophecy to Christ. He paraphrases the very first clause: ??

???? ???? ????? "behold my Servant Messiah shall prosper." The _Medrash Tanchuma_, an old commentary on the Pentateuch (ed. Cracov. f. 53, c.

3, l. 7), remarks on the words: ?????? ?????????? ???????? (ed. Cracov. f. 53, c.

3, l. 7): ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??

????? ???? ?? ??? ("this is the King Messiah who is high and lifted up, and very exalted, more exalted than Abraham, elevated above Moses, higher than the ministering angels"). This pa.s.sage is remarkable for this reason also, that it contains the doctrine of the exaltation of the Messiah above all created beings, and even above the angels themselves, and, hence, the doctrine of His divinity,--a doctrine contested by the later Jews. Still more remarkable is a pa.s.sage from the very old book _Pesikta_, cited in the treatise _Abkath Rokhel_ (???? ????, printed separately at Venice in 1597, and reprinted in _Hulsii Theologia Judaica_, where [Pg 312] this pa.s.sage occurs p. 309): "When G.o.d created His world He stretched out His hand under the throne of His glory, and brought forth the soul of the Messiah. He said to Him: 'Wilt thou heal and redeem my sons after 6000 years?' He answered Him: 'I will.' Then G.o.d said to Him: 'Wilt thou then also bear the punishment in order to blot out their sins, as it is written: '_But he bore our diseases_' (chap. liii. 4)? And He answered Him: I will joyfully bear them." In this pa.s.sage, as well as in several others which will be afterwards cited, the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah is contained, and derived from Is. liii., although the later Jews rejected this doctrine. In a similar manner, Rabbi _Moses Haddarshan_ expresses himself on Gen. i. 3 (Latin in _Galatinus_, _De Arcanis Cath. ver._ p. 329; in the original in _Raimund Martini Pug. Fid._ fol. 333; comp. _Wolf_, _Bibl. Hebr._ i. p.

818): "Jehovah said: Messiah, thou my righteous One, those who are concealed with thee will be such that their sins will bring a heavy yoke upon thee.--The Messiah answered: Lord of the universe, I cheerfully take upon myself all those plagues and sufferings; and immediately the Messiah, out of love, took upon himself all those plagues and sufferings, as is written in Is. liii.: He was abused and oppressed." Compare another pa.s.sage, in which ver. 5 is referred to the Messiah, in _Raim. Martin_, fol. iv. 30. In the Talmud (_Gemara_, _tract. Sanhedrim_, chap. xi.), it is said of the Messiah: "He sits before the gates of the city of Rome among the sick and the leprous"

(according to ver. 3). To the question: What is the name of the Messiah, it is answered: He is called ?????? "_the leper_," and, in proof, ver. 4 is quoted according to the erroneous interpretation of ???? by _leprosus_,--an interpretation which is met with in _Jerome_ also.--In the work _Rabboth_ (a commentary on the Pentateuch and the five _Megilloth_, which, as to its princ.i.p.al portions, is very old, although much interpolated at later periods, and which, according to the statements of the Jews, was composed about the year of our Lord 300, comp. _Wolf_, I. c. II., p. 1423, sqq. in commentary on Ruth ii.

14 [p. 46, _ed. Cracov._]), the fifth verse is quoted, and referred to the sufferings of the Messiah.--In the _Medrash Tillim_ (an allegorical commentary on the Psalms, printed at Venice in 1546), it is said in Ps.

ii. 7, (fol. 4): "The things of King Messiah and His mysteries are announced [Pg 313] in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. In the Prophets, _e.g._, in the pa.s.sage Is. lii. 13, and xlii. 1; in the Hagiographa, _e.g._, Ps. cx. and Dan. vii. 13." In the book _Chasidim_ (a collection of moral tales, printed at Venice and Basle in 1581) p.

60, the following story is to be found: "There was, among the Jews, a pious man, who in summer made his bed among fleas, and in winter put his feet into cold water; and when it froze, his feet froze at the same time. When asked why he did so, he answered, that he too must make some little expiation, since the Messiah bears the sin of Israel (???? ????

????? ?????)." The ancient explanation is, from among the later interpreters, a.s.sented to by _Rabbi Alschech_ (his commentary on Is.

liii. is given entire in _Hulsii Theologia Judaica_, p. 321 sqq.). He says: "Upon the testimony of tradition, our old Rabbins have unanimously admitted that King Messiah is here the subject of discourse. For the same reason, we, in harmony with them, conclude that King David, _i.e._, the Messiah, must be considered as the subject of this prophecy,--a view which is indeed quite obvious." We shall see, however, subsequently, that he adheres to the right explanation only in the first three verses, and afterwards abandons it. But pa.s.sages especially remarkable are found in the cabbalistic book _Sohar_. It is true that the age of the book is very uncertain; but it cannot be proved to have been composed under Christian influence. We shall here quote only some of the princ.i.p.al pa.s.sages. (_Sohar_, ed. Amstelod. p.

ii. fol. 212; ed. _Solisbac._ p. ii. f. 85; _Sommeri_ theol. _Sohar_ p. 94.) "When the Messiah is told of the misery of Israel in their captivity, and that they are themselves the cause of it, because they had not cared for, nor sought after the knowledge of their Lord, He weeps aloud over their sins; and for this reason it is written in Scripture (Isa. liii. 5): He was wounded for our transgressions, He was smitten for our iniquities."--"In the garden of Eden there is an apartment which is called the sick chamber. The Messiah goes into this apartment, and summons all the diseases, all the pains, and all the chastis.e.m.e.nts of Israel to come upon Him, and they all come upon Him.

And unless He would take them away from Israel, and lay them upon himself, no man would be able to bear the chastis.e.m.e.nts of Israel, which are inflicted upon them on account of the Law, as it is [Pg 314]

written: But He took upon himself our sicknesses," &c. In another pa.s.sage (_Sohar_, _ed. Amstelod_ p. iii. f. 218; _Solisbac._ iii. f.

88; _Sommeri theol. Sohar_ p. 89; _Auszuge aus dem Buche Sohar, mit Deutscher Uebersetzung_, Berlin 52, S. 32), it is said: "When G.o.d wishes to give to the world a means of healing. He smites one of the pious among them, and for his sake He gives healing to the whole world.

Where, in Scripture, do we find this confirmed? In Isa. liii. 5, where it is said: He was wounded for our transgressions. He was crushed for our sins."

What has been said will be a sufficient proof that the ancient Jews, following tradition, referred the pa.s.sage to the Messiah; and, as it appears from the majority of the pa.s.sages quoted, referred it indeed to the suffering Messiah. But it would really have been a strange phenomenon, if this interpretation had remained the prevailing one among the Jews. According to the declaration of the Apostle, the Cross of Christ is to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness. The idea of a suffering and expiating Messiah was repugnant to the carnally minded Jews. And the reason why it was repugnant to them is, that they did not possess that which alone makes that doctrine acceptable, viz., the knowledge of sin, and the consciousness of the need of salvation,--because, not knowing the holiness of G.o.d, and being ignorant of the import of the Law, they imagined that through their own strength, by the works of the Law, they could be justified before G.o.d. What they wished for was only an outward deliverance from their misery and their oppressors, not an internal deliverance from sin. For this reason, they looked exclusively to those pa.s.sages of the Old Testament in which the Messiah in glory is announced; and those pa.s.sages they interpreted in a carnal manner. In addition to this, there were other reasons which could not fail to render them averse to refer this pa.s.sage to the suffering Messiah. As they could not compare the prophecy with the fulfilment,--the deep abas.e.m.e.nt of the Messiah which is here announced, the contempt which He endures, His violent death, appeared to them irreconcileable with those pa.s.sages in which nothing of the kind is mentioned, but, on the contrary, the glorified Messiah only is foretold. They had too little knowledge of the nature [Pg 315] of prophetic vision to enable them to perceive that the prophecies are connected with the circ.u.mstances of the time, and, therefore, exhibit a one-sided character,--that they consist of separate fragments which must be put together in order that a complete representation of the subject may be obtained. They imagined that because, in some pa.s.sages, the Messiah is at once brought before us in glory, just because He, in this way, represented Himself to the prophets. He must also appear at once in glory. And, lastly, by their controversy with Christians, they were led to seek for other explanations. As long as they understood the pa.s.sage as referring to a suffering Messiah, they could not deny that there existed the closest agreement between the prophecy and the history of Christ. Now since the Christians, in their controversies with the Jews, always proceeded from the pa.s.sages, which by _Hulsius_ is pertinently called a _carnificina Judaeorum_, and always returned to it,--since they saw what impression was, in numerous cases, produced by the controversy of the Christians founded upon this pa.s.sage, nothing was more natural, than that they should endeavour to discover an expedient for remedying this evil. And the discovery of such an expedient was the more easy to them, the more that, in general, they were dest.i.tute of a sense of truth, and especially of exegetical skill, so that they could not see any reason for rejecting an interpretation on the ground of its being forced and unnatural.

In proof of what we have said, we here briefly present the arguments with which _Abarbanel_ opposes the explanation of a suffering and expiating divine Messiah. In the first place, by the absurd remark that the ancient teachers did not intend to give a literal, but an allegorical explanation, he seeks to invalidate the authority of the tradition on which the later Jewish interpreters laid so great a stress, whensoever and wheresoever it agrees with their own inclination; and, at the same time, he advances the a.s.sertion that they referred the first four verses only to the Messiah,--an a.s.sertion which the pa.s.sages quoted by us show to be utterly erroneous. Then, after having combatted the doctrine of original sin, he continues: "Suppose even that there exists such a thing as original sin,--when G.o.d, whose power is infinite, was willing to pardon, was His hand too short to redeem (Isa. l. 2), so [Pg 316] that, on this account, He was obliged to take flesh, and to impose chastis.e.m.e.nts upon himself? And even although I were to grant that it was necessary that a single individual of the human race should bear this punishment, in order to make satisfaction for all, it would, at all events, have been at least more appropriate that some one from among ourselves, some wise man or prophet, had taken upon him the punishment, than that G.o.d himself should have done so. For, supposing even that He became incarnate, He would not be like one of us.--It is altogether impossible and self-contradictory that G.o.d should a.s.sume a body; for G.o.d is the first cause, infinite, and omnipotent. He cannot, therefore, a.s.sume flesh, and subsist as a finite being, and take upon himself man's punishment, of which nothing whatsoever is written in Scripture.--If the prophecy referred to the Messiah, it must refer either to the Messiah ben Joseph, or the Messiah ben David (compare the Treatises at the close of this work). The former will perish in the beginning of his wars; neither that which is said of the exaltation, nor that which is said of the humiliation of the Servant of G.o.d applies to him; much less can the latter be intended." (There then follows a quotation of several pa.s.sages treating of the exalted Messiah.)

That it was nevertheless difficult for the carnally-minded among the Jews to reject the tradition, is seen from the paraphrase of _Jonathan_. This forms a middle link between the ancient interpretation--which was retained, even at a later period, by the better portion of the nation--and the recent interpretation. _Jonathan_ (see his paraphrase, among others, in _Lowth's_ comment, edited by _Koppe_, on the pa.s.sage; and in _Hulsii Theol. Judaica_) acknowledges the tradition, in so far, that he refers the whole prophecy to the Messiah. On the other hand, he endeavours to satisfy his repugnance to the doctrine of a suffering and expiating Messiah, by referring, through the most violent perversions and most arbitrary interpolations, to the state of glory, every thing which is here said of the state of humiliation. A trace of the right interpretation may yet perhaps be found in ver. 12, where _Jonathan_ says that the Messiah will give _His_ soul unto death; but it may be that thereby he understands merely the intrepid courage with which the Messiah will expose himself to all [Pg 317] dangers, in the conflict with the enemies of the covenant-people.

This mode of dealing with the text, however, could satisfy only a few.

They, therefore, went farther, and sought for an entirely different subject of the prophecy. How very little they were themselves convinced of the soundness of their interpretation, and satisfied with its results, may be seen from the example of _Abarbanel_, who advances two explanations which differ totally, viz., one referring it to the Jewish people, and the other to king Josiah, and then allows his readers to make their choice betwixt the two. It is in truth only, that there is unanimity and certainty; error is always accompanied by disagreement and uncertainty. This will appear from the following enumeration of the various interpretations of this pa.s.sage, which, at a subsequent period, were current among the Jews. (The princ.i.p.al non-Messianic interpretations of this pa.s.sage are found in the Rabbinical Bibles, and also in _Hulsius_, _l.c._, p. 339, both in the original and translation.) The interpreters may be divided into two main cla.s.ses: 1.

Those who by ??? ???? understand some collective body; and, 2. Those who refer the prophecy to a single individual. The first cla.s.s again falls into two subdivisions, (_a_), those who make the whole Jewish people the subject, in contrast to the Gentiles; and (_b_) those who make the better portion of the Jewish people the subject, in contrast to the unG.o.dly portion. These views, and their supporters, we shall now proceed to submit to a closer examination.

1. (_a._) Among the non-Messianic interpreters, the most prevalent opinion is, that the Jewish people are the subject of the prophecy.

This opinion is found at an early period. At this we need not be surprised, as the cause which produced the deviation from the Messianic interpretation existed at a period equally early. When _Origen_ was making use of this pa.s.sage against some learned Jews, they answered: that "that which here was prophesied of one, referred to the whole people, and was fulfilled by their dispersion." This explanation is followed by _R. Salomo Jarchi_, _Abenezra_, _Kimchi_, _Abarbanel_, _Lipmann_ (??? ?????, fol. 131). The main features of this view are the following: The prophecy is supposed to describe the misery of the people in their present exile, the firmness with [Pg 318] which they bear it for the glory of G.o.d, and resist every temptation to forsake His law and wors.h.i.+p; and the prosperity, power, and glory which shall be bestowed upon them at the time of the redemption. In vers. 1-10, the Gentiles are supposed to be introduced as speaking, and making a humble and penitent confession that hitherto they had adopted an erroneous opinion of the people of G.o.d, and had unjustly despised them on account of their sufferings, inasmuch as their glory now shows, that it was not for the punishment of their sins that these sufferings were inflicted upon them. Some of these interpreters, _e.g._, _Abenezra_ and _Rabbi Lipmann_, understand, indeed, by the ??? ????, the pious portion only of the people who remained faithful to Jehovah; but this makes no material difference, inasmuch as they, too, contrast the ??? ???? with the heathen nations, and not with the unG.o.dly, or less righteous portion of the nation, as is done by the interpreters of the following cla.s.s.

(_b_). Others consider the appellation ??? ???? as a collective designation of the pious, and find in this section the idea of a kind of vicarious satisfaction made by them for the unG.o.dly. Those interpreters come nearer the true explanation, in so far as they do not, like those of the preceding cla.s.s, set aside the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, either by a figurative explanation, or, like _Kimchi_, by the absurd remark, that this doctrine is an error put into the mouth of the Gentiles. On the other hand, they depart from the true explanation, in so far that they generalize that which belongs to a definite subject, and that, flattering the pride of the natural man, they ascribe to mere man what belongs only to the G.o.d-man. Most distinctly was this view expressed by the Commentator on the book ???

???? or ??? ?????, which has been very frequently printed, and which contains all sorts of tales from the Talmud. He says: "It is right to suppose that the whole section contains a prophecy regarding the righteous ones who are visited by sufferings." He then makes two cla.s.ses of righteous men:--those who in general must endure many sufferings and much misery: and those who are publicly executed, as _Rabbi Akiba_ and others. He supposes that the Prophet shows the dignity of both of these cla.s.ses of righteous men, to both of which the name of a Servant of G.o.d is justly due. A similar opinion is held by _Rabbi_ [Pg 319] _Alshech_. As we have already seen, he refers only chap. lii. 13-15 to the Messiah, and to His great glory acquired by His great sufferings. Then the Prophet speaks, as he supposes, in the name of all Israel, approves of what G.o.d had said, and confesses that, by this declaration of G.o.d regarding the sufferings of the Messiah, they have received light regarding the sufferings of the G.o.dly in general.

They perceive it to be erroneous and rash to infer guilt from suffering; and, henceforth, when they see a righteous man suffering, they will think of no other reason, than that he bears their diseases, and that his chastis.e.m.e.nts are for their salvation. The Servant of G.o.d is thus supposed to be as it were, a personification of the righteous ones.--A similar view probably lies at the foundation of those pa.s.sages of the Talmud, where some portions of the prophecy under consideration are referred to Moses, and others to _Rabbi Akiba_, who is revered as a martyr by the Jews. It does not appear that the prophecy was confined to Moses or Akiba; but it was referred to them, only in so far as they belonged to the collective body which is supposed to be the subject of it.

2. That view which makes a single individual other than the Messiah the subject of the prophecy, has found, with the Jews, comparatively the fewest defenders. We have already seen, that, besides the explanation which makes the Jewish people the subject, _Abarbanel_ advances still another, which refers it to king Josiah. _Rabbi Saadias Haggaon_ explained the whole section of Jeremiah.

Notwithstanding all these efforts, however, the Rabbins have not succeeded in entirely supplanting the right explanation, and in thus divesting the pa.s.sage of all that is dangerous to their system. Among the Cabbalistical Jews, it is even still the prevailing one. In numerous cases, it was just this chapter which formed, to proselytes from Judaism, the first foundation of their conviction of the truth of Christianity.

B. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION WITH THE CHRISTIANS.

Among Christians, the interpretation has taken nearly the same course as among the Jews. Similar causes have produced [Pg 320] similar effects in both cases. By both, the true explanation was relinquished, when the prevailing tendencies had become opposed to its results. And if we descend to particulars, we shall find a great resemblance even between the modes of interpretation proposed by both.

1. Even, _a priori_, we could not but suppose otherwise than that the Christian Church, as long as she possessed Christ, found Him here also, where He is so clearly and distinctly set before our eyes,--that as long as she in general still acknowledged the authority of Christ, and of the Apostles, she could not but, here too, follow their distinct, often-repeated testimony. And so, indeed, do we find it to be. With the exception of a certain Silesian, called _Seidel_--who, given up to total unbelief, a.s.serted that the Messiah had never yet come, nor would ever come, (comp. _Jac. Martini l._ 3, _de tribus Elohim_, p.

592)--and of _Grotius_, both of whom supposed Jeremiah to be the subject, no one in the Christian Church has, for seventeen centuries, ventured to call in question the Messianic interpretation. On the contrary, this pa.s.sage was always considered to be the most distinct and glorious of all the Messianic prophecies. Out of the great ma.s.s of testimonies, we shall quote a few. _Augustine_, _De Civitate Dei_, i.

18, c. 29, says: "Isaiah has not only reproved the people for their iniquity, and instructed them in righteousness, and foretold to the people calamities impending over them in the Future; but he has also a greater number of predictions, than the other prophets, concerning Christ and the Church, _i.e._, concerning the King, and the Kingdom established by Him; so that some interpreters would rather call him an Evangelist than a Prophet." In proof of this a.s.sertion, he then quotes the pa.s.sage under consideration, and closes with the words: "Surely that may suffice! There are in those words some things too which require explanation; but I think that things which are so clear should compel even enemies, against their will, to understand them." In a similar manner he expresses himself in: _De consensu Evangelistarum_ l.

i. c. 31. _Theodoret_ remarks on this pa.s.sage (_opp. ed. Hal._ t. ii.

p. 358): "The Prophet represents to us, in this pa.s.sage, the whole course of His (Christ's) humiliation unto death. Most wonderful is the power of the Holy Spirit. For that which was to take place after many generations. He showed [Pg 321] to the holy prophets in such a manner that they did not merely hear Him declare these things, but saw them."

In a similar manner, _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Cyril_ of Alexandria, and _Jerome_, express themselves. From the Churches of the Reformation, we shall here quote the testimonies of two of their founders only.

_Zwingle_, in _Annot. ad h. l._ (opp. t. iii. Tur. 1544, fol. 292) says: "That which now follows is so clear a testimony of Christ, that I do not know whether, anywhere in Scripture, there could be found anything more consistent, or that anything could be more distinctly said. For it is quite in vain that the obstinacy and perversity of the Jews have tried it from all sides." _Luther_ remarks on the pa.s.sage: "And, no doubt, there is not, in all the Old Testament Scriptures, a clearer text or prophecy, both of the suffering and the resurrection of Christ, than in this chapter. Wherefore it is but right that it should be well known to all Christians, yea should be committed to memory, that thereby we may strengthen our faith, and defend it, chiefly against the stiff-necked Jews who deny their only promised Christ, solely on account of the offence of His cross."

It was reserved to the last quarter of the last century to be the first to reject the Messianic interpretation. _At a time when Naturalism exercised its sway, it could no longer be retained._[1] For, if this pa.s.sage contains a Messianic prophecy at all, its contents offer so striking an agreement with the history of Christ, that its origin cannot at all be accounted for in the natural way. Expedients were, therefore, sought for; and these were so much the more easily found, that the Jews had, in this matter, already opened up the way. All that was necessary, was only to appropriate their arguments and counter-arguments, and to invest them with the semblance of solidity by means of a learned apparatus.

The non-Messianic interpretation among Christians, like those among the Jews, may be divided into two main cla.s.ses: 1. Those which are founded upon the supposition that a collective [Pg 322] body is the subject of the prophecy; and 2, those which, by the Servant of G.o.d, understand any other single individual except the Messiah. The first cla.s.s, again, falls into several sub-divisions: (_a._), those interpretations which refer the prophecy to the whole Jewish people; (_b._), those which refer it to the Jewish people in the abstract; (_c._), those which refer it to the pious portion of the Jewish people; (_d._), those which refer it to the order of the priests; (_e._), those which refer it to the order of the prophets.

1. (_a._) Comparatively the greatest number of non-Messianic interpreters make the whole Jewish people the subject of the prophecy.

This hypothesis is adopted, among others, by _Doederlein_, (in the preface and annotations, in the third edition of Isaiah, but in such a manner that he still wavers betwixt this and the Messianic interpretation, which formerly he had defended with great zeal); by _Schuster_ (in a special treatise, Gottingen 1794); by _Stephani_ (_Gedanken uber die Entstehung u. Ausbildung der Idee von inem Messias_, _Nurnberg_ 1787); by the author of the letters on Isaiah liii., in the 6th vol. of _Eichhorn's Bibliothek_; by _Eichhorn_ (in his exposition of the Prophets); by _Rosenmuller_ (in the second edition of his Commentary, leaving to others the interpretation which referred the prophecy to the prophetic order, although he himself had first recommended it), and many others. The last who defend it are _Hitzig_, _Hendewerk_, and _Koster_ (_de Serv. Jeh._ Kiel, 38).

Substantially, it has remained the same as we have seen it among the Jews. The only difference is, that these expositors understand, by the sufferings of the Servant of G.o.d, the sufferings of the Jewish people in the Babylonish captivity; while the Jewish interpreters understand thereby the sufferings of the Jewish people in their present exile.

They, too, suppose that, from vers. 1 to 10, the Gentile nations are introduced as speaking, and make the penitent confession that they have formed an erroneous opinion of Israel, and now see that its suffering's are not the punishment of its own sins, but that it had suffered as a subst.i.tute for their sins.

(_b._) The hypothesis which makes the Jewish people in the abstract--in ant.i.thesis to its single members--the subject of this prophecy, was discovered by _Eckermann_, _theol. Beitrage_, [Pg 323]

Bd. i. H. i. S. 192 ff. According to _Ewald_, the prophecy refers to "Israel according to its true idea." According to _Bleek_, the Servant of G.o.d is a "designation of the whole people, but not of the people in its actual reality, but as it existed in the imagination of the author,--the ideal of the people."

(_c._) The hypothesis, that the pious portion of the Jewish people--in contrast to the unG.o.dly--are the subject, has been defended especially by _Paulus_ (_Memorabilien_, Bd. 3, S. 175-192, and _Clavis_ on Isaiah). His view was adopted by _Ammon_ (_Christologie_, S. 108 ff.).

The princ.i.p.al features of this view are the following:--It was not on account of their own sins that the G.o.dly portion of the nation were punished and carried into captivity along with the unG.o.dly, but on account of the unG.o.dly who, however, by apostatising from the religion of Jehovah, knew how to obtain a better fate. The unG.o.dly drew from it the inference that the hope of the G.o.dly, that Jehovah would come to their help, had been in vain. But when the captivity came to an end, and the G.o.dly returned, they saw that they had been mistaken, and that the hope of the G.o.dly was well founded. They, therefore, full of repentance, deeply lament that they had not long ago repented of their sins. This view is adopted also by _Von Colln_ in his _Biblische Theologie_; by _Thenius_ in _Wiener's Zeitschrift_, ii. 1; by _Maurer_ and _k.n.o.bel_. The latter says: "Those who were zealous adherents of the Theocracy had a difficult position among their own people, and had to suffer most from foreign tyrants." The true wors.h.i.+ppers of Jehovah were given up to mockery and scorn, to persecution and the grossest abuse, and were in a miserable and horrible condition, unworthy of men and almost inhuman. The punishments for sin had to be endured chiefly by those who did not deserve them. Thus the view easily arose that the G.o.dly suffered in subst.i.tution for the whole people.

(_d._) The hypothesis which makes the priestly order the subject, has been defended by the author of: _Ausfuhrliche Erklarung der sammtlichen Weissagungen des A. T._ 1801.

(_e._) The hypothesis which makes the collective body of the prophets the subject, was first advanced by _Rosenmuller_ in the treatise: _Leiden und Hoffnungen der Propheten Jehovas_, [Pg 324] in _Gablers Neuestes theol. Journal_, vol. ii. S. 4, p. 333 ff. From him it came as a legacy to _De Wette_ (_de morte Jes. Chr. expiatoria_, p. 28 sqq.), and to _Gesenius_. According to _Schenkel_ (_Studien und Kritiken_ 36) "the prophetic order was the quiet, hidden blossom, which early storms broke." According to _Umbreit_ the Servant of G.o.d is the collective body of the prophets, or the prophetic order, which is here plainly represented as the sacrificial beast (!) taking upon itself the sins of the people. He finds it "rather strange that the Prophet who, in chap.

lxvi. 3 (of course according to a false interpretation), plainly rejects sacrifice altogether, should speak of the shedding of the blood of a man, and, moreover, of a pure, sinless man, in the room of the guilty." The manner in which _Umbreit_ seeks to gain a transition to the Messianic interpretation, although not in the sense held by the Christian Church, has been pointed out by us on a former occasion, in the remarks on chap. xlii. _Hofmann_ (_Schriftbeweis_, ii. 1 S. 89 ff.) has got up a mixture composed of these explanations which refer the prophecy to the people, to the G.o.dly, 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 G.o.d; 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, pa.s.ses 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 G.o.d, since that character is peculiar to Christ, and excludes every comparison. "Of a priestly self-sacrifice of the Servant of G.o.d"--says _Hofmann_, S. 101, 2--"I cannot find anything. The a.s.sertion that the words ??? ????, denote a priestly work, no longer requires a refutation. His [Pg 325] vocation is to be the mediator of a revelation of G.o.d 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 a.s.sertion 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 subst.i.tution 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 chastis.e.m.e.nt of our peace" designates an actual chastis.e.m.e.nt, 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 unbia.s.sed.