I. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.

Ver. 12. "Therefore will I give Him a portion in the many, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He hath poured out His soul unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, and He beareth the sin of many, and for the transgressors He shall make intercession."

The first words are thus explained by many interpreters: "Therefore I will give Him mighty ones for His portion, and strong ones He shall divide as a spoil." Butחלקwithבcannot mean simply "to allot," (although, indeed, this explanation is given by the LXX.; διὰ του̂το αὐτὸς κληρονομήσει πολλοὺς; Vulg.:ideo dispertiam ei plurimos); it only signifies "to give a portion in," Job xxxix. 17. From the comparison withרביםin ver. 11 and at the close of this verse, as well as from the reference to themany nationsin the sketch, ver. 15, it is evident thatרביםhere, too, cannot mean "mighty ones," but "many." Even elsewhere, the signification "great ones," "mighty ones," appears oftentimes to be only forced uponרבים. In Job xxxv. 9, the "many" are the many evil-doers; and in Job xxxii. 9, the utterance: "Not themanyare wise," is explained from the circumstance, that the view given by Job's friends was that of the great mass. The fact that theאתin the second clause is not the sign of the Accusative, but a Preposition,is probable even from the circumstance, that the formerאתcommonly stands before qualified nouns only; and, farther from the corresponding; "with the transgressors." But what is conclusive is, that the phraseחלק שללalways means "to divide spoil," never "to distribute as spoil," and that the phraseחלק שלל את גאים"to divide spoil with the proud" occurs in Prov. xvi. 19. The reason of the use of this expression lies in the reference to ordinary victors and conquerors of the world, especially to Cyrus. By His sufferings and death, the Servant of God shall secure to himself the same successes as they do by sword and bow. Although participating in the government of the world, and dividing spoil are here ascribed to the Servant of God, yet the participation in worldly triumphs is not spoken of On the contrary, behind theequalitywhich has given rise to the secular-looking expression (the thought is merely this, that through Christ and His sacrificial death, the Kingdom of God enters into the rank of world-conquering powers), a contrast lies concealed,--as appears, 1. From what is stated, in the preceding verses, about the manner in which the Servant of God has attained to this glory. Worldly triumphs are not acquired by the deepesthumiliation, by sufferings and death voluntarily undergone for the salvation of mankind. 2. From that which the Servant of God, in the state of glory, is to do to those who turn to Him. According to chap. lii. 15, He is to sprinkle them with His blood; and this sprinkling is there expressly stated as the reason of the reverential homage of the Gentile world. He is to justify them and to bear their sins, ver. 11, and to make intercession for them, ver. 12. All that does not apply to a worldly conqueror and ruler.--The merits of the Servant of God are then once more pointed out,--the merits by which He has acquired so exalted and all-important a position to himself, and, at the same time, to the Kingdom of God, of which He is the Head. "Because He hath poured out His soul unto death,"ערהin theNiphal, "to be poured out," means inPiel"to pour out," Gen. xxiv. 20, and Ps. cxli. 8, where it is said of the soul: "Do not pour out my soul," just as here theHiphilis used. The term has been transferred to thesoulfrom theblood, in which is the soul. Gen. ix. 4: "Flesh with its soul (namely with its blood) you shall not eat." Ver. 5: "Your blood inwhich your souls."נמנה, "He was numbered," is here, according to the context, equivalent to: He caused himself to be numbered; for it is only that which was undergone voluntarily which can be stated as the reason of thereward. This voluntary undergoing, however, is not implied in the word itself, but only in the connection with: "He hath poured out His soul;" for that signifies a voluntary act. Theפשעיםhere, just as theרשעיםin ver. 9, are not sinners, but criminals. This appears from the connection in which the being "numbered with the transgressors" stands with the "pouring out of the soul unto death." We can hence think of executed criminals only. The pure, innocent One was not only numbered with sinners, such as all men are, but He was numbered withcriminals. It is in this sense also that our Lord understands the words, in His quotation of them in Luke xxii. 37:λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἕτι τοῦτο τὸ γεγραμμένον δεῖ τελεσθῆναι ἐν ἐμοί, τό· καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη, καὶ γὰρ τὸ περὶ ἐμοῦ τέλος ἔχει; Compare Matt. xxvi. 54, where the Lord strengthens His disciples against the offence of His being taken a prisoner, by saying, with a view to the passage before us:πῶς οὖν πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαὶ, ὅτι οὕτω δεῖ γενέσθαι; ver. 56, where, after having reproached the guards for having numbered Him with criminals:ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθετε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων συλλαβεῖν με, He says to them:τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαὶ τῶν προφητῶν.. Mark, in chap. xv. 28, designates the fact that two robbers were crucified with Christ, as the most perfect fulfilment of our prophecy. It was in this fact that it came out most palpably, that Christ had been made like criminals. The rulers of the people caused two common criminals to be crucified with Him, just that they might declare that they put Him altogether among their number.--"And He beareth the sin of many, and for the transgressors He shall make intercession." Byוהוא, it is indicated that the subsequent words are no more to be viewed as depending onתחת אשר.--יפגיעmust not, as is done by the LXX., be referred to the state of humiliation; for the Future in the preceding verses has reference to the exaltation. The parallelנשאmust therefore be viewed as aPraeteritum propheticum. It corresponds withיסבלin ver. 11, and, like it, does not designate something done but once by the Servant of God, but something which He does constantly. The intercession ishere brought into close connection with the bearing of the sin, by which Christ represents himself as being the truesin-offering(comp. ver. 10, where He was designated as the truetrespass-offering), and hence it is equivalent to: He will make intercession for sinners, by taking upon himself their sin,--of which the thief on the cross was the first instance. This close connection, and the deep meaning suggested by it, are overlooked and lost by those expositors who, in the intercession, think of prayer only.The servant of God, on the contrary, makes intercession, by pleading before God His merit, as the ground of the acceptance of the transgressors, and of the pardon of their sins.This is evident from the connection also in which: "For the transgressors He shall make intercession," stands with: "He was numbered with the transgressors." The vicarious suffering is thereby pointed out as the ground of the intercession.Calvinsays: "Under the Old Testament dispensation, the High-priest, who never went in without blood, made intercession for the people. What was there foreshadowed has been fulfilled in Christ. For, in the first place. He offered up the sacrifice of His body, and shed His blood, and thus suffered the punishment due to us. And, in the second place, in order that the expiation might profit us. He undertakes the office of an advocate, and makes intercession for all who, by faith, lay hold of this sacrifice." Comp. Rom. viii. 34:ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; Hebr. ix. 24, according to which passage Christ is entered into the holy placesνῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; 1 John ii. 1:παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον.

We have hitherto expounded the passage before us without any regard to the difference of the interpretation as to the whole, and have supposed the reference to Christ to be the correct one. But it is still incumbent upon us: I. to give the history of the interpretation; II. to refute the arguments against the Messianic interpretation; III. to state the arguments in favour of it; and IV. to show that the non-Messianic interpretation is untenable.

[1]One needs only to consider passages such as this, to be enabled to distinguish between the ideal and real Present, and to be convinced of the utter futility of the chief argument against the genuineness of the second part, viz., that the Babylonish exile appears as present. "Proceeding from the certainty of deliverance"--soHitzigremarks--"the Prophet herebeholdsin spirit that going on, to which, in chap. xl. 9, he exhorts." If the Prophet beholds at all in the spirit, why should he not see in spirit the misery also?

[2]Simonis. Onom.:יזיה,quem aspergat,i.e.,purificet et expiet Domimus;Gesenius:quod vix aliter explicari potest quam:quem consperget,i.e.,expiabit Jehova.Fürstgives a different derivation; but it at once shows itself to be untenable.

[3]In order to defend this explanation, interpreters have referred to the LXX:οὕτω θαυμάσονται ἔθνη πολλὰ ἐπʼ αὐτῳ̂; but evenMartiniremarks: "From a dark passage, they have tried, by ingenious conjecturing, to bring out any sense whatsoever."

[4]ThusTheodoretsays: "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."

[5]According toKnobel, 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, pronounces its own condemnation.

[6]Gesenius:Neglecta actatis notione saepe est genus hominum, in bonam partem--in malam partem;--and in reference to the passage under consideration:Genus ejus, Servi Jehovae, sunt homines qui iisdem cum illo studiis tenentur.In the same manner it is explained byMaurer, who refers to Ps. xiv. 5, xxiv. 6.

[7]The doubleלמוin Deut. xxxiii. 2 refers to Israel, not to God. In reference to theלמוin Is. xliv. 15,J. H. Michaelisremarks:iis talibus diis.ver. 7. But the suffix rather refers to the trees, ver. 14; comp.מהםin ver. 15. If construed thus, the sense is much more expressive. In Job xxii. 2,משכילis 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 passages whichEwaldquotes in § 247 d.

[8]ThusBähr,Symbolik, ii. S. 207, says: It is not the material elements of the blood which make it a means of expiation, but it is theנפשwhich is connected with it, which is in it, whose instrument and bearer it is, which gives to it atoning power. Theנפשis thus the centre around which, in the last instance, everything moves. This is especially confirmed by the circumstance, that the object of the expiation to be effected by theנפשin the sacrificial blood, is, according to this passage, theנפשof him who offers up the sacrifice.

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.Geseniusalso 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 principal passages 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:הא יצלח עבדי משיהא"behold my Servant Messiah shall prosper." TheMedrash Tanchuma, an old commentary on the Pentateuch (ed. Cracov. f. 53, c. 3, l. 7), remarks on the words:הֵנִּה יַשְֹכִּיל עַבְדִּי(ed. Cracov. f. 53, c. 3, l. 7):המשיח ירום וגבה ונשא מאוד ורים מן אברהם ונשא ממשה וגדה מן מלאכי השרת זה מלך("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 passage 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 passage from the very old bookPesikta, cited in the treatiseAbkath Rokhel(אבקת רוכל, printed separately at Venice in 1597, and reprinted inHulsii Theologia Judaica, wherethis passage occurs p. 309): "When God 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 God 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 passage, 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, RabbiMoses Haddarshanexpresses himself on Gen. i. 3 (Latin inGalatinus,De Arcanis Cath. ver.p. 329; in the original inRaimund 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 passage, in which ver. 5 is referred to the Messiah, inRaim. 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 calledחיוורא"the leper," and, in proof, ver. 4 is quoted according to the erroneous interpretation ofנגועbyleprosus,--an interpretation which is met with inJeromealso.--In the workRabboth(a commentary on the Pentateuch and the fiveMegilloth, which, as to its principal 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 theMedrash 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 announcedin the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. In the Prophets,e.g., in the passage Is. lii. 13, and xlii. 1; in the Hagiographa,e.g., Ps. cx. and Dan. vii. 13." In the bookChasidim(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 (משיח סובל עונות ישראל)." The ancient explanation is, from among the later interpreters, assented to byRabbi Alschech(his commentary on Is. liii. is given entire inHulsii 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 passages especially remarkable are found in the cabbalistic bookSohar. 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 principal passages. (Sohar, ed. Amstelod. p. ii. fol. 212; ed.Solisbac.p. ii. f. 85;Sommeritheol.Soharp. 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 chastisements 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 chastisements of Israel, which are inflicted upon them on account of the Law, as it iswritten: But He took upon himself our sicknesses," &c. In another passage (Sohar,ed. Amstelodp. iii. f. 218;Solisbac.iii. f. 88;Sommeri theol. Soharp. 89;Auszüge aus dem Buche Sohar, mit Deutscher Uebersetzung, Berlin 52, S. 32), it is said: "When God 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 passage to the Messiah; and, as it appears from the majority of the passages 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 God, 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 God. 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 passages of the Old Testament in which the Messiah in glory is announced; and those passages 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 passage to the suffering Messiah. As they could not compare the prophecy with the fulfilment,--the deep abasement of the Messiah which is here announced, the contempt which He endures, His violent death, appeared to them irreconcileable with those passages 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 natureof prophetic vision to enable them to perceive that the prophecies are connected with the circumstances 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 passages, 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 passage 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 passages, which byHulsiusis pertinently called acarnificina 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 passage, 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 destitute 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 whichAbarbanelopposes 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 assertion that they referred the first four verses only to the Messiah,--an assertion which the passages 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 God, whose power is infinite, was willing to pardon, was His hand too short to redeem (Isa. l. 2), sothat, on this account, He was obliged to take flesh, and to impose chastisements 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 God 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 God should assume a body; for God is the first cause, infinite, and omnipotent. He cannot, therefore, assume 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 God applies to him; much less can the latter be intended." (There then follows a quotation of several passages 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 ofJonathan. 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, inLowth'scomment, edited byKoppe, on the passage; and inHulsii 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, whereJonathansays that the Messiah will giveHissoul unto death; but it may be that thereby he understands merely the intrepid courage with which the Messiah will expose himself to alldangers, 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 ofAbarbanel, 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 passage, which, at a subsequent period, were current among the Jews. (The principal non-Messianic interpretations of this passage are found in the Rabbinical Bibles, and also inHulsius,l.c., p. 339, both in the original and translation.) The interpreters may be divided into two main classes: 1. Those who byעבד יהוהunderstand some collective body; and, 2. Those who refer the prophecy to a single individual. The first class 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 ungodly 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. WhenOrigenwas making use of this passage 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 byR. Salomo Jarchi,Abenezra,Kimchi,Abarbanel,Lipmann(ספר נצחון, 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 withwhich they bear it for the glory of God, and resist every temptation to forsake His law and worship; 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 God, 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.,AbenezraandRabbi Lipmann, understand, indeed, by theעבד יהוה, the pious portion only of the people who remained faithful to Jehovah; but this makes no material difference, inasmuch as they, too, contrast theעבד יהוהwith the heathen nations, and not with the ungodly, or less righteous portion of the nation, as is done by the interpreters of the following class.

(b). Others consider the appellationעבד יהוהas a collective designation of the pious, and find in this section the idea of a kind of vicarious satisfaction made by them for the ungodly. Those interpreters come nearer the true explanation, in so far as they do not, like those of the preceding class, set aside the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, either by a figurative explanation, or, likeKimchi, 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 God-man. Most distinctly was this view expressed by the Commentator on the bookעין יעקבorעין ישראל, 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 classes of righteous men:--those who in general must endure many sufferings and much misery: and those who are publicly executed, asRabbi Akibaand others. He supposes that the Prophet shows the dignity of both of these classes of righteous men, to both of which the name of a Servant of God is justly due. A similar opinion is held byRabbiAlshech. 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 God had said, and confesses that, by this declaration of God regarding the sufferings of the Messiah, they have received light regarding the sufferings of the godly 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 chastisements are for their salvation. The Servant of God is thus supposed to be as it were, a personification of the righteous ones.--A similar view probably lies at the foundation of those passages of the Talmud, where some portions of the prophecy under consideration are referred to Moses, and others toRabbi 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,Abarbaneladvances still another, which refers it to king Josiah.Rabbi Saadias Haggaonexplained 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 passage 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.

Among Christians, the interpretation has taken nearly the same course as among the Jews. Similar causes have producedsimilar 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, calledSeidel--who, given up to total unbelief, asserted that the Messiah had never yet come, nor would ever come, (comp.Jac. Martini l.3,de tribus Elohim, p. 592)--and ofGrotius, 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 passage was always considered to be the most distinct and glorious of all the Messianic prophecies. Out of the great mass 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 assertion, he then quotes the passage 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 Evangelistaruml. i. c. 31.Theodoretremarks on this passage (opp. ed. Hal.t. ii. p. 358): "The Prophet represents to us, in this passage, 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 showedto 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,Cyrilof Alexandria, andJerome, express themselves. From the Churches of the Reformation, we shall here quote the testimonies of two of their founders only.Zwingle, inAnnot. 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."Lutherremarks on the passage: "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 passage 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 classes: 1. Those which are founded upon the supposition that a collectivebody is the subject of the prophecy; and 2, those which, by the Servant of God, understand any other single individual except the Messiah. The first class, 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, byDoederlein, (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); bySchuster(in a special treatise, Göttingen 1794); byStephani(Gedanken über die Entstehung u. Ausbildung der Idee von inem Messias,Nürnberg1787); by the author of the letters on Isaiah liii., in the 6th vol. ofEichhorn's Bibliothek; byEichhorn(in his exposition of the Prophets); byRosenmüller(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 areHitzig,Hendewerk, andKöster(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 God, 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 substitute for their sins.

(b.) The hypothesis which makes the Jewish people in the abstract--in antithesis to its single members--the subject of this prophecy, was discovered byEckermann,theol. Beiträge,Bd. i. H. i. S. 192 ff. According toEwald, the prophecy refers to "Israel according to its true idea." According toBleek, the Servant of God 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 ungodly--are the subject, has been defended especially byPaulus(Memorabilien, Bd. 3, S. 175-192, andClavison Isaiah). His view was adopted byAmmon(Christologie, S. 108 ff.). The principal features of this view are the following:--It was not on account of their own sins that the godly portion of the nation were punished and carried into captivity along with the ungodly, but on account of the ungodly who, however, by apostatising from the religion of Jehovah, knew how to obtain a better fate. The ungodly drew from it the inference that the hope of the godly, that Jehovah would come to their help, had been in vain. But when the captivity came to an end, and the godly returned, they saw that they had been mistaken, and that the hope of the godly 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 byVon Cöllnin hisBiblische Theologie; byTheniusinWiener's Zeitschrift, ii. 1; byMaurerandKnobel. 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 worshippers 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 godly suffered in substitution for the whole people.

(d.) The hypothesis which makes the priestly order the subject, has been defended by the author of:Ausführliche Erklärung der sämmtlichen Weissagungen des A. T.1801.

(e.) The hypothesis which makes the collective body of the prophets the subject, was first advanced byRosenmüllerin the treatise:Leiden und Hoffnungen der Propheten Jehovas,inGablers Neuestes theol. Journal, vol. ii. S. 4, p. 333 ff. From him it came as a legacy toDe Wette(de morte Jes. Chr. expiatoria, p. 28 sqq.), and toGesenius. According toSchenkel(Studien und Kritiken36) "the prophetic order was the quiet, hidden blossom, which early storms broke." According toUmbreitthe Servant of God 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 whichUmbreitseeks to gain a transition to the Messianic interpretation, although not in the sense held by the Christian Church, has been pointed out by us on a former occasion, in the remarks on chap. xlii.Hofmann(Schriftbeweis, ii. 1 S. 89 ff.) has got up a mixture composed of these explanations which refer the prophecy to the people, to the godly, to the prophetic order, and, if one will, of that also which refers it to the Messiah. He says: "The people as a people are called to be the servant of God; but they do not fulfil their vocation as a congregation of the faithful; and it is, therefore, the work of the prophets to restore that congregation, and hence also the fulfilment of its vocation.--Prophetism itself is represented not in its present condition only, when it exists in a number of messengers and witnesses of Jehovah, in the first instance in Isaiah himself, but also in the final result, into which the fulfilment of its vocation will lead, when the Servant of Jehovah unites in His person the offices of a proclaimer of the impending work of salvation, and of its Mediator, and, from the shame and suffering attached to His vocation as a witness, passes over into the glory of the salvation realised in Him." In order to render such a mixture possible, everything is tried in order to remove the vicarious character of the sufferings of the Servant of God, since that character is peculiar to Christ, and excludes every comparison. "Of a priestly self-sacrifice of the Servant of God"--saysHofmann, S. 101, 2--"I cannot find anything. The assertion that the wordsיזה גוים,denote a priestly work, no longer requires a refutation. Hisvocation is to be the mediator of a revelation of God in words; and although the fulfilment of this vocation brings death upon Him, without His endeavouring to escape, this is not a proof nor a part of His priestly vocation. In just the same case is the assertion that the Messiah appears here as a King also." As long as we proceed from the supposition that the Prophet predicts truth, we are, by that very supposition, forbidden to distribute the property of the one among the many; but that is thus violently set aside. The Rationalistic interpreters have in this respect an easier task. They allow the substitution to stand; but they consider it as a vain fancy. The fact thatHofmanndoes not recoil from even the most violent interpretations, in order to remove the exclusive reference to Christ, appears,e.g., from his remark, S. 132, that "the chastisement of our peace" designates an actual chastisement, which convinces them of their sin, and of the earnestness of divine holiness, and thus serves for their salvation. SurelyGeseniusandHitzig'sexplanations are far more unbiassed.

2. Among the interpretations which refer the prophecy to a single individual other than the Messiah, scarcely any one has found another defender than its own author. They are of importance only in so far, as they show that most decidedly does the prophecy make the impression, that its subject is a real person, not a personification; and, farther, that it could not by any means be an exegetical interest which induced rationalism to reject the interpretation which referred it to Christ. The persons that have been guessed at are the following: King Uzziah, (Augusti), King Hezekiah, (KonynenburgandBahrdt), the Prophet Isaiah himself, (Stäudlin), an unknown prophet supposed to have been killed by the Jews in the captivity (an anonymous author inHenke's Magazin, Bd. i. H. 2), the royal house of David, which suffered innocently when the children of the unhappy king Zedekiah were killed at the command of Nebuchadnezzar (Boltenon Acts viii. 33), the Maccabees (an anonymous writer in theTheologische Nachrichten, 1821, S. 79 ff.) Even at this present time, this kind of explanation is not altogether obsolete.Schenkelthinks that "the chapter under consideration may, perhaps, belong to the period of the real Isaiah, whose language equals that of the description of the Servant of God nowunder consideration, in conciseness and harshness, and may have been originally a Psalm of consolation in sufferings, which was composed with a view to the hopeful progeny of some pious man or prophet innocently killed, and which was rewritten and interpreted by the author of the book, and embodied in it."Ewald(Proph. ii. S. 407) says: "Farther, the description of the Servant of God is here altogether very strange, especially v. 8 f., inasmuch as, notwithstanding all the liveliness with which the author of the book conceives of Him, He is nowhere else so much and so obviously viewed as an historical person, as a single individual of the Past. How little soever the author may have intended it, it was very obvious that the later generations imagined that they would here find the historical Messiah. We are therefore of opinion, that the author here inserted a passage, which appeared to him to be suitable, from an older book where really a single martyr was spoken of.--It is not likely that the modern controversy on chap. liii. will ever cease as long as this truth is not acknowledged;--a truth which quite spontaneously suggested itself, and impressed itself more and more strongly upon my mind." These are, no doubt, assertions which cannot be maintained, and are yet of interest, in so far as they show, how much even those who refuse to acknowledge it are annoyed by a two-fold truth, viz., that Isaiah is the author of the prophecy, and that it refers to a personal Messiah.

At all times, however, that explanation which refers the prophecy to Christ has found able defenders; and at no period has the anti-Messianic explanation obtained absolute sway. Among the authors of complete Commentaries on Isaiah, the Messianic explanation was defended byDathe,Doederlein(who, however, wavers in the last edition of his translation),Hensler,Lowth,Kocher,Koppe,J. D. Michaelis,v. d. Palm,Schmieder. In addition to these we may mention:Storr,dissertatio qua Jes. liii. illustratur, Tübingen, 1790;Hansi Comment. in Jes. liii., Rostock 1791 (this work has considerably promoted the interpretation, although its author often shows himself to be biassed by the views of the time, and especially, in the interest of Neology, seeks to do away with the doctrine of satisfaction);Krüger,Comment. de Jes. liii., interpret;Jahn,Append. ad Hermen. fasc ii.;Steudel,Observ. ad Jes. liii.,Tübingen1825, 26;Sack, in theApologetik;Reinke,exegesis in Jes. liii., Münster 1836;Tholuck, in his work:Das A. T. in N. T.;Hävernick, in the lectures on the Theology of the Old Testament;Stier, in the Comment. on the second part of Isaiah.

Back to Index Next