Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. Vol. 2

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 משיחא ויתגלי "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 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 יפתח in ver. 7, תשים in ver. 10, and, according to the explanations of Gesenius and others, also יפגיע in ver. 12 while, on the other hand, he sometimes speaks of the glorification in the Preterite.^[1] Compare לקח in ver. 8, נשא 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: ἐκστήσονται--ἀδοξήσει; Aqui. and Theod., ver. 2, ἀναβήσεται.--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 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, 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 κατʼ ἐξοχήν 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.

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 of the people. How deeply rooted was this interpretation, appears even from the declaration of John the Baptist, John i. 29: ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τῆν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. 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 ἀμνὸς: "The article looks back to the prophecy which was given concerning Him under this figure, in Is. liii. 7." As regards θεοῦ, compare ver. 10: "It pleased the Lord painfully to crush Him," and ver. 2: "Before Him;" as regards ὁ αἴρων, &c. comp. ver. 4, rendered by the LXX.: οὗ̂τος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμω̂ν φέρει; 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 (τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλος ἔχει), 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: πῶς γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενηθῇ, 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," נבזה, which, by Symmachus and Theodotian is rendered by ἐξουδενωμένος, 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, 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 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 (יזה), liii. 10 (אשם), 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, 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 נביא, 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 איש; 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 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 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 בהם refers rather to the משכילים 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: πάντας ὑφʼ ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι, 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 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, 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. xlviii. 11, Israel owes deliverance from the severe suffering into which they fell in the way of their sins. One may confidently assert there is not a single page in the whole book, which does not offer a striking refutation of this view. And most miserable are the expedients to which, in the face of such facts, the defenders of this view betake themselves. Rosenmüller was of opinion, that the Prophet introduced those Gentiles only as speaking, who, by this flattery, wished to gain the favour of the Jews,--without considering that it is just in the words of the Lord, in ver. 11, that the absolute righteousness of the Servant of God is most strongly expressed. Hitzig is of opinion, that the people had indeed suffered for their sins; but that the punishment had been greater than their sins, and that by this surplus the Gentiles were benefited. But the Prophet expressly contradicts such a gross view. He repeatedly declares that the punishment was still mitigated by mercy; that, in the way of their works, Israel would have found total destruction. Thus, e.g., chap. xlviii. 9: "For my name's sake will I be long-suffering, and for my praise will I moderate mine anger unto thee, that I cut thee not off;" chap. i. 9: "Except the Lord of Hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom; we should have been like unto Gomorrah." In order to be fully convinced how much this view of Israel, enforced upon the godly men of the Old Testament, is in contradiction to their own view, the prayer of Ezra may still be compared in Neh. ix., especially ver. 20 ff.--(c.) The sufferings of the Jewish people cannot be vicarious, because they are destitute of the very first condition of substitution, viz., sinlessness and righteousness. That even Hitzig does not venture to claim for them. But how can an ungodly man, even supposing that his punishment is too severe, justify others by a righteousness of his which does not exist? Finally--The fourth sign, patience, so little belongs to the Jewish people, that it is one of the main tasks of our Prophet himself to oppose their murmuring impatience; comp. e.g., chap. xlv. 9 ff.

Against the hypothesis that the people are the subject of the prophecy, there is the circumstance that it carries along with it the unnatural supposition that, in chap. liii. 1–10, the heathens are introduced as speaking. Decisive against this supposition are specially the designation עמי in ver. 8, and the most forced explanation to which it compels us, in some verses, especially ver. 2.

The interpretation which considers the godly portion of the people to be the subject of the prophecy, is overthrown by the fact that, according to the view of Scripture, even those who, in the ordinary sense, are righteous, are unable to render a vicarious satisfaction for others. For such, absolute righteousness is required. But the "righteous ones" are begotten by sinful seed (Ps. li.), and they have need daily to pray that God would pardon their secret sins, Ps. xix. 13; they themselves live only by the pardoning mercy of God, and cannot think of atoning for others, Ps. xxxii. Even for believers, the captivity is, according to chap. xlii., the merited punishment of their sins. In that passage, the greatness of the mercy of God is pointed out, who grants a twofold salvation for sins, while infinite punishment should be their natural consequence. It is not to a single portion of the people, but to the whole, that, in the passages formerly quoted, every share in effecting deliverance and salvation is denied. How little an absolute righteousness existed in the elect, sufficiently appears from the fact, that, in the second part, it forms a main object of the Prophet to oppose their want of courage, their despair and distrust of God. Farther--The ungodly could not by any means consider the sufferings of the righteous ones as vicarious, because they themselves suffered as much; and as little could they despise the godly on account of their sufferings. It is a mere invention, destitute of every historical foundation, to assert that it was especially the God-fearing who had to suffer so grievously in the captivity. On the contrary, their fear of God gained for them the respect of the Gentiles; and among their own people also, whose sinful disposition was broken by the punishment, they occupied an honourable position. Ezekiel we commonly find surrounded by the elders of the people, listening to his words; and Daniel, Esther, and Mordecai, Ezra, and Nehemiah, richly furnished with the goods of this world, enjoyed high esteem in the Gentile world. The fact that the supporters of this hypothesis are compelled to have recourse to such an unhistorical fiction, which has been carried to the extreme, especially by Knobel, sufficiently proves it to be untenable.

In opposition to the interpretation which refers the prophecy to the collective body of the Prophets, Hitzig very justly remarks: "The supposition that, by the Servant of God, the prophetic order is to be understood, is destitute of all foundation and probability." In commenting on chap. xlii. we remarked, that there are no analogous cases at all in favour of such a personification of the prophetic order. Moreover, the defenders of this view commonly deny, at the same time, the genuineness of the second part. From this stand-point it becomes still more evident, how untenable this hypothesis is. A prophetic order can, least of all, be spoken of during the time of the Babylonish captivity. With the captivity, Prophetism began to die out. Jeremiah in Jerusalem, and Ezekiel among the exiled, already stood very much isolated. Jeremiah, during the last days of the Jewish state, stands out everywhere as a single individual, opposed to the whole mass of the false prophets. "There is no more any prophet," is, at the time of the destruction by the Chaldeans, the lamentation of the author of Ps. lxxiv. in ver. 9. According to an unanimous tradition (comp. 1 Maccab. ix. 27, iv. 46, xiv. 41, and the passages from the Talmud and other Jewish writings in Knibbe's history of the Prophets, S. 347 ff., and in Joh. Smithi Dissert. de Prophetis, in the Appendix to Clericus' Commentary on the Prophets, chap. xii.), Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the prophets, and according to the historical books and their own prophecies, the only prophets of their time. How, now, were it possible that the Prophet should speak of a great corporation of the prophets, who become not only the founders and rulers of the new state, but who are to enlighten all the other nations of the earth with the light of the time religion, and incorporate them into the church of God? Of all that is characteristic of the vocation of the prophets, nothing is found here; while, on the other hand, almost everything which is said of the Servant of God is in opposition to the vocation and destination of the prophets. That which here, above everything, comes into consideration is the vicarious satisfaction. Chap. vi., where the Prophet when, after having administered the prophetic office for several years, he beheld the Lord, exclaims: "Woe is unto me for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips," is sufficient to show how far the thoughts of such a vicarious satisfaction were from the prophets. Such is surely not the ground from which the delusion of being substitutes for others can grow up. All those who entertained such a delusion, such as Gichtel, Bourignon, Guyon, were misled into it by proudly shutting their eyes to their own sinfulness. It would surely be abasing the prophets without any cause, if we were to assign to them that delusion. Moreover, the hopes which here, according to these interpreters, are uttered in reference to the prophetic order, contradict its idea, and institution. A prophetic pride would here come out, such as is not equalled by priestly pride in all history. Schenkel, no doubt, is right in remarking against the interpretation which makes the Jewish people the subject of the prophecy,--an interpretation of which Hitzig is the representative: "Is it to believed that the prophets, whose object all along it was to suppress the moral pride of the people, should wantonly have awakened it by such a thought?" But Hitzig is equally in the right when, in opposition to Schenkel and others who refer this prediction to the prophetic order, he remarks: "It is quite obvious, how very unsuitable it would be to limit the hitherto wretched condition and the future glory of the people to the prophets, as if they alone, as true κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κληρων, constituted the people." According to this hypothesis, the prophets are supposed to flatter themselves with the hope that they would be the rulers of the state again flourishing, and would celebrate worldly triumphs. Altogether apart from the folly of this hope, it was entirely opposed to the destiny of the prophetic order. By divine institution, the dominion in the Kingdom of God had for ever been given over to David and his family. By usurping it, the prophets would have rebelled against God, whose lights they were called to uphold.--Farther, As the principal sphere of the ministry of the Servant of God, the heathen world here appears. But with it, the prophets have, nowhere else, any thing to do; their mission is everywhere to Israel only.--The sufferings which the prophets had to endure during the captivity, were not different from those of the people. Every proof, yea, even every probability, is wanting that, during the time of the captivity, the prophets--and history mentions and knows only Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel--were pre-eminently afflicted. On the contrary, they occupy an honourable position. Jeremiah receives, after the capture of Jerusalem, proofs of esteem from Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel is entrusted with the highest public offices. Ezekiel is held in honour by his compatriots. How then could the people despise the prophets on account of their sufferings? How could they imagine that they had been smitten by God? How could they afterwards conceive the idea that the sufferings of the prophets had a vicarious character?--To what quarter soever we look, impossibilities present themselves; and if, moreover, we also look at the parallel passages, we must indeed wonder, that a hypothesis altogether so untenable should ever have been listened to.

CHAPTER LV. 1-5.

The Lord exhorts those who are anxious to be saved, to appropriate the blessings of salvation which are so liberally offered, and which, although bestowed without money and price, can alone truly satisfy the soul, vers. 1 and 2. For He is to make with them a covenant of everlasting duration, in which the eternal mercy promised to the family of David is to be realized, ver. 3. David--such is the salvation in store for the Church--is to be a witness, prince, and lawgiver of all the Gentiles who, with joyful readiness, shall unite themselves to Israel.

Ver. 1. "Ho, all ye that thirst, come ye to the water, and ye that have no silver, come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without silver and without price."

The discourse is addressed to the members of the Church pining away in misery. By the water, salvation is denoted, as is not unfrequently the case, comp. chap. xii. 3: "And with joy ye shall draw water out of the wells of salvation," xliv. 3; Ps. lxxxvii. 7, lxxxiv. 7, cvii. 35. The thirsty one is he who stands in need of salvation. To the words: "Ho, all ye that thirst, come ye to the water," the Lord refers in John vii. 37: ἐάν τις διψᾷ ἐρχέσθω πρός με καὶ πινέτω, where the πρός με had been added from ver. 3. It is to be observed that Christ there appropriates to himself what Jehovah is here speaking. Michaelis says: "Christ, in consequence of the highest identity, makes the words of the Father His own." There is an evident reference to the same words in Rev. xxi. 6 also: ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν. Similarly in Rev. xxii. 17: καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω, ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν. In a somewhat more distant relation to the words before us, but yet undeniably depending upon them, is John iv. 10: σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν. Vers. 13, 14: πᾶς ὁ πίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τούτου διψήσει πάλιν· ὃς δʼ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος, οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ οὐ μὴ διψήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. And so does, in another aspect. Matt. xi. 28: δεῦτε πρός με οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι κᾀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς, which, however, has still nearer points of resemblance to ver. 3; for δεῦτε πρός με corresponds to לכו אלי in that verse; the words κᾀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς, to: "Your soul shall live" there, but yet in such a way that there is, at the same time, a reference to Jer. vi. 16; the κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι are the thirsty ones in the verse before us. It is remarkable to see how important this unassuming declaration was to our Lord, and how much He had it at heart. We are thereby urgently called upon, by means of deep and earnest study and meditation, to arrive at the full meaning of the Old Testament, which is everywhere connected with the New Testament, not only by the strong and firm ties of express quotations, but also by the nicest and most tender threads of gentle allusions. Even Matt. v. 6: μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην comes into a close relation to our passage, as soon as it is recognized that δικαιοσύνην is not the subjective righteousness which is excluded from that context, but rather righteousness as a gift of God, the actual justification, such as takes place in the bestowal of salvation; so that, hence, the righteousness there corresponds with the water here. The subsequent "eat" furnishes the foundation for the fact, that the need of and desire for salvation, is designated by hunger also,--"Come ye, buy and eat." שבר "to break," is used of the appeasing of thirst (comp. Ps. civ. 11), and hunger (comp. Gen. xlii. 19); and corn is called שֶׁבֶר for this reason that it breaks the hunger. The verb never means "to buy" in general, but only such a buying as affords the means of appeasing hunger and thirst. Nor does it, in itself, stand in any relation to corn, except in so far only as the latter is a chief moans of appeasing hunger. This we see not only from Ps. civ. 11, but also from that which here immediately follows, where it is used of the buying of wine and milk. The buying of necessary provisions is commonly designated by the Kal; the selling by the Hiphil. In Gen. xli. 26, the selling too is designated by the Kal. He who causes that one can break or appease, may himself also be designated as he who breaks or appeases. This verb, so very peculiar, and the noun שֶׁבֶר, occur in a certain accumulation, in the history of Joseph only; elsewhere, their occurrence is sporadic only. It is then to the hunger of Israel in ancient times, and to its being appeased by Joseph, that the double שברו alludes; and from this circumstance also the fact is to be explained, that it is first used in reference to food; comp. שברו ואכלו in our verse, with שבר אכל in Gen. xlii. 7-10. Christ is the true Joseph, who puts an end to the hunger and thirst of the people of God, by offering true food and true drink.--The word "eat" suggests substantial food, bread in contrast to the drink by which it is surrounded on both sides; compare John vi. 35: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς· ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρὸς με οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ (שברו) καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ διψήσῃ πώποτε. Ver. 55: ἡ γὰρ σάρξ μου ἀληθῶς ἐστι βρῶσις, καὶ τὸ αἷμά μου ἀληθῶς ἐστι πόσις. From the sequel (comp. vers. 6, 7), it appears that the thrice repeated coming and the buying are accomplished by true repentance, the μετάνοια, which is the indispensable condition of the participation in the salvation. In John vi. 35, the words: ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρὸς με are explained by: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ. Faith is the soul of repentance.--The circumstance that the buying is done without money, intimates that the blessings of salvation are a pure gift of divine grace. These blessings of salvation are first designated by water; afterwards, by wine and milk,--thus approximating to those passages in which the blessings of the Kingdom of Christ appear under the image of a rich repast, to which the members of the Kingdom are invited as guests, Ps. xxii. 26-30; Matt. viii. 11, xxii. 2; Luke xiv. 16; Rev. xix. 9.--Some Rationalistic interpreters understand, by the offered blessings, the salutary admonitions of the Prophet; but decisive against these are vers. 3 and 11, according to which it is not present, but future blessings, not words, but real things which are spoken of, viz., the salvation which is to be brought through Christ. What that is which constitutes the substance of this salvation, we learn from chap. liii. It is the redemption and reconciliation by the Servant of God. Yet we must not, after the manner of several ancient interpreters, limit ourselves to the "evangelical righteousness." On the contrary, the whole fulness of the salvation in Christ is comprehended in it; and according to vers. 4 and 5, this includes the dominion over the world by the Kingdom of God,--its dominion over the Gentile world, and the investiture of its members with the full liberty and glory of the children of God.

Ver. 2. "Wherefore do ye weigh money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken, hearken unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness."

From ver. 3, we see that it is not the Prophet, but the Lord who speaks. "That which is not bread," and "that which satisfieth not," is something which outwardly has the appearance of good and nutritious food, and to obtain which the hungry ones therefore strive, and exert themselves with all their might, but which afterwards shows itself to be food in appearance only, and which has not the power of satisfying. "That which is not bread," is, in the first instance, the imagined salvation which they sought to obtain from idols for much money. This appears from the intentional literal reference to chap. xlvi. 6, where the Prophet reproves the folly of those who, in the face of the living God, "lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith, that he make it a god, work also and fall down." With perfect justice Stier remarks: "Notwithstanding the connection with, and allusion to, the circumstances of that time, the word of the Prophet is to be understood in a general, spiritual way, as a melancholy, bitter lamentation over the general misery, and man's deep-rooted perverseness in running with effort and exertion, after that which is pernicious to the soul, and in serving some Baal better than Jehovah." "Fatness" occurs as a figurative designation of the glorious gifts of God, in Ps. xxxvi. 9 also.

Ver. 3. "Incline your ears and come unto me, hear and your soul shall live, and I will grant to you an everlasting covenant, the constant mercies of David."

The introductory words allude, in a graceful manner, to two Messianic psalms, and remind us of the fact, that the prophecy before us moves on the same ground as these psalms. On "incline your ear, and come unto me, hear," comp. Ps. xlv. 11: "Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear (from the fundamental passage, the Singular is here retained), and forget thy people and thy father's house." On "your soul shall live," comp. Ps. xxii. 27: "The meek shall eat and be satisfied, they shall praise the Lord that seek Him, your heart shall live for ever." Analogous are the references to Ps. lxxii. in chap. xi. The soul dies in care and grief In the words: "I will grant to you," &c., there follow the glad tidings which are to heal the dying hearts. כרת ברית is used of God, even where no reciprocal agreement takes place, but where He simply confers grace; because every grace which He bestows imposes, at the same time, an obligation, and may hence be considered as a covenant. The onesidedness is, in such a case, indicated by the construction with ל, comp. chap. lxi. 8: "And I give them their reward in truth, and I make (grant) to them an everlasting covenant," Jer. xxxii. 40; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; Ps. lxxxix. 4. Since to make a covenant is here identical with granting mercy, אכרתה may also be connected with the subsequent "the constant mercies of David," and there is no necessity for supposing a Zeugma. The everlasting covenant here, is the new covenant in Jer. xxxi. 31-34; for the words "I will make" show that, here too, a new covenant is spoken of. The substance of the covenant to be made is expressed in the words: "The constant mercies of David," &c. By "David," many interpreters here understand the descendant of David, the Messiah, who, in other passages also, e.g., Jer. xxx. 9, bears the name of His type. Even Abenezra refers to the fact that, in ver. 4, the Messiah is necessarily required as the subject. The constant mercies of David are, according to this view--in parallelism with the "everlasting covenant"--the mercies constantly continuing, in contrast to the merely transitory mercies, such as had been those of the first David. According to the opinion of other interpreters, David designates here, as in Hos. iii. 5, the family of David who, in Ps. xviii., and in a series of other psalms, speaks in the name of his whole family. As regards the sense, this explanation arrives at the same result. For, according to it, the Messiah is He in whom the Davidic house attains to its fall destiny, the channel through which the mercies of David flow in upon the Church. For the latter interpretation, however, is decisive the evident reference to the divine promise to David, in 2 Sam. vii., especially vers. 15, 16: "And my mercy shall not depart from him (thy race) ... and constant (נאמן) is thine house, and thy kingdom for ever before thee, thy throne shall be firm for ever;" compare Ps. lxxxix. 29: "My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant is constant in him." Ps. lxxxix. 2, 50: "Lord, where are thy former mercies which thou swarest unto David in thy truth?" likewise suggest that, by David, not simply Christ is to be understood, but the Davidic family. The constant mercies of David are, accordingly, the mercies which have been sworn to the Davidic house as constant, which, therefore, can never rest until Christ has appeared with His everlasting Kingdom, in which they find their true and full realization. In the expectation of the Messiah from the house of David, the prophecy under consideration goes hand in hand with chap. xi. 1, where the Messiah appears as a twig which proceeds from the cut-down tree of Jesse; and with chap. ix. 6, according to which He sits on the throne of David. This passage alone is fully sufficient against those (Ewald, Umbreit, and others) who advance the strange assertion, that the Prophet had altogether given up the idea of a Messiah from the house of David, and had distributed His property between Cyrus and the prophetic order, or the pious portion of the people. It is of the greatest importance for the explanation of those passages which treat of the Servant of God, and forms a point of union for the Messianic passages of the first and second part. The passage before us is quoted in Acts xiii. 34: ὅτι δὲ ἀνέστησεν αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, μηκέτι μέλλοντα ὑποστρέφειν εἰς διαφθοράν οὕτως, εἴρηκεν · ὅτι δώσω ὑμῖν τὰ ὅσια Δαυὶδ τὰ πιστά. Ὅσια Δαυὶδ, sancta Davidis, are the sacred, inviolable, inalienably guaranteed mercies and blessings which have been promised to the house of David. As certainly as these must be granted, so certainly Christ, who was to bring them, could not remain in the power of death.

Ver. 4. "Behold, I give him for a witness to the people, for a prince and lawgiver of the people."

Here, and in ver. 5, we have the expansion of the mercies of David. Their greatness and glory appear from the circumstance that, around his scion, the whole heathen world, which hitherto was hostile and pernicious to the Church of God, will gather. The Suffix in נתתיו can refer only to David, or the family of David. From the connection with chap. liii., it appears that it is in his descendant, the righteous One, to whom the heathen and their kings do homage, that David will attain to the dignity here announced. עד has no other signification than "witness." Every true doctrine bears the character of a witness. The teacher sent by God does not teach on his own authority, α μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων, but only witnesses what he has seen and heard. With a reference to, and in explanation of the passage before us, Christ says to Pilate, in John xviii. 37: "For this end was I born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." And the passages, Rev. i. 5: "And from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness," and Rev. iii. 14: "These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness," likewise point back to the passage before us; compare farther, John iii. 11, 32, 33. In John xviii. 37, Rev. i. 5, His being a witness is, just as in the passage before us, connected with His being a King; so that the reference to this passage cannot be at all doubtful. It is intentionally that עד is put at the head. It is intended to intimate that the future dominion of the Davidic dynasty over the heathen world shall be essentially different from that which, in former times, it exercised over some neighbouring people. It is not based upon the power of arms, but upon the power of truth. He in whom the Davidic dynasty is to centre shall connect the prophetic with the regal office; just as already, in the prophecy of the Shiloh, in Gen. xlix. 10, the prophetic office is concealed behind the royal. The contrast to the first David can the less be doubtful, that, while עד is never applied to him, it is just the subsequent נגיד which, in a series of passages, is ascribed to him. In 2 Sam. vi. 21, David himself says that the Lord appointed him to be ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel; in 2 Sam. vii. 8, Nathan says: "I took thee from the sheep-cot to be ruler over my people, over Israel;" comp. 1 Sam. xxv. 30; 2 Sam. v. 5. In those passages, however, David is always spoken of as a ruler over Israel; so that even as regards the נגיד, the second David, the prince of the people, is not only placed on a level with the first David, but is elevate d above him. For the dominion by force which David exercised over some heathen nations, נגיד was the less appropriate designation, inasmuch as it designates the ruler as the chief of his people.

Ver. 5. "Behold, thou shall call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee, because of the Lord thy God, and of the Holy One of Israel, for He adorneth thee."

The words here are addressed to the true Israel, to the exclusion of those souls who are cut off from among their people, compare Ps. lxxiii. 1, where Israel and those that are of a clean heart go hand in hand,--and, in substance, they also were addressed in vers. 1 and 2. For the thirsty ones, who are there called upon to partake of the blessings so liberally offered by the Lord, are just the members of the Church. In connection with that glorification of David, the Church shall invite nations from a great distance, who were hitherto unknown to it, to its communion; and those nations who hitherto scarcely knew by name the Church of God shall joyfully and willingly comply with the invitation; comp. chap. ii. 2. This great change proceeds from the Lord, the Almighty and Holy One, who, as the protector and Covenant-God of His Church, has resolved to glorify it; for He adorneth thee. This glorification consists, according to chap. iv. 2, in the appearance of Christ, the immediate consequence of which is the conversion of the heathen world.

We must now review that exposition by which Rationalism has endeavoured to deprive our passage of its Messianic import,--an attempt in which Grotius led the way. Gesenius, whom Hitzig, Maurer, Ewald, and Knobel follow, translates in vers. 3 and 4: "That I may make with you an everlasting covenant, may show to you constant mercies, as once to David. Behold, I have made him a ruler of the nations, a prince and lawgiver of the nations," and refers both of the verses to the first David. In ver. 5, then, the mercy is to follow which, in some future time, God will bestow upon the whole people, as gloriously as once upon the single David. But this explanation proves itself to be, in every aspect, untenable.^[1]

We are the less entitled to put "mercies like David's" instead of "the mercies of David," that these mercies are, elsewhere also, mentioned in reference to the eternal dominion promised to David for his family; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 2, 50. With the epithet, "constant," these interpreters do not know what to do. Apart from the promise of the eternal dominion of his house, no constant mercies can, in the case of David, be pointed out which would be equally bestowed upon the people, and upon him. Moreover, נאמנים distinctly points back to 2 Sam. vii. Ver. 4 forms, according to this explanation, "a historical reminiscence, most unsuitable in the flow of a prophetic discourse" (Umbreit). But what in itself is quite conclusive is the circumstance, that the first David could not by any possibility be designated as the witness of the Gentile nations. It indeed sounds rather naïve that Knobel, after having endeavoured to explain עב of the "opening up of the law," feels himself obliged to add: "The word does not, however, occur anywhere else in this signification." Nor could David, without farther limitation, be designated as "the prince and lawgiver of the peoples;" and that so much the more that, in ver. 5, there is an invitation to the Gentile world, and that, in ver. 4, too, the Gentile world, in the widest sense, is to be thought of.

After the promise, there follows, in vers. 6–13, the admonition to repentance based upon it. Repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, vers. 6, 7. Do not doubt that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand, because it does not seem probable to you. For the counsels of God go beyond all the thoughts of men; and, therefore. He and His work must not be judged by a human measure, vers. 8, 9. With Him, word and deed are inseparably connected, vers. 10, 11. This will be manifested in your redemption and glorification, vers. 12, 13.